snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Business » Does Starbucks Support Gun Control? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Does Starbucks Support Gun Control?
Kathy B
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kathy B     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
KeepAndBearArms.com urged a Starbucks boycott in 2000. Starbuck's Coffee Supporting the Million Misinformed Mothers. They say that Starbucks supported the Million Moms March; Starbucks says "The mother of one of our slain partners contacted Starbucks requesting that we donate a computer for her personal use. She is the Baltimore coordinator for the Million Mom March and as a result, we were listed on their website." This was not good enough for the Keep and Bear Arms Executive Director.

--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 37 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Midgard_Dragon:
Your "what's your point" responses *were* my point. I was countering one of the most common arguments I hear (which is nonsense) with more nonsense.

got it...sorry. I just misread/misunderstood your post. (Thanks to a handful of Benedryl and no sleep the night before)

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kathy B:
KeepAndBearArms.com urged a Starbucks boycott in 2000. Starbuck's Coffee Supporting the Million Misinformed Mothers. They say that Starbucks supported the Million Moms March; Starbucks says "The mother of one of our slain partners contacted Starbucks requesting that we donate a computer for her personal use. She is the Baltimore coordinator for the Million Mom March and as a result, we were listed on their website." This was not good enough for the Keep and Bear Arms Executive Director.

That's the problem I have with *some* of the lists (even as a pro-gun person). That's basically the same thing as boycotting Dr. Pepper because they left out "under God" from the cans...it's "true" but it's a technicality.

(I think I may have already said this previously) but Blockbuster is on several lists, even though the corporate office replied to requests, stating they follow the laws of each individual state, therefore, if a state allows concealed carry, they allow it in stores in that state. That wasn't good enough either and they are still listed as "anti-CCW."

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbiev427:
Here, the only one of those that is specifically listed in the law is school buildings.


Establishments that serve alcohol for on-premises consumption are also off-limits for weapons. I think. There was legislation presented that would allow such, but I think it died in committee; I can't find the status of the bill.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbiev427:
quote:
Originally posted by Kathy B:
KeepAndBearArms.com urged a Starbucks boycott in 2000. Starbuck's Coffee Supporting the Million Misinformed Mothers. They say that Starbucks supported the Million Moms March; Starbucks says "The mother of one of our slain partners contacted Starbucks requesting that we donate a computer for her personal use. She is the Baltimore coordinator for the Million Mom March and as a result, we were listed on their website." This was not good enough for the Keep and Bear Arms Executive Director.

That's the problem I have with *some* of the lists (even as a pro-gun person). That's basically the same thing as boycotting Dr. Pepper because they left out "under God" from the cans...it's "true" but it's a technicality.

(I think I may have already said this previously) but Blockbuster is on several lists, even though the corporate office replied to requests, stating they follow the laws of each individual state, therefore, if a state allows concealed carry, they allow it in stores in that state. That wasn't good enough either and they are still listed as "anti-CCW."

And that sort of nonsense is a major problem because it makes pro-ccw groups look silly. I generally find myself opposed to most gun laws. They are often put forth as necessary to prevent felons and the insane from having guns, but both those groups are already prevented from legally having guns.

Few of the laws I have seen proposed seem likely to address any significant problem. Limiting magazine capacity is often proposed, witness the Brady bill, but in what way does it make the world better? Is round 11 somehow more likely to be used in a crime than round 1? Is it somehow supposed to prevent a murderer from shooting an 11th time? It isn't that hard to reload most guns.

Bans on buying multiple guns are often suggested, and if they were bans on buying crates of identical rifles by individuals they might make sense, but they usually try to ban multiple handgun purchases. No paramilitary group is out buying non-matching pistols, I as a collector may well be.

Bans on certain weapons as 'assault weapons' are another area of sillyness. The NFA already requires an FBI background check before one can purchase a true assault weapon. For those who don't know guns an assault weapon is a portable weapon capable of either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (multiple shots per trigger pull) fire. The Brady bill banned weapons as assault weapons for having a bayonet lug ( a bolt, groove or slot for attaching a bayonet to the rifle). Under such a ban my 70 year old Swiss K-31 rifle would be illegal, even though it is a bolt action (must be cocked, and a round chambered by moving a sliding bolt before each shot), only holds 5 rounds, and is awfully heavy to use in a robbery (it's also about 4 feet long so you can't very well conceal it).

By all means pass laws designed to provide stiffer penalties for illegally possessing a firearm, for using a firearm in a crime, or for knowingly selling a firearm to a felon or a maniac, just don't pass laws that sound good without solving any problem.

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by robbiev427:
Here, the only one of those that is specifically listed in the law is school buildings.


Establishments that serve alcohol for on-premises consumption are also off-limits for weapons. I think. There was legislation presented that would allow such, but I think it died in committee; I can't find the status of the bill.

That's the case in Ohio. I think maybe a blanket ban goes too far,for example I think Bartenders should be able to carry on their way home and that means having the gun in the bar, but in general I agree with this restriction. No one should EVER handle a firearm drunk! IMHO it is worse than driving impaired because exercising poor judgement with a gun is more likely to end in tragedy.

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, even if the law in Tennessee that I spoke of was amended, those carrying weapons are (and always have been, IIRC) prohibited from drinking.

Though, if the weapon's concealed, who's gonna know?

Quite frankly, I think requiring people to expose the weapons they're carrying would have a far greater deterrant effect than concealed weapons would. I think, deep in my conspiracy theorist soul, that holster manufacturers are behind pushing CCW laws.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
Bans on certain weapons as 'assault weapons' are another area of sillyness. The NFA already requires an FBI background check before one can purchase a true assault weapon. For those who don't know guns an assault weapon is a portable weapon capable of either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (multiple shots per trigger pull) fire. The Brady bill banned weapons as assault weapons for having a bayonet lug ( a bolt, groove or slot for attaching a bayonet to the rifle). Under such a ban my 70 year old Swiss K-31 rifle would be illegal, even though it is a bolt action (must be cocked, and a round chambered by moving a sliding bolt before each shot), only holds 5 rounds, and is awfully heavy to use in a robbery (it's also about 4 feet long so you can't very well conceal it).

To become an assult weapon, a semi-automatic rifle has to have a detachable magazine and two of the following characteristics:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
a grenade launcher

Based on a quick Google Images search, the K-31 does not have a detachable magazine, so it doesn't matter what else it has from the list. It also doesn't seem to have a pistol grip, flash surpressor, threaded barrel, or a grenade launcher. And a bolt-action rifle is probably not considered semi-automatic since you can't simply pull the trigger again to fire another round.

Since the K-31 seems to fail the assault weapons ban on all three qualifications, I think it is safe.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Quite frankly, I think requiring people to expose the weapons they're carrying would have a far greater deterrant effect than concealed weapons would. I think, deep in my conspiracy theorist soul, that holster manufacturers are behind pushing CCW laws.

I think the concealment adds the uncertainty factor to a criminal's thought process. If everyone with a gun open carries, then not seeing a gun means the person isn't carrying a gun. If some people with a gun conceal, then not seeing a gun means the person may have a gun or may not.

And a safe, sane gun owner should have a holster whether or not he is concealing.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aptenodytes_Forsteriis
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aptenodytes_Forsteriis     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:
Bans on certain weapons as 'assault weapons' are another area of sillyness. The NFA already requires an FBI background check before one can purchase a true assault weapon. For those who don't know guns an assault weapon is a portable weapon capable of either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (multiple shots per trigger pull) fire. The Brady bill banned weapons as assault weapons for having a bayonet lug ( a bolt, groove or slot for attaching a bayonet to the rifle). Under such a ban my 70 year old Swiss K-31 rifle would be illegal, even though it is a bolt action (must be cocked, and a round chambered by moving a sliding bolt before each shot), only holds 5 rounds, and is awfully heavy to use in a robbery (it's also about 4 feet long so you can't very well conceal it).

To become an assult weapon, a semi-automatic rifle has to have a detachable magazine and two of the following characteristics:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
a grenade launcher

Based on a quick Google Images search, the K-31 does not have a detachable magazine, so it doesn't matter what else it has from the list. It also doesn't seem to have a pistol grip, flash surpressor, threaded barrel, or a grenade launcher. And a bolt-action rifle is probably not considered semi-automatic since you can't simply pull the trigger again to fire another round.

Since the K-31 seems to fail the assault weapons ban on all three qualifications, I think it is safe.

The magazine is in fact detachable.

--------------------
'Hello, assorted humanoid strangers. You are standing casually in our forest. This bewilders us.' Blatherskite

Posts: 950 | From: Cincinnati, Ohio | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by robbiev427:
Here, the only one of those that is specifically listed in the law is school buildings.


Establishments that serve alcohol for on-premises consumption are also off-limits for weapons. I think. There was legislation presented that would allow such, but I think it died in committee; I can't find the status of the bill.

You are correct, however I was referring specifically to about 3 or 4 places that Lanie mentioned. Of the places she mentioned, only schools were on our list too.

You are also correct about the bill. It died in committee because Nafei (or however it's spelled) would not allow it to be voted on.

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Well, even if the law in Tennessee that I spoke of was amended, those carrying weapons are (and always have been, IIRC) prohibited from drinking.

Good point, and another reason the "we can't have drunk people with guns in or restaurant" argument is inane (for purposes of not passing this law). Some boob who is going to put on a gun and then go out in public and get drunk doesn't care about the law, and if they were going to do it, they'd do it either way.


quote:

Though, if the weapon's concealed, who's gonna know?

I've thought that a time or two myself. [Wink]

Robbiev -but I ain't admittin' nothin- 427

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lonely Mountain
Jingle All the Layaway


Icon 05 posted      Profile for Lonely Mountain   E-mail Lonely Mountain   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:


a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
a grenade launcher

Okay, here's where I get a little hesitant. I have no problem with the first 4 items on the list, but a grenade launcher? What in the world is that for other than the "Hey y'all, watch this!" type of attitude. Before I get in too deep, let me say that I believe people should have the right to own guns and even carry. My belief is that people have the right to defend themselves and unfortunately we can't do moves like Neo in the Matrix. But our rights have some limits and I draw the line with grenade launchers. There is no need for it and it has the potential for way too much collateral damamage.

Ok I feel that I just opened Pandora's box here so please let me add this caveat: These are my views and personal beliefs and as such I don't necessarily believe it should be made law. I think putting ketchup on eggs is disgusting but I'm not pushing for legislation to ban that either.

--------------------
"Tis too much proved that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself." - Hamlet

Posts: 344 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ophiuchus
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ophiuchus   E-mail Ophiuchus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If they support gun control, I am MORE tempted to frequent them...
except that I don't drink coffee at all. So... it would be pointless. San Fransico last year had a gun ban put into effect and absolutely nothing bad happened which proves everyone who claimed that it would create a world with armed-to-the-teeth criminals lording over helpless citizens 100% entirely wrong... it just makes it much easier for the police to find the people who are likely to committ murder before it happens. Gun-ownership in large urban areas has repeatedly proven to be a major problem and rarely, if ever, proves to be any deterant to crime.

I also find it horribly ironic that one can walk into Wall-Mart and can't get a CD with swearing in it, but you can get a gun to go kill your spouse or shoot up the local school... and it seems this is the way the majority of people in the USA want things to be.

Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's too bad you can't get anything without coffee in it at Starbucks.

Ophiuchus, you sound like a parody of a liberal.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hijack: The new tangerine frappucino juice blend = Delicious

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
Hijack: The new tangerine frappucino juice blend = Delicious

This is good information to have!

Thank you very much.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Where to start...

First, if you are taking about Proposition H, it only went into affect January of 2006. A bit early to declare victory after only 6 months of statistics. And as of July 11th, the number of murders was higher than it was at the same time in 2005 before the ban was enacted.

Have gun-bans in urban areas ever proved to be a deterant to crime?

Really, the majority of people in the USA want to be able to kill your spouse or shoot up the local school? Then why are both of those still against the law? Or is it that the majority of people in the USA don't have their head up their self-satified smug asses and realize that criminals are the problem, not guns?

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Washington DC has a ban on handguns. Virgina does not require gun registration and is a "will issue" state for concealed weapons permits. Based on that alone, especially comparing DC with Fairfax and Arlington counties, it doesn't seem that gun bans are that effective.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pinqy:
Washington DC has a ban on handguns. Virgina does not require gun registration and is a "will issue" state for concealed weapons permits. Based on that alone, especially comparing DC with Fairfax and Arlington counties, it doesn't seem that gun bans are that effective.

pinqy

I assume this is what you mean, but DC also happens to be one of the most crime-ridden communities in the US...I believe (based on memory) DC has the most murders per capita than any of the states.

ETA: but I'm not necessarily saying that does or doesn't prove anything.

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jocko's Jolly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jocko's Jolly   E-mail Jocko's Jolly   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
Hijack: The new tangerine frappucino juice blend = Delicious

Yummy - sort of like a creamsicle, but a bit more tart!

Sorry for the hijack -- continue, please!

--------------------
Like every good third-in-a-series it contains a whole load of ewoks, ‘Clubber’ Lang, whey-faced Sophia Coppola, Sean Connery as the Pirate Captain’s estranged dad, a crappy CGI alien, and Richard Pryor on a donkey. -- Gideon Defoe

Posts: 2211 | From: Harford County, MD | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ophiuchus
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ophiuchus   E-mail Ophiuchus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
To be fair, the law that passed in Florida which basically said you were free to shoot whomever you liked whenever you like (as long as you claim you 'felt threatened' after the fact) didn't seem to raise the rate of shooting deaths either, or at least I haven't heard of it doing so...

But still, if someone pro-gun keeps guns in their house (or a neighbor does) and their children shoot themselves or their friends or their friends shoot their children or so on... no tears for them. They made the willing, conscious choice to have it happen. Its the sacrifice they choose to make in order to have an object that gives a false sense of security and has never proven to be a meaningful deterrant of crime.

Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 102 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ophiuchus:
To be fair, the law that passed in Florida which basically said you were free to shoot whomever you liked whenever you like (as long as you claim you 'felt threatened' after the fact) didn't seem to raise the rate of shooting deaths either, or at least I haven't heard of it doing so...

Does that law really say you can just shoot anyone you want to and the only requirement is to to say you felt threatened?

The reason I ask is, some other states have similar laws. As I understand it, the Florida law is a "no duty to retreat" law, which is not the same as "you can shoot anyone you want to" or, at the very least, that's the way it works here in TN.

TN law specifically states there is no duty to retreat, but there still better be some evidence there was actually a threat. No duty to retreat means (at least here) if you're threatened in a manner that justifies returning deadly force, you don't have to turn around and try to run away first. It does not mean you can just shoot anyone you want to.

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The measure, which passed the Legislature overwhelmingly earlier this year, says that people who are under attack do not have to retreat before responding. They have the right to "meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so."


--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ophiuchus:
But still, if someone pro-gun keeps guns in their house (or a neighbor does) and their children shoot themselves or their friends or their friends shoot their children or so on... no tears for them. They made the willing, conscious choice to have it happen. Its the sacrifice they choose to make in order to have an object that gives a false sense of security and has never proven to be a meaningful deterrant of crime.

"Never" is an awfully big word. Can you back that up?

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LemonLimeade
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LemonLimeade     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Couldn't someone say the same thing the other way around? i.e. "If someone does not keep a gun in their house and they get broken into, raped and robbed...no tears for them. They made the willing, conscious choice to have it happen. It is the sacrifice they made not to protect themselves adequately from dangerous intruders."

I think both statements are over-the-top, by the way. No one makes a willing choice for their kids to shoot themselves or to be brutalized by intruders.

[OT]I have been reading the Little House books again recently, and they kept a loaded shotgun hung from pegs over the door. It had to be loaded because loading was a big process, not in time to save you from wolves or horse-thieves. When Pa was gone (hunting with his shotgun for example), Ma would keep the pistol handy. The children didn't even think to consider touching the guns - it wasn't allowed and that was that. I'd hardly say they made a willing choice to have their children killed; rather they were protecting them.[/OT]

--------------------
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Posts: 285 | From: Woodbridge, NJ | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LemonLimeade
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LemonLimeade     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aptenodytes_Forsteriis:

By all means pass laws designed to provide stiffer penalties for illegally possessing a firearm, for using a firearm in a crime, or for knowingly selling a firearm to a felon or a maniac, just don't pass laws that sound good without solving any problem.

I have recently been reading that this is being done on a federal level. Commit a crime using an illegal gun, now, and you're guaranteed to do some hard time - I believe it's a five year minimum.

--------------------
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Posts: 285 | From: Woodbridge, NJ | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ulkomaalainen
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ulkomaalainen     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
False analogy: While your kids cannot shoot anybody with a family gun not owned in the first place at all, you can still easily get assaulted, raped, robbed... when you own a gun, but are e.g. not quick enough in using it. So we're talking about a thing that could be prevented on the one hand against one that may or may not have been prevented by another choice.

About the "never proven": I guess we may squabble about the meaning of proven, but it would take me by surprise if there weren't multiple studies supporting either claim, especially since the data within the US and world wide seem, IIRC, to contradict themselves, i.e. within the US those states with stricter gun control laws have more gun crimes, whereas on a worldwide scale the US seems to outrank any comparable country with "gun prohibition" by miles when it comes to gun related crimes.

--------------------
Movie characters never make typing mistakes.

Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LemonLimeade
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LemonLimeade     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well the analogy makes perfect sense to me; so I guess we just don't agree there. That's fine.

The last stats I read said there are approximately 2 million times a year that gun owners use guns to defend themselves against a crime being attempted. It may be more difficult to gauge because often times we get stats on completed crimes whereas often a perp who sees a gun flees before completing the act. Meanwhile for children under 5, <20 died of gunshot while about 100 drowned in tubs and about 40 in 5 gallon buckets. We don't generally say "Well no tears for them, they willingly chose to own a tub."

--------------------
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Posts: 285 | From: Woodbridge, NJ | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LemonLimeade:

The last stats I read said there are approximately 2 million times a year that gun owners use guns to defend themselves against a crime being attempted. It may be more difficult to gauge because often times we get stats on completed crimes whereas often a perp who sees a gun flees before completing the act. Meanwhile for children under 5, <20 died of gunshot while about 100 drowned in tubs and about 40 in 5 gallon buckets. We don't generally say "Well no tears for them, they willingly chose to own a tub."

Can you provide a source for the 5 gallon bucket stat? Not that I don't believe you. I've heard the same thing numerous times, but no one can ever provide a source and I want one so when I talk about it, I can proved where it came from.


Ulkomaalainen:

I agree about the "studies." Every time I hear one group say "Statistics prove this," I hear the other group say, "No they don't. Statistics prove this instead" and they usually quote some statistic that, in their mind that proves they are correct, and then they argue about how each others statistics are "made up" or false.

For instance, as I understand it (and I could be wrong) the "2 million times a year" statistic is based on an informal telephone survey of a few thousand people.

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dark Blue
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dark Blue   E-mail Dark Blue   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
an object that gives a false sense of security and has never proven to be a meaningful deterrant of crime.
I don't know anyone who thinks that having a gun in their house makes it less likely to be broken into. Everyone I know doesn't have a gun to "deter" crime, but to stop a crime in progress. I have to say that I have found it a lot easier to convince someone to stop a crime when my Glock is pointed at them. It's even easier if it's my AR-15, so I don't think they have that aspect of it wrong.

quote:
the law that passed in Florida which basically said you were free to shoot whomever you liked whenever you like (as long as you claim you 'felt threatened' after the fact)
can you show me where in the law it says that, because I'm quite familiar with it and never saw that passage in there. Or are you simply going off of your favorite anit-gun organizations material?

quote:
About the "never proven": I guess we may squabble about the meaning of proven, but it would take me by surprise if there weren't multiple studies supporting either claim
Then by your logic you must also believe that it's never been proven wrong either.

--------------------
I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret)

Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbiev427:
quote:
Originally posted by LemonLimeade:

The last stats I read said there are approximately 2 million times a year that gun owners use guns to defend themselves against a crime being attempted. It may be more difficult to gauge because often times we get stats on completed crimes whereas often a perp who sees a gun flees before completing the act. Meanwhile for children under 5, <20 died of gunshot while about 100 drowned in tubs and about 40 in 5 gallon buckets. We don't generally say "Well no tears for them, they willingly chose to own a tub."

Can you provide a source for the 5 gallon bucket stat? Not that I don't believe you. I've heard the same thing numerous times, but no one can ever provide a source and I want one so when I talk about it, I can proved where it came from.


Some stats on buckets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5006.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/14/1952

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
robbiev - singin' off key
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for robbiev - singin' off key   Author's Homepage   E-mail robbiev - singin' off key   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
Some stats on buckets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5006.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/14/1952

Thanks!

Dark Blue...I assume you saw my post. I made similar comments (of course, from previous threads, I know you and I think alike about some things)

--------------------
Every time I see a good looking woman, I think, "0oooh. There's another one I'll never have!"

Corvette. The louder you scream, the faster I'll go.

Posts: 1820 | From: Memphis, TN | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ulkomaalainen
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ulkomaalainen     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
DarkBlue: I think I did not put it well enough. Ophiochus stated that "guns deter crime" (to put it simply) has never been proven yet. My answer was (along the lines of GenYus as well) that "never" is, in this context, hardly useable, since there will be some studies claiming that guns do and some that guns don't (as mentioned in my last post), thus the use of "never" should be wrong. Of course depending on what you call "proven", since I doubt that many things can be proven at all if we're talking human behaviour.

So my sentence was bound to say "It has been proven right and it has been proven wrong in the past for sure", of course in a non mathematical way of defining the word "proven".

@LemonLimeade: I don't think we can agree to disagree here, since your analogy has an inherent logical flaw, if I calculate that correctly. But please note that I do not make any statement on the topic at hand, just on the reasoning. Your results may still be right.

--------------------
Movie characters never make typing mistakes.

Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2