• 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...2324252627...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

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted: Written by

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





Here is where you are wrong or at least partially wrong. Guns prevent far more crimes than they are given credit for. While you may possibly be speaking of crime prevention where a firearm was discharged, pulling the trigger isn't the only way guns prevent crime.



At the Credit Union where I work we were robbed three times in one year, twice in a week long period (same guy).



Since then we've added an armed security guard and bullet proof glass around the tellers. We have had 0 robberies and seen multiple people look at our guard and turn around and walk right out of the Credit Union.



While you can contribute some credit to the bullet proof glass, the majority of it goes to our armed guards.



Crimes prevented, because someone with a gun stood in the lobby.







Cops who draw their guns stop crime. Or at the very least keep crime in progress from escalating.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Dragon, excuse my poor wording: I was referring to "guns in civilian hands". Anyway thanks for sharing your personal experience at the Credit Union. I'd say that it's an assumptive claim, stating that all those multiple people turned around because of looking at your guards - entered with the intent to rob the venue. I note that the same guy accounts for two robberies within a weeks time, which accounts for two out of three robberies within a years time previous to installing bullet proof glass and armed guard(s)...

Please kindly note that I changed my personal stance from generally opposing all guns to "guns in civilian hands" for the *time being*. Especially the US is wound up in a "catch 22" with too many illegal guns. How to escape this loop?

Further I am not questioning the effectiveness of armed guards in a bank or any other institution dealing with valuables. But how about a metal detector and a sluice to prevent armed civilians from entering the premises? Certainly this would not be 'customer friendly' but could be deemed an 'alternative'.

As I stated earlier we would also need to focus on the reasons for crimes committed in general and take efforts to prevent ppl from engaging with them in the first place. This world might never become 'perfect' but we need to take steps in this direction. "Every thousand mile road starts with the first step"

Whilst 'politically biassed' I would like to refer you to the Brady campaign for retrieving informations on the anti-gun lobby. It's not an independent source of information, I acknowledge, but it counters the picture painted by the NRA (which themselves are not independent).

Have you noticed the poor laws regarding "second hand sales" and the questionable practice of "gun show sales" - or any sales of arms that do not require background checks? Would you agree that these laws condone guns to end up in criminal hands? Ergo that these laws are flawed and need to be corrected? Would you further agree that it's not necessary to keep a ridiculous amount of guns and ammunition back home in order to defend yourself?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Oh and for some more 'facts', please refer to this site



See I'm not arguing just from the anti-gun side and happily acknowledge all kinds of information that contribute to the discussion.



I am aware that both sides are prone to twist facts as to prove their point and gathering as much information as possible on both ends of the available spectrum will lead to a broader range of knowledge and therefore help to render ones opinion more independently.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1206275770)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted:Just to continue my personal experiance, not arguing a point or anything. Only one of the robberies involved a fire arm. The others were note passers.

Hollywood style hold up robberies very rarely happen, we were just unlucky.

Your right however it is an assumption that some of the people who have walked in, seen our guard and walked out were intent on robbing the place.

However you cannot argue the fact that in the three years since we took those measures we've had no robberies.

However I see your point, guns in police hands vs. guns in civilians hand and the prevention of crime.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by :FT

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.



Well thank you FireTom, in case you haven't noticed it's something I'm rather passionate about. I do know that you've changed your opinion slightly and I see that as quite an accomplishment. I know we will probably never see eye to eye on this one but it's still just a fun topic for me.. I hope I don't push too many of your buttons wink

 Written by :FT

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.



Not true, there is a huge difference between a free and open right to bear arms (any arms) and what we currently have. I am happy with the current state of things. There are federal legislations that for the most part, are perfectly reasonable (now that the AW Ban is gone). You say that you don't care about the difference of state and federal law. Well thats a BIG point in the US. You may not care, but we are the UNITED STATES of America. Each state is essentially independent. Most laws, from speeding to murder are set and defined by the STATE. Each state has it's own rights, it's own constitution, it's own government. You may see guns as a national issue, and indeed in some ways it is, but in terms of possession of those weapons it should be up to the individual state to vote and make their own decision. In terms of the laws that are already in place I would say I'm already halfway to your side in restricting them.

 Written by :FT

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.



Indeed it is, and I'm sure some of my stuff has been politically biased. I'm not foolish enough to imagine it isn't. But see, I'm of the mindset that you must know your threat before you can speak about it truthfully. You speak of Law Enforcement "studies" that show guns are bad? Why then, with very very few exceptions, do nearly every cop I know personally fully endorse and even encourage civilian concealed carry? I see the anti-gun lobbyists as paranoid and usually hypocritical. Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign being investigated for making a Straw Purchase for her son, even Rosie O'Donnell with her armed body guards while screaming to get rid of guns from society. They are rarely knowledgeable on the topic other than by spouting out statistics and fear mongering. Even the man writing for Mens Health misuses very simple terminology. If you take the time to get to know people with guns, maybe even shoot with them. Learn the culture, go to shooting competitions. If you do all that, and understand the culture, and still don't support the individuals right to bear arms, than I'm all for it. By all means, shout it to the world, you have a much stronger platform and can argue with logic, rather than purely statistics and fear.


 Written by :FT

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.



I agree, you should not be carrying a firearm if you're not mentally prepared and willing to take a life if it comes down to that. Willing to, and Wanting to are two very different concepts though. I call them a threat because that is what they are. They are hypothetical at this point, I don't fear anyone, I have no individuals hunting me down, there is no other name to give them. My "threat" may not even necessarily be human, I do spend a lot of time in the woods remember, are we do still have predators out here. We haven't killed them all off like most of Europe wink WHY my threat is trying to kill me is not nearly as important as the fact that they are TRYING TO KILL ME. At that point I don't care who they are, their name does not matter to me, and indeed taking the time to think of such things could very well cost me my life.

 Written by :FT

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.



It doesn't automatically make the gun illegal, that is up the the state that you happen to be in at the time. Have you forgotten about the largely unguarded 5,000 mile border between the US and Canada? It wouldn't be that hard to move a firearm either way across that border, so do you not care about Canadian laws either? You're missing my point about the distinction between state and federal. The place that you ARE should decide what you can and can't do there. It needs to have control over itself. There are states that have virtually banned guns, and there are those where you are free to carry where you like. The local people should be the ones to make decisions over what will ultimately effect them. Do you not agree? You may have lived in LA and NYC for a few months, both high crime, very political, and very paranoid cities, but in the end you have to logically concede that you do not know or understand the individual societal influences and factors for everywhere in the country.

 Written by :FT

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.



Which laws aren't being enforced? Taking illegal guns off the streets is high priority, taking legal guns from legal civilians is not. I don't like the status quo as it is, I think more people need to take their safety and self defense into their own hands and stop relying on the government to save their butts everytime they get in trouble. Making more guns illegal isn't going to magically reduce the number of illegal guns. I'm all for pushing education and personal responsibility. As I've said before, part of the problem with guns, and the "evil" mystique that they've been given, is from media portrayal. Not only that, but it turns to a fast downward spiral when people become paranoid and vilify them, thereby cutting off any positive potential. Go back 50 years, guns were far more prevalent in daily life. Hunting was even more of a national pass time. There were shooting clubs in schools. You can still find this in some places. Guns are a valuable tool, but they absolutely must be respected. Take the rural "hick" people who have grown up around guns, gone hunting since they were children, and compare them to inner city you who's only connection with guns is gang violence, police, and mass media (be it news or movies) and there are remarkably notable differences.

 Written by :FT

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.



WHAT?! Would you demand to see someones driving record before you sold them a car? There is no negligence in selling a car to a minor, you're not responsible for an accident in any way. UNLESS you knew that they could not, or should not be driving. If you sell a gun to someone you know cannot legally own that gun, it's a crime. There is no moral obligation to do a criminal background check on someone who wants to buy a gun in a private sale. If you want to, then by all means go ahead. If you get a bad feeling about the person, by all means DON'T sell it to them, that is your right!

 Written by :FT

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?



There are many reasons for that, but the availability of our guns is not one of them.

 Written by :FT

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.



Personally I'd be a little more worried if no one thought it was a big deal that your home was broken into. I don't know about you FireTom but I don't take blatant violations of my privacy, and safety, nor felonies lightly. Maybe that's why

 Written by :FT

"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"



Well that's directly contradictory to your own 'fact' link you just posted that says Americans use guns to defend ourselves over 700,000 times a year! Regardless, even taking your numbers, of the 20,000 murders we have annually, we just saved 60,000 more with legal guns.

 Written by :FT

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.



I won't give up my arms in the name of peace? I've said it before FireTom, once the criminals are disarmed and gone, I'll gladly give up my defense weapons. Disarming in the name of peace is great and noble and all that, but it's a futile gesture that puts yourself at risk. Remember the situations where I may need a gun are after all that 'non-violent communication' stuff has failed. I still don't think you've conceded that sometimes, violence is needed.

 Written by : Vet

Theres a character trait thats decided by fate
Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They wont face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till theyre faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, whod know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.

Yes, it seems there are some whore determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothings worth war.
But how can they know lest theyve been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts wholl stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nations call.

The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they wont defend,
So their own unearned freedom wont perish, wont end.

To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66



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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Lurch, I do agree that the story about the 7 year old getting shot in the face is a case of negligence. Just on who's part I'm not sure, but it does serve as a shining example of why the general public shouldn't be trusted with handguns. I didn't do any research on that particular story so I only have the MH perspective on it and it seems like there was ignorance all around.

First, the gun purchaser bought the gun, loaded it, then "forgot about it" ?? Huh?? forgot about a loaded pistol with six children in the house ? What kind of idiot does that ? Second, a family friend somehow gets ahold of this forgotten gun ( btw, the wiki article on the Bryco 38 puts the age of the family friend at 12, not 20, like the MH article states), somehow decides that he should unload it and...the accident happens.

Next we have the gun itself, which as far as the 15 minutes of reading I did on it tells me. it was a total piece of crap and the manufacturer was sued because of it. This raises another question. Somewhere, on this thread I read that gun manufacturers, were NOT responsible for the harm caused by their products. ( arms manufacturers, and tobacco companies were said to share this common level of protection ) maybe I'm reading this wrong, and what was meant was that arms manufacturers were not responsible for what their customers do with their products, but my impression was that a manufacturer could sell pretty much anything they wanted and it was more buyer beware..

The success of the lawsuit would negate this idea though.

Had the original purchaser of the Bryco, actually acted in a responsible manner and trained properly with his new purchase, he would have quickly determined that he had a sub-standard piece of equipment on his hands and most likely replaced it with a "proper" gun. I'm actually surprised that he won such a large settlement in light of the personal responsibility issue.

Not a Tragically Hip fan???...I'd like to offer my deepest condolences. wink

I wouldn't expect anyone to run into a gunfight on my behalf, not even a police officer, however living in an unarmed society, I don't expect to get into a gunfight. If I did, and the police showed up, I'd expect they'd not know who's behalf to intervene on.

When it comes to being protected by the police, I was thinking more along the lines of when I call for assistance because there's something like a prowler in my back yard, I EXPECT they'd respond immediately with flashing lights and a K9 unit if available. I don't expect them to give much ( if any ) priority to the stolen bicycle report, seeing as how it's after the fact, but I would expect the police to attend with the intent of preventing a crime if and when I did phone in that prowler report.

Why wouldn't I confront somebody in my backyard ? Yea...I agree, it could be a stupid thing to do, but.

I've never had occasion to even think about the need to clear my house, but yes, it wouldn't be the wisest of ideas, especially solo. Considering i only have one door ( it's a suite, really ) and anyone "in here" would quickly come to learn that exiting via the windows is an impossibility and they'd have to exit through the door.

A door I'd leave well open


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:But again Stout, it's about education. I know people who have been shooting since they were knee high to a grasshopper. Hunting since they were 8. If someone has been taught proper handgun safety these acts of stupidity wouldn't happen nearly as often. When you take someone who's only 'contact' with firearms is through movies, the news, music videos and local gangs, there is no doubt they won't have proper discipline. Who cares if the safety has to be off to unload the gun, what about all the guns that don't have a manual safety like that? Neither of my pistols have a thumb safety, and they were designed that way.

There was definitely negligence on both parties, leaving a loaded gun around is foolish at best, downright dangerous with children in the home. Regardless of whether the 'babysitter' was 12 or 20. I don't think he was "trying to unload" the gun at all, but thats just my opinion. Why would you need to unload a gun unless you wanted to handle it?

Believing in police protection is one thing, relying on it is another. What about the vast areas with very little police presence? The county I volunteer for for example, covers 741 sq miles. Over 60,000 people, and three small cities with a couple cops of their own. For the county though, after about 3am there are two guys covering 741 sq miles. Them getting ON SCENE may be 45 minutes to an hour, even going code 3, backup could be another 45 minutes away. People in the city seem to have a hard time understanding that the police may simply not be there when you need them, but I know there are large parts of Canada that are the same.


#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 Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Even in the city...Cops take a long time to get there. There was a report that I had been murdered and the guy was in the apartment. The cops didn't show up till three hours after the guy called them.



The only time cops show up with speed is when they are on patrol of a hot neighborhood and are already there



Education and familiarity are key with any weapon. And never have it loaded unless you are actually using it for hunting or target practice or you know, USING it. That's just dumb


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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Just on a short note here, as we had the full scale argument already. I do not intend to convince you of anything here, Lurch as we're coming from two different ends of the spectrum. So let's continue this debate just for the sake of its perpetuation.



- Personally I did fire guns on shooting ranges but have never served in the army. Personally I do know people who shoot, yet this has been some time ago.



- I have lived some short time in the US, to specify: in Los Angeles and New York, all together about half a year. Outside this time I have travelled the following states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New York City and state, Nevada, Utah, Virginia. I have friends and had relatives-in-law within the US since 1991.



- Apart from about 20(+) countries that I had the chance to visit worldwide I have travelled to Switzerland maybe 50 times, travelled to Australia about 4 times (and spent about a year living and working 'down under').



Let me ask you in return: How much travelling have you undertaken within and outside your own country? Have you ever travelled to or lived in Switzerland (a country you cite in regards of "pro-gun")? Have you ever travelled to or lived in Australia (a country that 'recently' changed its gun laws). Can you say anything from first hand experience about the people, the culture and the atmosphere of these countries as to compare it to the ambience in the USofA's?



Just in case that your answer to my question is "no": Why are you (repeatedly) trying to discredit me in my approach towards the US and their gun laws? I would really appreciate it, if you'd finally acknowledge the above.



I am in no way claiming to be an 'expert' on the US and its citizens, perhaps I am less involved and it gives me the chance to evaluate from the outside, without socio-cultural conditioning. Maybe my evaluations are erroneous, given that. Fact of the matter is that there is a 'certain' percentage of citizens within the US that share the same perspective on gun laws. This percentage changes with every mass murder committed with firearms.



As to the post on top of this page:



- Keep pushing buttons, it's a good breathing exercise for me...



- 'Assault weapons' are no reasonable and appropriate means of self defence, there is no reason for them to be available to civilians. I am certain to speak for the majority of ppl who do not possess or intend to possess guns.



- I understand that the US on the inside function similar to the EU - whereas the US does vote for a federal government and a president who (for example) is able to declare war on another country. The (legislative) structure of the US therefore is a bit confusing, certainly there are federal (gun) laws in effect (like on full automatic machine guns and the ban on 'copkiller' ammunition).



Further I do not understand why some states can overrule the second amendment in their state legislation... maybe you help me to understand?



- However, there is a difference between a 'scientific study' and "every law enforcement officer I meet and talk to". I don't have to explain this to you, do I?



- Lobbyists and political activists do have body guards for certain reasons. If - for example - Martin Luther King would have had (sufficient) protection, he would not have gotten shot. I think it's perfectly okay to be an activist against gun control and violence and at the same time to protect ones self. After all I am not arguing against the right of self defence or the right on physical inviolability. Especially in an environment as the US I would not condemn activists to ask for protection.



- You're the one arguing on "legal vs. illegal guns". A gun legally purchased in one state, carried over the border to another state with different legislation *automatically* becomes illegal - true or false?



- The intent on which one carries a gun is important. "Willing to" and "wanting to" only specifies a present or absent desire. Intent and desire can change, after all gun owners are also 'just' human. The right to carry remains.



- There is a great difference between a human being and an animal. By depriving a human being of its personality and regarding it merely as a "(potential) threat" you are taking the first step into the (IMHO) wrong direction. This is the type of conditioning used by the military (and terrorist organisations alike).



Nobody tells you to go unarmed into the wilderness on recovery mission. Have you really noted that I changed my stance? At the same time it's ridiculous to paint an image of wolves, bears and mountain lions, who try to lure Lurch into a ambush situation... wink



- You are playing the devils advocate on "unenforced gun laws". I am not 'bored enough' as to dig out your earlier post where you state that "there are enough gun laws in effect already, they are just not getting enforced".



- ONE reason that you got to be more worried about your home getting broken into might is the fact that there are (more) firearms in your environment. In MY case this is different - I by no means have got to be as worried.



- The "evil mystique" is not just resulting "from media portrayal". Would you claim that none of the anti-gun lobbyists ever shot a gun? Would you claim that especially youngsters and gangsters are NOT fascinated by the "negative qualities" of guns?



- So what ARE the reasons then for the high percentage of "bad guys in the US" according to your theory (if the availability of guns is none of them)?



- I am not saying that justfacts.com is just telling the facts. Please don't misinterpret my approach. They are arguing from the other side of the spectrum and I sense them to be politically biased. I'm just not worried to put their website and arguments forth.



- You are right, car ownership and a drivers license does not have to go hand-in-hand. It was a poor example. As far as the second hand sales on guns go:



If I randomly sell my guns to anyone ringing the bell, I take my part in distributing them to the wrong people. I would have to accept responsibility as to be a part of the problem.



And the problem is that there are too many guns in civilian hands within the US and that the government is not doing enough as to change this situation.



Please check these links that I have remembered:



Harvard study of 2007 on: States with higher gun possession have higher suicide rates



Harvard study of 2002 on violent death amongst children linked to gun ownership



Harvard study of 2007 links higher suicide rates to gun possession



So much for now...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Just because you have traveled outside of the US makes you an expert on our laws. I don't think so. And seeing as how you appear so prejudice against us, it doesn't take a whole lot to bring into question some of your ideas

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:Lurch..I agree, it is about education, however given the number of different forums I've found myself on over the course of this thread I tend to wonder whether that education might be forgotten in favour of convenience.

I'm reading about "guns for under the car seat, pocket guns, purse guns, kit guns...None of which I presume are properly stored....because that would be counter intuitive to carrying a weapon for self defense.

"Hang on a minute mr. BG, I've got to load my pistol, chamber a round, check the safety...and then we can have a fight. I don't think so.

So how many of these pocket guns end up being left. loaded, lying around the house accessible to people who's only "real" exposure to guns has been through the media ?

For home defense, the homeowner can rely on a properly stored shotgun, unless he's expecting bad guys to burst through his door waving guns and then, at best that homeowner may find his pistol useless unless he has it immediately at hand. You've got to figure, that people living rural are going to want something potent, like a hunting rifle to meet a threat from a bear.

If you're worried about mountain lions, then pretty much nothing can help you ( except maybe a hat with eyes painted on the back of it ) seeing how mountain lions attack silently from the rear. What else ? wolves ? wolverines ? We don't have any of those locally.


Delete

Dragon_Drafin


member


Total posts: 51
Posted: Written by :FireTom




- 'Assault weapons' are no reasonable and appropriate means of self defence, there is no reason for them to be available to civilians. I am certain to speak for the majority of ppl who do not possess or intend to possess guns.





Yes there is, it may not be reasonable to you or in your opinion reasonable but the real question you should ask isnt Why should assault weapons be available to civilians? The question you should be asking is Why shouldnt they be available?

There is no reason for anyone to own a million dollar car, but yet they are made and sold. There is no reason for civilians to own their own jets as there is an established air travel service. There is no reason to pay some jock 45 million a year to play sports. Yet all these things are done, and more.

The weapon isnt the problem, it is the use of the weapon. Pose this question to yourself. If everyone had guns of all types, and there was no crime, would you still have a problem with the guns? If the answer is yes, then youre a little crazy and have a true issue with guns. If the answer is no, then you have a problem with crime not guns.



 Written by :FireTom



- I understand that the US on the inside function similar to the EU - whereas the US does vote for a federal government and a president who (for example) is able to declare war on another country. The (legislative) structure of the US therefore is a bit confusing, certainly there are federal (gun) laws in effect (like on full automatic machine guns and the ban on 'copkiller' ammunition).

Further I do not understand why some states can overrule the second amendment in their state legislation... maybe you help me to understand?





They cannot overrule the second amendment, they can impose stricter laws. Case in point; California just lifted a ban on assault rifles a few years ago. they had stricter laws for a time period. Overrule might not have been the best choice of word as it implies that they can remove it. The Second Amendment also doesnt specify what type of weapons you can own, just that you have the right to own them.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:What do you mean left behind, Stout?

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:faith..I didnt actually say "left behind" I said left, loaded, lying around but there was a period after the word left which should have been a comma.

As an example, I found this story, that implies that the gun owner is leaving a loaded weapon in his car. He bought a cheap SNS because he expects it to be stolen ( ie, end up in the hands of a criminal )

http://www.geomadre.com/bryco.htm

Another example would be the description on the "accident" in the MH article. So, you buy a pistol, load it, chamber a round and leave it accessible to the SIX CHILDREN you have ? Maybe these kids knew what they needed to know about guns. I doubt it though, since dad bought pretty much the cheapest POS he could get his hands on.

Somebody feeling that maybe they should have a firearm around the house for "critters and burglars" and goes out to buys a $100 gun, most likely didn't put much thought into education and proper gun storage, as evidenced by the outcome.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:But that isn't what most people are like as gun owners-in my experience. (Even the criminals I dealt with took care of/with their gun)

Some people are too stupid to have guns. But they aren't the majority. Education is key and I still like the idea of psych testing


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:- I never claimed you've never shot a gun before, but shooting a gun a couple time, and owning a gun are different. The same way having fleeting contact with various cultures will never give you a complete understanding of the influences therein.

- I'm not as far traveled as you, I've spent my time in Canada, and traveled a little bit through Europe, mainly England France and Germany. But I'm not claiming to understand their culture, or attempting to critique their policies and laws. It's not just my opinion that the Swiss are 'pro gun' nor can you deny the fact that it works very well for them. 6 million people and over 2 million guns, including around 600,000 "Assault rifles" stored in private homes. Rifles that would be difficult to get at best, and cost a LOT, in the US. Yet they maintain remarkable peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

 Written by :FT

Maybe my evaluations are erroneous, given that. Fact of the matter is that there is a 'certain' percentage of citizens within the US that share the same perspective on gun laws. This percentage changes with every mass murder committed with firearms.



That is true, there is a certain percentage of citizens who share that perspective. That is fine, it is their decision to be sheep. That again ties into at least my personal perception of the faults in the media. Rarely do you hear good news, people don't hear much about the crimes stopped by citizens with guns, they hear about the crimes committed with guns.

 Written by :FT

- Lobbyists and political activists do have body guards for certain reasons. If - for example - Martin Luther King would have had (sufficient) protection, he would not have gotten shot. I think it's perfectly okay to be an activist against gun control and violence and at the same time to protect ones self. After all I am not arguing against the right of self defense or the right on physical inviolability. Especially in an environment as the US I would not condemn activists to ask for protection.



You don't find it the least bit hypocritical for anti-gun lobbyists to employ armed civilians to protect them, yet claim that no civilians should be allowed to be armed? Why should they be allowed special consideration over anyone else?

 Written by :FT

- You're the one arguing on "legal vs. illegal guns". A gun legally purchased in one state, carried over the border to another state with different legislation *automatically* becomes illegal - true or false?



Sometimes, in some ways.. It's not the ownership of the gun, or the gun itself that would become illegal, but the possession of said gun. In general there are 'through laws' allowing someone to travel with a gun, relatively freely. But there are specific laws as to how and where a gun can be carried in a car that are specific to the state. Some require that the gun must be locked, and unloaded in the trunk of the car. Others may allow it to be loaded and in the glove box without any need for a special permit. So no, carrying a gun across state lines does not make it automatically illegal. The supreme court decision that was just make in part reflects the right of the individual citizen to be armed, which means the few cities that had virtual outright bans on guns for the last few decades (DC for example) may be subject to being overturned very soon.

 Written by :FT

Nobody tells you to go unarmed into the wilderness on recovery mission. Have you really noted that I changed my stance? At the same time it's ridiculous to paint an image of wolves, bears and mountain lions, who try to lure Lurch into a ambush situation... wink



Actually cougars stalk hikers all the time. I've been stalked myself multiple times at night, they're mostly curious, and I've never been attacked. But most big cat attacks are ambushes exactly. Most bear attacks are a result of spooking the bear.

 Written by :FT

- ONE reason that you got to be more worried about your home getting broken into might is the fact that there are (more) firearms in your environment. In MY case this is different - I by no means have got to be as worried.



Huh? My guns haven't factored into my fears of being robbed at all. If I randomly let people into my house, or told people I owned guns then it might, a little.

 Written by : Stout

Lurch..I agree, it is about education, however given the number of different forums I've found myself on over the course of this thread I tend to wonder whether that education might be forgotten in favour of convenience.

I'm reading about "guns for under the car seat, pocket guns, purse guns, kit guns...None of which I presume are properly stored....because that would be counter intuitive to carrying a weapon for self defense.



Let me start at the back end of that quotation.. Guns for defense (carry guns) are a bit of a different breed, that require different rules, and far more discipline. Sometimes thats hard for people to understand, which is why I haven't brought it up as much. Any gun that's carried on the person should be "locked and loaded." That's actually an old military term for the 1911 pistols, but it applies just the same. The gun is no good to you if there isn't a round in the chamber and it's ready to go, it's just a big paperweight. At the same time, if you're properly trained, and have good discipline that gun is not any more dangerous to you either, after all, it should be secure in its holster and safe from any ND.

Kit Guns? Are you referring to building your own or customizing guns? Thats popular among the 1911 crowd. 1911's have an open patent, which means any company can make them. Colt, Kimber, Springfield Armory, and at least a dozen others. A lot of those parts are interchangeable, you could have a frame from one company, a slide from another, trigger assembly from yet another. It doesn't make the gun any more dangerous, just more expensive and custom made. Those are usually collectors, or competition shooters. It's not often you'll find a custom 1911 in CCW. Remember most of those are just selling parts, and the owner builds the gun, it's not common at all for the owner to forge a barrel or mill out a slide.

As for education being left for convenience, I would agree, although probably backwards from what you're thinking. The fear mongering that modern lobbyists have put forth scares people, the media scares people, this blatant paranoia and bias against guns is a result. Rather than taking the time, or even encouraging learning anything about what they're scared of, they want to ban it outright. Education has shrunk because sadly, guns have become taboo in some places. Regardless of how you may feel about firearms, you should still be educated about them and know how to properly and safely handle one. If someone has never been taught to keep their finger outside the trigger guard, the first thing they're probably going to do when they pick up a gun, is put their finger on the trigger. It's far more convenient to make a gun taboo, banish it to the 'evil' side of society and pretend you will never come in contact with one, than to actually accept the responsibility and the reality of their existence.

 Written by :Stout

For home defense, the homeowner can rely on a properly stored shotgun, unless he's expecting bad guys to burst through his door waving guns and then, at best that homeowner may find his pistol useless unless he has it immediately at hand. You've got to figure, that people living rural are going to want something potent, like a hunting rifle to meet a threat from a bear.



I agree, although a 'properly stored' defensive gun is different from the long term storage of recreational arms. No doubt the gun should still be locked, ESPECIALLY if there are children in the house, but it needs to be accessible, and it needs to be loaded, or at the very least have ammunition quickly available (loaded magazine). I'll never say someone is wrong for storing their weapon unloaded, but if they're properly trained I'm not going to critique them for storing a weapon loaded and ready to go either. Both my pistols are locked and in condition 3 right now (loaded magazine, nothing in the chamber). My shotgun is empty but has both buck and bird shot on the sidesaddle on the stock. If you're in a position where you need to use your gun in defense A: It's probably going to be fast, and over within a minute. and B: you'll have so much adrenaline flowing through you you'll lose most of your fine motor skills. Which means even if you had the ability to thumb rounds into a magazine to load your weapon, you'll be dead before you could.

 Written by :Stout

If you're worried about mountain lions, then pretty much nothing can help you ( except maybe a hat with eyes painted on the back of it ) seeing how mountain lions attack silently from the rear. What else ? wolves ? wolverines ? We don't have any of those locally.




I'm not that worried about Cougars, they're mostly curious as I've said before. I am worried about running into marijuana grows in the back country during searches.. I've done it before, and luckily there were no guards.

Now about that articles about the Bryco.. He is probably an example of someone who shouldn't have a gun, or at least undergo more training. A P22 is not much of a defensive gun. If defense is truly the purpose of the weapon why would you buy the cheapest thing you can find? You should be buying the best that you can afford. Getting out of the car in a shady area because your gun makes you feel safe is idiotic. It's still his responsibility to avoid potential hazards. He didn't have an understanding of his weapon.

There is nothing wrong with the Bryco's design, it may not be the most expensive, or the smoothest weapon on the market but it is reliable. When you disengage the safety, and pull the trigger, the gun is supposed to shoot, and that's exactly what it did when the idiotic babysitter pointed it at a kid. Which is EXACTLY why people need to be educated about gun safety from an early age. Just the simple 4 basic rules would help immensely. I'm not asking to let children run around with guns, but they should be taught to respect them, and how to handle them safely. Not just screamed at GUNS ARE BAD, NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH ONE!

You may want to read this reaction piece to the courts finding against Bryco

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2784


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:faith...fair enough. It's nothing more than speculation on my part in thinking that a high percentage of handgun, or carry, owners might be negligent in the way they go about their daily business with their guns. I'm trying to get most of my "insight" into American gun culture from reading gun forums ( eg opencarrydotorg ) just to get a feel for how people talk about their lives with guns.



It's the stupid people that cause me alarm.



Lurch, it's mostly the carry guns i was focusing on as those are the ones I deem the most "dangerous" and most likely to induce paranoia in the general population. To use the story I previously linked to as an example, I'll bring up the "Getting out of the car in a shady area because your gun makes you feel safe" story. It's self explanatory really.



BTW I got the critique on the Bryco from a 2005 thread on thefiringlinedotcom. They mention kit guns in that thread too. It was a term I was unfamiliar with when I did most of my reading last year so I googled it. A kit gun is sort of like an extra gun that you take with you in your backpack or tackle box...just in case.



You figure the fear mongering is coming from the anti-gun crowd ? No doubt that's true and I've been trying to avoid anti-gun hyperbole. I do, however understand where the anti crowd is coming from and maybe their estimations of the percentage of the population too incompetent to own firearms ( at least handguns ) is somewhat similar to my own.



I hear you on the practical aspects of keeping a home defense gun available for use. I know there's several factors specific to each individual situation that will determine just how a particular person stores his HD weapon. For instance the situations would be different in a small apartment compared to a large house. It's these guns and the carry guns that I suspect are most commonly misused or stolen.



Using the Google, I know now that the wiki entry about Larry Moreford the guy who shot the 7 year old was wrong and he was indeed 20. I was figuring that maybe I could cut him a little more slack were he an uneducated 12 year old just playing around. We don't really know what happened here, but I'd expect a 20 year old to at least point the gun at the ground if he was going to put his finger on the trigger.



Methinks Larry was either an idiot, or terrified of guns.



ETA



http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172200

EDITED_BY: Stout (1206585515)


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I have never claimed to be an "expert" on anything. You are reading this into my posts. All I do is stating my *opinion*. Like it or not. 'Prejudice' is a(nother) strong call, Faith. Sad that I appear like that to you.

Do you approve of a government that goes to war with a few nations (on false pretexts), kills a great deal of their citizens, just because a few ppl killed some of theirs? (and those not even being citizens of those targeted nations)...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Why shouldn't assault weapons be available to the general public?

Well, let's put it this way: Why shouldn't grenades, full automatic machine guns, bazookas and high calibre sniper guns be available to the general public (everywhere across the US)?

I agree: It's not the weapons, but the use of it.

Unfortunately a great deal of ppl have proven to be incapable of handling these guns responsibly.

Have you looked into the Harvard studies I provided?

 Written by : D_D

If everyone had guns of all types, and there was no crime, would you still have a problem with the guns?



Yes, I would still have a problem with these guns as long as there is a great deal of accidents happening with them.

 Written by : D_D

If the answer is yes, then youre a little crazy and have a true issue with guns.



Pls keep it friendly. smile


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Certainly a "fly by" experience of various cultures does not give me thorough understanding of them - as previously stated: I don't claim to be an expert on anything, all I'm stating is my personal opinion.

I do claim the right to evaluate, reflect, render and even state my opinion to the very extent of "using critique" - if the result of my findings makes it 'necessary'. ("Freedom of speech")

For example I do claim the right to criticise the Chinese or Burmese government for human right abuses, the same I apply for the US government. I can't find anything wrong with it.

Lurch, so you indeed have travelled (parts of) Europe. Liked it? Felt safe? Like the peacefulness of Switzerland?

You still haven't bothered to answer my question: Why (in your opinion) are so many "bad guys" in the US and why do so many of them have so many guns, when it's so different in Europe? These are the very root causes of the problem in your country it seems, Lurch.

Another problem is that you rely your arguments on antique studies and polls. Fact of the matter is that a recent poll (published January 26th 2008 in the NZZ, Switzerland) shows a slight majority of the Swiss population in favour for stricter gun laws. Latest when Switzerland joins the Schengen-Agreement they will have to revise their gun laws.

Further you cease to comment on the Harvard School of Public Health' studies that I provided.

In Europe - very different to the US - 'federal law' overrules 'state law'. This is not always good sometimes even bad, but makes it far more of a homogeneous community and consistent than the US.

Lobbyists and self protection:

NO! I don't find it the least hypocritical for anti-gun lobbyists to hire bodyguards (i.e. armed civilians) for protection. They have the right for physical inviolability and trust it into the hands of trained personnel. Being anti-gun and being a sheep is not necessarily the same.

Did you notice that I approve of certain civilians to bear arms? Like in the case of bodyguards, guards in general or hunters. I just would like to see certain conditions to get applied. I stated these conditions earlier. You dismissed all of them. I don't mind shooting ranges, I just mind ppl having an arsenal of guns back in their homes or carrying them in public. "Intent can change, the right to carry remains."

Gun laws:

So you support guns on the streets of Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx? umm

- Legal vs. illegal guns:

Your response is erroneous.

Oklahoma Gun laws would allow me to purchase an assault gun with a high capacity magazine on a guns show "cash and carry" under the age of 21, bearing no child lock or "microstamping". (just as an example)

Now I take this gun in my car and bring it to California

It *automatically* becomes an illegal gun for many reasons.

Guns for self defense:

 Written by : Lurch

A P22 is not much of a defensive gun. If defense is truly the purpose of the weapon why would you buy the cheapest thing you can find?



Turn it around: Why wouldn't you buy the gun that just suits your budget? The point (to me) is: why are sub standard quality guns legally sold in the US?

Ambush situations:

Lurch, you're partly acting as a deputy - am I correct? If "yes" this (IMO) makes you one of those I would allow to carry a gun (under circumstances and conditions).


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:You do have every right to reflect on *your* opinion, but it's when you start claiming to know the opinion, beliefs, and fears of the American people that I take an issue to it.

And no, I didn't feel particularly safe in Europe. Being warned many times about pickpockets and petty crime towards tourists didn't exactly make me comfortable.

Where are you confused about federal vs state law? I think different people are saying different things that makes it confusing. Federal Law does trump state laws, in most cases. Federal law really only covers about purchasing weapons, and a little about who can own what types, the nuts and bolts to it is dependent on the States. They can make laws that reasonably restrict constitutional rights. The same way Libel would be a restriction on the first amendment.

How exactly does the gun become illegal in your Oklahoma to California example? Because they're "assault weapons"?

 Written by :Brady

California - State law restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons that have specific military features such as pistol grips or folding stocks.



Nope, the law is very specific to the sale of such guns, not the possession. The same applies to child locks. Nothing says the gun must be locked, or that a gun from out of state must have been sold with it, it merely says any gun sold IN the state of California must be sold with a lock. There is nothing illegal about selling a long arm (rifle/shotgun) to someone 18 years old. Nor is there anything about the possession of a gun without undergoing a background check. Right now I believe the High Cap ban is only on the SALE of such magazines within California, I'm not entirely sure if there is any ban on possession of them. Even that would not make the *gun* illegal, it would make the magazine questionable.

Grenades and Bazookas (I'll assume you meant RPG's or other anti-armor devices, Bazookas were mainly WWII and Korean War era weapons..) are explosive/destructive devices, and are categorized under Class 3 weapons under federal law. They may or may not be legal to obtain through VAST amounts of loopholes, I'm not entirely sure. We've already discussed 'machine guns' in here, and I believe we came to the consensus that they are not the problem. Seeing as no legally owned Class 3 weapon has been used in a crime.

As for "high caliber sniper rifles" They aren't much different from hunting rifles. *Many* military sniper rifles are even still bolt action. You also may want to read this where they debunk the myths of a .50 cal used in crimes.

http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEA...er%20Rifles.pdf

 Written by

Turn it around: Why wouldn't you buy the gun that just suits your budget? The point (to me) is: why are sub standard quality guns legally sold in the US?



A Walther P22 is not a sub standard gun, it's actually a fairly decent gun, (a smaller version of a P99) but .22 LR is not a very good defensive round. If you're buying a gun that you're going to trust your life to, and indeed some day your life may depend on it, would you want the cheapest thing you can find, or the best you can afford? Think of it like climbing gear, would you trust your life to a utility rope you bought at wal-mart, even if was rated as easily strong enough to hold you, or would you buy a rope that was designed for your intended use?

I wouldn't call the Bryco a sub-standard gun either. It may not be the most accurate, or the prettiest, but it does exactly what it was designed to do. It goes BANG when you pull the trigger. As for being required to take the safety off to unload the gun, MOST guns with a manual safety are like that as you can't rack the slide, and thus clear the chamber, with the safety on. Again, it's a SAFETY FEATURE. If the babysitter had known, and followed, the cardinal rules the incident would never have happened, as he violated 2 of them.

 Written by

Lurch, you're partly acting as a deputy - am I correct? If "yes" this (IMO) makes you one of those I would allow to carry a gun (under circumstances and conditions).



Yes I am, and thank you. But other than some more training than the average person I'm no different. If a law abiding citizen wants to carry a weapon to defend themselves I will encourage it. And yes, I would encourage those same *good* people to carry, even in Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx. Maybe shifting the balance of power back to the moral people would be a good thing.


#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: Written by Lurch

Yes I am, and thank you. But other than some more training than the average person I'm no different. If a law abiding citizen wants to carry a weapon to defend themselves I will encourage it. And yes, I would encourage those same *good* people to carry, even in Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx. Maybe shifting the balance of power back to the moral people would be a good thing.





Lurch, what exactly do you mean by shifting the balance of power back to the moral people would be a good thing? Speaking of morals, would you say the same thing about all the citizens of New Orleans?





 Written by FT

Maybe my evaluations are erroneous, given that. Fact of the matter is that there is a 'certain' percentage of citizens within the US that share the same perspective on gun laws. This percentage changes with every mass murder committed with firearms.



 Written by Lurch

That is true, there is a certain percentage of citizens who share that perspective. That is fine, it is their decision to be sheep.







Lurch, if you are you implying that people who are against guns are wether's and only real men carry guns. Then I would remind you of what Abigail Kohn said:



 Written by Abigail Kohn

The idea of self-defense, community defense, has a lot to do with being a good American. Part of the attraction for a lot of American men involves identifying with those archetypes in American history, the cowboy/lawman or the citizen/soldier, who wear a gun on their hip.





Lurch, its interesting that you quote Russ Vaughn, 101st Airborne Division, Vietnam 65-66, and his heroic epic. But the real question is what was the USA doing in Vietnam in the first place? It is all very well being heroic in the face of adversity, but what of the reality of the situation? After all, Ho was pro American in the beginning. Therefore, there was never a need for violence.



The reality is America lost the war in Vietnam, despite having a vastly superior fire power (big guns). The same could be said for your self defense theory. And also for the fantasy of weapons of mass deception. Again:



 Written by Abigail Kohn

The idea of self-defense, community defense, has a lot to do with being a good American. Part of the attraction for a lot of American men involves identifying with those archetypes in American history, the cowboy/lawman or the citizen/soldier, who wear a gun on their hip.



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

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I'm sorry but I don't see what the Iraq war has to do with our domestic gun policies

And that Abigal-full of it. It's absolutely ridiculous and shows a poor understanding of why people have guns. Do bow and arrows harken back to the native americans-Is that why people have them to be harassed and eradicated? No! That idea of cowboys has little place in today's culture


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 :FireTom


Why shouldn't assault weapons be available to the general public?

Well, let's put it this way: Why shouldn't grenades, full automatic machine guns, bazookas and high calibre sniper guns be available to the general public (everywhere across the US)?

I agree: It's not the weapons, but the use of it.

Unfortunately a great deal of ppl have proven to be incapable of handling these guns responsibly.

Have you looked into the Harvard studies I provided?

 Written by : D_D

If everyone had guns of all types, and there was no crime, would you still have a problem with the guns?



Yes, I would still have a problem with these guns as long as there is a great deal of accidents happening with them.

 Written by : D_D

If the answer is yes, then youre a little crazy and have a true issue with guns.



Pls keep it friendly. smile



You're killing me smalls. I'm new so forgive me if my "crazy" comment was insulting, it was meant with humor.


Why would you have an issue with guns if there are still "accidents" happening? They are accidents. More people are killed in true accidents with cars (driving while intoxicated aside) than with any sort of accidental discharge of firearms.

It is rediculous that you would have an issue with guns and freak accidents and not have an issue with cars and freak accidents.

It honestly drops my jaw that anyone could be so against guns that when placed in a hypothetical utopia where guns still existed that they would have a problem with them.

I saw two car accidents on the way into work today out of a city of 500,000 people. I doubt that there were two accidental deaths due to guns this morning. Cars are way more dangerous. Where is the "US driving laws are a license for murder" thread?

Okay I'm done venting my shock. Sorry to kill the good vibes, truly I am. I was just very very shocked.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Yes Stone, I fully support the people of New Orleans having guns. Thats exactly the time when they should have them. I DO NOT support the government blatantly and illegally seizing lawful guns from lawful citizens.

 Written by :Stone

Lurch, if you are you implying that people who are against guns are wether's and only real men carry guns. Written by



Not at all, there is nothing 'wrong' or 'unmanly' about being a Sheep, it's your personal choice. I simply have a problem morally with asking anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself. How did a cowboy become a lawman anyways? You've been watching too many westerns.

What does the question of Vietnam have anything to do with the topic at hand?


#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:Lurch, in case you missed it, the question was:



What exactly do you mean "And yes, I would encourage those same *good* people to carry, even in Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx. Maybe shifting the balance of power back to the moral people would be a good thing?"





ok



Edit:



 Written by Lurch

What does the question of Vietnam have anything to do with the topic at hand?





You quoted from a Vietnam vet, that brought it into the topic.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1206654789)


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:RE Assault Weapons


 Written by Dragon Drafin

Yes there is, it may not be reasonable to you or in your opinion reasonable but the real question you should ask isnt Why should assault weapons be available to civilians? The question you should be asking is Why shouldnt they be available?



Ok Im asking, why shouldnt they be available?

I have a few acres and lots of money, why shouldnt I be able to buy the ultimate assault weapon. I thinking small nuclear arms, mounted on a truck. I mean its right there in the constitution. I have the right to keep and bears arms. I mean I wouldnt have to use them, people would know I had nuclear arms and keep away, right?


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Faith, I like your idea of psych tests.


 Written by Faith

I'm sorry but I don't see what the Iraq war has to do with our domestic gun policies



I think it started when President Bush appointed John Howard, the then Prime Minster of Australia, his Deputy Sheriff.


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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Dragon, didn't mean to shock you - it's a sensitive topic and we've had some issues in this thread, that we (fortunately) overcame. I'm not taking too much offence anymore, yet as the initiator of this thread I'm trying to moderate it as much as I can smile My advice for the future is to use 'crazy' as to underline your intent smile Please don't think I'm just brushing you off, but

this thread is about the gun laws and policies within the US, not about cars and freak accidents. Feel free to start a thread with this topic wink

I clearly remember me standing at Times Square, NYC in 1994 and watching The death clock... this - to me - was shocking.

 Written by : NYT

An hour after the big New Year's Eve countdown, a grim new tally began in Times Square yesterday: a digital "death clock" started ticking off the nation's gun killings.

The three-story-high clock, bought by a New Jersey businessman, was adding one gun death every 14.8 minutes, based on Federal statistics. The count began at 1 A.M. and was up to 85 by 11:30 P.M.

The "death clock" also showed the estimated number of guns in the United States: more than 220 million, with one new gun added every 5.5 seconds.

The settings will be adjusted each week to reflect the most current statistics available from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the F.B.I. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The clock is perched atop a nine-story building at the northern end of Times Square. It was paid for by Robert E. Brennan of Brielle, N.J., a former securities broker.



To compare guns and cars has been some attempt from Lurch already. It's comparing apples and oranges (at least IMO). There is no reasonable argument that could eventually put car accidents/ car related crimes and gun accidents/ gun related crimes on the same line. If you find any, let us know.

Lurch, when it comes to types and models of guns you certainly have a lot more expertise.

My question though remains unanswered: Why would "good people" not be able to legally own RPG's, machine guns, grenades and maybe even fully armed jet fighters? I'm talking about "law abiding citizens". It's not the gun/ weapon, it's the person operating the weapon.

At some stage we should even think about cruise missiles being available to the "law abiding citizens"... tell me why not? (siding Stone in this one)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:What's anyone going to do with a cruise missile?

Lurch has made the point that his carrying a gun legally with a concealed-carry permit and the relevant training is potentially of great benefit to him in the event of the worst-case scenario happening where he is under threat from an assailant.

That's the use of such a firearm.

As far as I can see, there's no equivalent use of a cruise missile for self-defence by an individual.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Page: 1...2324252627...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..