• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2223242526...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
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 wink

Delete Topic

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted: Written by

Stout, because a gun is used in violence against the innocent does not mean that guns should not be allowed in the general populace. People have been stabbed to death with steak knives, does that mean that we should no longer allow sharp metallic objects in and among the general populace?



No, of course not, that's a silly argument. We all know the intended uses of steak knives vs guns. Just because something can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean it will be used as a weapon. Anti-personnel weapons are just that, intended to be used as weapons, against people. I could use my truck as a weapon.

Nor is it removing the personal accountability factor either. People act like idiots, all the time, with everything..including guns. Now, America, with the highest per capita prison population is big on the whole personal accountability issue, so be it, You may rest assured that that guy who you just cut off in traffic, acting in a moment of rage, emptied his clip into your chest is going to get life for his crime as you lie in the street taking your last breaths, but wouldn't you prefer that he didn't have the means to fill you full of holes in the first place ?

It's a really, really tough sell to try and convince those of us who live in unarmed societies that the way of the gun is "better" I much prefer going about my daily business not even thinking about who's got a gun and will they use it.

1776 ??? America's come a long way since then, except on this issue. Defending yourself against a tyrannical government ? David Koresh didn't have much success in that department. Or were you thinking in terms of an upcoming revolution ?

Americans may be happy with the status quo ( btw I've switched "sides" in this discussion ) and I wouldn't particularly care what Americans do inside America, but the problem is, America's exporting all this law and order, us and them, paranoia and we, as Canadians, seem to be buying it.

example...our border guards weren't armed until last year and were only armed due to the threat of American citizens and their personal firearms.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Clearly a complex question, but if guns make America safer they are clearly doing a lousy job of it given the murder rate. Perhaps that's a little flippant, and without civilian guns American murder rate would skyrocket past even countries like Brazil. That does seem somewhat unlikely however.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted:Stone, you see the thing is, is that even though I lived in an armed society I don't worry about who has a gun and who hasn't. I don't own a gun, several really cool functional swords, but no guns wink

And to be honest, I don't want to get shot. However I think that, even though having faith in anything in this day of age let alone man kind is seen as hysterical at best, I would still rather have faith that though someone may have the means to drop 10 bullets into my chest on a whim that they would not.

Giving up my rights to own my own firearms be they for hunting or target shooting or personal defence is ludacrice. I have the right to bare arms. I don't have to exorceise that right, but I don't want to see it taken away either.




(On a lesser note, David Koresh was hardly fighting a tyranical government for his freedom, he was a rapest and a sociopath, psychotic in the politest of meanings. When it comes to an example you chose poorly. Why don't we start talking up the positivies of the IRA while we're preaching the gosple of Koresh?)


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Wow I guess I missed a chunk there, let me try to catch up.

 Written by :FireTom

We have presented sufficient scientific data and studies that unmistakeably prove the arguments of NRA and gun owners to be erroneous. We have presented enough evidence that ridicule the *need of guns for self defence*.



Have you? I don't think you have. You have posted several "scientific" studies that were definitely highly politically charged and extremely biased though.

 Written by :Firetom

We have tried to explain that "second hand sales" of guns performed without proper background checks raise the number of illegally owned guns within the US - BY THAT we have again proven that the US gun laws are 'license to murder'.



First off, background check requirements for second hand gun sales are STATE laws, not FEDERAL laws, so don't lump the whole US together on that one. There are many points about background checks for private sales that we could get into, but we've gone over most of them before. Yet you continue to brush over any point that goes against your opinion as irrelevant.

 Written by :Firetom

We have presented a lot of evidence on the small percentage of justified self defence involving guns and proved how unlikely it really is that a gun can actually prevent a crime and by that shown how ridiculous it is to claim that "guns make a society safer".



Really? It seems to me that you don't come to the US much, if at all. Do you know any people who carry? Are you involved in the gun culture over here? Do you really know *anything* about us?

Do you honestly think guns don't, or can't stop or prevent crime? I know dozens of police officers who've drawn their gun many times, I know of only one personally who has shot someone. Most police officers will go through their entire career without ever firing their weapon at a person, but there are very few who will go their entire career without drawing it. There are MANY undocumented civilian cases of self defense where a gun was used, but no shots were fired, and no one was hurt. Do you really believe that that is never the case?


 Written by :Firetom

On a sidenote: Lurch himself has admitted that a knife in a skilled hand is more dangerous (and effective) than a gun.



That is a slight twisting of my words.. I said within 21 ft someone with a knife can usually get to and attack someone before they can draw and fire. Knife attacks are brutal, and violent, and I would definitely consider them a threat to my life. Take that however you want, but a deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.

 Written by :Firetom

It is obvious that the arms industry causes a great deal of suffering not only within the US but also worldwide.



Did you forget that most of the major "arms dealers" are not American based? Glock, H&K, Beretta, Benelli, Sig Sauer etc.

 Written by :Firetom

However, we have tried to explain how the world inside the heads manifest on the outside world and how paranoia feeds a violent system, how a violent system is in desperate need of paranoia and fear and people who run around with (best intent) to kill each other.



I think it is you who are paranoid FireTom. You seem to think because I carry a gun, I'm going to kill someone.

 Written by :FireTom

We will fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is only the intent on *why he carries* a gun. Intent can change, responsibility can change, the 'right to carry' remains.



I'm sorry you feel that way. There are very specific laws about who can carry, and where. So the difference is not only intent FireTom. A criminal breaking the law? *gasp* oh the horror, they would never do that! My right to carry is very specific. It has rules, it has limitations. I follow those rules, criminals don't. I am at a disadvantage already. If you think the only difference between me and a thug is intent than you haven't been reading this thread.


 Written by :Stone

I agree its not about providing scientific evidence or rational thinking



Rational Thinking? You've refused to answer very basic questions put forth by OWD and myself, and you've constantly avoided fundamental points. I'm sorry Stone but I don't think you've provided much in terms of 'rational thinking' You have been very close minded and biased throughout this whole conversation.

 Written by :Stone

Though, I can see that there has been at least a token acknowledgement of the hypothetical fantasises that go into justifying the need to carry a firearm for self defense.



Fantasies? It might just be that it's difficult to tell intent through text on a screen, but comments like those certainly sound like demeaning 'holier than thou' statements. There are thousands of rapes, murders, assaults, and robberies every year. Those are not hypothetical. Luckily I have not been raped or murdered. Sadly some people on this forum have been, they are not beyond the realm of possibility as you seem to imply.

 Written by :Stone

Ive answered this question before. If you take out the morality and the self-righteous attitude, then there is no difference. Both are carrying guns, with the distinct possibility that they will cause harm or kill another human being.



No Stone, there is still a large difference. One is using the weapon to gain, the other is using to preserve. If all that you are concerned about is the potential loss of human life than cars and swimming pools should be a greater enemy than guns. They have the distinct possibility to harm or kill another human being, and do so many many more times than guns do every year.

 Written by :Stout

I wonder how many of those guns used in domestic disputes were bought with "good intentions" Likewise, how many guns sold at second hand gun sales or those guns that leave their owners against the owner's will only to be later used in a criminal way



Domestic abuse/dispute situations are a different sort of crime. They have very specific attributes that are by in large specific to domestic violence. One key point being that by the time it gets to the point of murder, it is almost never the first assault. On that point, if you have a domestic assault conviction, you can't legally own a gun. Weird how most of these 'fantasies' you guys have come up with about how our laws are so loose are already illegal.

As for the second hand gun sales being used in crimes against the original owners will. What does that even mean? You don't *have* to sell anything to anyone. Is it my fault if a car I sold is later used in a hit and run?

 Written by :OWD

Many of Stones points are good ones- for example, I fully agree that fear and paranoia lead to more violence.



I will agree to part of that. Paranoia can indeed lead to more aggression. Fear on the other hand is a basic instinct that is healthy for us to have, and we should not ignore. I would suggest to anyone to read 'The Gift of Fear' by Gavin De Becker

 Written by :OWD

It's like insurance- chances are good that it won't be needed, but, there's a chance that it may and, those who have a realistic understanding of the risks, realise that, if that chance arises, when they need the gun, if it isn't present, they may not be around afterwards to learn from the experience.



"I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." a realistic understanding of the risks is all I have been asking for. Ignoring the violent potential of society does not make it go away. And preparing yourself for such a situation does not increase you chance of being attacked (the opposite actually, as has already been stated)

 Written by :Stout

You may rest assured that that guy who you just cut off in traffic, acting in a moment of rage, emptied his clip into your chest is going to get life for his crime as you lie in the street taking your last breaths, but wouldn't you prefer that he didn't have the means to fill you full of holes in the first place?



There is much that I could say to that. I could even cry foul that you're making up stories. But I'm not going to. I think you need to ask yourself several questions if this is a valid fear of yours, because chances are someone who shoots another over a simple road rage incident is not going to be carrying that weapon legally. So, first off, why would you stay in the area? Stopping the car is your first mistake. If you're going to be proactive about protecting yourself you must at least attempt to not put yourself in potentially violent situations. Most people who carry will do this far better than those who do not. As I have said MANY times before, a CCW does not make you a vigilante.

Secondly, this is a perfect example of self defense laws. In order to successfully argue self defense you have to show that they have the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to cause you, or a 3rd party serious bodily harm or death. Considering that the murderer probably isn't legally carrying/owning a weapon, or at the very least certainly isn't legally using it in self defense, I would be more upset if I was not allowed to defend myself from such an attack. Criminals will always have guns, even in the UK, Australia and Japan. Why would I want to put the playing field even further in their favor?

 Written by :Stout

our border guards weren't armed until last year and were only armed due to the threat of American citizens and their personal firearms.



My understanding was that it was an increase in border security congruent with the US due to post 9-11 scares. Not that you are scared of legal concealed carry firearms. They would not be legal crossing the border anyways, nor would a law abiding citizen attempt to harm a customs officer.. So that argument is slightly flawed. Your border patrol armed themselves because of criminals, not law abiding citizens.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Great to seem some open minded discussion.





Dragon Drafin, you live in an armed society, but you dont worry about the high number of people killed or maimed by guns. Like most Americans, you turn a blind eye to gun violence.



No one is asking you to give up your right to go hunting or shoot targets.



I have the right to bare arms is a NRA myth, used to sell guns that will lead to anarchy. The NRA tends to forget the bit about A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Now, that myth is about be enshrined in law. For the first time in 70 years, the United States Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a landmark case about the country's gun laws. Can't wait to see where that's going to lead.



 Written by Lurch

Fantasies? It might just be that it's difficult to tell intent through text on a screen, but comments like those certainly sound like demeaning 'holier than thou' statements. There are thousands of rapes, murders, assaults, and robberies every year. Those are not hypothetical. Luckily I have not been raped or murdered. Sadly some people on this forum have been, they are not beyond the realm of possibility as you seem to imply.





I dont think I ever disputed the high rate of violent crime in the USA.



The thing you miss is that all the real evidence indicates that people who buy guns for self-defense just increase the incidence of gun violence. That's the reality, the rest is fantasy.



That's real evidence, and not discredited NRA studies.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:What evidence Stone? You haven't shown me anything that says people with a Concealed permit are more likely to commit murder, or any sort of violent crime. Domestic violence? You can't even buy a gun with a DV conviction, let alone get a concealed weapons permit. We're not turning a blind eye towards gun violence Stone. Quite the opposite. You see, the VAST majority of gun violence is done illegally. Making it a crime.

Do you see the difference there? Good guys.. Bad guys.. Bad guys do bad things. They maim, they kill unprovoked. They are wolves. Good guys don't do those things. Good guys try to stop the bad guys from doing bad things. Still with me? I know it's difficult.. It's not vigilantism, it's human nature to stand up for what is right. If for some reason your culture has lost that, than I am truly sorry.

Bad guys, by their nature, will not respect gun laws, and will always have weapons. Good guys, by their nature, will respect, and follow gun laws. So you can A: remove the guns from good people because you're scared a small minority of them may either have an accident, or are secretly bad people. Or B: Leave it up to the individual whether or not they want the ability to defend themselves from the wolves.

You obviously have not learned the difference between wolves and sheepdogs.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:First (because I forgot): welcome Dragon to the discussion smile

Second:

 Written by :onewheeldave


I've been involved in this discussion at the start and, at the last couple of pages- I've missed much of the middle section, so can't really comment on what happened there.

(...)

As to why my opinions have changed, in part it's because Lurch has presented a lot of facts about, for example, 'concealed-carry' requirements, which, previously I was not aware of.

Secondly, there's the actual supporting arguments, which, I've found, in Lurches case, have been rational, clear and sincere.

Whereas, the anti-gunners arguments have frequently been somewhat dubious, appearing on occasions to be, as previously mentioned, more political (point-scoring, deceptive, avoiding etc).



confused See OWD - I understand your point of view, but you get me increasingly frustrated in this discussion. This (amongst others) is the reason why I withdraw from it as much as possible.

You say you have followed Lurch's (allegedly "sound and reasonable") arguments, at the same time missing out on the scientific facts presented by the anti-gun section of this thread... How can this be possible?

We have followed 28 pages of discussion, I myself have spent countless hours in researching the internet for facts and (scientific) studies, I have spent more countless hours to compile and post all of this here... and now you come and say that you missed out on them? *bangs head against screen* I gently bow out at this stage because I cannot be bothered to go over all these 28 pages again and recollect all of this to present it to you.

I have occasionally made compilations of the previous arguments collected and posted them at the top of a new page as to keep this in some kind of order and to ease it on people who follow this thread. All I am able to at this moment is to suggest that you read more into this thread and extract these informations for yourself.

I blame myself for not using the appropriate Icons as to mark the posts where I have collected and presented (scientific) facts.

Please note that almost all of the time I have quoted the sources of my arguments and studies, whereas Lurch has not and even had caught him on intentionally making up stories and scenarios, as to prove his point.

Just quickly browsing through the previous posts I can just find this:

Facts 1

 Written by : myself earlier

Compared to the rest of the (so called) "civilized world" you are drowning in (gun) violence and (gun) crime. There (currenty) is no other westernized country on the planet where massacres or gun related deaths happen to the same extent.

I asked: IF assault weapons (so far) are only a small portion of the guns in civilian possession AND do not serve a "reasonable purpose" - WHY then are the pro gunners so eagerly defending their availability to the public? To me this is a sign of "stand my ground at all costs" (which is characteristic).

Focussing on the larger problem: I don't know where you focus on the problem alltogether, you're not even ready to answer simple questions (that I adressed on previous page). I'm uncertain whether you acknowledge that there IS a problem in the first place.

Maybe it's that the majority of the american public considers the carnage of Columbine, VT and the daily madness as "2nd ammendment collateral damage"?

Nobody said that guns and gun violence is omnipresent on US streets. But there are gun related accidents and abuse on a daily base all over the US.

I would really LOVE to see this thread moving towards a useful and responsible source of information from all participants...

Even though I was talking about "gun safes" that cost a lot more than a mere lock, Lurch you are right: Free gun locks are distributed by Sheriff Dept. and other organisations.

Sounds very nice at first sight... Actually:

Written by: HOORAY, QUOTE YOUR SOURCES!!!!http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/aug/10/free_gun_lock_program_faces_funding_challenge/

Since the program began in 2002, more than 220,000 locks have been distributed by roughly 300 agencies statewide. Nationwide, 35 million locks have been distributed, said Shari LeGate of Project Childsafe.

Funding for the national program has decreased nearly every year since 2002, when it had a $5 million budget, LeGate said. In 2006-07, the funding was cut to $912,000, a $4 million decrease from the previous years budget.

This year Project Childsafe has received 560,000 gun lock requests nationwide and has been able to fulfill only about half of those, LeGate said.



I'm quite uncertain how many of these free gun locks are now to protect someones bicycle from theft however.

2005 crime statistics by the FBI

Written by: FBI

The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous years data. (...)

A breakdown of the 2005 data by population group revealed that all city population groups experienced increases in violent crime when compared with those data reported for the previous year, with the exception of the Nations largest cities, 1 million and over in population, where the number of violent crimes was down 0.4 percent. (...)

The Nations four regions all saw increases in violent crime in 2005.



That much on "dropping crime rates".

Lurch for example seeks refuge in "illegal sales" that lead to crimes throughout the US. But if these illegal sales are happening and it's whidely known, why then is still no action taken to prevent them? If traders "loose" (track) on their handguns, why are dealers licenses not revoked?

Why is there so little action taken? And why is the little action that is taken under criticism by pro gunners? Why are 90% of the national laws reg. gun control not enforced?

Written by: Faith

Microstamping seems like a good idea in theory, but I can already think of problems with it.



but you don't want to let us know about it?!

Written by: Brady campaign

The California State Senate passed the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 (AB 1471) to require new models of semi-automatic handguns be equipped with "microstamping" technology that allows police to match bullet shells found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets.



Now if dealers continue to "loose" firearms, this certainly is going to help as much as if second hand sales don't have to be reported.

According to this Wiki article "David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (between 1987 and 1990)" ... now compare this to 1.8 million violent crimes happening (in 1990)... "This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame".

You want to claim that a 0.2% chance is a number that justifies gun ownership and gun related accidents?



the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch.



Violence Policy Center; Texas Department of Public Safety





The Violence Policy Center report marks the third time that the group has examined the concealed-handgun law in Texas, which requires more stringent reporting of permit holders' arrests than any other state.



Between January 1996 and this April 1997, concealed-handgun permit holders were arrested on 3,370 charges, the group said. That figure includes 23 arrests for murder or attempted murder; 527 assault arrests; 227 drug-related offenses; and 207 theft, burglary, larcency or robbery arrests.



The group said its examination of Texas Department of Public Safety data found that concealed-handgun holders were charged with weapon-related offenses at a rate 66 percent higher than the general population, with 873 weapon-related arrests during the period surveyed.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I'll agree, Lurch, your arguments have been well thought out and reasonable and I agree with your perspective about the good guys and the bad guys. In an ideal world, this discussion would stop at that but there's a problem...

The bad guys are getting their guns from the good guys. That's what I meant by the statement you interpreted as being used against the original owner's will. Someone may buy a gun with good intention, loose interest in that gun, and sell it off to someone with "less good" intentions. This may be different if people were only allowed to own one gun for self defense purposes.

Say you're the author of the article in Men's Health that Stone posted. I know he was a weenie with his prattling on about safeties needing red dots and a bullet in the chamber indicators..here's a good example of someone who probably shouldn't own a gun. He bought himself a brand new .22 ( weird choice I know...mouse gun ) and quickly came to discover that a larger calibre was more "satisfying" . Now what's he going to do with that .22 ? Is he going to try and determine the intent of a potential purchaser when he sells it off in favour of a Glock ?

His legal purchase, made with the best intentions ( well, in this case i figure he just bought the gun so he could write the article ) may have introduced yet another gun into society that other well intentioned people buy guns themselves to defend against.

It's that vicious cycle thing again.

As I said before, I see no "problems" with American gun laws as they're written ( laws about gun ownership and DA noted ) however it was something Stone said last year, something along the lines of " civilized societies don't need firearms" that made me think....well....Duh.

I may feel differently, were I living in a society where I feared criminals with guns, or even feared crackheads swinging baseball bats as I went about my daily business. But I don't. I can't think of one single example in my life where I thought " I sure wish I had a gun" I mean a serious example...you know what I mean.

I did make up that story about the road rage incident, call it a hypothetical example used to illustrate the presence of guns and what could happen. I'll agree that, from the way you've presented your arguments, that an incident like that would most likely involve an illegal firearm.

Are there any laws about blood alcohol content and carrying a weapon ?

Maybe I have too much faith in the sheepdogs ( ie police ) but so far, locally, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping the civilian gun violence down.

Lurch..you're spot on about the borderguards...it is all about illegal guns.

Tom...you CAN'T leave again,,, that's the sixth time btw...you started this thread, and you bump it every time there's an incident in the US.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Lurch, I think I have a HOP crush and the next time I come through, I shall totally give you a heads up.

Dragon, its great to see a new voice in this discussion

I wondered how many guns are carried or kept in the house for protection and how many are there for recreational purposes. My friends all have them for the latter reason.

As for the border patrol, it seems as though there was a revamping of some of the responsibilities. They have become police instead of security guards. They have been given added authority in an answer to criminality. Border guards had been walking off the job because of dangerous working environments. Nowhere did I read that these changes have to do with US people only. It appears to be due to US and Canadian Criminals-not your regular citizen.

Stone, we are not turning a blind eye toward violence. Again, how many people own a gun for the sole purpose of protection? And how many have a rifle for deerhunting? Your study is from the VPC which is obviously a biased source quoted frequently by the gun control peoples and is in fact funded by the gun control lobby. Their studies have been called in to question about validjity. Arrests are not the same as convictions either

Tom, youve withdrawn? And please remember that if you are going to quote us, please dont take it out of context


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

simta
BRONZE Member since Apr 2006

simta

compfuzzled
Location: hastings

Total posts: 1182
Posted:your seperation between 'good' and 'bad' guys is all very clear cut

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Stout, most of us don't live in fear

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:No??? that was an assumption on my part based on the "need" so many Americans seem to feel for personal protection firearms. Were I to buy one, it would be motivated by fear of armed criminals. A sort of...since the bad guys have them.... kind of thinking.

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Again how many people buy guns for the sole purpose of protection. How many millions of people don't own guns at all in my country?

So try again.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

The Tea Fairy
SILVER Member since Jul 2004

The Tea Fairy

old hand
Location: Behind you...

Total posts: 853
Posted: Written by :Lurch



Do you see the difference there? Good guys.. Bad guys.. Bad guys do bad things. They maim, they kill unprovoked. They are wolves. Good guys don't do those things. Good guys try to stop the bad guys from doing bad things....

Bad guys, by their nature, will not respect gun laws, and will always have weapons. Good guys, by their nature, will respect, and follow gun laws. So you can A: remove the guns from good people because you're scared a small minority of them may either have an accident, or are secretly bad people. Or B: Leave it up to the individual whether or not they want the ability to defend themselves from the wolves.

You obviously have not learned the difference between wolves and sheepdogs.



I've been following this thread, not sure where I stand on the issue... but the above just struck me as oversimplifying, it's a very black and white statement. People are not simply 'good' or 'bad' by 'nature'. Everybody will have variations in how they understand 'good' and 'bad' and how they behave accordingly. 'Good' people are perfectly capable, in the right circumstances, of doing very bad things and 'bad' people are also capable, in the right circumstances, of doing a great deal of good. Both are equally capable of doing stupid things too.

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to an 'us' and 'them' kind of attitude, which disregards the vast differences in people's motivations and behaviour. You can't just assume that all those who obtain weapons via the legal routes are all 'good' or 'responsible' - I'd also argue that those who own guns illegally are not all planning on mass murder, or killing people in unprovoked attacks...

Yes, there are people out there who do go about with a complete disregard for human life, who I would be inclined to label 'bad' people, likewise there are those who have nothing but the utmost respect for life who I would be inclined to label 'good' - but there are an awful lot of shades of grey between the two extremes.

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic... but you were talking about the importance of intentions, so maybe it's not too far off... smile


Idolized by Aurinoko

Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....

Bob Dylan

Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted:Thank you very much for the warm welcomes smile I like it when people disagree but are still friendly. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with one another.

I've seen both sides of the argument over simplify things. Thats okay. Break things down to the lowest common denominator. While granted it doesn't provide the MOST accurate picutre of things it does tend to make things easier.

The problem of crime is not limited to guns. We can all agree with that. Even countries like Japan who have extremely strict gun laws still have crime. Even violent crime.

So the a true statement would be;

Guns do not equal crime.

However you cannot discount the high crime rate in the US. Among "civilised" countries it is one of the highest if not the highest. However crime in the US is nothing compared to crime in our neighbor to the south.

It is my contention that a change from an armed society (I speaking of an armed society like the US where firearms are so ingrained into our society) to an unarmed society would do more to raise the crime rate than to lower it.

The reason behind my line of thinking is quite simple.

If the government asked the people to turn in their weapons, only law abiding citizens would. The people bent on being criminals would still have them.

Now instead the criminials having to "possibly" face someone with a weapon, now they have only a slim possibility. The crime rate would sky rocket.

Trust me on this one. We'd see a sharp decrease in crimes commited in the heat of the moment, but we'd also see a sharp increase in the premeditated crimes.

While the cats are away the mice will play.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:faith...I have no idea how many people buy guns for the purpose of protection, or buy them for recreational purposes and just consider the protection aspect as a bonus. My guess is is a lot, judging by the type of firearms ( eg handguns, scary looking guns with LCMs ) they purchase. I guess with handguns, you could inquire whether they purchased a holster for the gun, also whether they keep it loaded and within easy reach.

Tea Fairy...yes, we are using good and bad as black and white terms, it does simplify the discussion, but yes, we all know there's shades of grey involved.

Dragon Drafin...yes, this is a pretty mellow board, nothing at all compared to my "progressives" board, ( or liberal, for you Americans ) a visit to that board is like going to the chicken fights.

In Canada, we have pretty strict gun laws, especially in the cities, and yes, we have violent crimes, so removing guns from the equation will have little effect on the incidence of violent crimes but I do suspect it has an effect on the outcome of those violent crimes. Most of our criminals tend to use there guns on each other to boot, Darwin would like this.

I see your point about what might happen if America tried to disarm itself, that only criminals would have guns. It makes sense. Any program designed to reduce the sheer number of anti-personnel weapons would have to be accompanied by laws that make the "misuse" of a firearm a very severe offense.

In Canada, for instance, you get extra jail time for using a firearm in the commission of a criminal offense, and a couple of months ago, the government was thinking about passing a law that made the commission of a crime with the intent of obtaining a firearm a more severe offense ( eg...breaking into a gun store )


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:handguns are used for target practice. My best friend has more than one. He has holsters for many of them. He also has regular cases for them and ammo and keeps all but one in a safe. But responsible owners do NOT keep a loaded gun in the house or glove compartment. Accident waiting to happen

Many of the gun crimes are against other criminals. They just don't always get reported that way for the families sake.

And round here you get worse sentence because you have a gun because there is an assumption to do bodily harm


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Sorry If I jump around here a bit, I just wanted to clarify some stuff off the bat.

 Written by :Tea Fairy

I've been following this thread, not sure where I stand on the issue... but the above just struck me as oversimplifying, it's a very black and white statement. People are not simply 'good' or 'bad' by 'nature'. Everybody will have variations in how they understand 'good' and 'bad' and how they behave accordingly. 'Good' people are perfectly capable, in the right circumstances, of doing very bad things and 'bad' people are also capable, in the right circumstances, of doing a great deal of good. Both are equally capable of doing stupid things too.



I agree, it was oversimplifying, and I apologize for that, I was getting frustrated. When it comes to intent and reasoning for carrying a weapon it's slightly more clear cut however. The A/B choice that I presented is still the same.

I don't assume that most people who own guns are good, and responsible. In fact quite the opposite, unless I know the person I'm very weary handling weapons around them. Not because I'm afraid they will murder me, but because I'm a stickler for gun safety.

 Written by :Stout

The bad guys are getting their guns from the good guys. That's what I meant by the statement you interpreted as being used against the original owner's will. Someone may buy a gun with good intention, loose interest in that gun, and sell it off to someone with "less good" intentions. This may be different if people were only allowed to own one gun for self defense purposes.

Say you're the author of the article in Men's Health that Stone posted. I know he was a weenie with his prattling on about safeties needing red dots and a bullet in the chamber indicators..here's a good example of someone who probably shouldn't own a gun. He bought himself a brand new .22 ( weird choice I know...mouse gun ) and quickly came to discover that a larger calibre was more "satisfying" . Now what's he going to do with that .22 ? Is he going to try and determine the intent of a potential purchaser when he sells it off in favour of a Glock ?



The original owner cannot impart his will on something he doesn't own anymore than you can control who buys your car from the person you sold it to. They can choose who they sell their weapons to. Sell it to someone they know, sell it to a cop, destroy it. There are already many 'buy-back' programs around the country willing to buy guns and destroy them. How about back to a gun store where they're required to do background checks?

But that raises the question, why does he have to sell it? In your plan he would be forced to, as he can only own one at a time. But why? A mouse gun is a poor choice for carrying, but they can be invaluable for practice. Ammunition is far cheaper, many people have a small gun for practice. He doesn't *HAVE* to introduce that gun to anyone, and at the very least he has the CHOICE to sell it if, and to, whomever he wants.

 Written by :Stout

I may feel differently, were I living in a society where I feared criminals with guns, or even feared crackheads swinging baseball bats as I went about my daily business. But I don't. I can't think of one single example in my life where I thought " I sure wish I had a gun" I mean a serious example...you know what I mean.



Honestly? In my daily life I can't think of a single example either. Through my work with SAR and as a Reserve I certainly can though. In a magical Utopian world we wouldn't need guns, but we're pretty far off from that world right now. Once you can ensure to me that no criminal has a gun, I'll give mine up. Until then I'd prefer to keep my second most valuable tool I have in preserving my life.

 Written by :Stout

Are there any laws about blood alcohol content and carrying a weapon ?

Maybe I have too much faith in the sheepdogs ( ie police ) but so far, locally, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping the civilian gun violence down.



BAC content and concealed carry is state by state I believe, but virtually every one that I know of says you cannot drink and carry. Most say you can't carry in any establishment that sells alcohol, some limit that to bars.

My point is that Sheepdogs are not limited to the police, or the government. Being a sheepdog is a personal choice about understanding the risks and refusing to be a victim. The whole 'community policing' craze has been about involving the community, in the police work. They rely on the people to help them with their job, it isn't solely up to law enforcement to ensure you have a safe home. Remember that personal responsibility bit? I wouldn't ask anyone to put their life in danger for me. That's just me. They do it anyways, even though they have no legal duty to. How would you feel if someone died trying to protect you from something you could have protected yourself from had you been prepared?

Not only that, but the few situations where a firearm is needed generally escalate so quickly the police will still be a few minutes away. "A gun in the hand is better than the police on the phone"

 Written by

No??? that was an assumption on my part based on the "need" so many Americans seem to feel for personal protection firearms. Were I to buy one, it would be motivated by fear of armed criminals. A sort of...since the bad guys have them.... kind of thinking.



No, most of us don't live in fear, but I have a healthy understanding of the potential risks. I got my guns for various reasons, mostly for sport and recreation. The Glock is the only gun I've bought specifically for defense, but that is my duty weapon. All my guns can do double duty as sport, and/or protection. Remember that thing about 'Denial kills you twice'? Just the same as there is a grey area between good and bad, there is a grey area between 'fearful and paranoid' and being in complete denial that anything bad can happen to you.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:And don't forget people, cops only can help after the matter has begun. Domestic disturbance calls can take up to an hour and a half. Someone beating you up half hour.

If someone is threatening me, cops aren't going to be a whole lot of help


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted:Ohh Faithinfire, you have no (I'm sorry) faith in the police. After they are done with their doughnuts and their 10-200 pit stops, a few cigerrets and the half the J they confiscated from the kids at the skate park, they'll be there to help you in a hear beat!

Maybe thats just the cops here in Buque. tongue


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Like I said.. DV cases are a breed all their own, and there are specific laws to help that.

Stout: You do get more severe punishments for interpersonal crime involving weapons. Assault for example for my state is split into 4 classes, Assault 4 being the least severe, an A misdemeanor, all the way up to Assault 1 which is "intentionally causing serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon". An A Felony. It all goes by intent and whether or not a weapon was used.

Similar for robbery, and a number of other crimes.

Faith if you come visit I'll take you shooting wink


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Azadondo
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Azadondo

journeyman
Location: Los Angeles

Total posts: 59
Posted:This is what I tell people whenever this topic of conversation comes up:

When I was 7 or 8 years old my sister's best friend, who lived down the street about 3 blocks, and her family were out one evening and when they came back their house had been broken into and a lot of their stuff had been stolen. My sister, who is two years older than me, flipped out and got scared and I got scared and my little brother got scared and we asked our parents what would happen if our house ever got broken into.

They explained to us about how you file a police report and send a list of the stolen property to insurance and everything gets replaced and that we would be ok because the important thing is that nobody is hurt.

A few days later I started having nightmares about people braking in while we were all home and the robbers getting my sister, brother and I. So I asked my Dad what we would do if that happened. And he told me that if that ever happened that we would all go into our parents room and my brother, sister and I would go into their bathroom and lock the door. My Mother would call the police and then come and join us. While that was happening, my Father would get his shotgun, which was locked and hidden behind a sliding mirror in his closet, and load it, with the shells that were locked in an ammo case under a floor board in same hidden compartment, and he would yell down to the people in our house that they could take anything in the house they wanted-- but that we were in the upstairs back right bedroom and if the door handle so much as giggled he would assume they were trying to hurt us and he would shoot to kill. He told me we would stay there until the police came.

He then showed me the gun and taught me how to use it and how dangerous it could be and that it would only be used in the circumstance he explained.

I never had those nightmares again.

When I have a wife and children I will also have a shotgun to protect them. Not because I am scared that it will happen. Not because I want to kill someone. But because it is possible that we could be in a situation where it becomes necessary for me to use it to protect my family. I wouldn't use it to protect my property-- I would let everything I owned get stolen before I went John McCain and tried to take matters into my own hands-- but if my family's lives were put in danger I wouldn't think twice about unloading every round I had through that bedroom door.

I will keep it as hidden away as my Father did and I will teach all of my children how dangerous guns are and that they should only be used in the most dire of circumstances.

If I am lucky-- and I pray that I will be-- I will never have to fire that gun.

But it will be there.


Performing marriages, funerals, baptisisms, last rites and absolving the sins for HoPers for-- not very long actually.

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by :Lurch





Faith if you come visit I'll take you shooting wink





Cool, my friend was supposed to teach me, but he got deployed...now I just got the car up to snuff and road trip in the summer...music fests, renfairs, and target practice



wait, do I need a permit


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted: Written by



wait, do I need a permit






Nope. You can find ranges that will rent out weapons by the hour. Recreational shooting is good fun.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted: Written by

How about back to a gun store where they're required to do background checks?


Hummm...I hadn't thought of that, see I was thinking the gun would end up as one of those private sales ( I know, state to state laws ) with the owner not really giving a rip where it ended up. I was thinking he'd probably want to get rid of it in favour of the gun he was actually going to carry, and would be working with his proficiency with that weapon instead of a smaller one. I'm taking that train of thought from the article itself when the author describes how much more difficult the Glock was to handle.

I hear you on the ammunition costs. for years I had a .22 rifle, and a 12 ga. shotgun, The ammo for the .22 was cheap like dirt, and I used to beg my uncle to fill me up with the reloads he did when I wanted to go skeet shooting. I thought, next step, a big bore rifle. Ha....what do you mean a dollar a shot...yikes, so much for that idea.

I'm not imagining a magical utopian world, just one that might be a little bit closer to one , that's all. But, if, as you say, there's that much concern that only criminals would remain armed under an Australian type buy back scheme, then i guess that's it. This is what I'm talking about when I say fear. I don't live in the US, and rarely visit ( heck, with the US dollar way down like it is, I can actually afford to visit ) so most of my experience re American gun culture comes from research I've done on this thread and anecdotal "evidence". In the times i have travelled to the US I can count the amount of times I've been "freaked out' by a guy with a gun on one finger.

For some reason, at a Tragically Hip concert in Seattle, and usher was running through the crowd with a pistol held high above his head. I did a double take, and seeing as no one else around me looked concerned, all I did was turn to my buddy and say...."America" It was something i just wasn't used to.

So there are laws about BAC and carrying. OK. 'cause, we all do stoopid things when drunk...at least I've done my fair share.

I'd expect our Canadian police to put their lives in danger for me. Hey if they're telling me I can't do it myself, then they better step up to the plate and do it for me. That's all hypothetical though, assuming there's a cop right there. when and where I need him.

About 6 weeks ago, I had a bicycle stolen out of my back yard. it was an old bike that I didn't really care much about, which is why it was unlocked, but out of sight from the street. I went to the police station to file a report, more so because I was concerned that there were scumbags frequenting my back yard. I mentioned to the police about how i was fearing for the safety of my family, and maybe...I should get a shotgun and they repeatedly assured me that they'd be on the scene in minutes if I noted any suspicious activity.

I believed them.

I can't say I'm in denial of the idea that anything bad can happen to me and mine, but I don't spend much time stressing out about it. And stressing out about it is something I'd be doing big time had I purchased a shotgun. Actually, come to think of it, I'd probably buy a pistol as a home defense weapon, seeing as how Canada's relaxed our handgun laws.. ( previously, you had to keep the gun in a locker at the range, and apply for special permission each and every time you moved it ) Since we live in a small place, a full size long gun would be to unwieldy.

But if I do end up finding a scumbag in my backyard, I can be reasonably certain that he's not packing a gun. Any other number of weapons, maybe, but not a gun. I can out run most melee weapons if it comes to that.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:The author of that article isn't all that bright IMHO. Most of his gripes are taken care of easily with proper discipline and training. His "essential rules of firearm handling" are a joke. There are 4 cardinal rules, he got two of them.

1. Never point your gun at anything you're not legally and morally justified in destroying.

2. Keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you're on target and ready to shoot.

3. Be sure of your backstop (whats behind your target)

4. A gun is always loaded.

There are some exceptions to rule #4, (most modern semi automatics require you to pull the trigger to disassemble the gun) but you ALWAYS check it yourself, and never rely on someone else's word that it is unloaded. Not only that but when dry firing you still maintain the other three rules. If those rules were followed the tragic "accident" with the kid(it was negligence not an accident) would have been avoided. When I dismantle my gun when it comes time to dry fire I'm always aimed at the floor in the outside corner of my room. IF I royally screw up at some point, and the gun goes bang instead of click all I'm going to do is put a hole in the floor and some dirt. You NEVER trust a safety, and you NEVER trust a loaded chamber indicator. Proper trigger discipline and muzzle control would solve 99% of all accidents. Thats why I've been pushing firearm education.

 Written by :Stout

For some reason, at a Tragically Hip concert in Seattle, and usher was running through the crowd with a pistol held high above his head. I did a double take, and seeing as no one else around me looked concerned, all I did was turn to my buddy and say...."America" It was something i just wasn't used to.



Personally I wouldn't be caught dead at that concert.. But I wouldn't be too happy with that display either. People doing stupid things like that are what gives all the other SAFE gun enthusiasts a bad image.

 Written by

I'd expect our Canadian police to put their lives in danger for me. Hey if they're telling me I can't do it myself, then they better step up to the plate and do it for me. That's all hypothetical though, assuming there's a cop right there. when and where I need him.

About 6 weeks ago, I had a bicycle stolen out of my back yard. it was an old bike that I didn't really care much about, which is why it was unlocked, but out of sight from the street. I went to the police station to file a report, more so because I was concerned that there were scumbags frequenting my back yard. I mentioned to the police about how i was fearing for the safety of my family, and maybe...I should get a shotgun and they repeatedly assured me that they'd be on the scene in minutes if I noted any suspicious activity.

I believed them.



There are a couple things about that statement that concern me. First you expect a complete stranger to risk their life for you. Remember that personal responsibility thing? Granted there are many scenarios where you're not responsible for the situation you may be in, but that basic belief does not sit well with me. Maybe it's because I've been taught to fix my own problems. Maybe it's because I could not morally ask someone to put their life on the line for mine. Not only that, but the US Supreme court has already ruled that I as a police officer have absolutely no duty to protect you, or stop a crime I may witness. Meaning I don't have to, nor would I, run into a gunfight on your behalf. My technical job, is to arrest the bad guy after the crime has been committed, not stop them from committing it. You as a citizen do have a responsibility to ensure your own safety. Seat belts are mandatory in cars, yet there are still some people who do not wear them, there is little difference IMO in terms of failure to prepare yourself.

Secondly, unless the 'scumbag' was actively threatening you and attempting to gain entry to your house you wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on in terms of self defense if you were to drop him. It goes back to that 'Ability Opportunity and Intent' thing. I'm not overly concerned about someone in my backyard. I'm not even overly concerned about someone in my house, but the moment they threaten me or my family the game changes. Would I yell at someone in my yard to leave? You bet. Would I challenge someone at gunpoint if they came into my house with ill intent? Probably. Would I shoot them? Only as a last resort.

Castle Doctrine says that I don't have to submit and back down in defense of my house, but it doesn't mean I can shoot someone for coming onto my property.

If you're in a small town with a relatively large police presence than by all means, have faith in your law enforcement. But I can guarantee you something like an unwitnessed bicycle theft is going to go to the bottom of the list if there are other higher priority calls, you can't always expect or rely on a quick police response.

 Written by :

But if I do end up finding a scumbag in my backyard, I can be reasonably certain that he's not packing a gun. Any other number of weapons, maybe, but not a gun. I can out run most melee weapons if it comes to that.



Why are you out in your backyard confronting him anyways? There is no use in potentially escalating a situation by confronting a potentially dangerous person, especially if you aren't prepared to defend yourself. Don't be so sure about being able to outrun melee weapons, reaction is *always* going to be slower than action.

 Written by :

I can't say I'm in denial of the idea that anything bad can happen to me and mine, but I don't spend much time stressing out about it. And stressing out about it is something I'd be doing big time had I purchased a shotgun. Actually, come to think of it, I'd probably buy a pistol as a home defense weapon, seeing as how Canada's relaxed our handgun laws.. ( previously, you had to keep the gun in a locker at the range, and apply for special permission each and every time you moved it ) Since we live in a small place, a full size long gun would be to unwieldy.



If you live by yourself a shotgun is probably your best and most versatile weapon for home defense. You shouldn't be 'clearing' your house anyways, especially by yourself. If you truly believe someone is in your home just stay put and watch the door while you're on the phone with the cops. The game changes if there are other people you must protect as well, but I'm not so sure this is the place to discuss tactics.

Faith: No you don't need a permit unless you're going to pack concealed. You buy the ammo I'll supply the guns wink


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Hmmm I've been thinking short road trip with my economic stimulus check...just a little weekend trip

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by :Stone

I have the right to bare arms is a NRA myth, used to sell guns that will lead to anarchy. The NRA tends to forget the bit about A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Now, that myth is about be enshrined in law. For the first time in 70 years, the United States Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a landmark case about the country's gun laws. Can't wait to see where that's going to lead.



Oh yes, I forgot to mention this. The supreme court just sided with the individuals right to keep our guns.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Guys, I'm not allowed to leave? (sigh) condemned to life in the gun thread? ubblol

However, Lurch I appreciate your effort, you're taking a lot of time to back up your opinion and please do remember that I also moved from a general opposition of firearms to the position that some people under certain circumstances should be allowed to bear arms. I even came up with a preposition, a catalog, which again got fully dismissed.

IMO you're simply not happy as long as your right to bear a firearm remains untouched - that frustrates me full scale, because you're not open to any negotiations, even if 'we' would come half your way.

Let's compare the US and Europe in population and crimes and especially gun related crimes. At the end of the day it's a fact that there are far more mass murders happening in the US (involving firearms - so far I have not heard of any mass murder happening, involving a sword or bow and arrow).

The studies presented have not only stemmed from politically biased initiatives (the anti-gun lobby) but also from US law enforcement, whilst the "scientific studies" you presented had no less political bias. Let's face it: It's a political issue within the US.

So we're back in here full scale:

If you carry a gun, you might not have the intent to kill someone but certainly you at least need to be ready to kill someone (to "stop the 'threat'" by all means). By depriving the attacker from being a human being and naming him a "threat" without personality and background you already take the first step.

To eradicate crime (if that is possible at all) we need to go to the root causes of it and eradicate social injustice, to provide reasonable means (like proper education), to provide equal chances. This is not the fact anywhere, so we would need to work on this one.

But really I do not care about the difference between "state law" or "federal law", as long as you have no borders to cross within the US (btw I lived a few months in L.A. and NYC - why do I have to refresh your memory every time you attempt to discredit me? - please stick to a friendly discussion and refrain from such attacks, thanks). The fact that you have no borders within the US territory makes it possible for guns to get purchased in Texas and brought to, say New York City. It automatically makes them 'illegal guns' - but not less lethal. Personally I don't care whether I get shot with a legal or illegal gun, dead is dead.

Whilst guns in fact can prevent crimes, these occasions only account for a neglectible amount:

"David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (between 1987 and 1990)" ... now compare this to 1.8 million violent crimes happening (in 1990)... "This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame"

It in fact is irrelevant where the arms industry is based. (BTW I have not researched into the shareholders structure of said industry (we're living in a globalised world, remember?), even if *all* the industry would be based in Germany, I would equally oppose them.)

The arms industry accounts for a great deal of suffering (human or other) on this planet, therefore any support for this industry creates and prolongs suffering. This definitely happens on a far larger scale than it possibly can prevent suffering.

However: Intent can change - the right to carry remains.

Lurch, you are neither open to new regulations, nor are you coming up with suggestions on how to enforce the existing laws. You appear as if you would like to keep the status quo as it is, in order to continue playing "cowboy and indian", errm "wolf, sheep and shepherd dog" that is. By that you are one of those who prolong a violent society and prevent a peaceful solution in the near future. In best intent, I'm sure.

"We have to become the change that we want to see in the world" (M.Ghandi)

If you'd find any truth in this quote (and as a shepherd dog you seem to aim for a peaceful society, other than that you'd be just a "legal wolf"), so if you can find any truth in this quote, you would give up your arms. We - as a society - need to aim for a peaceful solution and go to the root causes of crime, rather than to continue elaborating on it's effects. And if - again - you refer to the other Ghandi quote: If you'd live in India, you would understand and side the disarmament of its population...

 Written by : Lurch

As for the second hand gun sales being used in crimes against the original owners will. What does that even mean? You don't *have* to sell anything to anyone. Is it my fault if a car I sold is later used in a hit and run?



You're comparing apples and oranges, but certainly IF you're selling your car to a minor, you will be partly responsible for an accident occurring. Equally IF you're selling your gun without a proper background check you WILL be morally responsible for crimes conducted. UNfortunately the law will not hold you responsible.


 Written by : Lurch


 Written by : OWD


Many of Stones points are good ones- for example, I fully agree that fear and paranoia lead to more violence.



I will agree to part of that. Paranoia can indeed lead to more aggression. Fear on the other hand is a basic instinct that is healthy for us to have, and we should not ignore. I would suggest to anyone to read 'The Gift of Fear' by Gavin De Becker



Fear is a primal instinct, it makes us alert, paranoia is pathological and irrational fear and therefore we need to work on the causes of paranoia in order to diminish it. There seem to live a great deal more "bad guys" in the US than anywhere else in the western world - why you think that is?

@ Azadondo: welcome

 Written by : Azadondo

My sister, who is two years older than me, flipped out and got scared and I got scared and my little brother got scared and we asked our parents what would happen if our house ever got broken into.



Your nightmares were resulting from the reactions of your relatives, not from the incident itself. If everyone would have kept calm you would not have faced this condition. Paranoia is based on irrational fear.

 Written by : Dragon_Dafin

The problem of crime is not limited to guns. We can all agree with that. Even countries like Japan who have extremely strict gun laws still have crime. Even violent crime.



But are there any mass murders involving firearms happening in Japan? We need to focus on the causes and the means. Is it rational to keep a society armed just because crimes happen?

 Written by : D_D

It is my contention that a change from an armed society (I speaking of an armed society like the US where firearms are so ingrained into our society) to an unarmed society would do more to raise the crime rate than to lower it.



Is that really the case? Gun laws have been tightened in many countries without the crime rates significantly raising in the same period of time (compared to other countries where gun laws remained the same).

 Written by : the tea fairy

People are not simply 'good' or 'bad' by 'nature'. Everybody will have variations in how they understand 'good' and 'bad' and how they behave accordingly. 'Good' people are perfectly capable, in the right circumstances, of doing very bad things and 'bad' people are also capable, in the right circumstances, of doing a great deal of good. Both are equally capable of doing stupid things too.

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to an 'us' and 'them' kind of attitude, which disregards the vast differences in people's motivations and behaviour. You can't just assume that all those who obtain weapons via the legal routes are all 'good' or 'responsible' - I'd also argue that those who own guns illegally are not all planning on mass murder, or killing people in unprovoked attacks...



I understand you getting idolized for all the right reasons hug the world is grayscale, not just black and white.

PS: as to bring this thread to a more organized state, could you use the "pin" icon at times you quote scientific data and studies (however biased)? It will help a great deal to find it again later, at times we have moved on. Thanks

Have a lovely day

grouphug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 1...2223242526...44

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 murder suicide   ...
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..