Plax goes to jail!!!!

[Shindig]

There's plenty of studies and a search tool called Google that exist. You can easily find this.

Yet, you're the one claiming it to exist. The burden is on you to demonstrate it, not on him to go find whatever was on your mind.

An easier method is this:

You're assuming that each added gun increases the possibility that someone will pull said gun. Grab a dictionary and look up

deterrent . Introducing one gun in the wrong hands (such as that of our friend Plax) is far worse than introducing plenty of guns in the right hands (law enforcement officers, for example). Maybe if you produced a link to one of the phantom studies, someone could believe you. Instead, you're trying a proof by obfuscation, and doing a pretty poor job of it.

Yes they happened in different states but it still doesn't stop the average person from wondering the lack of balance between 30 days for murder and 2 years for carrying a concealed weapon and doing harm to YOURSELF. I understand it's a state by state issue but just from an objective position it's hard to see balance with these two cases.

Well, people are starting to realize is that the driving case wasn't murder. I, for one, doubt it would have happened any differently if he was perfectly sober. A guy darts out in front of your car at night, wearing dark clothing, and does so when you're too close to swerve or stop, you're going to hit him.

In short, part of the problem goes beyond who did cause harm, and goes to who did things likely to cause harm. Both people did things that can be punished, even if they don't hurt someone. The issue is, how bad could someone be hurt, and how likely? One person drove impaired. This is pretty bad, and he was unlucky to get caught. But I believe he would have hit the guy, even if he had been sober, due to what I've been hearing about the case. The other person discharged a loaded firearm in a crowded room that was not built for the purpose. It's much less likely that this behavior wouldn't lead to someone getting hurt.

[zeg]

Yes they happened in different states but it still doesn't stop the average person from wondering the lack of balance between 30 days for murder and 2 years for carrying a concealed weapon and doing harm to YOURSELF. I understand it's a state by state issue but just from an objective position it's hard to see balance with these two cases.

Be careful throwing the word "murder" around. Not all instances of causing death are alike. Murder generally requires forethought and intent; I don't know of any cases of intentional killing getting 30 days.

Also, yeah, he injured himself. But he broke very clear laws, and endangered a lot of people who didn't get hurt by a mere "rub of the green." His recklessness could easily have killed another bystander, so it's IMO a lot worse than just shooting himself. He shot himself in a crowded nightclub. So anyway, if you just ignore all the details, then sure, 30 days and 2 years seem disproportionate. But you can't just ignore the details...

[Cussin hacker]

I'm no Plax fan. In fact he's just another in a long line of arogant A-hole's in sports. BUT 2 years!! Aren't there real criminals to arrest. No....lets let a child molester out to make room for Plax. Our judicial system is F'ed up!!!

[enduro]

Yet, you're the one claiming it to exist. The burden is on you to demonstrate it, not on him to go find whatever was on your mind.

I know it exists. I've read many studies. I know how to use the Internet. It isn't my job to produce this data for lazies on the Internet. Bring me reliable data that says that guns make people safer. That's called a counterargument. You can do that.

Maybe if you produced a link to one of the phantom studies, someone could believe you. Instead, you're trying a proof by obfuscation, and doing a pretty poor job of it.

Honestly, I don't much respect the intellectualism of most here so wasting time proving things is quite tedious, especially when they can just as easily prove the opposite if what I say is untrue. If you think I was using obfuscation there, then perhaps simple algebraic expressions were never your thing. It was stated elementary logic using the premise of 0 < 1, assuming even the feeblest of minds would agree to this. This meaning that the possibilities of being shot are 0 when 0 guns exist and that any sum of guns > 0 increases the chances of a gun being shot, simply because it exists and is > 0. How is this confusing? I was trying to keep it simple.

[iacas]

Gun laws should be insanely strict because people die when things like this happen.

People die when they run 3000 pounds of metal into another 3000 pounds of metal at 60 MPH (or 100+ if it's head-on) too.

But carrying weapons around publicly isn't guaranteed under any amendment.

Perhaps not. But perhaps it is, too.

And I find it unnecessary for guns to be carried around in public, in public places.

That's your opinion.

I rarely pay attention to the news anymore, and haven't for some time, but I recall a guy who stormed into a church and was going to shoot up a ton of people until one other armed citizen shot him, saving the lives of 5, 10, maybe even 20 people. I remember a group of people who went to some public areas (maybe even religious areas) near Israel and had thousands of bullets and were going to shoot everyone they saw. Five or six guys, IIRC. They were taken down by citizens with guns incredibly quickly (I don't remember whether they killed anyone - probably did, but they didn't kill hundreds like they otherwise would have).

The statistical data proves that introducing guns into public, even by responsible people, only greatly increases the risk of someone being shot.

And now we get to the crux of your argument - a statement that _I_ believe is patently false.

Even Michael Moore's lame gun documentary proves this statement wrong: Canada has higher gun ownership rates than the U.S. He made this point in a segment filmed in Detroit and the Canadian city right across the river from it, I believe. I've read the statistics from criminologists and sociologists, and in virtually every one I've read, guns in the hands of civilians reduce violent crime. I say "virtually every one" because the ones that didn't were inconclusive. Not a single one has ever said "more guns = more crime."

There's plenty of studies and a search tool called Google that exist. You can easily find this.

You brought it up. You cite the source(s) you claim exist. If you want to "win" the battle, the onus is on you to produce the evidence.

And your "easier method" is complete and utter garbage.

Bring me reliable data that says that guns make people safer.

I recommend the same book, the "beginner's guide to understanding that violent crimes are an economic issue, not a gun issue." That book is "Armed" by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates. They (or one of 'em anyway) are criminologists/sociologists who start off actually not liking guns at all, but then come to realize that

Two phrases spring to mind: "An armed society is a polite society." and "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." I have two handguns: a 9mm and a .22. The .22 is locked in a case in a closet. The 9mm is bedside, locked, and will be used if ever the time comes when some asshat wants to break into my house to steal, rape, or otherwise harm me or my property. I don't carry my gun in public - heck, I keep the ammo in a completely separate locked case when traveling to the range - but I don't have a problem with anyone who legally does carry. If I should ever find myself in the unfortunate position of being mugged or carjacked or whatever, perhaps someone who's carrying will be nearby to assist me.

Honestly, I don't much respect the intellectualism of most here so wasting time proving things is quite tedious, especially when they can just as easily prove the opposite if what I say is untrue.

Enough with the name-calling. You've made stuff up, people are calling you on it, and you retort by calling them "lazies" who lack "intellectualism."

Oh, and you used "intellectualism" incorrectly. I believe you meant to say "intellect" or even "intelligence." To borrow your phrase, look it up.

This meaning that the possibilities of being shot are 0 when 0 guns exist and that any sum of guns > 0 increases the chances of a gun being shot, simply because it exists and is > 0. How is this confusing? I was trying to keep it simple.

Uhm, when you figure out a way to eliminate every gun in the world - including those in the possession of people who don't care what the law says - then your math might start to apply.

Until then, shut it.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Yes they happened in different states but it still doesn't stop the average person from wondering the lack of balance between 30 days for murder and 2 years for carrying a concealed weapon and doing harm to YOURSELF. I understand it's a state by state issue but just from an objective position it's hard to see balance with these two cases.

I completely think that Stallworth should have gone to jail for longer, but since the crimes happened in different states, I think it's tough to compare to two crimes. If Stallworth pulled that in NJ, he'd be in jail for a while. Just driving drunk can result in 30 days in jail. Plax (like Stallworth) endangered others with the gun. How hard would it have been for him to make a mistake and hit one of the other hundred people he was near?

It's also an argument for why Plax should serve less than 2 years just as much an argument for Stallworth to serve more than 30 days.

I know it exists. I've read many studies. I know how to use the Internet. It isn't my job to produce this data for lazies on the Internet. Bring me reliable data that says that guns make people safer. That's called a counterargument. You can do that.

You brought up a point. Someone asked you to prove it. If

you can't prove it, no one else should have to. It's your responsibility.

[kris]

Be careful throwing the word "murder" around. Not all instances of causing death are alike. Murder generally requires forethought and intent; I don't know of any cases of intentional killing getting 30 days.

I'm sorry, he was charged with manslaughter, not murder.

[Rob]

Plax is an a#@%hole,Vick`s an a@#$%%,Stallworth`s a boo-boo hole.I`m about ready to quit watching pro football and basketball-too many felons,drug abuse,tattoo`s,ect.I`d rather watch the LPGA,especially if they play like they did last weekend!!

[whetstone]

Here's some light reading to keep you occupied during your timeout...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page;=1 http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue;=007 http://apps.carryconcealed.net/news/...ml?pagenum=58& You'll find links to the reference material at the bottom of the articles.

I know it exists. I've read many studies. I know how to use the Internet. It isn't my job to produce this data for lazies on the Internet. Bring me reliable data that says that guns make people safer. That's called a counterargument. You can do that.

[Mitch C]

In my mind, there is no doubt that Plaxico Burress was treated unfairly because of his celebrity status. Had he been just another Joe Blow off the street with an absolutely clean criminal record as Burress' was and excellently employed as Burress was, then I have some question as to whether he would have even been prosecuted. It is quite possible that it would have been concluded that he was a dumbass and that shooting himself was penalty enough. If he had been prosecuted, I'm quite confident that it would have been a probation case if his name hadn't been Plaxico Burress and his arrest subject of so much publicity.

Another thing I find troubling is the attitude of the NFL. Burress and that guy who got caught with the all the guns in Chicago are being treated as criminals and have had their names tarnished. And, admittedly, they broke the law in their respective cities. However, in 75% of the cities in the NFL, what they did would not have been a crime. Where I live, any house you go to is going to have more firearms than that Tank guy did in Chicago and carrying a firearm in public is almost expected.

[zeg]

Another thing I find troubling is the attitude of the NFL. Burress and that guy who got caught with the all the guns in Chicago are being treated as criminals and have had their names tarnished. And, admittedly, they broke the law in their respective cities. However, in 75% of the cities in the NFL, what they did would not have been a crime. Where I live, any house you go to is going to have more firearms than that Tank guy did in Chicago and carrying a firearm in public is almost expected.

Maybe so, but the law is the law. I think it's fair for obeying the law to be a standard to which the NFL holds its players. Last I checked, breaking the law is what makes you a criminal so I don't see the problem.

If you want to own/carry firearms, that's fine. Go somewhere that the laws permit it...

[iacas]

However, in 75% of the cities in the NFL, what they did would not have been a crime.

I'm pretty certain that shooting someone or even firing a gun in an unsafe manner (or even within city limits, or within 50 yards of a street or 100 yards of a home or some such distances) is pretty much illegal EVERYWHERE.

It's not like he was busted just for carrying the gun. A bullet was fired.

[Mitch C]

I'm pretty certain that shooting someone or even firing a gun in an unsafe manner (or even within city limits, or within 50 yards of a street or 100 yards of a home or some such distances) is pretty much illegal EVERYWHERE.

Negligent discharge of a firearm or discharge of a firearm within a city limits is never a felony unless someone is killed, then depending upon the degree of negligence, it could be negligent homocide.

Basically, he is being sent to jail for two (2) years for something that would be a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions in the NFL. And really I'm not arguing the unjustness of it all. It was the law in New York and he was responsible for knowing the law there. I just find the moralizing of all the talking heads and the NFL tiresome. If it had happened in Texas, it would be a non-story.

[iacas]

Negligent discharge of a firearm or discharge of a firearm within a city limits is never a felony unless someone is killed, then depending upon the degree of negligence, it could be negligent homocide.

You said it wouldn't be a "crime." It's against the law, and thus, a crime.

If you want to make a better argument next time, nobody's stopping you. But you don't get to revise history. It's right up there in black and white.

Basically, he is being sent to jail for two (2) years for something that would be a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions in the NFL.

Pretty sure that's not even right, but I don't really care to look it up. Misdemeanors are still "crimes."

If it had happened in Texas, it would be a non-story.

I don't know that I'd go that far. But there's likely some truth in there.

[Bug Bunny]

A celebrity gets off and everyone complains that he got off cause he's a celebrity. One goes to jail and he goes cause he's a celebrity? Here's the deal, the crime he broke carries a MANDATORY 3.5 year prison sentence so the argument that he went to jail cause he was who he was is null and void. He broke the law and that law carries a 3.5 year prison sentence. He got like 20 months so he got a lil leniency. All in all, not a bad deal for him. And the argument that it would not have been crime is null and void as well cause he wasn't somewhere else, he was in NYC!!!!!

[Cussin hacker]

Statistics are useless. Both sides of most any argument can find statistics showing their right. People from both sides of an issue make statistics that show their point of veiw.

[zeg]

Lies, damn lies, statistics, ..., and golf handicaps

[timtim]

The one study that is most often cited is:

Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60 1986, page 1560.

Google for [gun in the home 43 times more likely] to find articles about this study.