Man arrested with rifle in Denver

[CrAz3D]

<edit>I didnt like that first article either</edit>
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_10292295?source=commented-politics

Interesting that he wasnt a registered guest, maybe he was about to reserve a room?  And to NOT know the DNC was in town, I find that hard to believe.

Still no reason to arrest the guy though!

[iago]

It certainly sounds suspicious.

I mean, from the second article. The first is just crap.

[Warrior]

was arrested for unlawful carrying of a weapon and remained in custody Sunday.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_10292295?source=commented-politics

He said he had just picked up his rifles from the Sportsman's Warehouse and had them in a locked gun case when he checked in at the Grand Hyatt. The clerk checking him in noticed the rifle case and called security.

The general manager of the Grand Hyatt told 9News that Calanchini was not registered to stay at the hotel.

Now I'm confused .... was he checked in or wasnt he!?  This is BAD reporting, someone should've followed to find out if he was actually a guest.edit: Oops, he was being checked in, last line through me.



Warrior, it isn't illegal to carry firearms in locked cases.  They claimed it was "concealed" ... but locked in a case is not concealment.  If it is, anytime you BUY a firearm, you are illegally concealing it (unless you have a permit for a concealed weapon).  Calling a locked up weapon illegally concealed is (A) risky precedent; and (B) will be struck down in court in about three shakes of a stick.

[Camel]

Calling a locked up weapon illegally concealed is (A) risky precedent; and (B) will be struck down in court in about three shakes of a stick.

Around here, it's practically illegal to even talk about guns.

[CrAz3D]

Calling a locked up weapon illegally concealed is (A) risky precedent; and (B) will be struck down in court in about three shakes of a stick.

Around here, it's practically illegal to even talk about guns.

Are you in Canadia too?

[Blaze]

Calling a locked up weapon illegally concealed is (A) risky precedent; and (B) will be struck down in court in about three shakes of a stick.

Around here, it's practically illegal to even talk about guns.

Are you in Canadia too?

No.

[Camel]

Calling a locked up weapon illegally concealed is (A) risky precedent; and (B) will be struck down in court in about three shakes of a stick.

Around here, it's practically illegal to even talk about guns.

Are you in Canadia too?

Boston area.

[CrAz3D]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

[leet_muffin]

Yeah, I'm still fairly confused as to what law he was breaking.

[CrAz3D]

Hint:  none

[Camel]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

[iago]

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

I agree -- and it's workable, too, nobody here has guns/gets shot. It's all about the stabbing here.

[CrAz3D]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

That would mean NO one could have guns/bombs/knives/etc.  That is 100% impossible.

[Warrior]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

That would mean NO one could have guns/bombs/knives/etc.  That is 100% impossible.

I think they would not be so readily availible, plus I'd like to see a chart which shows something like "Number of murders prevented due to rednecks owning guns per year".

I don't really care if people own guns, I just hate conservative morons who cry when common sense restrictions are placed (Mental health checks, criminal background checks).

The problem with guns is that there is no purpose other than to kill, and it empowers a bunch of scrawny people and those same people who believe it is their god-given right to weild an instrument of death often become the killer themselves.

[leet_muffin]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

Nobody in California has assault rifles or assault weapons, yet many people are still killed by them here.

[CrAz3D]

Think about drugs.  Those are 100% illegal and we combat them outside our own borders, but they're still readily available here.

Guns can be for sport as well.  Further, self preservation is a basic human right.

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

Nobody in California has assault rifles or assault weapons, yet many people are still killed by them here.

I've read the restrictions for ARs in CA.  They SUCK

[leet_muffin]

Yeah, the NE does sorta suck at somethings

Aside from my roommate, I don't know a single person IRL who is in favor of guns being legal, including myself.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but c'mon - if no one has guns, than criminals and gangs won't either.

Nobody in California has assault rifles or assault weapons, yet many people are still killed by them here.

I've read the restrictions for ARs in CA.  They SUCK

Indeed. Especially 'cause that is my gun of choice, by far. And yet, I know three people in CA that own them illegally, who have never committed a violent crime in their lives. One has a thirty round magazine, bipod (he was in a construction accident, fell off a Cosco due to someone else's failure, and lost use of half his body), full auto/three round burst/single fire, and a 10 power scope. That gun is so unnecessarily powerful, lol.

If I were to be afraid of guns, I'd be much more afraid of that gun than any ak-47.

[CrAz3D]

What is it?  What does he have it chambered for?

I want to get a CMMG carbine.  MAYBE red dot & magnifier.

[Camel]

Think about drugs.  Those are 100% illegal and we combat them outside our own borders, but they're still readily available here.

Guns can be for sport as well.  Further, self preservation is a basic human right.

Drugs have this nasty habit of getting people hooked, thus establishing a necessity for common trade routes. Guns don't have the potential to build that kind of regular connection. Besides, my argument is totally irrefutable, as there's empirical evidence (Canada) to back it up. Your argument is, at best, faulty speculation.

[leet_muffin]

Think about drugs.  Those are 100% illegal and we combat them outside our own borders, but they're still readily available here.

Guns can be for sport as well.  Further, self preservation is a basic human right.

Drugs have this nasty habit of getting people hooked, thus establishing a necessity for common trade routes. Guns don't have the potential to build that kind of regular connection. Besides, my argument is totally irrefutable, as there's empirical evidence (Canada) to back it up. Your argument is, at best, faulty speculation.

Then if it's so easy to keep guns out of a certain area, maybe you should support a gun ban in your local government or state government.

Besides, your argument is at best faulty speculation, whereas there's empirical evidence that illegal guns still manage to find their way into California.

[iago]

Then if it's so easy to keep guns out of a certain area, maybe you should support a gun ban in your local government or state government.

Smuggling across state borders is WAY different than smuggling across federal borders (unless states have border guards? I haven't been through the US much, but I don't recall checkpoints between states)

[leet_muffin]

Well, I'm fairly sure that not every state wants to lose access to guns. Not to mention that in order to pass a federal law banning guns there would need to be an amendment passed both abolishing the 2nd amendment and banning guns. Good luck.

[iago]

You're pulling a CrAz3d argument, that something is ok because it's legal. I think the others in the thread are looking to dig a little deeper than that.

[leet_muffin]

I'm not saying it's purely okay because it's legal. The reason that amendment was created was in order to give the people power equal to the government, so that they could defend themselves against it/overthrow it. I just think that if you don't want guns in your area, don't make it so that others can't have guns in their area. If you want to make it federal law that guns are banned, at least make it so that certain states, where a majority wishes to have guns, can have guns.

If nobody wanted guns than every state could ban guns, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

[Camel]

Smuggling across state borders is WAY different than smuggling across federal borders (unless states have border guards? I haven't been through the US much, but I don't recall checkpoints between states)

Sometimes there's a toll booth, but never a checkpoint.

The reason that amendment was created was in order to give the people power equal to the government, so that they could defend themselves against it/overthrow it. I just think that if you don't want guns in your area, don't make it so that others can't have guns in their area. If you want to make it federal law that guns are banned, at least make it so that certain states, where a majority wishes to have guns, can have guns.

If nobody wanted guns than every state could ban guns, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

The amendment was to empower civilians to form militia in the event that the government were to get too powerful. This is not and has never been the case.

I don't wish to outlaw guns in my local area only; I think you completely missed my point. Whatever law the nation decides on should be universal - there is no need for state or local regulations. It wouldn't particularly bother me if guns were universally allowed (assuming reasonable restrictions were in place), but that's not how it works; communities of various size will establish laws of various enforceability, thus simply driving people to "shop" elsewhere and thereby nullifying the law.

[Falcon]

Back then it might have been possible to overthrow the government with force, but today it is pretty much impossible. Citizens might have guns, but the government has the army, the navy, and the air force. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, they are useless against tanks and all the other goodies the military has. Not to mention that if you even plan to stir up trouble in Washington, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA would be on your ass. Yea good luck with that. In my opinion that amendment is outdated.

[Joe]

For the record, I had no idea that the DNC or whatever it was was going on in Denver. (I hate using "was was"). In fact, I had no idea it was going on, period.

[Newby]

Back then it might have been possible to overthrow the government with force, but today it is pretty much impossible. Citizens might have guns, but the government has the army, the navy, and the air force. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, they are useless against tanks and all the other goodies the military has. Not to mention that if you even plan to stir up trouble in Washington, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA would be on your ass. Yea good luck with that. In my opinion that amendment is outdated.

The idea is that everyone rose up and rebelled. Say, Bush imposed martial law and canceled the elections and swore himself in as President even longer. That might cause a big enough uproar that the entire country rose up against him and his ways. There are how many millions of people here? And the military may total a million across the board...

[iago]

The idea is that everyone rose up and rebelled. Say, Bush imposed martial law and canceled the elections and swore himself in as President even longer. That might cause a big enough uproar that the entire country rose up against him and his ways. There are how many millions of people here? And the military may total a million across the board...

That's a great thought, but I doubt it'd happen. People are farrr to complacent.

[Falcon]

Back then it might have been possible to overthrow the government with force, but today it is pretty much impossible. Citizens might have guns, but the government has the army, the navy, and the air force. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, they are useless against tanks and all the other goodies the military has. Not to mention that if you even plan to stir up trouble in Washington, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA would be on your ass. Yea good luck with that. In my opinion that amendment is outdated.

The idea is that everyone rose up and rebelled. Say, Bush imposed martial law and canceled the elections and swore himself in as President even longer. That might cause a big enough uproar that the entire country rose up against him and his ways. There are how many millions of people here? And the military may total a million across the board...

Right, but then you'd have to take into account all the people who knows nothing or doesn't care for politics. Also, not everyone owns a gun. Also numbers don't really mean much, if the white house had tanks surrounding it would you dare try to get through? I sure as hell wouldnt. And iago is right, look at how controversial the Patriot Act was, yet it still got passed and nobody dared rebel over that. I guess my point is that most people are afraid of the federal government and just accept whatever it decides to do.

[leet_muffin]

In a republic form of government, the laws reflect the will of the people, so I guess that if around 67% of America agrees (In reality, I know that it's 67% of congress, and that doesn't necessarily reflect 67% of america) that guns should be banned, I'd be fine with that amendment being passed.

The main reason that I say this is that I'm a big supporter of states rights, and any power of this size that is given tot he federal government should be done on an amendment level, which is much more difficult than a bullshit executive decree.

[CrAz3D]

You're pulling a CrAz3d argument, that something is ok because it's legal. I think the others in the thread are looking to dig a little deeper than that.

I believe this thread's topic is that guns ARE legal, therefore this man was OK to have a gun.


A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

[iago]

I believe this thread's topic is that guns ARE legal, therefore this man was OK to have a gun.

That isn't what was being discussed, though.

[CrAz3D]

And I continued onto the off-topic topic...

[Sidoh]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

[CrAz3D]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

More restrictive laws FOR CRIMINAL ACTS involving guns, yes.  I support that.  Example: execute someone that commits a violent felony while armed with a firearm.  The answer is to punish the bad guys, NOT the good guys.

[Sidoh]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

More restrictive laws FOR CRIMINAL ACTS involving guns, yes.  I support that.  Example: execute someone that commits a violent felony while armed with a firearm.  The answer is to punish the bad guys, NOT the good guys.

I'm speaking exclusively of laws pertaining to the limitation of access to firearms.

[CrAz3D]

That would have to limit the initial possession of them (all out ban), which is virtually nearly impossible given the number in existence currently and the trafficking that would come from Mexico/Canada/etc.

Further, the murder rate WITH firearms in the UK has gone up since they banned handguns, hasnt it?  As with the DC handgun ban IIRC.

[Sidoh]

That would have to limit the initial possession of them (all out ban), which is virtually nearly impossible given the number in existence currently and the trafficking that would come from Mexico/Canada/etc.

Further, the murder rate WITH firearms in the UK has gone up since they banned handguns, hasnt it?

I'm not convinced a simple ban is the right solution, but I do think more restrictive laws would lower murder rates in the US.  It's obvious that the effect immediately after its implementation probably won't be desirable, but it's immediate results I'm concerned with.

I'm not sure.  I think I've heard that thrown around before, but even so, it's more important to look at the trend.  If it spiked when they were banned, but has started to decline, then the spike is somewhat irrelevant.  If it's spiked and plateaued, then it probably wasn't a good solution.

[CrAz3D]

More restrictive in terms of purchase?  Like WHO can purchase?

UK gun ban failure:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

(Ban was created in 1997)

DC ban failure:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp

during the almost 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Dchomicidechart.svg & http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Although, it does appear that the murder rate increased slowly until Clinton was elected, EXPLODED, and has now leveled off to 29 per 100k.