Free teen galleries. Free young teen sex galleries. Free teen panties thumb galleries. Free sex teen galleries. Ebina models free amateur and teen galleries. Free teen porn galleries. Free teen sex galleries. Free naked teen galleries….

Should he become president, [Mitt] will still light the national Christmas tree and pardon the Thanksgiving turkey and host the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn.

I believe Cohen’s right about this. Somehow, faintly, I also believe Obama would be the first president to try to do away with at least one of these symbolic photo-ops. I don’t know why. Just a feeling.

I’ve been within 5 city blocks of two random incidents of gang violence in the past two weeks, when someone walking home from work was gunned down anonymously by unknown assailants. Carrying a firearm would not have given either of them any better chance in their situations.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM

I agree with you. I’m a pretty good shot but if someone drives up behind me and starts shooting, I’m not all that protected by a firearm in my posession, or on my person.
But I’m not protected by a gun-lock law, a 7-day waiting period or a background check, either. In fact I’m less protected.
Wouldn’t it be great if we would execute murderers? And you know, just punish the hell out of people who commit crimes with guns? How about a manditory 25 years with no possibility of parole for armed robbery?

I’m speechless. No police power at all? You guys are insane, and I’m glad I have laws and an executive authority to prrotect people like me from people like you.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Don’t mind the “fundamentalists”, they were probably educated at public schools and have no clue about what constitutes a free society. But just because there are bad arguments for gun rights doesn’t mean that there aren’t any good ones.

I’ve been within 5 city blocks of two random incidents of gang violence in the past two weeks, when someone walking home from work was gunned down anonymously by unknown assailants. Carrying a firearm would not have given either of them any better chance in their situations.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Maybe, maybe not. Here are several cases of people who thwarted drive-by shootings. Not all of them are applicable to your example, but you must admit that sometimes guns have been used effectively for even this very difficult case. Also, as others have noted, the fact that guns do not protect everyone doesn’t mean that they don’t protect anyone.

People on this board, and others, have held the position that an armed citizenry is the best way to prevent gun violence, but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it.

I wouldn’t say it is always the best way but it is certainly a valid way and in some circumstances the only effective way. John Lott’s study shows pretty clearly that violent crimes go down in direct proportion to the presence of concealed carry permits and effective punishment of criminals.

We give some of the responsibility for our own personal safety to government authority, i.e. the police. When our “amulets” can’t protect us, as is the case in cities with huge amounts of random violence (e.g. NYC in the early 1990’s), the government needs to be able to step in and take measures to protect us. In some cases, for that to be effective requires greater scrutiny of the ownership and use of weapons. The reason why gun rights supporters fear Giuliani is that he proved that enforcement of gun control laws can be effective, and an “armed society” is not the only way to ensure public safety.

I agree with the first half, to a point. As Hobbes says, civilization is the balance between individual rights and group responsibility. Where to draw that line is the difficulty and that’s why discussions like this are so valuable for a free society.

But I would suggest that the second half of your point doesn’t follow. Giulliani combined effective law enforcement with gun control. He got good resultes, but it is at least possible — and based on the Lott study I mentioned above, I would say more likely than not — that Giulliani would have gotten even better results if he had allowed private citizens to defend themselves. We will never know in that case, but in other cases that pattern is pretty consistent.

People on this board, and others, have held the position that an armed citizenry is the best way to prevent gun violence, but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it.

I encourage you to compare the Virginia Tech shootings with a similar event that happened at Appalachian School of Law. The situation at Virginia Tech showed the limits of police protection – remember the video of police setting up a perimeter while shots are clearly heard coming from the building?

I’m not saying an armed student or professor could have prevented what happened that day, but they certainly could have lowered the number of dead by either killing Cho or forcing him to focus on an armed opponent rather than an unarmed victim.

but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it. When there is a situation, in which these kinds of crimes are common,

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:55 PM

This is where you are wrong, area’s where there are conceal and carry laws have dramatically lower gun and violent crime rates. This is a well documented fact, not unsupported conjecture.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Um. Do you wilfully misunderstand or are you, you know, special?

It’s not necessarily going to help protect you.

So by all means let’s throw in the towel. I mean, if it’s not 100% effective, the hell with it, I quit.

The question comes down to when a police force may deny somebody their second amendment rights.

The police fairy isn’t real, you know. Talk about not necessarily going to help protect you.

The answer is never never never ever, unless you’re fond of a police state. If you want to lump criminals in with “somebody” as some wierd sort of gotcha, then I give up on you.

People on this board, and others, have held the position that an armed citizenry is the best way to prevent gun violence, but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it.

True enough. However, look at it from a basic psychological level. You have two situations.

Situation 1 – Guns cannot be carried by citizens. They are carried only by police officers, dressed in uniforms, driving easily recognizable automobiles. As long as the police are not around, you have no threat of having a gun used on you if you commit a crime.

Situation 2 – Guns can be carried by citizens (and lets assume that includes concealed carry). They are also carried by police officers. Any person you meet or see could be packing a gun. Anyone, including your intended victim, could pull a gun on you if you commit a crime.

Now, tell me, which situation prevents more crime?

t’s certainly not going to make me any MORE dead.

Professor Blather on December 4, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Exactly. It’s not necessarily going to help protect you. People on this board, and others, have held the position that an armed citizenry is the best way to prevent gun violence, but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it. When there is a situation, in which these kinds of crimes are common, it is legitimate for the government (democratically elected) to try to do something about it, (contrary to what some on this thread may think.) The question comes down to when a police force may deny somebody their second amendment rights.

Exactly; were they killed by a sniper that no one ever saw? Shot in the back by someone they didn’t know was there? Maybe there was no way for them to save themselves, armed or not, but the exception doesn’t negate the overall validity of the premise of the Armed Society.

Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM

I’ve been within 5 city blocks of two random incidents of gang violence in the past two weeks, when someone walking home from work was gunned down anonymously by unknown assailants. Carrying a firearm would not have given either of them any better chance in their situations.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Logic alert!

If you don’t even know who the assailants are … obviously you don’t know the specifics of the crime – unless it happened to be caught on video? Was it?

Assuming not – assuming these people were gunned down without witnesses – then how on Earth could you possibly have any idea whether being armed might have helped or not?

Let’s try backwards logic if that won’t get you: if someone is planning to shoot you, and they have a gun … how exactly would YOU having a weapon do anything OTHER than increase your odds of survival?

Logic, please. Not ideology. I really want to hear how exactly it’s a disadvantage for me to be armed, if people are planning to shoot and kill me. It’s certainly not going to make me any MORE dead.

So you don’t approve of Firearms For The Flatulent?

(Just kidding)

Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:32 PM

No, they’re dangerous enough already.

Are you on some love-fest trip today or what?

Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 4:03 PM

I’m constantly on one – you just need to learn to discern the different kinds of love. Regards,

I hope this guy gets all of his guns taken away. (From Ace’s place)

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM

So you don’t approve of Firearms For The Flatulent?

(Just kidding)

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM

No, because he’s still engaged in an illegal enterprise, and needs to go to jail anyway. And he certainly can’t keep his gun there.

There’s a lot of gray areas there, like criminals keeping guns to protect themselves during the course of their illegal businesses. If a drug dealer carries a gun, for nominally “self defense” purposes, would you consider that legitimate?

Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Should I say: Defining “Illegitimate” purposes? As in, using a gun for illegitimate purposes would be grounds for having the gun taken away; any use not associated with something otherwise illegal would be fine, theoretically.

As soon as you define “legitimate purposes”, you’ve given yourself grounds for taking the gun away.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM

How ’bout Robbery? Murder? Stuff like that?

You guys are insane

I bet you can imagine exactly how much I value your amateur psychological assessment. Banana hammock.

I’m glad I have laws and an executive authority to prrotect people like me from people like you.

And exactly what magical spell does the law, or the superheroes in the executive branch, weave that prevents anybody from harming you? Does this same magical law instantaneously transport a cop to stand between you and a bullet with his magical shiny badge of unkillability?

Do you invest in “My Little Pony” stock?

lol…you have a _lot_ of waking up to do!

You’re right; I mis-stated my case:

How many were used for legitimate purposes?

Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I’d argue that this case is not philosophically distinguishable from the last one you made, with the only difference being whether or not the “legitimate purposes” were written into law. As soon as you define “legitimate purposes”, you’ve given yourself grounds for taking the gun away.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:23 PM

You’re right; I mis-stated my case:

How many were used for legitimate purposes?

I’m speechless. No police power at all? You guys are insane, and I’m glad I have laws and an executive authority to prrotect people like me from people like you.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM

You’re glad to have the police protect you? Fine. I’m glad to have my 9MM protect me, because it takes about 3 minutes and 55 seconds less time for my friend Mr. Heckler Koch to make an appearance.

I’m speechless. No police power at all? You guys are insane, and I’m glad I have laws and an executive authority to prrotect people like me from people like you.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM

You’re lost in the fog, dude. Police catch people after the fact. We’re not denying that. But they cannot, and cannot be expected to, catch people in the act. When that act is being perpetrated against you…you think the police are going to get there in time? Dream on.

How idiotic to think you need to be protected from us. Take some deep breaths from a paper bag and think it over a bit.