- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: Source of patriachs article
The Mission of Freedom Alliance
is to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense. american freedom alliance
not right wing at all are they? wouldnt have any vested interest in making tight gun control look bad would they?
and the article was written by "Jon E. Dougherty" its John Doe!
*sigh*
Written by: article
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
only a person who knows that everyone reading their article wont know about the melbourne gangwars would be so cheeky to use that as evidence.
for some time now there has been a running gang war where about 30 senior members of gangs have been shot dead, no civillians have been hurt, only hardcore criminals specifically targeting other hardcore criminals. yet they make it sound like there is utter chaos
Written by: american right movement
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
This is misleading, i know for a fact a friend that owns a .22 legally, so that simplification in the article is plain wrong. amd as for shotguns, pumpaction, handgun grip and automatics were banned. but shotguns that are not desigined for use against humans, such as single and double barrel, are still availible.
i'd like to take the time to point out that this and this are linked only two windows away from that article
now perhaps you would like to take a look at a Peace Movements views on the australian gun laws, and they even reference their facts!
! maybe i'll just point out a few that i found interesting.
keep in mind most references in the Peace Movements artilce were written in 1999, with the rightwing article was written only a year later in 2000.
Written by: Peace movement
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Written by: american right movement
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
now i dont know about you, but i prefer the one that references the Australian Institute of Criminology
Written by: Peace Movement
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Written by: American Right Movement
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
simplyfy facts to give a misleading notion anyone?
but my favourite, and probably the most relevant to the gun issue is ;
Written by: Peace Movement
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
end quotes and end of story.
The Mission of Freedom Alliance
is to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense. american freedom alliance
not right wing at all are they? wouldnt have any vested interest in making tight gun control look bad would they?and the article was written by "Jon E. Dougherty"
its John Doe!*sigh*
Written by: article
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
only a person who knows that everyone reading their article wont know about the melbourne gangwars would be so cheeky to use that as evidence.
for some time now there has been a running gang war where about 30 senior members of gangs have been shot dead, no civillians have been hurt, only hardcore criminals specifically targeting other hardcore criminals. yet they make it sound like there is utter chaos
Written by: american right movement
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
This is misleading, i know for a fact a friend that owns a .22 legally, so that simplification in the article is plain wrong. amd as for shotguns, pumpaction, handgun grip and automatics were banned. but shotguns that are not desigined for use against humans, such as single and double barrel, are still availible.
i'd like to take the time to point out that this and this are linked only two windows away from that article
now perhaps you would like to take a look at a Peace Movements views on the australian gun laws, and they even reference their facts!
! maybe i'll just point out a few that i found interesting.keep in mind most references in the Peace Movements artilce were written in 1999, with the rightwing article was written only a year later in 2000.
Written by: Peace movement
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Written by: american right movement
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
now i dont know about you, but i prefer the one that references the Australian Institute of Criminology
Written by: Peace Movement
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Written by: American Right Movement
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
simplyfy facts to give a misleading notion anyone?
but my favourite, and probably the most relevant to the gun issue is ;
Written by: Peace Movement
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
end quotes and end of story.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: american right movement
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
just to back up what i already said about this statement. Today (Thursday, August 24, 2006) there was an article in the local paper "The Mercury", here are some quotes from it.
Written by: The Mercury
Police are warning of the dangers of firearms after a Lindisfarne Great-great-grandfather accidentally shot himself in the face while hunting Kangaroos.
Noel Englefield Kingston died on Tuesday night while spotlighting with a friend aged in his 40s on the younger mans property near Stonor, Oatlands.
......The LICENSED weapon-a .22 magnum-belonged to Mr Kingston. Police said the saftey catch was off at the time Mr Kingston was shot.
as you can see plainly in this article, .22 rifles have not been banned as Patriarchs article suggets.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
just to back up what i already said about this statement. Today (Thursday, August 24, 2006) there was an article in the local paper "The Mercury", here are some quotes from it.
Written by: The Mercury
Police are warning of the dangers of firearms after a Lindisfarne Great-great-grandfather accidentally shot himself in the face while hunting Kangaroos.
Noel Englefield Kingston died on Tuesday night while spotlighting with a friend aged in his 40s on the younger mans property near Stonor, Oatlands.
......The LICENSED weapon-a .22 magnum-belonged to Mr Kingston. Police said the saftey catch was off at the time Mr Kingston was shot.
as you can see plainly in this article, .22 rifles have not been banned as Patriarchs article suggets.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...
Total posts: 7330
Posted:that's cleared that up then!
thanks for posting the actual facts mr majestik
cole. x
thanks for posting the actual facts mr majestik
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted:damn, now everyones left it alone. arg i want more arguements to shoot down, i'm bored! 
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:You can take a few shots at this one if you like
The banned .22s that were mentioned just might be assault style weapons or maybe even semi-automatics.
The banned .22s that were mentioned just might be assault style weapons or maybe even semi-automatics.
Delete
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: stout
You can take a few shots at this one if you like
The banned .22s that were mentioned just might be assault style weapons or maybe even semi-automatics.
perhaps, but the article said that weapons that were NOT assult style were banned. semi automatic is imho assult style. if you're hunting you should only need one shot to take down an animal. i think i'll rebuke the article Coleman wrote about england showing some dodge writing first if you dont mind
it can be seen here.
Written by: article
In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
ok for a start its just propaganda to use VIOLENT crime statisitics in relation to the gun laws, as many of the violent crimes committed may not have had guns involved.
Written by:
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent.
crime is crime, it always has existed, Violent, Robbery and Murder crimes does not suggest an increase in the use of firearms, this is just fear mongering.
Written by: article
Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.
yes, but the article doesnt care to say WHAT that crime rate is, i'll bet they dont because its still higher than the UK's.
Written by: article
Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.
yes yes, but again they're only talking about Violent crimes, its possible that in states where right to carry laws are more resticted there is less gun related crimes.(although with the ease at which you can cross state boarders, probably with firearms, it seems limiting right to carry laws is like putting a band aid on a wound from a hollow point bullet)
on a side note, i love it how all the articles, posted seperately by Patriarch, Coleman and stout, all talk about TWO countries gun laws (england/us, australia/us, england/us, and Commonwealth countries/US). now is it just me or does it seem to be that the more different countries gun laws you talk about in the one article the more variables and innacuracise you can throw in because its likely the readers will not have intimate knowledge of gun laws and crime statistics for countries other than their own? Thus you can use propganda as fact and people who dont have time to do their own through research on other countries laws will simply have to believe or accept they cant have a valid opinion because they dont know enough. pretty sneaky aye?
You can take a few shots at this one if you like
The banned .22s that were mentioned just might be assault style weapons or maybe even semi-automatics.
perhaps, but the article said that weapons that were NOT assult style were banned. semi automatic is imho assult style. if you're hunting you should only need one shot to take down an animal. i think i'll rebuke the article Coleman wrote about england showing some dodge writing first if you dont mind
it can be seen here.
Written by: article
In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
ok for a start its just propaganda to use VIOLENT crime statisitics in relation to the gun laws, as many of the violent crimes committed may not have had guns involved.
Written by:
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent.
crime is crime, it always has existed, Violent, Robbery and Murder crimes does not suggest an increase in the use of firearms, this is just fear mongering.
Written by: article
Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.
yes, but the article doesnt care to say WHAT that crime rate is, i'll bet they dont because its still higher than the UK's.
Written by: article
Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.
yes yes, but again they're only talking about Violent crimes, its possible that in states where right to carry laws are more resticted there is less gun related crimes.(although with the ease at which you can cross state boarders, probably with firearms, it seems limiting right to carry laws is like putting a band aid on a wound from a hollow point bullet)
on a side note, i love it how all the articles, posted seperately by Patriarch, Coleman and stout, all talk about TWO countries gun laws (england/us, australia/us, england/us, and Commonwealth countries/US). now is it just me or does it seem to be that the more different countries gun laws you talk about in the one article the more variables and innacuracise you can throw in because its likely the readers will not have intimate knowledge of gun laws and crime statistics for countries other than their own? Thus you can use propganda as fact and people who dont have time to do their own through research on other countries laws will simply have to believe or accept they cant have a valid opinion because they dont know enough. pretty sneaky aye?
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Ya kow whenever you take away the guns - gun lovers will scream because they loose their toys.
But enabling those people to "just use it whenever on whomever" [/polemic statement] is just way over the edge...
Crime rates do NOT skyrocket, because you BAN guns.
IMHO this law will cause more innocent deaths - how can you take that? How can you live in a country that promotes self-justice with deadly armoury?
Just asking...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1156578652)
But enabling those people to "just use it whenever on whomever" [/polemic statement] is just way over the edge...
Crime rates do NOT skyrocket, because you BAN guns.
IMHO this law will cause more innocent deaths - how can you take that? How can you live in a country that promotes self-justice with deadly armoury?
Just asking...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1156578652)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:And suddenly I am reminded of a quote by Larry the Cable Guy...
"Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming bad spelling on my pencil."
The only way we are going to solve this, and keep guns (btw...I disagree with handguns, but fully am in support of shotguns) is if we get rid of the people. Obviously that is not an option.
We can make laws until we're blue in the face.
Guns will be ever-present, legally or not. It reminds me of this quote "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them."
....It just feels like this conversation is circling round itself.
All populated areas have crime issues. Some deny it. Some have capital punishments to control it.
And actually, I did have a friend who moved states partially because he didn't like the state gov't that he was in. It is a viable statement. It's the joy of being human in this large world...we're fairly portable with alot of options.
"Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming bad spelling on my pencil."
The only way we are going to solve this, and keep guns (btw...I disagree with handguns, but fully am in support of shotguns) is if we get rid of the people. Obviously that is not an option.
We can make laws until we're blue in the face.
Guns will be ever-present, legally or not. It reminds me of this quote "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them."
....It just feels like this conversation is circling round itself.
All populated areas have crime issues. Some deny it. Some have capital punishments to control it.
And actually, I did have a friend who moved states partially because he didn't like the state gov't that he was in. It is a viable statement. It's the joy of being human in this large world...we're fairly portable with alot of options.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Mr. Majestic, you wish us not to look at how overall crime goes up when guns are banned. Instead, you wish us to use only crimes in which a gun is used.
It is good for us that you have brought up this idea in the context of this thread, because the error can easilly be seen. It is fair to look at crimes in which a gun is not used, whether that be rape, home invasion, assault, etc., because one hypothesis is that taking away the guns of citizens will result in these crime rates going up.
If a criminal is in a country like Switzerland, where he knows that every house is likely to have a gun in it, they are very unlikely to choose home invasion as their project for that night. Likewise, muggers and rapists would prefer to be in a city which does not allow citizens to go armed.
Thus, it is fair to note that when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, certain types of crimes will go up, even if the criminal doesn't use a gun.
@Firetom
You said that the right to bear arms in Switzerland comes from national defense concerns, while in America it comes from personal self defense concerns. This is incorrect. Read the Second Amendment to the American constitution, and you will find that the right to bear arms in America comes from concern over national defense.
You said that "crime rates do NOT skyrocket because you BAN guns." Since we know that crime rates have skyrocketted when countries have banned guns, I must assume that you think that this was a coincidence.
Even assuming what you say is true, you must also admit that we cannot say that crime will go down if we ban guns.
If crime will not go down in response to banning guns, then I can see no reason why we should ban them. Our country is founded on the idea that our liberty will not be taken away without due process. If we cannot find a good reason to take guns away from people, then we should let the individuals decide whether they want to go armed or now.
It is good for us that you have brought up this idea in the context of this thread, because the error can easilly be seen. It is fair to look at crimes in which a gun is not used, whether that be rape, home invasion, assault, etc., because one hypothesis is that taking away the guns of citizens will result in these crime rates going up.
If a criminal is in a country like Switzerland, where he knows that every house is likely to have a gun in it, they are very unlikely to choose home invasion as their project for that night. Likewise, muggers and rapists would prefer to be in a city which does not allow citizens to go armed.
Thus, it is fair to note that when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, certain types of crimes will go up, even if the criminal doesn't use a gun.
@Firetom
You said that the right to bear arms in Switzerland comes from national defense concerns, while in America it comes from personal self defense concerns. This is incorrect. Read the Second Amendment to the American constitution, and you will find that the right to bear arms in America comes from concern over national defense.
You said that "crime rates do NOT skyrocket because you BAN guns." Since we know that crime rates have skyrocketted when countries have banned guns, I must assume that you think that this was a coincidence.
Even assuming what you say is true, you must also admit that we cannot say that crime will go down if we ban guns.
If crime will not go down in response to banning guns, then I can see no reason why we should ban them. Our country is founded on the idea that our liberty will not be taken away without due process. If we cannot find a good reason to take guns away from people, then we should let the individuals decide whether they want to go armed or now.
Delete
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
Mr. Majestic, you wish us not to look at how overall crime goes up when guns are banned. Instead, you wish us to use only crimes in which a gun is used.
It is good for us that you have brought up this idea in the context of this thread, because the error can easilly be seen. It is fair to look at crimes in which a gun is not used, whether that be rape, home invasion, assault, etc., because one hypothesis is that taking away the guns of citizens will result in these crime rates going up.
If a criminal is in a country like Switzerland, where he knows that every house is likely to have a gun in it, they are very unlikely to choose home invasion as their project for that night. Likewise, muggers and rapists would prefer to be in a city which does not allow citizens to go armed.
Thus, it is fair to note that when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, certain types of crimes will go up, even if the criminal doesn't use a gun.
good point. i suppose in all honesty i just like the idea that if i'm out of reach of an attacker i'm out of harms way. i know this doesnt help a person who is cornered, but i think its to the benefit of everyone to be more focused on peace than violence, even when it is in self defense.
i'd also like to know what the crime rates generally are in the US as opposed to somehwere that has regulated many types of firearms. we all know that there are more gun related deaths in the US than anywhere else, but what about crimes such as rape, home invasion, assault, etc? are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around? or are they more likely just to use more firepower to commit them?
Mr. Majestic, you wish us not to look at how overall crime goes up when guns are banned. Instead, you wish us to use only crimes in which a gun is used.
It is good for us that you have brought up this idea in the context of this thread, because the error can easilly be seen. It is fair to look at crimes in which a gun is not used, whether that be rape, home invasion, assault, etc., because one hypothesis is that taking away the guns of citizens will result in these crime rates going up.
If a criminal is in a country like Switzerland, where he knows that every house is likely to have a gun in it, they are very unlikely to choose home invasion as their project for that night. Likewise, muggers and rapists would prefer to be in a city which does not allow citizens to go armed.
Thus, it is fair to note that when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, certain types of crimes will go up, even if the criminal doesn't use a gun.
good point. i suppose in all honesty i just like the idea that if i'm out of reach of an attacker i'm out of harms way. i know this doesnt help a person who is cornered, but i think its to the benefit of everyone to be more focused on peace than violence, even when it is in self defense.
i'd also like to know what the crime rates generally are in the US as opposed to somehwere that has regulated many types of firearms. we all know that there are more gun related deaths in the US than anywhere else, but what about crimes such as rape, home invasion, assault, etc? are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around? or are they more likely just to use more firepower to commit them?
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:I don't think the data you are asking for will answer the questions you are asking.
The data you seek is a comparison between the U.S. crime rates, and another country's crime rates.
You ask:
1. Are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around
2. Are people more likely to use guns to commit crimes.
Your "null hypothesis" (in other words, your starting assumption which the data will either prove or disprove) seems to be that if the gun laws of two countries are similar, their crime rates should also be similar. Thus, if we find a difference between the crime rates of the U.S. and England, we would be able to attribute that difference to the gun laws.
The null hypothesis is false. Back when America and England both legally allowed people to own guns, America still had a drastically higher crime rate than England. Countries with similar gun laws have not had similar crime rates. Other factors must have dominated.
Since England has started banning guns, it's crime rates have risen. Meanwhile, American crime rates have been dropping and are hitting all time lows. The gap between the crime rates of the countries is closing.
What could this mean? Gun freedom advocates love to point out that countries which have banned guns have drastically increased their crime rates. Gun control advocates like to point out that the U.S. crime rate is still higher.
What can we conclude? Frankly, I don't think guns have a whole lot to do with crime rates. Sure, a criminal might be deterred from burglary if he thinks that the homeowner might have a gun, but he can always burgle a store instead. I don't think that the U.S.'s declining crime rate is due much to it's gun laws.
Can the skyrocketting crime in countries which have banned guns really be attributed to disarming law abiding citizens? Perhaps a little, but I don't think it is enough to explain it. My guess is that England's crime rate would have risen whether or not guns were banned.
What's really to blame? Violence on TV? More culture migration? Drugs?
I really think that the biggest factor going on is that the world is "flattening." The difference in crime rate between countries like the US and UK is becoming more similar, despite differences in gun laws, because globalization is making our cultures and economies more similar. People do not commit crimes because guns are available in the corner market. Crime is a socio-economic enterprise. The right combination of morality and market forces will dictate whether a man chooses to go work at McDonalds, or go rob one. He may use a gun, but if that is not available he may use a knife, or a toy gun painted black.
The most authoritative looking report which compares the crime rates of the U.S. with other countries, and tries to interpret the data, is found here:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
br>
I browsed through most of it. They conclude that the biggest factor influencing crime rates is the rate at which we put criminals in jail, and how long we keep them there. They have the numbers to back it up. The only country which doesn't really fit that explanation is Switzerland. However, we know they are a bunch of nice, nuetral people who all own guns, so it is not suprising that their crime rates don't act like the rest of us.
If what I say is true: that gun laws have a minimal influence on crime rates compared to other factors, then we must return this debate to it's starting point: individual morality.
It is all good and well to try to measure the impact of laws collectively, but if we can't pin down the data to show a collective impact, then we needn't bother speculating about what a law will make "everyone" do. Rather, we can focus on individual liberty, security, and justice.
When the prostitute who shoots a man out of self defense goes on trial, she doesn't want to hear about how we think a law will influence crime rates as compared to other countries. She wants to know whether we will judge her individual actions to be right, or wrong, and what her punishment might be.
The data you seek is a comparison between the U.S. crime rates, and another country's crime rates.
You ask:
1. Are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around
2. Are people more likely to use guns to commit crimes.
Your "null hypothesis" (in other words, your starting assumption which the data will either prove or disprove) seems to be that if the gun laws of two countries are similar, their crime rates should also be similar. Thus, if we find a difference between the crime rates of the U.S. and England, we would be able to attribute that difference to the gun laws.
The null hypothesis is false. Back when America and England both legally allowed people to own guns, America still had a drastically higher crime rate than England. Countries with similar gun laws have not had similar crime rates. Other factors must have dominated.
Since England has started banning guns, it's crime rates have risen. Meanwhile, American crime rates have been dropping and are hitting all time lows. The gap between the crime rates of the countries is closing.
What could this mean? Gun freedom advocates love to point out that countries which have banned guns have drastically increased their crime rates. Gun control advocates like to point out that the U.S. crime rate is still higher.
What can we conclude? Frankly, I don't think guns have a whole lot to do with crime rates. Sure, a criminal might be deterred from burglary if he thinks that the homeowner might have a gun, but he can always burgle a store instead. I don't think that the U.S.'s declining crime rate is due much to it's gun laws.
Can the skyrocketting crime in countries which have banned guns really be attributed to disarming law abiding citizens? Perhaps a little, but I don't think it is enough to explain it. My guess is that England's crime rate would have risen whether or not guns were banned.
What's really to blame? Violence on TV? More culture migration? Drugs?
I really think that the biggest factor going on is that the world is "flattening." The difference in crime rate between countries like the US and UK is becoming more similar, despite differences in gun laws, because globalization is making our cultures and economies more similar. People do not commit crimes because guns are available in the corner market. Crime is a socio-economic enterprise. The right combination of morality and market forces will dictate whether a man chooses to go work at McDonalds, or go rob one. He may use a gun, but if that is not available he may use a knife, or a toy gun painted black.
The most authoritative looking report which compares the crime rates of the U.S. with other countries, and tries to interpret the data, is found here:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
br>
I browsed through most of it. They conclude that the biggest factor influencing crime rates is the rate at which we put criminals in jail, and how long we keep them there. They have the numbers to back it up. The only country which doesn't really fit that explanation is Switzerland. However, we know they are a bunch of nice, nuetral people who all own guns, so it is not suprising that their crime rates don't act like the rest of us.
If what I say is true: that gun laws have a minimal influence on crime rates compared to other factors, then we must return this debate to it's starting point: individual morality.
It is all good and well to try to measure the impact of laws collectively, but if we can't pin down the data to show a collective impact, then we needn't bother speculating about what a law will make "everyone" do. Rather, we can focus on individual liberty, security, and justice.
When the prostitute who shoots a man out of self defense goes on trial, she doesn't want to hear about how we think a law will influence crime rates as compared to other countries. She wants to know whether we will judge her individual actions to be right, or wrong, and what her punishment might be.
Delete
Posted:cudos patriarch, awsome posts, and thank you for attempting to bring rational and logical thought into the mix.
Before you spend countless hours beating your head against a wall....There is something you need to understand reguarding the style of thinking which many have around here. It has more to do with socialism and communism than anything else.
People who take responsibility for their own life (rather than letting the government do it for them) by deffinition reduce the importance of the "state" which is the opposite of socialist thinking. It is the job of police to stop crimes... not the lowly subjects (which is great when you live next door to a police station).
And and many of these people are the same ones who applaud when a rape victim goes to jail for picking up a rock during the commition of the crime and braining the offender. after-all... was the rapist REALLY intending on cuming inside? or was he intending on pulling out just before the completion of the dirty deed? OR is it not even the rapist's fault, was it society that drove him to commit this vile deed, and the rapist is in fact the innocent victim?
Before you spend countless hours beating your head against a wall....There is something you need to understand reguarding the style of thinking which many have around here. It has more to do with socialism and communism than anything else.
People who take responsibility for their own life (rather than letting the government do it for them) by deffinition reduce the importance of the "state" which is the opposite of socialist thinking. It is the job of police to stop crimes... not the lowly subjects (which is great when you live next door to a police station).
And and many of these people are the same ones who applaud when a rape victim goes to jail for picking up a rock during the commition of the crime and braining the offender. after-all... was the rapist REALLY intending on cuming inside? or was he intending on pulling out just before the completion of the dirty deed? OR is it not even the rapist's fault, was it society that drove him to commit this vile deed, and the rapist is in fact the innocent victim?
we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!
DeletePosted:Nice one(ce again), patriarch So maybe gun laws don't have such deep impact on the rise and fall of crime rates...
But wouldn't that mean the US public is pro "collateral damage"?
IMHO the question indeed is a moral one: What values do we promote?
So maybe gun laws don't have such deep impact on the rise and fall of crime rates... But wouldn't that mean the US public is pro "collateral damage"?
IMHO the question indeed is a moral one: What values do we promote?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
I don't think the data you are asking for will answer the questions you are asking.
The data you seek is a comparison between the U.S. crime rates, and another country's crime rates.
You ask:
1. Are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around
2. Are people more likely to use guns to commit crimes.
Your "null hypothesis" (in other words, your starting assumption which the data will either prove or disprove) seems to be that if the gun laws of two countries are similar, their crime rates should also be similar. Thus, if we find a difference between the crime rates of the U.S. and England, we would be able to attribute that difference to the gun laws.
The null hypothesis is false. Back when America and England both legally allowed people to own guns, America still had a drastically higher crime rate than England. Countries with similar gun laws have not had similar crime rates. Other factors must have dominated.
Since England has started banning guns, it's crime rates have risen. Meanwhile, American crime rates have been dropping and are hitting all time lows. The gap between the crime rates of the countries is closing.
What could this mean? Gun freedom advocates love to point out that countries which have banned guns have drastically increased their crime rates. Gun control advocates like to point out that the U.S. crime rate is still higher.
What can we conclude? Frankly, I don't think guns have a whole lot to do with crime rates. Sure, a criminal might be deterred from burglary if he thinks that the homeowner might have a gun, but he can always burgle a store instead. I don't think that the U.S.'s declining crime rate is due much to it's gun laws.
Can the skyrocketting crime in countries which have banned guns really be attributed to disarming law abiding citizens? Perhaps a little, but I don't think it is enough to explain it. My guess is that England's crime rate would have risen whether or not guns were banned.
What's really to blame? Violence on TV? More culture migration? Drugs?
I really think that the biggest factor going on is that the world is "flattening." The difference in crime rate between countries like the US and UK is becoming more similar, despite differences in gun laws, because globalization is making our cultures and economies more similar. People do not commit crimes because guns are available in the corner market. Crime is a socio-economic enterprise. The right combination of morality and market forces will dictate whether a man chooses to go work at McDonalds, or go rob one. He may use a gun, but if that is not available he may use a knife, or a toy gun painted black.
The most authoritative looking report which compares the crime rates of the U.S. with other countries, and tries to interpret the data, is found here:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
br>
I browsed through most of it. They conclude that the biggest factor influencing crime rates is the rate at which we put criminals in jail, and how long we keep them there. They have the numbers to back it up. The only country which doesn't really fit that explanation is Switzerland. However, we know they are a bunch of nice, nuetral people who all own guns, so it is not suprising that their crime rates don't act like the rest of us.
If what I say is true: that gun laws have a minimal influence on crime rates compared to other factors, then we must return this debate to it's starting point: individual morality.
It is all good and well to try to measure the impact of laws collectively, but if we can't pin down the data to show a collective impact, then we needn't bother speculating about what a law will make "everyone" do. Rather, we can focus on individual liberty, security, and justice.
When the prostitute who shoots a man out of self defense goes on trial, she doesn't want to hear about how we think a law will influence crime rates as compared to other countries. She wants to know whether we will judge her individual actions to be right, or wrong, and what her punishment might be.
so basically you're saying to look at the sociology of it all? i believe throughout i have been saying here and there that crime has always existed and guns are but a tool used in that endless endeavour.
i believe i've been saying (or i've meant to) is that a knife, to the general public, is much less dangerous than an automatic rifle. a knife has many practical applications and as such may be considered a neccessity to most people despite its dangers. i dont beleive the same can be said about an automatic rifle.
(there be my morals talkin)
Written by: Dj Dantana
cudos patriarch, awsome posts, and thank you for attempting to bring rational and logical thought into the mix.
Before you spend countless hours beating your head against a wall....There is something you need to understand reguarding the style of thinking which many have around here. It has more to do with socialism and communism than anything else.
People who take responsibility for their own life (rather than letting the government do it for them) by deffinition reduce the importance of the "state" which is the opposite of socialist thinking. It is the job of police to stop crimes... not the lowly subjects (which is great when you live next door to a police station).
isnt that how society is meant to work? police are meant to stop crimes yes. but if anyone can help stop a crime theres nothing wrong with that, unless they're going gungho vigilante with a firearm putting more people in danger. i think generally yes, if a person is after money and a place is insured why risk anyones life? including the vigilante? matching firepower with firepower is only making the whole situation more dangerous for everyone.
Written by: Dj Dantana
And and many of these people are the same ones who applaud when a rape victim goes to jail for picking up a rock during the commition of the crime and braining the offender. after-all... was the rapist REALLY intending on cuming inside? or was he intending on pulling out just before the completion of the dirty deed? OR is it not even the rapist's fault, was it society that drove him to commit this vile deed, and the rapist is in fact the innocent victim?
.........i'm not sure whether to hope that this is meant to be somehow sarcastic or to vomit out my nose in disgust. i dont think you'll find many people here at all who would think like that, as a matter of fact i find what you've written more offensive than i can portray without hurling abuse at you for grouping so many people here like you just have.
rape is disgusting and for you to say people here would support a rapist who was stopped by their victim is down right disturbing.
I don't think the data you are asking for will answer the questions you are asking.
The data you seek is a comparison between the U.S. crime rates, and another country's crime rates.
You ask:
1. Are people less likely to commit these crimes because there are so many guns around
2. Are people more likely to use guns to commit crimes.
Your "null hypothesis" (in other words, your starting assumption which the data will either prove or disprove) seems to be that if the gun laws of two countries are similar, their crime rates should also be similar. Thus, if we find a difference between the crime rates of the U.S. and England, we would be able to attribute that difference to the gun laws.
The null hypothesis is false. Back when America and England both legally allowed people to own guns, America still had a drastically higher crime rate than England. Countries with similar gun laws have not had similar crime rates. Other factors must have dominated.
Since England has started banning guns, it's crime rates have risen. Meanwhile, American crime rates have been dropping and are hitting all time lows. The gap between the crime rates of the countries is closing.
What could this mean? Gun freedom advocates love to point out that countries which have banned guns have drastically increased their crime rates. Gun control advocates like to point out that the U.S. crime rate is still higher.
What can we conclude? Frankly, I don't think guns have a whole lot to do with crime rates. Sure, a criminal might be deterred from burglary if he thinks that the homeowner might have a gun, but he can always burgle a store instead. I don't think that the U.S.'s declining crime rate is due much to it's gun laws.
Can the skyrocketting crime in countries which have banned guns really be attributed to disarming law abiding citizens? Perhaps a little, but I don't think it is enough to explain it. My guess is that England's crime rate would have risen whether or not guns were banned.
What's really to blame? Violence on TV? More culture migration? Drugs?
I really think that the biggest factor going on is that the world is "flattening." The difference in crime rate between countries like the US and UK is becoming more similar, despite differences in gun laws, because globalization is making our cultures and economies more similar. People do not commit crimes because guns are available in the corner market. Crime is a socio-economic enterprise. The right combination of morality and market forces will dictate whether a man chooses to go work at McDonalds, or go rob one. He may use a gun, but if that is not available he may use a knife, or a toy gun painted black.
The most authoritative looking report which compares the crime rates of the U.S. with other countries, and tries to interpret the data, is found here:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
br>
I browsed through most of it. They conclude that the biggest factor influencing crime rates is the rate at which we put criminals in jail, and how long we keep them there. They have the numbers to back it up. The only country which doesn't really fit that explanation is Switzerland. However, we know they are a bunch of nice, nuetral people who all own guns, so it is not suprising that their crime rates don't act like the rest of us.
If what I say is true: that gun laws have a minimal influence on crime rates compared to other factors, then we must return this debate to it's starting point: individual morality.
It is all good and well to try to measure the impact of laws collectively, but if we can't pin down the data to show a collective impact, then we needn't bother speculating about what a law will make "everyone" do. Rather, we can focus on individual liberty, security, and justice.
When the prostitute who shoots a man out of self defense goes on trial, she doesn't want to hear about how we think a law will influence crime rates as compared to other countries. She wants to know whether we will judge her individual actions to be right, or wrong, and what her punishment might be.
so basically you're saying to look at the sociology of it all? i believe throughout i have been saying here and there that crime has always existed and guns are but a tool used in that endless endeavour.
i believe i've been saying (or i've meant to) is that a knife, to the general public, is much less dangerous than an automatic rifle. a knife has many practical applications and as such may be considered a neccessity to most people despite its dangers. i dont beleive the same can be said about an automatic rifle.
(there be my morals talkin)
Written by: Dj Dantana
cudos patriarch, awsome posts, and thank you for attempting to bring rational and logical thought into the mix.
Before you spend countless hours beating your head against a wall....There is something you need to understand reguarding the style of thinking which many have around here. It has more to do with socialism and communism than anything else.
People who take responsibility for their own life (rather than letting the government do it for them) by deffinition reduce the importance of the "state" which is the opposite of socialist thinking. It is the job of police to stop crimes... not the lowly subjects (which is great when you live next door to a police station).
isnt that how society is meant to work? police are meant to stop crimes yes. but if anyone can help stop a crime theres nothing wrong with that, unless they're going gungho vigilante with a firearm putting more people in danger. i think generally yes, if a person is after money and a place is insured why risk anyones life? including the vigilante? matching firepower with firepower is only making the whole situation more dangerous for everyone.
Written by: Dj Dantana
And and many of these people are the same ones who applaud when a rape victim goes to jail for picking up a rock during the commition of the crime and braining the offender. after-all... was the rapist REALLY intending on cuming inside? or was he intending on pulling out just before the completion of the dirty deed? OR is it not even the rapist's fault, was it society that drove him to commit this vile deed, and the rapist is in fact the innocent victim?
.........i'm not sure whether to hope that this is meant to be somehow sarcastic or to vomit out my nose in disgust. i dont think you'll find many people here at all who would think like that, as a matter of fact i find what you've written more offensive than i can portray without hurling abuse at you for grouping so many people here like you just have.
rape is disgusting and for you to say people here would support a rapist who was stopped by their victim is down right disturbing.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
squarefish
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Total posts: 403
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Total posts: 403
Posted:Good morning everyone,
If you were to substitute the word "rape" for the word "aggravated robbery" or "assault", you would find that this type of defense has indeed been used in court. Should you only use extreme force if you are -certain- that the person in front of you is going to in fact rape you?
Maybe they just grabbed you from behind intent on taking your bag and "happened " to grab your breasts?
This type of arguement, while speculative, has been used to great effect by lawyers in the past
While I agree that DJDs' statement was offensive, I think that it was not made out of a calous disregard for the sensibilities of others. We find it offensive because this kind of defense is a perversion of natural justice, and needs to be highlighted.
M
If you were to substitute the word "rape" for the word "aggravated robbery" or "assault", you would find that this type of defense has indeed been used in court. Should you only use extreme force if you are -certain- that the person in front of you is going to in fact rape you?
Maybe they just grabbed you from behind intent on taking your bag and "happened " to grab your breasts?
This type of arguement, while speculative, has been used to great effect by lawyers in the past
While I agree that DJDs' statement was offensive, I think that it was not made out of a calous disregard for the sensibilities of others. We find it offensive because this kind of defense is a perversion of natural justice, and needs to be highlighted.
M
Delete
Posted:??? Is this going "off"? Are we talking about whether or not it's basically "okay" to defend ones-self in case of an attack?
We're talking about laws that enable untrained citizens to use ANY kind of legal, deadly firearm to defend themselves. A law that will most certainly (and IMHO it wouldn't be very hard to) be abused and exploited. We are talking about the legal situation in the US, which scares me - recognising that the US has worldwide impact.
We can certainly (on top) discuss: "Apropriate measures"... like: "Is it okay to use my AK47 on this guy approaching with nail clippers? He's got this mean look on me!"
If someone getting raped, kidnapped, tortured, incarcerated - picks up a stone and (accidentally) kills her/his perpetrator... What to say? Certainly this could also be staged - but is much harder to.
In Germany the crime rate is rising and the guys get more violent every year (BTW also the girls... ). It's an overall phenomenon, worldwide. Here we have a ban on all kinds of deadly weapons, incl. big knives, Nun-Chaks, etc. The streets are realtively safe and shootings are not frequent, but maybe Germany is an exception to the rule?
Some here blame the development in crime on the spreading US/MTV-lifestyle (mostly because this kind of violence has been uncommon and people only see it in Hollywood-movies) and some blame it on the immigrants (this phenomenon is to be observed globally - certainly not a "German prerogative"- as it seems)
Just we're lacking the money to fight crime. It rises, as economical standards fall. It becomes fatal, the more guns are available. With a knife I simply can't even overcome a 5m distance that easy - with a gun I can. We are not fighting crime with more guns and we will not de-escalate the situation by legalizing manslaughter.
IMHO Guns have to be banned, bigger guns have to get banned even more (with higher penalties).
Just because the US has once learned NOT to trust their gov't/ law enforcement, needed to build a militia, it doesn't mean that this is still apropriate.
Funny enough one of the youngest (and largest) nations of this planet has such big trouble to finetune their constitution... rather watch the crap hit the fan, repeatedly! (which certainly doesn't mean that the yankees are all "faschistic" or violent or just don't care about politics as long as they live (well))
DJD I can't quite follow up on your arguments. Responsibilities were split in the past for good reasons. Citizens are not to take the law into their own hands. You plea to change it? Then we might aswell accept as a side dish, that in case of a crime the public is looking for the suspect and may even hang him without a hearing...
Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree".
And Dom, YOU and your friend might have the option to move "freely" - for others it might not be that easy.
We're talking about laws that enable untrained citizens to use ANY kind of legal, deadly firearm to defend themselves. A law that will most certainly (and IMHO it wouldn't be very hard to) be abused and exploited. We are talking about the legal situation in the US, which scares me - recognising that the US has worldwide impact.
We can certainly (on top) discuss: "Apropriate measures"... like: "Is it okay to use my AK47 on this guy approaching with nail clippers? He's got this mean look on me!"
If someone getting raped, kidnapped, tortured, incarcerated - picks up a stone and (accidentally) kills her/his perpetrator...
What to say? Certainly this could also be staged - but is much harder to. In Germany the crime rate is rising and the guys get more violent every year (BTW also the girls...
). It's an overall phenomenon, worldwide. Here we have a ban on all kinds of deadly weapons, incl. big knives, Nun-Chaks, etc. The streets are realtively safe and shootings are not frequent, but maybe Germany is an exception to the rule? Some here blame the development in crime on the spreading US/MTV-lifestyle (mostly because this kind of violence has been uncommon and people only see it in Hollywood-movies) and some blame it on the immigrants (this phenomenon is to be observed globally - certainly not a "German prerogative"- as it seems)
Just we're lacking the money to fight crime. It rises, as economical standards fall. It becomes fatal, the more guns are available. With a knife I simply can't even overcome a 5m distance that easy - with a gun I can. We are not fighting crime with more guns and we will not de-escalate the situation by legalizing manslaughter.
IMHO Guns have to be banned, bigger guns have to get banned even more (with higher penalties).
Just because the US has once learned NOT to trust their gov't/ law enforcement, needed to build a militia, it doesn't mean that this is still apropriate.
Funny enough one of the youngest (and largest) nations of this planet has such big trouble to finetune their constitution... rather watch the crap hit the fan, repeatedly! (which certainly doesn't mean that the yankees are all "faschistic" or violent or just don't care about politics as long as they live (well))
DJD I can't quite follow up on your arguments. Responsibilities were split in the past for good reasons. Citizens are not to take the law into their own hands. You plea to change it? Then we might aswell accept as a side dish, that in case of a crime the public is looking for the suspect and may even hang him without a hearing...
Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree".
And Dom, YOU and your friend might have the option to move "freely" - for others it might not be that easy.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Ani DiFranco - To the teeth
the sun is setting on the century
and we are armed to the teeth
we're all working together now
to make our lives mercifully brief
and school kids keep trying to teach us
what guns are all about
confused liberty with weaponry
and watch your kids act it out
and every year now like christmas
some boy gets the milk fed suburban blues
reaches for the available arsenal
and saunters off to make the news
and the women in the middle
are learning what poor women have always known
that the edge is closer than you think
when the men bring the guns home
look at where the profits are
that's how you'll find the source
of the big lie that you and i both know so well
by the time it takes this cultural
death wish to run it's course
they're gonna to make a pretty penny
and then they're going to hell
he said the chickens all come home to roost
malcolm forecast the flood
are we really going to sleep through another century
while the rich profit off our blood
yeah it may take some doing
to see this undoing through
but in my humble opinion
here's what i suggest we do
open fire on hollywood
open fire on mtv
open fire on nbc and cbs and abc
open fire on the nra
and all the lies they told us along the way
open fire on each weapons manufacturer
while he's giving head to some republican senator
and if i hear one more time
about a fools right to his tools of rage
i'm gonna take all my friends
and i'm going to move to canada
and we're going to die of old age
the sun is setting on the century
and we are armed to the teeth
we're all working together now
to make our lives mercifully brief
and school kids keep trying to teach us
what guns are all about
confused liberty with weaponry
and watch your kids act it out
and every year now like christmas
some boy gets the milk fed suburban blues
reaches for the available arsenal
and saunters off to make the news
and the women in the middle
are learning what poor women have always known
that the edge is closer than you think
when the men bring the guns home
look at where the profits are
that's how you'll find the source
of the big lie that you and i both know so well
by the time it takes this cultural
death wish to run it's course
they're gonna to make a pretty penny
and then they're going to hell
he said the chickens all come home to roost
malcolm forecast the flood
are we really going to sleep through another century
while the rich profit off our blood
yeah it may take some doing
to see this undoing through
but in my humble opinion
here's what i suggest we do
open fire on hollywood
open fire on mtv
open fire on nbc and cbs and abc
open fire on the nra
and all the lies they told us along the way
open fire on each weapons manufacturer
while he's giving head to some republican senator
and if i hear one more time
about a fools right to his tools of rage
i'm gonna take all my friends
and i'm going to move to canada
and we're going to die of old age
Point your toes.
DeleteMr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted:
nice.
nice."but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...
Total posts: 7330
Posted:dantana - i must say had a similar reaction to the second part of your post as majestik did.
if you really find it necessary to proclaim how you choose to pre-judge the members of hop, that's fine, but please could you explain why in the world you chose such an offensive and patently false statement?
wrt the first part of your post, it makes no sense - you seem to have your concepts muddled:
anarchism is not even close to being the opposite of socialism or communism.
i think that capitalism is the best 'opposite' of communism or socialism and as far as i know, capitalism does not even begin to imply that the responsibility for protection of the people should lie with each individual citizen.
as tom said: "Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree"."
cole. x
if you really find it necessary to proclaim how you choose to pre-judge the members of hop, that's fine, but please could you explain why in the world you chose such an offensive and patently false statement?
wrt the first part of your post, it makes no sense - you seem to have your concepts muddled:
anarchism is not even close to being the opposite of socialism or communism.
i think that capitalism is the best 'opposite' of communism or socialism and as far as i know, capitalism does not even begin to imply that the responsibility for protection of the people should lie with each individual citizen.
as tom said: "Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree"."
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted: I know it's 
but I still had to post this here... forgive me:
Written by: CNN
BAKERSFIELD, California (AP) -- A military shell given to a group of children by a neighbor exploded while they played with it, killing two children and injuring five others, police and witnesses said.
Police were investigating the cause of Tuesday's explosion, which damaged homes and forced neighbors to wrap bloodied and dazed children in blankets.
"As you can imagine, this was a traumatic experience for the kids and their parents," said Bakersfield Police Detective Greg Terry. "So it's going to take a while to sort things out,"
Andrew Etcheverry, 8, died at the scene, and Jeni Marie Klawitter, 7, died at the Kern Medical Center, the county coroner said.
The victims, the oldest 12 years old, suffered minor to moderate injuries. Police had initially reported that six children were injured but determined that a girl thought to be hurt was not at the scene when it exploded.
Frank Sendejo, who lives near the apartment complex where the explosion occurred, said Wednesday he had given a group of children a 40 mm shell. Police said they have talked with Sendejo.
Sendejo told The Bakersfield Californian that he thought the shell was spent and often used it as a "conversation piece." He said the firing pin and bottom shell casing had been removed, along with the gun powder inside.
"I thought it was harmless," he told the newspaper.
There have been no arrests or charges in the case.
Yeah, I l.o.v.e. US gun laws
I know it's but I still had to post this here... forgive me:Written by: CNN
BAKERSFIELD, California (AP) -- A military shell given to a group of children by a neighbor exploded while they played with it, killing two children and injuring five others, police and witnesses said.
Police were investigating the cause of Tuesday's explosion, which damaged homes and forced neighbors to wrap bloodied and dazed children in blankets.
"As you can imagine, this was a traumatic experience for the kids and their parents," said Bakersfield Police Detective Greg Terry. "So it's going to take a while to sort things out,"
Andrew Etcheverry, 8, died at the scene, and Jeni Marie Klawitter, 7, died at the Kern Medical Center, the county coroner said.
The victims, the oldest 12 years old, suffered minor to moderate injuries. Police had initially reported that six children were injured but determined that a girl thought to be hurt was not at the scene when it exploded.
Frank Sendejo, who lives near the apartment complex where the explosion occurred, said Wednesday he had given a group of children a 40 mm shell. Police said they have talked with Sendejo.
Sendejo told The Bakersfield Californian that he thought the shell was spent and often used it as a "conversation piece." He said the firing pin and bottom shell casing had been removed, along with the gun powder inside.
"I thought it was harmless," he told the newspaper.
There have been no arrests or charges in the case.
Yeah, I l.o.v.e. US gun laws the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:In relation to U.S. gun laws.
Is it legal for a private citizen to own a weapon that fires a 40mm shell ?
Is it legal for a private citizen to own a weapon that fires a 40mm shell ?
Delete
Posted:As far as my knowledge goes, 40mm is NOT the max allowance. IMO you could have a fully functionable WWII tank in your front yard, including ammunition.
I'd love someone to proove me wrong on this one... anyone?
I'd love someone to proove me wrong on this one... anyone?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: FireTom
IMO you could have a fully functionable WWII tank in your front yard, including ammunition.
why stop at such an early model? i'm sure the Abrahams are much more effieceint
IMO you could have a fully functionable WWII tank in your front yard, including ammunition.
why stop at such an early model? i'm sure the Abrahams are much more effieceint
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Firetom's knowledge doesn't go very far. It may be his opinion that we can own tanks, but the law says we can't. Nor can we own a weapon that fires 40mm shells. Heck, we can't even own fully automatic rifles.
Written by:
Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The only automatic firearms available to civilians are those manufactured before May 19, 1986. Private owners must obtain permission from both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) and the local county sheriff or local chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 transfer tax. This process takes approximately 6 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Some states require state permission as well, and some states prohibit any sort of possession under any terms. Otherwise, automatic firearms are available only to police or military personnel.
The shell in the story was a miliatary one, like the article says. The owner most likely found it on or near a military firing range. Since it was not actually disabled, it would have been illegal for him to own it.
Written by:
Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The only automatic firearms available to civilians are those manufactured before May 19, 1986. Private owners must obtain permission from both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) and the local county sheriff or local chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 transfer tax. This process takes approximately 6 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Some states require state permission as well, and some states prohibit any sort of possession under any terms. Otherwise, automatic firearms are available only to police or military personnel.
The shell in the story was a miliatary one, like the article says. The owner most likely found it on or near a military firing range. Since it was not actually disabled, it would have been illegal for him to own it.
Delete
Posted:Thanks for the Wiki-article, Patriarch, but PLS Read the lines: "there have been no arrests or charges in this case" - meaning that the law enforcement has no law to enforce here... meaning that he legally owned the 40mm shell.
And pls also note, that there were pretty good fully automatic firearms manufactured before 1986.
However, a "40mm shell" can mean two things:
a) a shell fired with a machine gun
b) a shell fired with a semi-automatic (grenade launcher)
Some examples for semi-automatic (and 40mm shells)
M203 40mm Grenade Launcher Semi Automatic
M16A2 Semi Automatic
The M16 is a semi automatic rifle and, as far as my knowledge goes, it is legal.
Unfortunately your post doesn't quite answer my question: Is it legal in the US to own a fully functionable WWII tank (as it has been produced before 1986), or not?
But to twist this back to topic: Could I (as a resident in Florida/ Colorado) legally use any kind of (legal) firearm to defend myself against an attacker who approaches me (with nail clippers)... ???
And pls also note, that there were pretty good fully automatic firearms manufactured before 1986.
However, a "40mm shell" can mean two things:
a) a shell fired with a machine gun
b) a shell fired with a semi-automatic (grenade launcher)
Some examples for semi-automatic (and 40mm shells)
M203 40mm Grenade Launcher Semi Automatic
M16A2 Semi Automatic
The M16 is a semi automatic rifle and, as far as my knowledge goes, it is legal.
Unfortunately your post doesn't quite answer my question: Is it legal in the US to own a fully functionable WWII tank (as it has been produced before 1986), or not?
But to twist this back to topic: Could I (as a resident in Florida/ Colorado) legally use any kind of (legal) firearm to defend myself against an attacker who approaches me (with nail clippers)... ???
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Thanks for the Wiki-article, Patriarch, but PLS Read the lines: "there have been no arrests or charges in this case" - meaning that the law enforcement has no law to enforce here... meaning that he legally owned the 40mm shell.
In order for one possessing an active 40mm shell to be charged with a crime, they would have to know that it is active. It is not a crime to own the non-functioning remains of a shell. If, as I suspect, this shell was acquired by finding it out in the desert somewhere, he would not have committed a crime by keeping it if he really thought it wasnt explosive.
If this is the case, then it would be the same as if he were walking down the street and found an abandoned suitcase, and decided to take it home. If it is later discovered that drugs had been sewn into the lining of the suitcase, the man would not be guilty of possessing drugs, because he didnt know that he had them.
Thus, one could own a spent shell that you genuinely (and non-negligently) thought was harmless, without violating the law against possessing 40mm shells. This story does not prove that it is legal to own 40mm shells. In fact, it is not. I finally found the proper statute:
http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec.%205861
br>
Check this out for the federal laws. Just search for destructive device to see the law that would prohibit you from owning a 40mm shell, or a tank.
Written by: FireTom
Unfortunately your post doesn't quite answer my question: Is it legal in the US to own a fully functionable WWII tank (as it has been produced before 1986), or not?
Sorry about that. I have found the answer, and the answer is no.
Written by: FireTom
But to twist this back to topic: Could I (as a resident in Florida/ Colorado) legally use any kind of (legal) firearm to defend myself against an attacker who approaches me (with nail clippers)... ???
Lets review the law:
Written by:
(1) . . . a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;
A firearm is universally held to be deadly physical force in the US. Therefore, in order to shoot a man attacking you with nail clippers, you must first have reasonable grounds to believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.
Could you convince a jury that being attacked with nail clippers was grounds for you to reasonably believe that you will be imminently killed, or receive great bodily injury? It would depend on the facts of course, but my guess is that you would have a difficult time. What sort of nail clippers are we talking about? These?
Non-Https Image Link
As the lawyer against you, I would point out to the jury that these do not possess an edge capable of inflicting a wound deeper than, say, 1/16th of an inch deep. Furthermore, they are not heavy enough to do more than make a very small bruise, even if hurled at very high speed. I would argue that seeing someone approaching you with these would not give you reasonable grounds to believe that you will be imminently killed, or receive great bodily injury. Thus, you would not be justified in shooting the attacker.
Let us pretend, however, that the jury exists entirely of airport security guards, and that they all share a morbid fear of nail clippers. They agree with you that being attacked with nail clippers gave you reasonable grounds to fear death or severe bodily injury. However, we still have a second hurdle to leap before you can justify the shooting. You must also prove that you reasonably believed that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate.
As the lawyer against you, I would ridicule any such suggestion, and point to many lesser, alternative degrees of force that you should have considered before shooting. For example, you could have pulled out your own pair of nail clippers, or perhaps an ipod. Given that the weapon would need to be wielded at close proximity to the skin, using fine motor skills, merely kicking and punching should have proved adequate to foil any attempt to clip you with the clippers.
Furthermore, you need not have fired the firearm you carried. Virtually any type of firearm would be heavier than the nail clippers, and would have given you an advantage in the fight. It is reasonable to think that a lesser degree of force such as hitting him with the firearm could have been adequate to foil the clipping.
As you can see, it would be almost impossible for you to succeed in convincing people that you were justified in using a firearm against someone merely because they wielded nail clippers.
Im sorry to have to shatter your belief that Americans may legally sit in their yards with tanks and blow away anyone that approaches them with nail clippers. However, Im afraid that it simply isnt allowed.
Thanks for the Wiki-article, Patriarch, but PLS Read the lines: "there have been no arrests or charges in this case" - meaning that the law enforcement has no law to enforce here... meaning that he legally owned the 40mm shell.
In order for one possessing an active 40mm shell to be charged with a crime, they would have to know that it is active. It is not a crime to own the non-functioning remains of a shell. If, as I suspect, this shell was acquired by finding it out in the desert somewhere, he would not have committed a crime by keeping it if he really thought it wasnt explosive.
If this is the case, then it would be the same as if he were walking down the street and found an abandoned suitcase, and decided to take it home. If it is later discovered that drugs had been sewn into the lining of the suitcase, the man would not be guilty of possessing drugs, because he didnt know that he had them.
Thus, one could own a spent shell that you genuinely (and non-negligently) thought was harmless, without violating the law against possessing 40mm shells. This story does not prove that it is legal to own 40mm shells. In fact, it is not. I finally found the proper statute:
http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec.%205861
br>
Check this out for the federal laws. Just search for destructive device to see the law that would prohibit you from owning a 40mm shell, or a tank.
Written by: FireTom
Unfortunately your post doesn't quite answer my question: Is it legal in the US to own a fully functionable WWII tank (as it has been produced before 1986), or not?
Sorry about that. I have found the answer, and the answer is no.
Written by: FireTom
But to twist this back to topic: Could I (as a resident in Florida/ Colorado) legally use any kind of (legal) firearm to defend myself against an attacker who approaches me (with nail clippers)... ???
Lets review the law:
Written by:
(1) . . . a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;
A firearm is universally held to be deadly physical force in the US. Therefore, in order to shoot a man attacking you with nail clippers, you must first have reasonable grounds to believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.
Could you convince a jury that being attacked with nail clippers was grounds for you to reasonably believe that you will be imminently killed, or receive great bodily injury? It would depend on the facts of course, but my guess is that you would have a difficult time. What sort of nail clippers are we talking about? These?
Non-Https Image Link
As the lawyer against you, I would point out to the jury that these do not possess an edge capable of inflicting a wound deeper than, say, 1/16th of an inch deep. Furthermore, they are not heavy enough to do more than make a very small bruise, even if hurled at very high speed. I would argue that seeing someone approaching you with these would not give you reasonable grounds to believe that you will be imminently killed, or receive great bodily injury. Thus, you would not be justified in shooting the attacker.
Let us pretend, however, that the jury exists entirely of airport security guards, and that they all share a morbid fear of nail clippers. They agree with you that being attacked with nail clippers gave you reasonable grounds to fear death or severe bodily injury. However, we still have a second hurdle to leap before you can justify the shooting. You must also prove that you reasonably believed that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate.
As the lawyer against you, I would ridicule any such suggestion, and point to many lesser, alternative degrees of force that you should have considered before shooting. For example, you could have pulled out your own pair of nail clippers, or perhaps an ipod. Given that the weapon would need to be wielded at close proximity to the skin, using fine motor skills, merely kicking and punching should have proved adequate to foil any attempt to clip you with the clippers.
Furthermore, you need not have fired the firearm you carried. Virtually any type of firearm would be heavier than the nail clippers, and would have given you an advantage in the fight. It is reasonable to think that a lesser degree of force such as hitting him with the firearm could have been adequate to foil the clipping.
As you can see, it would be almost impossible for you to succeed in convincing people that you were justified in using a firearm against someone merely because they wielded nail clippers.
Im sorry to have to shatter your belief that Americans may legally sit in their yards with tanks and blow away anyone that approaches them with nail clippers. However, Im afraid that it simply isnt allowed.
Delete
Posted:Hummmm.
Doesn't this say that it's ok to own a "destructive device" as long as you have permission form the federal Gov't?
Written by:
Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordance).Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.
And as to machine guns, I do remember seeing a video on youtube ( I think ) about a machine gun "meet" in Oklahoma, I'll try to find it later, but it's my understanding that fully automatic weapons are legal to own in some states.
There's this site
And this one too [/url]
That clearly indicate that fully automatic weapons are availible, check out the destructive devices, and the machine gun ownership FAQs on the bottom of the page on the second site.
I wonder if you were old and sick and an huge mean monster looking assailant approached you with nail clippers demanding your social security check, heart medication, and viagra? Then, might you have a chance of convincing a jury that you did, indeed, fear for your life and your only option was to draw and shoot ?
Doesn't this say that it's ok to own a "destructive device" as long as you have permission form the federal Gov't?
Written by:
Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordance).Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.
And as to machine guns, I do remember seeing a video on youtube ( I think ) about a machine gun "meet" in Oklahoma, I'll try to find it later, but it's my understanding that fully automatic weapons are legal to own in some states.
There's this site
And this one too [/url]
That clearly indicate that fully automatic weapons are availible, check out the destructive devices, and the machine gun ownership FAQs on the bottom of the page on the second site.
I wonder if you were old and sick and an huge mean monster looking assailant approached you with nail clippers demanding your social security check, heart medication, and viagra? Then, might you have a chance of convincing a jury that you did, indeed, fear for your life and your only option was to draw and shoot ?
Delete
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Total posts: 607
Posted:Of course one may do things if you have a liscense from the government. That is always true. One may be given permission to smoke pot, own a tiger, destroy a building with explosives, or any number of things.
Just because something is "banned" in general does not mean that one cannot jump through some hoops and get the priviledge to do it.
Examine those sites, however, and you will find that all the really cool guns (like that electric mini-gun that appears to have been ripped straight from DOOM) can only be owned by military, law enforcement, dealers, collectors, etc., and cannot be sold to civilians.
We speak of guns being "illegal" or "banned" in the same way we could talk about tigers being "illegal" or "banned." It does not mean precisely that it is impossible to have one. Were we to speak carefully, we would ask whether the weapons are "controlled" and to what extent. Drugs, guns, alchohol, tobbaco, exotic animals... these are all "controlled substances" rather than truly "illegal."
Thus, when Firetom asks whether it is "legal" to own a tank, I assume that he is asking whether your average citizen like myself with sufficient funds could simply purchase or manufacture one. It is as if he asked me whether it was legal to own a tiger or smoke pot.
If Chuck Norris attacks you, I'm sure any jury would find you have reasonable grounds to be in fear of death, and would probably find any amount of force... including tactical nukes... to be reasonable under the circumstances. The law is flexible enough to allow justice to be done.
Just because something is "banned" in general does not mean that one cannot jump through some hoops and get the priviledge to do it.
Examine those sites, however, and you will find that all the really cool guns (like that electric mini-gun that appears to have been ripped straight from DOOM) can only be owned by military, law enforcement, dealers, collectors, etc., and cannot be sold to civilians.
We speak of guns being "illegal" or "banned" in the same way we could talk about tigers being "illegal" or "banned." It does not mean precisely that it is impossible to have one. Were we to speak carefully, we would ask whether the weapons are "controlled" and to what extent. Drugs, guns, alchohol, tobbaco, exotic animals... these are all "controlled substances" rather than truly "illegal."
Thus, when Firetom asks whether it is "legal" to own a tank, I assume that he is asking whether your average citizen like myself with sufficient funds could simply purchase or manufacture one. It is as if he asked me whether it was legal to own a tiger or smoke pot.
If Chuck Norris attacks you, I'm sure any jury would find you have reasonable grounds to be in fear of death, and would probably find any amount of force... including tactical nukes... to be reasonable under the circumstances. The law is flexible enough to allow justice to be done.
Delete
Posted:Well, I just went and asked the police if there was any way I could legally obtain and own a machine gun in Canada, regardless of the size and amount of hoops I'd need to jump through, and the answer was a resounding NO.
Were I living in America, things would be different, I meet all the qualifications outlined for title 2 weapons, so I could own one,,,, as long as they didn't piss test me
So "legal" can be interpreted based on perspective, my perspective says that machine guns are illegal in Canada, yet require a special permit in the U.S. It looks like the term restricted ( or controlled )would be more apt to describe the American situation, while in Canada, we use the term prohibited.
So how many hoops would I have to jump through to buy one of these "controlled" tanks ?
Yes, the mini gun, I didn't actually notice the not available to civilians until I scrolled back up to the top of the page, but I did toss a couple in my shopping cart just for fun.
I know Tom's nail clipper example was meant to be absurd, but fearing for your life, is fearing for your life, It's all a matter of perspective and circumstances.
Were I living in America, things would be different, I meet all the qualifications outlined for title 2 weapons, so I could own one,,,, as long as they didn't piss test me
So "legal" can be interpreted based on perspective, my perspective says that machine guns are illegal in Canada, yet require a special permit in the U.S. It looks like the term restricted ( or controlled )would be more apt to describe the American situation, while in Canada, we use the term prohibited.
So how many hoops would I have to jump through to buy one of these "controlled" tanks ?
Yes, the mini gun, I didn't actually notice the not available to civilians until I scrolled back up to the top of the page, but I did toss a couple in my shopping cart just for fun.
I know Tom's nail clipper example was meant to be absurd, but fearing for your life, is fearing for your life, It's all a matter of perspective and circumstances.
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.