Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EDITORIAL: Conceal carry should be extended to universities

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:16 PM
Original message
EDITORIAL: Conceal carry should be extended to universities
http://www.macon.com/2011/03/17/1490241/conceal-carry-should-be-extended.html


By STEFAN B. TAHMASSEBI - Special to The Telegraph

Hysterical claims are being made by the opponents of a recent bill introduced to allow concealed weapon permit holders to carry on state college campuses. Unfortunately, sometimes tragic crimes occur on campuses. Sometimes they even involve firearms. But it should be noted that all of these campus shootings have involved schools where the gun prohibitionists have had their way. Such shootings occurred in so called “gun-free” schools -- schools that have prohibited firearms on campus, even by students and professors that had gone through all the background checks and training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Unfortunately, the police were not able to timely intervene. A University of Alabama shooting took place literally next door to the campus police station.

You have to ask whether the outcomes might have been different if any of the students, faculty or staff had been allowed to defend themselves. There is an answer to this question. A few years ago an unstable student at the Appalachian Law School attacked students and staff with a firearm. As was widely reported in the press, he was stopped by other students. However, many of the news organizations failed to report that he was stopped by other students who had firearms. Unfortunately, the school had a “no guns on campus” policy, and so the good guys had to leave the school when the shooting began, run to their cars off school grounds to get their guns, and then run back inside to confront and stop the shooter. Unfortunately, during that time period, the shooter had shot six students and faculty, three died. Refusing to allow guns on campus makes those who might otherwise be able to defend themselves easy prey for criminals.

Universities that have allowed the right to carry to extend to their campuses have experienced a decrease in on-campus crime. Every public university in Utah has allowed concealed handguns on campus since 2006, and there have been no reported misfires, accidental shootings, gun crimes or any other gun-related incidents reported. Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia has also allowed concealed carrying on campus for several years with zero incidents.

The argument that students and professors are too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms fails when one considers the actual requirements for carrying a concealed weapon anywhere, including a college campus. Any student or professor wishing to carry a firearm would have to comply with their state’s permit requirements. While these vary from state to state, they include criminal background checks, are limited to adults, have education and training requirements, and are designed to prevent anyone with a history of criminal behavior or mental problems from carrying a firearm.


As studies have shown, and despite the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists, concealed carry holders continue to be law abiding citizens even after they obtain the concealed carry permit. In order to rationalize the prohibition on concealed carrying on campus, you must believe that the otherwise law abiding permit holder, by merely stepping onto a campus, transforms from a responsible law abiding adult into a reckless criminal. There are no studies that support this irrational hysteria.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's what we need, the cast from Animal House armed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armueller2001 Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Off campus fraternity houses
would not be affected by this law - it is already legal to possess and carry a firearm there (as long as the possessor is not intoxicated).

That argument is done. Got another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well done. The anti-rkba side doesn't know what they are talking about -- even when mock
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 03:45 PM by aikoaiko
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I'm sure whenever they have one of their
frat parties they lock up all the guns. We all know how responsible a bunch 20 year olds are with a case of beer under their belts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. To have a CCW you have to be 21.
Further the law would only apply to ON-campus. Frat parties are off-campus and would not be effected by the law. Would you like to discuss the actual law instead of your imaginings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Doesnt anybody snort cocaine off naked co-eds anymore ?
Things must have settled down quite a bit after the AIDS showed up .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. How old does one have to be to carry a gun under their shirt, stuck in the waist of their pants?
A 14 year-old boy did that the other day here at a JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. That was illegal.
We are discussinG LEGAL carry by people with CCW licenses. What does you example of an illegal carry have to do with legal carry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Hey, You are the one who appeared not to kinow.
The bill under discussion refers to LEGAL carry and YOU started talking about some teens who carried illegally as if it had anything to do with the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Well, I'm not from Texas.
Why don't you educate me a little bit about the laws concerning carrying weapons in classrooms.

Huh?

Why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Did Loughner have a concealed weapons permit? Didn't stop him, did it.
That's the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about and someone who doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Pretty simple. Currently illegal. Bill will make it legal for CHL holders.
To get a CHL you have to be 21, take the course, pass the test, qualify with a handgun, submit to FBI investigation, fingerprinted & photographed, and pay the fee. If you are on active duty you can be 18 and get one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Your ignorance... is funny. And, at this point, will-full. Not so funny. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
36. 20 Year olds (with beer or otherwise)
CANNOT get a concealed carry license.

NEXT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. They were armed
But that horse had a heart attack .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. Off campus and under 21
So it dosen't matter anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteProgressive Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. I tend to think we should not allow them on campus, but people were .....
worried in Florida when CCW started and it did not cause issues. So maybe we are wrong on this also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Not allowing them on campus didn't stop the VT killer.
The problem with not allowing them on campus is that there is no way to enforce it. So the law abiding people don't carry and the criminals do. That is not a receipt for a good situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteProgressive Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. If it causes less problems than it solves then I agree. Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Right or wrong: any editorial that must resort
to calling the other side's arguments "hysterical" doesn't deserve undue consideration. If "hysteria" is one of the most compelling arguments you can muster, you can't muster a very compelling argument.

Either side of the issue.

To couple that with the presumption that everybody with a concealed carry license is/will remain a law-abiding citizen unaffected by human needs or passions is ludicrous. Fear, anger, drunkenness, undiagnosed mental illness...these and more have all caused normal, law-abiding citizens to one day STOP abiding the law. Giving them a concealed carry doesn't imbue them with magical powers to resist the same urges as the rest of us.

All in all a poorly argued opinion piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. You may want to check the CCW statistics.
In Texas, where the law is under consideration, the state-wide statistics are published annually. CHL holders are extremely law abiding with a conviction rate of 25 per 100,000. That is 1/40th of one percent per year.

The idea of a normal, law-abiding citizen suddenly snapping and becoming a murderer is a myth. In reality murderers almost never have murder as their first crime. The CHL is not given, it is earned. You have the causation backwards. Only those citizens who, after careful screening, are found to be reliable are allowed to have a CHL. It isn't given in hopes it will make them law-abiding. They get them AFTER they have shown themselves to be law-abiding. Indeed, it doesn't imbue them with magical powers to resist the same urges as the rest of us. They get the CHL AFTER they have demonstrated that they have a high level of self-control.

Hysteria does well describe the anti-gunner stance. Everytime we have loosened some gun laws the anti-gun crowd has predicted blood -in-the-streets and return-to-the-Wild-West. And it never happens. But that doesn't stop the anti-gunners from makeing the same irrational predictions the next time around.

Would you like to try arguing with the specifics of the piece?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteProgressive Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I wish I knew the average of the current CCW carrier. I think maturity helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Here the Texas stats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteProgressive Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. It's the tone, not the content I object to
The intent behind opinion pieces is to shape opinion, and end that is difficult to attain when you alienate those with the opposing viewpoint with reductivist language. People who agree with you don't need their minds changed, so why use such red meat language? People who don't agree with you won't change their minds because you attack them as "hysterical." They might change their minds if you talk to them. (They'll definitely change their minds if you throw tens of thousands of dollars at them, or at least act that way when it counts).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Nothing wrong with calling hysteria what it is.
To couple that with the presumption that everybody with a concealed carry license is/will remain a law-abiding citizen unaffected by human needs or passions is ludicrous. Fear, anger, drunkenness, undiagnosed mental illness...these and more have all caused normal, law-abiding citizens to one day STOP abiding the law. Giving them a concealed carry doesn't imbue them with magical powers to resist the same urges as the rest of us.

All in all a poorly argued opinion piece.


The fact of the matter is, in spite of your hysterical prediction that people with CCW permits will be affected by human needs or passions in any meaningful numbers, this hardly every happens.

CCW permit holders hardly ever break the law. Any law. They are less likely to break the law than non-CCW permit holders.

See the data for Texas CCW permit holders here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

This is the rate of conviction for CCW permit holders in Texas for everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide:

2007 0.2612%
2006: 0.2340%
2005: 0.2530%
2004: 0.1648%
2003: 0.1422%
2002: 0.1597%
2001: 0.2437%
2000: 0.2718%

Further, the idea that large numbers of law-abiding citizens just "snap" and go on killing sprees is a myth:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Most people who commit homicides with firearms have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, 4 felonies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Except when the other side's arguments are hysterical.


I have yet to hear a compelling reason why the state can trust people with carrying a concealed weapon in most public places, but can't trust them on college campuses. All I've heard is near hysterical responses about guns having no place on campus or drunken shootouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. You really should not post when you are ignorant about something.
You are 27 times MORE likely to be struck by lightning that you are to be shot by someone with a CCW permit.

CCW permit holders are LESS likely than the general public to be involved in ANY crime, much less a gun crime.

See the FBI and CDC for the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Neither should you respond without basic comprehension skills
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 09:57 PM by JackintheGreen
I am sick to fucking death of people insulting me after purposely misrepresenting my posts on gun control. Not once, in many many posts on the issue, have I ever come down on the side of gun control. I am not a "gun nut," but neither am I an hysterical reactionary crowing with glee every time some new instance of gun violence makes the news.

I commented on the tone of the opinion piece posted, not the content. I made that clear to anybody with a basic level of reading comprehension. In fact I stated it in almost exactly those terms. Opinion pieces are supposed to SWAY OPINION. If you are not going to write an opinion piece PERSUAVIVELY (remember that from middle school?), why the fuck are you wasting your time? You are not going to change opinions with name-calling and dismissal. What the fuck do you people think goes on in everybody else's heads? Since when is "you are wrong and your opinions are stupid" effective persuasive writing?

I should know by know to keep my mouth shut. I should know by now that too many people on DU these days respond to what they so dearly want you to have so they can get on their high horse and pretend to pretend to be so fucking superior to the plebes who disagree with them.

Fucking fuck this shit pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I comprehend just find, thank you.
To couple that with the presumption that everybody with a concealed carry license is/will remain a law-abiding citizen unaffected by human needs or passions is ludicrous. Fear, anger, drunkenness, undiagnosed mental illness...these and more have all caused normal, law-abiding citizens to one day STOP abiding the law. Giving them a concealed carry doesn't imbue them with magical powers to resist the same urges as the rest of us.

Thats YOUR 2 cents, right? YOU added that, right? Thats YOUR opinion, no?

Now read that, and look at what I responded with, and you tell me who has the comprehension problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. So CCW permits do imbue one with magical powers?
So CCW carriers *are* unaffected by human emotions? That's the opposite of what I wrote, what you seem to be implying is the correct answer. It is the operant assumption that CCW carriers would never, ever misbehave. And the huge, vast majority of them do not, in general, misbehave in ways that attracts attention. The huge, vast majority of them react to such stressors reasonably and responsibly, but still some do not. That doesn't mean they pull out their guns and start firing. If you have a CCW and beat your wife or kids, even if it never gets reported, you are no longer law-abiding. If you get drunk and drive home anyway. Both things that I personally know CCW holders do on occasion.

And you still avoid my central point, because I guess you don't have an answer for that critique. So you focus on a point that you think you can use to bludgeon me into silence with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Our percentage of criminals is very low compared to the general population.
Domestic violence is a very good way to lose your CHL in Texas. It doesn't even take a conviction. Being armed while under the influence will get it yanked in a hurry too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Now that I did not know. Thanks!
Seriously.

So now that you've put a whole in my magic fairy theory (bravo! It was weak, I knew), care to have a go at the point of my post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. It would have been better if "hysterical" had been dropped. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. The voices in my head tell me to clean my supressors
But that's crazy . You dont need to do that ! So I don't .


Urges , like "the rest of us" get ? Ahahahahaha .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
39. Yep. Anger and drunkenness plus loaded, legal gun in house for "self protection"
resulted in the murder of one of my family members. Extreme rage and a loaded, legal gun in the car for "self protection" resulted in my neighbor's murder by spouse. In both cases the perp was a heretofore "law abiding citizen." Funny how that happens, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #39
47. I suspect that they had a hidden history of violent behavior. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #47
56. Which is my point exactly. While not physically violent, the people in both of these
incidences had violent tempers. Since they didn't actually do anything but fly into seemingly uncontrolled rages, it was impossible to "deny" them the gun they kept for "safety." I'm assuming you are against having people denied a gun because they have bad tempers, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #39
52. Whats even funnier is how rare that is.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 11:41 AM by cleanhippie
While your stories are a tragedy, they are very, very rare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. And their victims are very, very dead....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Like I said, its a tragedy. But its very, very rare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Isn't it time for y'all to pull out your special chart to show us how you
are safer in Tucson than in super gun-controlled Copenhagen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Dunno about Copenhagen, but Tucson is safer than New Haven, CT..
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 11:49 AM by X_Digger

City............Violent crime rate.....Murder Rate.....Rape Rate.....Agg Assault Rate
New Haven, CT................1,765............9.70............48..................975
Tucson, AZ.....................650............6.39............37..................379


Source: FBI's UCR for 2009- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/index.html

eta: formatting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Blammo! Thanks XD, nice job.
Blammo: the sound of a strawman being crushed.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. aww, c'mon you are no fun...let's try the copenhagen thing again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Nah, that strawman is dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Only if you "can't"" answer the question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Yeah, thats it. You got me.
No, not really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Yep. And oh, while I'm at it why do you talk like a comic book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #71
99. Ohh, burn 0n me!
no, not really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. whatever that has to do with it. Try Copenhagen again...
and this time don't change the subject...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. You're the one who's changing the subject, bringing Copenhagen into it.
At least I stayed inside our own borders, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. well, I thought it would be fun to see you squirm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. So you admit it was a distraction? Thanks.
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:23 PM by X_Digger
And on edit..

Are you asserting that the one is related to the other?

What was Copenhagen's violent crime rate before implementing gun control? Did it go down after? Was it going down already, before gun control legislation was introduced?

Correlation != Causation.. we've been through this before.

e.g. NYC v London in the late 19th and early 20'th century. Neither city had much in the way of gun control, yet NYC had a murder rate five times that of London. If the supposed correlation you're hinting at were true, London of the late 1880's would have been just as violent as NYC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. I'm talkiing about now. That's it. What is the crime rate in Copenhagen now, not London vs. NYC
just now Tucson vs. Copenhagen.

I hope that has been simplified enough for you. I await your "special" charts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. You sound as though you're trying to link the two.
As though one were the cause of the other. (Copenhagen's violent crime rate and Denmark's gun control laws.)

Is that true? Let's work out way out from there, shall we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Well let us do so. You can't have it both ways.
You cannot argue that we cannot be a free people if we institute tough gun control laws, a la Denmark. Yet Denmark is a constitutional democracy, not a dictatorship or a monarchy that keeps the people in line by restricting their "right" to have firearms in a nearly unlimited fashion.

Now you want to turn around and say what you just posited (I could see exactly where you were going with that one).

So which is it? Your side has a problem and needs to talk about comparing Tucson to New Haven and claims ignorance about places like Copenhagen that has both strong control of guns and a strong democracy. It doesn't fit your narrative or dogma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. So that's a yes?
You claim that Denmark's low violent crime rate is a result of strong gun control?

You cannot argue that we cannot be a free people if we institute tough gun control laws, a la Denmark.


Strawman. I've never said such a thing.

Nice dodge, but let's keep on track, shall we?

Now.. let's do some digging. Since it's your assertion, you get to do the research.

1. When did Denmark implement strict gun control?

2. What was Denmark's violent crime rate *with and without guns* before that point? Find data points at multiple points, please, so that we can establish a trend line.

3. What was Denmark's violent crime rate *with and without guns* after that point? Find data points at multiple points, please, so that we can establish a trend line.

4. What was the percentage or rate of legal gun ownership both before and after gun control was implemented?

First you have to show correlation. In order for that correlation to be true, you'd have to demonstrate that crime rates went down after gun control was implemented, and went down faster than they were already trending (if they were going down already).

When you've done the research, get back to me, and we can look at the data. If your correlation holds up, we can posit causation and explore all the factors that might have the same result.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. So, I see you don't have the data yourself. Why not?
You have other charts with data, why not this?

It seems to me that if you really want to debate this, you would do your own research. One of the key arguments against your narrative that we are free because we have guns is to cite citizen safety in Western Europeans such as Denmark. It would seem to me to be YOUR task to knock that argument down. But you choose not to. Your side says things like "I don't know about Copenhagen but I do know about New Haven..." to quote another poster here. Well, I have just challenged you come up with the same argument that you use on the data you have in the USA.

You are the gun expert. It is my expectation that you would defend your position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. It's your claim, you do the research.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 08:37 AM by X_Digger
I made no claim about whether or not New Haven being more dangerous than Tucson was as a result of differing amounts of gun control. Another straw man.

You read that into it, yourself. I merely pointed out that your city is not as safe as the one you were taking a piss on.

I will defend positions I've made. I won't defend positions that you claim I've made, but haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. Well, then what were you arguing? I never said anything about New Haven.
You brought it up. I wasn't "taking a piss" on Tucson. I have nothing against Tucson. I asked a simple question: are you safer in the city of Tucson or in the city of Copenhagen? You choose not to enter that fray. Can you at least tell me why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. I said exactly what I meant to. What you chose to read into it is your problem.
But since you admit to making the claim that Copenhagen is safer than Tucson because of gun control, you get to do the research to back it up.

I actually did 'enter that fray' but I jumped ahead a few steps. Having been through this dance a few times, I jumped to the point where those on your side typically falter- backing up their assertion with actual data presented in a meaningful fashion.

I've given you the criteria to establish correlation between Denmark's violent crime rate and gun control. It's there for you to pick up and run with.

I suspect that, like most who get to this point, you won't. You'll stick with assertions without evidence.

Should you actually demonstrate that crime fell at a greater rate after gun control (or didn't increase as fast as previous to enactment), we can agree on correlation. Then we can look for causation, by looking at other factors, comparing to other comparable places who also enacted strong gun control, and see if the correlation stands up to scrutiny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. No, you think you "win" because you set the boundaries of the argument on a before/after
comparison. No dice. That isn't the question. The question, once again, is ARE you safer than one city over another.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this question goes to the heart and soul of your project. You do your side no favors by appearing to skitter away from it by throwing extraneous criteria of your own making into the argument.

Don't simply declare victory and then run away...there are a lot of us that are just not buying it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Comparing two things with different characteristics at one point in time...
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 10:38 AM by X_Digger
...does nothing to establish your claim.

If that were the case, Phoenix being safer than New Haven would squash it like a bug. That is not my contention.

In order for your claim of causation to stand up to scrutiny, first you have to prove correlation. Correlation is a necessary element of causation. You understand this, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If strong gun control is correlated with decreased crime, then you should be able to demonstrate implementation of gun control followed by a decreased crime rate, or a decrease in the rate of increase of crime, or the crime rate decreasing faster than before implementation.

e.g.


With me so far? A graph like one of the three above would tend to indicate a correlation between those two factors- crime rate and gun control.

eta: Just to make sure you don't harp on it again, Denmark has a lower crime rate than Phoenix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. I'm not making a causation/correlation argument, though.
All I was asking you to do is look at the crime statistics and tell me whether you are safer in Copenhagen than you are in Tucson. Simple enough.

Put otherwise: the Danes don't have a Second Amendment to their Constitution, so they clearly do not think that gun ownership equates to having a free society. We do have a 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has held the right to be an individual ownership right, rather than a collective right for the states to raise militias. It is a difference of philosophy of governing. The Danes are safer than we are and they are, nonetheless, a free people who democratically elect their government. That is the sum and substance of what I am saying. Are you arguing with my statement of fact? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. A statement of fact in support of what? Was it just a random fact?
I doubt it.

Put otherwise: the Danes don't have a Second Amendment to their Constitution, so they clearly do not think that gun ownership equates to having a free society. We do have a 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has held the right to be an individual ownership right, rather than a collective right for the states to raise militias. It is a difference of philosophy of governing. The Danes are safer than we are and they are, nonetheless, a free people who democratically elect their government. That is the sum and substance of what I am saying. Are you arguing with my statement of fact? Really?


Now if someone, somewhere in this thread had made the assertion that gun ownership equates to a free society, your comment would be relevant.

Since I don't see such? .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. All right, then, substitute "is necessary to" for "equates."
Based on pro-gun arguments I've seen over the years, I think that devotees of gun ownership truly believe that.

Look, I am making an empirical argument based on empirical evidence. I'm not getting into the causation/correlation argument that you cling to. You may not like empirical arguments but that is what I am doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. You haven't made *any* argument that I'm aware of.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 12:06 PM by X_Digger
If you wish to engage 'pro-gun arguments I've seen' then you should go back to those making them. They apparently aren't participating in this thread.

Perhaps you don't know how an 'argument' works. You set out your thesis / claim, then back it up with a series of logical premises.

Throwing out a random fact without premise, claim, or thesis is not an argument.

eta: You've thrown out one fact, without identifying your claim. Do that, and we can have the basis for an empirical argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. I'll start with this thoughtful article on gun violence in Denmark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. What is your claim?
Am I supposed to read your mind, or grab something from the article and suppose that it's your claim? (Only to have you tell me later, that, "no, that's not my claim at all..".)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. If I didn't make it clear, I believe that we have a more gun violent society than Denmark has.
And I would ask, "Do you agree?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Agreed. Next?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:06 PM by X_Digger
You could have made that statement and posted this link and been done with it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/da-denmark/cri-crime&all=1

Claim, backed up by data.

eta: And you'll note I agreed in post 82. (Though I substituted Phoenix for Tucson.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Why do the Danes have such stringent gun control laws?
It is an interesting question, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. I suspect that like a lot of Europe..
They passed stringent gun control in the 1920's as a direct result of WWI- lots of disaffected youth with 'ideas' and guns. Those in power were wont to prevent their very own Bolshevik Revolution. Armed labor unionists scared the pants off many a European politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Since several western european nations after WWII wrote or updated constitutions
I am thinking that they had a chance to have a 2nd amendment and didn't take it. IIRC, the Marshall Plan did a lot to keep western european countries from being lured into Communism. And many knew the truth about what happened to the Bolshevik Revolution and how brutalizing Communism became for its own people.

Altho I haven't visited Denmark (I hope to get to all of the Scandinavian capitals), I have travelled in several Western European countries in the past 6 years (and once before when as a teen I was taken to Europe by my mother). I am revisiting Paris for 8 days next month. My interest is in art history, altho my graduate degree is in Liberal Studies. I want to get to Vienna, Budapest and Prague next fall but the money may not be there for it...

Hence, my interest in comparing the cultures of the U.S. and western Europe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Even the Danish wikipedia is strangely silent on gun policy in DK
Perhaps Euromutt will see this and comment- he's not a DK native, but I suspect he's more familiar with firearms legislation in the region.

The funny thing is that many nations passed gun control to disempower what would (by today's standards) be called the left. The irony of our left pushing for the same isn't lost on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. But a lot of liberals back in the day turned against the Bolsheviks, both in this country and
in Europe. On my way to Spain in 2008 I read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" which he wrote after his experience fighting for the republicans in the Spanish Civil War. As far back as then, he was suspicious of what the Soviets were doing to the Left in Spain. Many liberals became disillusioned as Stalin was revealed more and more as the brute killer he was. I don't think that lesson was lost on the people rebuilding Europe after WWII. The Marshall Plan paved their western styled constitutional democracies. By today's standards, the Marchall Plan was plenty Leftish. So in essence, the Left had won at that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. The labor unionists in Europe in the 20's could have been lifted from Madison, WI..
Funny how that works. If unemployment reaches that level here, I'd expect to see similar protests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_waterfront_strike

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Madison was peaceful, tho. I get your point about reaching a certain level of
desperation but we are thankfully not there yet. I say "yet" with a good deal of apprehension and dread.

AFter WWII trade unionism as a movement had essentially won. The way we lost that movement had its beginnings with Reagan and he essentially "charmed" his way into office. All that fluff about morning in America. The American people were sold a bill of goods. It was the republicans strategy all along not to admit its true agenda and get in under false pretenses. And they did it again with Bush.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Walker could have gotten his way by having armed guards shoving people around in Madison, he would have used the same tactics as the ones discussed in your links, which I read with great interest. My husband, a WI native, predicted that Walker would not have an easy time trying to break labor in WI. The people of Wisconsin have long memories...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. As well they should..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. My husband's family on the German side were Socialists and settled originally in Milwaukee.
He was born in Sheboygan and remembers the 30 year long strike at the nearby Kohler factory. It was a fascinating time in labor history!

He has talked his sister who lives in Madison and she says her grown kids are affected by the strike. They have a fire fighter in the family and he is on the front lines. Her grandkids well being is being threatened. It's this kind of thing that makes a liberal out of you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Would that that idea would spread to the new world. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #57
74. Sorry, but no; death, like pregnancy, is a binary state
That is, either you are, or you aren't; there are no degrees of deadness.

A person who's been shot to death is just as dead as (and thus, no more dead than) someone who's been stabbed or beaten to death, or for that matter, someone who's been killed as a result of a motor vehicle collision, a drug overdose, a coronary, or any of the other thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
49. I can't speak for others
But when I started carrying I started to avoid confrontation and argument far more. I felt that, because I have the means to escalate things, it should be my responsibility to not let things get heated at all. I tend to avoid arguments of all kinds now.

Id be willing to bet others who carry do the same.i don't know anyone who feels more confident and more willing to argue knowing they will have the upper hand if it came down to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Agreed.
Further, Texas CHL classes include lessons on conflict avoidance and conflict de-escaltion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. thanks for that info
I wasnt aware, what a great idea. Ive never heard of classes like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. Who is this Tahmassebi?
Oh wait, let me guess...........N-R-A

Suspicions confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I take it that you are unable to discuss the point made. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I take it you purposely omitted who he was.
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 07:43 PM by TheCowsCameHome
You left this out - Stefan B. Tahmassebi is deputy general counsel for the National Rifle Association of America in Fairfax, Va.

Nice snip job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. So you are indeed unable to debate a topic on the merits.
You have to reach for a logical fallacy: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

Genetic Fallacy
Explanation
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. What's to debate?
The NRA-employed writer has stated his opinion, and that's that.

Too bad the OP didn't state up front who the writer was, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. You could try discussing the points raised in the article.
That would be a change. Usually anti-gun people just use snark and insults and logical fallacies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. I'm sure Mr. Tahmassebi has better things to do
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 11:37 AM by TheCowsCameHome
than discuss anything with "anti's".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. He isn't posting here. I am.
Your continued refusal to debate the merits strongly suggests that you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Actually, I couldn't care less
what writer Mahmassebi thinks about anything. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

You added an eight word title to a pasted opinion piece. That's all.

So there's nothing to discuss. With him, or with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #55
77. IOW you are unable to counter the points raised in the editorial. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DWC Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. At the age of full accountability (21)
Any competent, honest citizen should be able to carry a defensive firearm virtually anywhere, including colleges and universities.

Semper Fi,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Why 21?
Why not 18? If they are old enough to die fighting for this country, they should be old enough to protect themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
37. In some places 18 is acceptable
In Texas if you are in the military you can get your concealed carry license at 18 instead of waiting until you are 21.

Why is 18 no longer the legal age to drink?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #37
46. I've found that silly too.
I mean, its not like 21-year-olds are THAT much more mature than 18-year-olds.

I think we'd see a lot less abuse of alcohol if it wasn't illegal for 18-to-20-year-olds.

I mean, in some countries the age is 16 (or lower). Better for kids to drink responsibly than engage in illegal binge drinking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC