- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Posted:Lurch, your Violent Encounters book suggest that with so many guns lying around in American homes, it seems pretty easy for a criminal to get their hands on a gun. So, wouldnt it be a good idea to get the superfluous guns out of the system, or at least lock them up. Otherwise they attract criminals and increase the chance of gun violence in the home, as Kellermann suggested. And if current laws are so effective, then how come school kids can still get easy access to guns from gun shows etc?
Written by Lurch
I even encourage doing background checks if you're selling a gun to a stranger. I do not think it should be a law though...
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Written by Luech
4b) Huh? How are you going to do a psychological test on every purchase? Federal law already has restrictions on people with mental histories, but requiring some arbitrary test? Administered by who, the gun dealer?!
I like this one, because it would prevent psychos buying guns. Whats a psycho?
Written by
One only has to read the six Australian gun magazines to realise that many active shooters have become a different segment of the community to the majority, a segment that has a fatal attraction to guns and to the killing process. Above all, they constitute a segment that is ill-disciplined, poorly read and all too often quite callous. (Gun Control Australia).
Written by Lurch
2c) Pretty much any gun from the manufacturer comes with child locks these days anyways, not to mention many police stations and sheriffs offices will give them out for free.
So you would not be supporting the decision of Judge Laurence Silberman who found that the Second Amendment right supports not locking guns away from children, or having to fit lifesaving trigger guards.
Written by Lurch
Section 27: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
Do you have link to that one. Im not suggesting it is wrong, I just never came across it when I was reading about the pending Supreme Court decision on the second amendment.
Written by Lurch
I even encourage doing background checks if you're selling a gun to a stranger. I do not think it should be a law though...
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Written by Luech
4b) Huh? How are you going to do a psychological test on every purchase? Federal law already has restrictions on people with mental histories, but requiring some arbitrary test? Administered by who, the gun dealer?!
I like this one, because it would prevent psychos buying guns. Whats a psycho?
Written by
One only has to read the six Australian gun magazines to realise that many active shooters have become a different segment of the community to the majority, a segment that has a fatal attraction to guns and to the killing process. Above all, they constitute a segment that is ill-disciplined, poorly read and all too often quite callous. (Gun Control Australia).
Written by Lurch
2c) Pretty much any gun from the manufacturer comes with child locks these days anyways, not to mention many police stations and sheriffs offices will give them out for free.
So you would not be supporting the decision of Judge Laurence Silberman who found that the Second Amendment right supports not locking guns away from children, or having to fit lifesaving trigger guards.
Written by Lurch
Section 27: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
Do you have link to that one. Im not suggesting it is wrong, I just never came across it when I was reading about the pending Supreme Court decision on the second amendment.
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
Posted:Lurch...it's nor a matter of having a tough time understanding why people would want to collect guns, especially antique firearms, it's more of a problem understanding the American attitude that possessing guns somehow equals "freedom"
Those of us living in gun controlled countries don't feel "less free" than you do in America. See, we don't want anti-personnel weapons all over the place like you guys have. We're not living with the thought we'll have to face armed criminals and therefore don't feel the need to protect ourselves against these extremely rare events should be granted as a "right" in the way you guys do.
This is a simple fact that the late Charlton Heston and his NRA absolutely refuse to acknowledge when they produce their propaganda videos trying to paint the rest of the world as being less free that Americans.
What do i mean ? well take a look at the NRA videos. See the one entitled "Gun Control in Canada" ? where they paint our (now failed) firearms registration bill as being a tool that the government is going to use to seize every firearm in the country. Yea..right. And then there's that guy at the end saying "if it can happen in Canada, it's going to happen in the US...join the NRA.
Or the one "England Gun Ban Update" where they start off showing a fox hunt protest, imply that it's an anti gun control protest ( foxes were hunted with dogs, not guns ) then segeuy into a section on handguns with the same "less free" hyperbole as they do with the Canada video.
Pure propaganda.....http://youtube.com/user/NRAVideos
The rest of the western world is working on the ounce of prevention philosophy, while the US advocates a ton of cure. That's what we don't understand.
Those of us living in gun controlled countries don't feel "less free" than you do in America. See, we don't want anti-personnel weapons all over the place like you guys have. We're not living with the thought we'll have to face armed criminals and therefore don't feel the need to protect ourselves against these extremely rare events should be granted as a "right" in the way you guys do.
This is a simple fact that the late Charlton Heston and his NRA absolutely refuse to acknowledge when they produce their propaganda videos trying to paint the rest of the world as being less free that Americans.
What do i mean ? well take a look at the NRA videos. See the one entitled "Gun Control in Canada" ? where they paint our (now failed) firearms registration bill as being a tool that the government is going to use to seize every firearm in the country. Yea..right. And then there's that guy at the end saying "if it can happen in Canada, it's going to happen in the US...join the NRA.
Or the one "England Gun Ban Update" where they start off showing a fox hunt protest, imply that it's an anti gun control protest ( foxes were hunted with dogs, not guns ) then segeuy into a section on handguns with the same "less free" hyperbole as they do with the Canada video.
Pure propaganda.....http://youtube.com/user/NRAVideos
The rest of the western world is working on the ounce of prevention philosophy, while the US advocates a ton of cure. That's what we don't understand.
Delete
Posted:It's true that the sheer number of guns in our country contributes. So I'll send you to the DC Gun Ban arguments before the Supreme Court Here
Only 13% of burglaries in the US are attempted against occupied homes. The British survey (To be fair, there is a 3 year gap between the two) showed 59% involved occupied homes. 48% in the Netherlands, 44% in Ireland
Other surveys say that One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear.
Hell the Wall Street Journal even said: "Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents."
I don't know about you guys, but I would say us having guns has a direct correlation with out lower home invasion style robberies. Would you agree? So yes, a thief in the UK would have nowhere near the chance of finding a gun in your home, but precisely because of that they're more likely to break into your home while YOU ARE THERE.
So wouldn't a logical solution to such a problem be to, oh, I don't know.. Keep the gun on your person? Where it is safe from being stolen, safe from sneaking children, safe from stupid babysitters.
Written by :Stone
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Oh but it is a lot to ask. You see, we're fighting hard to prevent the slippery slope towards a police state that you've already fallen into. Universal background checks leads to universal registration. Universial registration leads to universal seizure when you finally make the push to ban guns outright. That is an issue that needs to be solved at the STATE level, not the federal. We have individual state constitutions because we are all soverign. Federal laws that go directly against State constitutions do not go over well. The right to bear arms was put in to prevent a federal overthrow. We *require* the right to be able to defend ourselves. I believe Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
If you're going to make a law, you need to look at a couple things. Who is it going to effect? How are you going to enforce it? Will it have the desired results?
So lets look at them:
Manditory background checks will *only* effect those people selling guns legally. Considering most sales are made through FFL you're touching a fairly small market, who are following the laws already, you're just making another hoop for them to jump through.
How are you going to enforce it? Well the only way to really enforce it would be a universal registration. Which I am directly opposed to. Records of gun sales are destroyed by law in my state after a set amount of time. The government doesn't need to know everything I own, nor should they. Look at Katrina to see what stupid government officials can do when they decide to illegally seize thousands of perfectly legal guns.
Will it have the results you want? I would say no.. Criminals will still steal, or illegally sell each other guns, this background check requirement isn't going to phase that one bit, so you're back to making more laws for the law abiding people.
Written by :Stone
I like this one, because it would prevent psychos buying guns. Whats a psycho?
"Psychos" are already prevented from buying firearms, and even the NRA agrees that if someone is found mentally defective, a danger to themselves or others, or are suicidal. Requiring more tests is only going to effect legal gun sales, not sales of guns among criminals.
Written by :Stone
So you would not be supporting the decision of Judge Laurence Silberman who found that the Second Amendment right supports not locking guns away from children, or having to fit lifesaving trigger guards.
I think it is the responsible thing to do to lock your guns around children. But I don't think it should be law. I'm already liable if a child gets ahold of my gun and shoots someone. It's my responsibility to ensure that does not happen. A gun lock is an ideal solution in many cases. For a self defense gun it is not though.
If I live alone, and have no unattended children in my house at any time, why should I be required to lock up my gun? What logical reason can you give me? That a child may break into my home to play with my gun?
Written by :Stone
Do you have link to that one. Im not suggesting it is wrong, I just never came across it when I was reading about the pending Supreme Court decision on the second amendment.
That is from the constitution of my individual state, not the nation. Just to make that clear. I'll do you one better though Here is a list of all of the states constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Notice that they all have their own wording. Keep in mind these are listed in our Bill of Rights. So yes, it has directly to do with out individual freedoms and rights.
Those of you living in gun controlled countries are more than welcome to stay that way. I have no problem with you, I'm not trying to force guns onto anyone who doesn't want them. I don't want to force my views on you, I just expect the same consideration.
Only 13% of burglaries in the US are attempted against occupied homes. The British survey (To be fair, there is a 3 year gap between the two) showed 59% involved occupied homes. 48% in the Netherlands, 44% in Ireland
Other surveys say that One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear.
Hell the Wall Street Journal even said: "Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents."
I don't know about you guys, but I would say us having guns has a direct correlation with out lower home invasion style robberies. Would you agree? So yes, a thief in the UK would have nowhere near the chance of finding a gun in your home, but precisely because of that they're more likely to break into your home while YOU ARE THERE.
So wouldn't a logical solution to such a problem be to, oh, I don't know.. Keep the gun on your person? Where it is safe from being stolen, safe from sneaking children, safe from stupid babysitters.
Written by :Stone
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Oh but it is a lot to ask. You see, we're fighting hard to prevent the slippery slope towards a police state that you've already fallen into. Universal background checks leads to universal registration. Universial registration leads to universal seizure when you finally make the push to ban guns outright. That is an issue that needs to be solved at the STATE level, not the federal. We have individual state constitutions because we are all soverign. Federal laws that go directly against State constitutions do not go over well. The right to bear arms was put in to prevent a federal overthrow. We *require* the right to be able to defend ourselves. I believe Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
If you're going to make a law, you need to look at a couple things. Who is it going to effect? How are you going to enforce it? Will it have the desired results?
So lets look at them:
Manditory background checks will *only* effect those people selling guns legally. Considering most sales are made through FFL you're touching a fairly small market, who are following the laws already, you're just making another hoop for them to jump through.
How are you going to enforce it? Well the only way to really enforce it would be a universal registration. Which I am directly opposed to. Records of gun sales are destroyed by law in my state after a set amount of time. The government doesn't need to know everything I own, nor should they. Look at Katrina to see what stupid government officials can do when they decide to illegally seize thousands of perfectly legal guns.
Will it have the results you want? I would say no.. Criminals will still steal, or illegally sell each other guns, this background check requirement isn't going to phase that one bit, so you're back to making more laws for the law abiding people.
Written by :Stone
I like this one, because it would prevent psychos buying guns. Whats a psycho?
"Psychos" are already prevented from buying firearms, and even the NRA agrees that if someone is found mentally defective, a danger to themselves or others, or are suicidal. Requiring more tests is only going to effect legal gun sales, not sales of guns among criminals.
Written by :Stone
So you would not be supporting the decision of Judge Laurence Silberman who found that the Second Amendment right supports not locking guns away from children, or having to fit lifesaving trigger guards.
I think it is the responsible thing to do to lock your guns around children. But I don't think it should be law. I'm already liable if a child gets ahold of my gun and shoots someone. It's my responsibility to ensure that does not happen. A gun lock is an ideal solution in many cases. For a self defense gun it is not though.
If I live alone, and have no unattended children in my house at any time, why should I be required to lock up my gun? What logical reason can you give me? That a child may break into my home to play with my gun?
Written by :Stone
Do you have link to that one. Im not suggesting it is wrong, I just never came across it when I was reading about the pending Supreme Court decision on the second amendment.
That is from the constitution of my individual state, not the nation. Just to make that clear. I'll do you one better though Here is a list of all of the states constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Notice that they all have their own wording. Keep in mind these are listed in our Bill of Rights. So yes, it has directly to do with out individual freedoms and rights.
Those of you living in gun controlled countries are more than welcome to stay that way. I have no problem with you, I'm not trying to force guns onto anyone who doesn't want them. I don't want to force my views on you, I just expect the same consideration.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I just popped in to mention that from my experience (nothing more said because of selfincrimination) criminals have a tendency to not just steal guns but also frequently move them around. You need one, here. Fifty bucks. And the firearm continues to move around. They didn't get tossed until they were actually fired-then they tossed it. And not down a sewer grate like on tv. I'm talking out a window or down an alley. Like you're walking down an alley, and say "hey, what's that?"
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
Posted:Excuse the necro-posting:
Written by : NBCS
20 Shot In Chicago In Less Than 24-Hours
NBC5.com ^ | April 19, 2008
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:31:42 PM by Toddsterpatriot
CHICAGO -- The weekend has gotten off to an especially violent start, with no fewer than 20 people shot on the streets of Chicago, three of them fatally, from Friday afternoon through early Saturday.
About 12:50 p.m. Friday, a girl was wounded in the arm when she and another person were shot at 2714 W. 66th St. A Chicago Lawn police sergeant said two people were shot and "one of the victims,'' a girl, was shot in the arm. The sergeant would not disclose the girl's age. The girl was taken to Holy Cross Hospital.
About 3:30 p.m., a 15-year-old girl was shot in the thigh in the South Side Calumet Heights neighborhood.
The girl was shot on the 8700 block of South Euclid Avenue and taken to Comers Children's Hospital in "stable" condition, according to police.
A 19-year-old man was shot in the arm about 5:40 p.m. on the 2700 block of West 64th Street, police said.
About 6:30 p.m., a teenage boy was shot in the South Side's Marquette Park neighborhood. He was shot in the 6000 block of South Campbell Avenue, police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli said. The boy was taken to University of Chicago's Comers Children's Hospital.
A 34-year-old man was shot to death about 7 p.m. at 714 W. 115th St., according to the medical examiner's office. Marcus Hendricks was pronounced dead at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak lawn at 8 p.m. As responding officers investigated the shooting, shots were fired at the police. Officers recovered an AK-47 assault rifle from the Union Avenue address.
About 8:15 p.m., two men, aged 25 and 24, were driving south on the 8200 block of South Muskegon Avenue, when they heard shots fired, according to police News Affairs Officer David Banks, citing preliminary information.
The men realized they had been hit, and drove themselves to Jackson Park Hospital, Banks said. Their injuries are not considered to be life-threatening.
Two 18-year-old men were fatally shot about 9:30 p.m., in the 7500 block of South Phillips Avenue, according to Langford. The address of the shooting was 7555 S. Phillips Ave., according to the medical examiner's office.
One of the men suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and back, the other was shot in the neck, according to a report from the police First Deputy Superintendent's office.
Melvin Thomas, of 14922 Washington Ave. in Harvey was pronounced dead at the Stein Institute at 1:20 a.m. Rhonell Savala, of 9750 S. Hoxie Ave. in Chicago, was pronounced dead at 12:50 a.m. Saturday at the Stein Institute.
A man riding in a car on the South Side was shot about 10:45 p.m. on the 5100 block of South Christiana Avenue. The man, believed to be in his 30s, was taken in good condition to Holy Cross Hospital, according to Banks. The man was shot in his left arm.
On the North Side, a man who didn't want to talk to police was shot in his upper thigh in the Uptown neighborhood. The man was shot in the 1000 block of West Sunnyside Avenue about 11:35 p.m., a Town Hall District officer said.
The office said the man shot was not cooperating with police, and there are several conflicting stories about the shooting.
About 11:45 p.m., two teen boys, a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old, were each shot in the leg at 6330 S. Damen Ave., Fire Media Affairs Director Larry Langford said.
Both teens were taken to Holy Cross Hospital with non life-threatening injuries, Langford said.
About 1:30 a.m., a robbery victim was shot on the 7900 block of South St. Lawrence Avenue. The robber demanded money from the victim, police said. The victim ran away, but not before the robber got off one shot.
A man was shot multiple times early Saturday on the West Side and taken to an area hospital in critical condition.
The man was shot in the 700 block of North Drake Avenue just after 1:45 a.m., Banks, citing preliminary information, said, The man was taken in critical condition to Mount Sinai Hospital.
A 21-year-old man was in good condition early Saturday after he was shot in the right leg on the 4400 block of West Adams Street. The man was standing there about 2:35 a.m. when someone in a passing car fired shots at him, police said.
To repeat: That's 20 people shot in 24 hours in Chicago only!
Maybe you're right with the intrusion of homes and guns present, Lurch. Is that article talking about New York state or New York city? It would be sweet if you could just provide the link to it - I will happily include it in the updated OP.
Written by : Lurch
Written by : Stone
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Oh but it is a lot to ask. You see, we're fighting hard to prevent the slippery slope towards a police state that you've already fallen into. Universal background checks leads to universal registration. Universial registration leads to universal seizure when you finally make the push to ban guns outright. (..)
But that is what a democracy is about, no? If the majority of US Americans chose to ban guns completely, all guns should be collected. I understand that you will have a problem with "legally owned guns being collected first" - leaving you defenseless against illegally owned ones.
Hence in case of a complete ban - EVERY gun (even those in hands of otherwise law abiding citizens) will turn their owners into felons...
I do understand that you want to protect the "law abiding citizens" and claim that tougher gun regulation will only affect them. I need to oppose that outright in the case of "mandatory background checks" and "registration of handgun sales". This is aimed to protect those "lac's". If no looney can buy a gun legally, it will narrow the market/ availability --> more protection for all. It needs a start somewhere... IMHO
If "second hand sales" are getting regulated, this "50 bucks circulation" will be narrowed down too. If "lost or stolen guns" need to be reported, it will help to get a grip on the problem...
Written by : NBCS
20 Shot In Chicago In Less Than 24-Hours
NBC5.com ^ | April 19, 2008
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:31:42 PM by Toddsterpatriot
CHICAGO -- The weekend has gotten off to an especially violent start, with no fewer than 20 people shot on the streets of Chicago, three of them fatally, from Friday afternoon through early Saturday.
About 12:50 p.m. Friday, a girl was wounded in the arm when she and another person were shot at 2714 W. 66th St. A Chicago Lawn police sergeant said two people were shot and "one of the victims,'' a girl, was shot in the arm. The sergeant would not disclose the girl's age. The girl was taken to Holy Cross Hospital.
About 3:30 p.m., a 15-year-old girl was shot in the thigh in the South Side Calumet Heights neighborhood.
The girl was shot on the 8700 block of South Euclid Avenue and taken to Comers Children's Hospital in "stable" condition, according to police.
A 19-year-old man was shot in the arm about 5:40 p.m. on the 2700 block of West 64th Street, police said.
About 6:30 p.m., a teenage boy was shot in the South Side's Marquette Park neighborhood. He was shot in the 6000 block of South Campbell Avenue, police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli said. The boy was taken to University of Chicago's Comers Children's Hospital.
A 34-year-old man was shot to death about 7 p.m. at 714 W. 115th St., according to the medical examiner's office. Marcus Hendricks was pronounced dead at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak lawn at 8 p.m. As responding officers investigated the shooting, shots were fired at the police. Officers recovered an AK-47 assault rifle from the Union Avenue address.
About 8:15 p.m., two men, aged 25 and 24, were driving south on the 8200 block of South Muskegon Avenue, when they heard shots fired, according to police News Affairs Officer David Banks, citing preliminary information.
The men realized they had been hit, and drove themselves to Jackson Park Hospital, Banks said. Their injuries are not considered to be life-threatening.
Two 18-year-old men were fatally shot about 9:30 p.m., in the 7500 block of South Phillips Avenue, according to Langford. The address of the shooting was 7555 S. Phillips Ave., according to the medical examiner's office.
One of the men suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and back, the other was shot in the neck, according to a report from the police First Deputy Superintendent's office.
Melvin Thomas, of 14922 Washington Ave. in Harvey was pronounced dead at the Stein Institute at 1:20 a.m. Rhonell Savala, of 9750 S. Hoxie Ave. in Chicago, was pronounced dead at 12:50 a.m. Saturday at the Stein Institute.
A man riding in a car on the South Side was shot about 10:45 p.m. on the 5100 block of South Christiana Avenue. The man, believed to be in his 30s, was taken in good condition to Holy Cross Hospital, according to Banks. The man was shot in his left arm.
On the North Side, a man who didn't want to talk to police was shot in his upper thigh in the Uptown neighborhood. The man was shot in the 1000 block of West Sunnyside Avenue about 11:35 p.m., a Town Hall District officer said.
The office said the man shot was not cooperating with police, and there are several conflicting stories about the shooting.
About 11:45 p.m., two teen boys, a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old, were each shot in the leg at 6330 S. Damen Ave., Fire Media Affairs Director Larry Langford said.
Both teens were taken to Holy Cross Hospital with non life-threatening injuries, Langford said.
About 1:30 a.m., a robbery victim was shot on the 7900 block of South St. Lawrence Avenue. The robber demanded money from the victim, police said. The victim ran away, but not before the robber got off one shot.
A man was shot multiple times early Saturday on the West Side and taken to an area hospital in critical condition.
The man was shot in the 700 block of North Drake Avenue just after 1:45 a.m., Banks, citing preliminary information, said, The man was taken in critical condition to Mount Sinai Hospital.
A 21-year-old man was in good condition early Saturday after he was shot in the right leg on the 4400 block of West Adams Street. The man was standing there about 2:35 a.m. when someone in a passing car fired shots at him, police said.
To repeat: That's 20 people shot in 24 hours in Chicago only!
Maybe you're right with the intrusion of homes and guns present, Lurch. Is that article talking about New York state or New York city? It would be sweet if you could just provide the link to it - I will happily include it in the updated OP.
Written by : Lurch
Written by : Stone
Why not have background checks on everyone buying a gun? It is not a big ask for anyone seriously interested in reducing gun crime. I know, I could just look up Brady for the standard NRA reply, but hey surprise us!
Oh but it is a lot to ask. You see, we're fighting hard to prevent the slippery slope towards a police state that you've already fallen into. Universal background checks leads to universal registration. Universial registration leads to universal seizure when you finally make the push to ban guns outright. (..)
But that is what a democracy is about, no? If the majority of US Americans chose to ban guns completely, all guns should be collected. I understand that you will have a problem with "legally owned guns being collected first" - leaving you defenseless against illegally owned ones.
Hence in case of a complete ban - EVERY gun (even those in hands of otherwise law abiding citizens) will turn their owners into felons...
I do understand that you want to protect the "law abiding citizens" and claim that tougher gun regulation will only affect them. I need to oppose that outright in the case of "mandatory background checks" and "registration of handgun sales". This is aimed to protect those "lac's". If no looney can buy a gun legally, it will narrow the market/ availability --> more protection for all. It needs a start somewhere... IMHO
If "second hand sales" are getting regulated, this "50 bucks circulation" will be narrowed down too. If "lost or stolen guns" need to be reported, it will help to get a grip on the problem...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Tom, many of those people are already felons...what good is making them a felon again really going to do but now put a note on their record that it was a firearms related charge, making it harder for them to find a job and more likely to be on welfare or continue criminal life.
What good does reporting a weapon stolen or lost do? Does it stop the current possesor from using it? No. Does it mean that he got it from the legal owner's house? No. These laws would be pointless except to add a few more years onto their sentencing.
What good does reporting a weapon stolen or lost do? Does it stop the current possesor from using it? No. Does it mean that he got it from the legal owner's house? No. These laws would be pointless except to add a few more years onto their sentencing.
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
Posted:I did link to it FireTom, right in the first sentence of my post.
Written by
But that is what a democracy is about, no? If the majority of US Americans chose to ban guns completely, all guns should be collected. I understand that you will have a problem with "legally owned guns being collected first" - leaving you defenseless against illegally owned ones.
Ah but there you go assuming things again. The gun issue should be decided on a state by state basis. For federal law the STATES must agree on it, not just a group of highly vocal extremists shouting that guns are bad mkay.
I believe I posted this here before, but I think it makes a very valuable point. You can assume all you want from whatever media source you like to get your information from. But this is a time line map of the US and it's concealed carry laws. You'll plainly notice that more and more states turn blue (shall issues states) as time goes on. Also kindly notice that it goes right over the top of the mid 90's which was the amazing downturn in gun crime. You say it's due to the 'AW' ban, I say it may very well be attributed to this. I would say the plainly obvious trend, and the obvious cry of the public in America, is allow us to have our guns! It's a bit ironic that your story up there talks about 20 shootings in 24 hours in Chicago. I find it interesting that Illinois, is one of the only two states that as far as I know are no-issue states.
Non-Https Image Link
Written by
Hence in case of a complete ban - EVERY gun (even those in hands of otherwise law abiding citizens) will turn their owners into felons...
How do you NOT see a problem with that statement right there? Would you stand for that if it was ANYTHING but guns? What if the government decided milk was bad for you, or forks? How are you possibly going to enforce that without going complete nazi police state?
Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment (read the surpeme court testimonies) is to keep the federal government subordinate to the people. Not only is it insane, probably impossible and highly immoral, but the Katrina style gun confiscations are most definitely illegal, and not justified whatsoever. The government doesn't need to know what guns I have, and I don't want them to know because they don't have the right (at this point) to demand I give them up. Disarming the people has lead down many a bad road historically speaking...
Written by
But that is what a democracy is about, no? If the majority of US Americans chose to ban guns completely, all guns should be collected. I understand that you will have a problem with "legally owned guns being collected first" - leaving you defenseless against illegally owned ones.
Ah but there you go assuming things again. The gun issue should be decided on a state by state basis. For federal law the STATES must agree on it, not just a group of highly vocal extremists shouting that guns are bad mkay.
I believe I posted this here before, but I think it makes a very valuable point. You can assume all you want from whatever media source you like to get your information from. But this is a time line map of the US and it's concealed carry laws. You'll plainly notice that more and more states turn blue (shall issues states) as time goes on. Also kindly notice that it goes right over the top of the mid 90's which was the amazing downturn in gun crime. You say it's due to the 'AW' ban, I say it may very well be attributed to this. I would say the plainly obvious trend, and the obvious cry of the public in America, is allow us to have our guns! It's a bit ironic that your story up there talks about 20 shootings in 24 hours in Chicago. I find it interesting that Illinois, is one of the only two states that as far as I know are no-issue states.
Non-Https Image Link
Written by
Hence in case of a complete ban - EVERY gun (even those in hands of otherwise law abiding citizens) will turn their owners into felons...
How do you NOT see a problem with that statement right there? Would you stand for that if it was ANYTHING but guns? What if the government decided milk was bad for you, or forks? How are you possibly going to enforce that without going complete nazi police state?
Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment (read the surpeme court testimonies) is to keep the federal government subordinate to the people. Not only is it insane, probably impossible and highly immoral, but the Katrina style gun confiscations are most definitely illegal, and not justified whatsoever. The government doesn't need to know what guns I have, and I don't want them to know because they don't have the right (at this point) to demand I give them up. Disarming the people has lead down many a bad road historically speaking...
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:I would say it's a myth that only felons do possess illegal firearms (excluding the fact that the possession of an illegal firearm would turn you into a felon).
To me it's kind of contradictory - on one side - not to care about felons, why they become criminals and when they get shot - and on the other hand ride the horse of "criminal-compassion"...
Gun legislation is aimed to protect innocent people from gun violence. This might be hardly possible in a messed up situation as in present US - but pouring MORE Piranhas in a Piranha infested pool is not providing MORE safety for the other fish or swimmers.
IMO it is necessary to reduce the overall numbers of guns and at the same time to expand the knowledge about guns to diminish the number of crimes and accidents - for the latter (for example) the gun industry should be held responsible... but that's impossible.
And as a sidenote for you, Lurch: the above image you quoted is taken off the website "gun-nuttery.com" Do you know what metatext is coming up when searching for "gun-nuttery.com"?
Written by : MSN
Tips, tricks, and hints for gun-rights advocates. ... Radical Gun Nuttery! A collection of tips, tricks, and hints for gun-rights advocates
you could please aim to cite more 'credible' sources? 
but I would side you on "state" vs. "federal" legislation, ONLY IF there would be a SOLID border between each and every state of the US.
As the anti gun lobbyists from New York state on their website: "approx. ~84% of the illegal guns in upstate New York originate from states with lax gun legislation"[/non-literal quotation] So WHY (tell me) would some states (who decide on tough gun legislation) have to suffer from other states?
A democracy ALWAYS *aims* to keep the government subordinate to the public - which is why your analogy of a "general milk and honey ban" is highly erroneous.
Thanks for keeping up.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1208856847)
To me it's kind of contradictory - on one side - not to care about felons, why they become criminals and when they get shot - and on the other hand ride the horse of "criminal-compassion"...
Gun legislation is aimed to protect innocent people from gun violence. This might be hardly possible in a messed up situation as in present US - but pouring MORE Piranhas in a Piranha infested pool is not providing MORE safety for the other fish or swimmers.
IMO it is necessary to reduce the overall numbers of guns and at the same time to expand the knowledge about guns to diminish the number of crimes and accidents - for the latter (for example) the gun industry should be held responsible... but that's impossible.
And as a sidenote for you, Lurch: the above image you quoted is taken off the website "gun-nuttery.com" Do you know what metatext is coming up when searching for "gun-nuttery.com"?
Written by : MSN
Tips, tricks, and hints for gun-rights advocates. ... Radical Gun Nuttery! A collection of tips, tricks, and hints for gun-rights advocates
you could please aim to cite more 'credible' sources? but I would side you on "state" vs. "federal" legislation, ONLY IF there would be a SOLID border between each and every state of the US.
As the anti gun lobbyists from New York state on their website: "approx. ~84% of the illegal guns in upstate New York originate from states with lax gun legislation"[/non-literal quotation] So WHY (tell me) would some states (who decide on tough gun legislation) have to suffer from other states?
A democracy ALWAYS *aims* to keep the government subordinate to the public - which is why your analogy of a "general milk and honey ban" is highly erroneous.
Thanks for keeping up.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1208856847)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I did not say that only felons own weapons, so don't twist my words
And now I don't care about felons. I have friends who are felons. I have a few friends from dropping of other friends at the AA clubs that were felons. You have no right to say I don't care about the felons, it's very insulting
And now I don't care about felons. I have friends who are felons. I have a few friends from dropping of other friends at the AA clubs that were felons. You have no right to say I don't care about the felons, it's very insulting
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
Posted:Sorry for that - I was referring to this part of your post:
"Tom, many of those people are already felons..." and swiftly put it in the (obviously) wrong context....
Surely there are ppl who don't care much about felons - other than you.
"Tom, many of those people are already felons..." and swiftly put it in the (obviously) wrong context....
Surely there are ppl who don't care much about felons - other than you.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:yes, there are people who don't. I care about the felons that I know. I don't know that I care about them as a population though because some of them have a heinous attitude toward life
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
Posted:I side that, Faith - and why is it, you think.
The thing is that above all - a felon is a human being. Just like "the rest of us".
I hope that it got clear throughout this thread but in case it didn't:
Apart from tougher gun legislation personally I would prefer to work on the causes rather than the symptoms.
Education (a good one especially) for everyone is what is providing choices. If people have no choice (or think they have none) but to become a criminal then there is something seriously wrong in society.
I do know that "the system" is in desperate need of criminals and anit-social elements, which is why I don't expect any government to work on the true causes for criminality (equal range of choices/ good education) any time soon.
It's on us to demand it.
The thing is that above all - a felon is a human being. Just like "the rest of us".
I hope that it got clear throughout this thread but in case it didn't:
Apart from tougher gun legislation personally I would prefer to work on the causes rather than the symptoms.
Education (a good one especially) for everyone is what is providing choices. If people have no choice (or think they have none) but to become a criminal then there is something seriously wrong in society.
I do know that "the system" is in desperate need of criminals and anit-social elements, which is why I don't expect any government to work on the true causes for criminality (equal range of choices/ good education) any time soon.
It's on us to demand it.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Yes, Tom, and that is why places like Milwaukee work so hard on prevention. Because we know it's more important to catch them early and instill the idea of hope and legal oppurtunities
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
Posted:I haven't read the thread
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
DeletePosted:Thank you for the support, Mascot. This propability (to me) is highly likely.
I reckon the situation in the US is so f***ed up that the use of inappropriate force even and especially by law enforcement is backed up by courts.
Just recently the NYPD officers have been cleared of all accusations, after riveting Mr. Bell with 50 bullets after his bachelor party on the false pretext that he was believed to carry a gun.
Written by : NYT
The detectives on trial said that they believed Mr. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield had a gun, and based on that suspicion they fired away. No gun was found. Similarly, in 1999 police fired 41 bullets at Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who was just reaching for his wallet.
(...)
Progress has been steady. After the Bell shooting, Mr. Kelly ordered an independent study of department firearms training by the Rand Corporation. The results should be available soon. The commissioner hopes to prevent reflexive shooting after one officer fires an initial shot. Detective Michael Oliver alone managed to fire 31 of the 50 rounds toward Mr. Bells car all in the few seconds following an initial shot from Gescard Isnora.
(...)
The margin of error once shooting begins has become distressingly small. The police have come to favor fast, easy-to-fire weapons like 9-millimeter semiautomatics. The rule that an officer is to pause and reassess after three shots can be forgotten in the heat of gunplay.
Find the entire article here
It's trigger happy and shoot as many rounds per minute as you possibly can. Understandable if a cop fears for his life, understandable in the current (arms) situation in the US - but nevertheless sad for all involved.
As you say, Faith: Prevention is the key for survival. But firstly "the system" has to provide enough reasons for juveniles wanting to stay alive in the first place....
I reckon the situation in the US is so f***ed up that the use of inappropriate force even and especially by law enforcement is backed up by courts.
Just recently the NYPD officers have been cleared of all accusations, after riveting Mr. Bell with 50 bullets after his bachelor party on the false pretext that he was believed to carry a gun.
Written by : NYT
The detectives on trial said that they believed Mr. Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield had a gun, and based on that suspicion they fired away. No gun was found. Similarly, in 1999 police fired 41 bullets at Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who was just reaching for his wallet.
(...)
Progress has been steady. After the Bell shooting, Mr. Kelly ordered an independent study of department firearms training by the Rand Corporation. The results should be available soon. The commissioner hopes to prevent reflexive shooting after one officer fires an initial shot. Detective Michael Oliver alone managed to fire 31 of the 50 rounds toward Mr. Bells car all in the few seconds following an initial shot from Gescard Isnora.
(...)
The margin of error once shooting begins has become distressingly small. The police have come to favor fast, easy-to-fire weapons like 9-millimeter semiautomatics. The rule that an officer is to pause and reassess after three shots can be forgotten in the heat of gunplay.
Find the entire article here
It's trigger happy and shoot as many rounds per minute as you possibly can. Understandable if a cop fears for his life, understandable in the current (arms) situation in the US - but nevertheless sad for all involved.
As you say, Faith: Prevention is the key for survival. But firstly "the system" has to provide enough reasons for juveniles wanting to stay alive in the first place....
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Mascot
I haven't read the thread
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
Written by :FireTom
Thank you for the support, Mascot. This propability (to me) is highly likely.
I reckon the situation in the US is so f**....
Are you not going to ask him to quote his sources
I haven't read the thread
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
Written by :FireTom
Thank you for the support, Mascot. This propability (to me) is highly likely.
I reckon the situation in the US is so f**....
Are you not going to ask him to quote his sources
"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!
Posted:Mascot
It's a hard thread to be "wrong" in. Lurch is discussing from the American POV of self determination while the rest of us are having a hard time relating to that view.
It's a hard thread to be "wrong" in. Lurch is discussing from the American POV of self determination while the rest of us are having a hard time relating to that view.
Delete
Posted:I waded in here as a bit of a joke.
I was having an unrelated argument with Lurch and Faith in the presidential election 08 thread. Lurch mentioned he didn't really want to get involved because he was having a hard enough time holding his corner here. I was writing a polemic and taking occasional personal shots at them. It was actualy a lot of fun to let go of restraint and really let rip. Posting a deliberately uninformed attack here telling them they're wrong without even doing them the curtsy of reading their views was part of my "get slightly personal" attack vector.
Very much against the H.O.P. ethos I know and not the sort of behavior you'll find in "How to make friends and influence people".
It doesn't seem to have really worked either. I didn't really get a rise out of them here or there and I didn't get insulted back. Either they were collectively the bigger man or they knew they couldn't compete with my acid tongue and razor whit.
All joking aside though I admire them, particularly faith, for fighting their corner and standing up for their views and beliefs.
I hold some pretty unorthodox views (On H.O.P. anyway) myself and if I'm feeling really combative I might start some threads in which I will not be in the most popular camp.
Oh and faith and lurch are still probably wrong whatever they're saying here because they're faith and lurch and they 're usually wrong.
I was having an unrelated argument with Lurch and Faith in the presidential election 08 thread. Lurch mentioned he didn't really want to get involved because he was having a hard enough time holding his corner here. I was writing a polemic and taking occasional personal shots at them. It was actualy a lot of fun to let go of restraint and really let rip. Posting a deliberately uninformed attack here telling them they're wrong without even doing them the curtsy of reading their views was part of my "get slightly personal" attack vector.
Very much against the H.O.P. ethos I know and not the sort of behavior you'll find in "How to make friends and influence people".
It doesn't seem to have really worked either. I didn't really get a rise out of them here or there and I didn't get insulted back. Either they were collectively the bigger man or they knew they couldn't compete with my acid tongue and razor whit.
All joking aside though I admire them, particularly faith, for fighting their corner and standing up for their views and beliefs.
I hold some pretty unorthodox views (On H.O.P. anyway) myself and if I'm feeling really combative I might start some threads in which I will not be in the most popular camp.
Oh and faith and lurch are still probably wrong whatever they're saying here because they're faith and lurch and they 're usually wrong.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
DeletePosted:OK, now that's in perspective
Gotcha.
I read the election thread and due to other topics taking up my time, it's one issue I really don't have the time to do research and form an opinion on. But then, I'm a jump on the bandwagon when the playoffs are finally here kinda guy.
Lettin' 'er rip is fun, isn't it ? And sometimes it does lead to making friends and influencing people.
I personally like having my beliefs challenged.
Gotcha.
I read the election thread and due to other topics taking up my time, it's one issue I really don't have the time to do research and form an opinion on. But then, I'm a jump on the bandwagon when the playoffs are finally here kinda guy.
Lettin' 'er rip is fun, isn't it ? And sometimes it does lead to making friends and influencing people.
I personally like having my beliefs challenged.
Delete
Posted: Written by : OWD
Are you not going to ask him to quote his sources?
No, but I'm asking you not to push the buttons
btw if you're reading his latter post, you pretty much get where he's coming from/ what he's aiming at.
Nonetheless you're perfectly welcome to (further) participate in the discussion, OWD (and Mascot).
BTW I heard an interview with the Dalai Llama recently in which he approves of (violent) self defense, under the aspect that Karma is having to catch up with the perpetrator sooner or later - (IMPOV) this might involve another person and perpetuate the circle of violence.
(Guess) I've previously stated that I personally do not disapprove of self defense - yet the situation in the US is that awkwardly screwed up that steps are necessary to curb the cycle of violence.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1209828360)
Are you not going to ask him to quote his sources?
No, but I'm asking you not to push the buttons
btw if you're reading his latter post, you pretty much get where he's coming from/ what he's aiming at.
Nonetheless you're perfectly welcome to (further) participate in the discussion, OWD (and Mascot).
BTW I heard an interview with the Dalai Llama recently in which he approves of (violent) self defense, under the aspect that Karma is having to catch up with the perpetrator sooner or later - (IMPOV) this might involve another person and perpetuate the circle of violence.
(Guess) I've previously stated that I personally do not disapprove of self defense - yet the situation in the US is that awkwardly screwed up that steps are necessary to curb the cycle of violence.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1209828360)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by :Mascot
I haven't read the thread
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
Wow, that was extremely constructive. Thanks for the contribution
I haven't read the thread
But Lurch and Faith are probably wrong.
Wow, that was extremely constructive. Thanks for the contribution
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
Posted:Well if you could elaborate on your opinion it would help to discern whether you're just bullying or genuinely expressing your opinion about the US gun laws.
So finally I side OWD and ask you to please quote your sources... This because I personally do not believe that Lurch and Faith are "generally" wrong... nobody is.
So finally I side OWD and ask you to please quote your sources...
This because I personally do not believe that Lurch and Faith are "generally" wrong... nobody is.the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Oh come on, Tom, yes you do I like that we can argue and argue but still be personable. Last year, you were the only person out of everyone-other than one exbf-to send me a letter or an email
Mascot:
I don't know that your admitted personal attacks fit under the guidelines for posting.
I like that we can argue and argue but still be personable. Last year, you were the only person out of everyone-other than one exbf-to send me a letter or an emailMascot:
I don't know that your admitted personal attacks fit under the guidelines for posting.
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
Posted:My oh my... I guess it's time for me to reply to this thread again! sorry for the delay, I've been busy.
I think there is some confusion on the felon statements Tom. Remember you have to be *convicted* of a felony to be a felon. And I have never said I don't care about felons, they are people just like the rest of us. It's just that their life is ranked very low on the totem pole when they're trying to hurt me or my family. If it comes down to it, I'll shoot them, handcuff them, and then be the first one giving them first aid to try and save their life. It's not personal.
Gun legislation is pointless. The large majority new gun laws are feelgood laws that don't do anything in reality except push peoples careers along. Gun maker, enthusiasts and even the law enforcement have laughed at things like ballistic fingerprinting. The amount of money spent on a program like that vs the actual gain you'll get out of it is insane.
Your piranha analogy doesn't work at all. Maybe if my argument was to release more criminals because they're more likely to kill each other than an innocent. But it's not. Maybe if you taught the swimmers how to swim, where the piranhas were, what they looked like, and how to defend themselves if they are attacked. Or would you rather we just ban swimming?
Why should the gun industry be held responsible for stupid people doing stupid things with their products? They are responsible for the quality and safety of their products, not what the user does with it. Are car makers held accountable for DUI's? That's a dangerous road to go down FireTom. You're fine with all of these laws against guns, but you have yet to comment about if these same laws were proposed for any other products. I've brought that point up a few times. Scoffing and saying 'that will never happen' isn't exactly the best plan. I for one don't want that sort of precedence on the books in any case. You just have to read a history book to see the examples of why disarming an entire nation is a bad plan. Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler.. Even something as simple as forced registration is one step down a path I don't want to take.
As for the picture, I'm well aware of where it's from. They didn't just make it up, all they did was animate it. I figured the primary colors and flashing things would liven up the thread
Written by :FT
but I would side you on "state" vs. "federal" legislation, ONLY IF there would be a SOLID border between each and every state of the US.
Huh? What does having a solid border have to do with anything? There is no solid border between the US and Canada. And by in large at least from my experience, no real "solid" border throughout most of Europe (correct me if I'm wrong). That idea is so convoluted in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
Written by :FT
I do know that "the system" is in desperate need of criminals and anit-social elements, which is why I don't expect any government to work on the true causes for criminality (equal range of choices/ good education) any time soon.
Huh? Thats a crazy conspiracy theory if I ever saw one. Sure I guess crime is job security for me, but I would be happy to be out of a job if there were no crime. I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't work on the CAUSE of the crime. It's just that you seem to think that guns make people criminals.
As for Mascot, I got no problems with good hearted flamebait, although it's a bit more fun when there is content to reply to
I think there is some confusion on the felon statements Tom. Remember you have to be *convicted* of a felony to be a felon. And I have never said I don't care about felons, they are people just like the rest of us. It's just that their life is ranked very low on the totem pole when they're trying to hurt me or my family. If it comes down to it, I'll shoot them, handcuff them, and then be the first one giving them first aid to try and save their life. It's not personal.
Gun legislation is pointless. The large majority new gun laws are feelgood laws that don't do anything in reality except push peoples careers along. Gun maker, enthusiasts and even the law enforcement have laughed at things like ballistic fingerprinting. The amount of money spent on a program like that vs the actual gain you'll get out of it is insane.
Your piranha analogy doesn't work at all. Maybe if my argument was to release more criminals because they're more likely to kill each other than an innocent. But it's not. Maybe if you taught the swimmers how to swim, where the piranhas were, what they looked like, and how to defend themselves if they are attacked. Or would you rather we just ban swimming?
Why should the gun industry be held responsible for stupid people doing stupid things with their products? They are responsible for the quality and safety of their products, not what the user does with it. Are car makers held accountable for DUI's? That's a dangerous road to go down FireTom. You're fine with all of these laws against guns, but you have yet to comment about if these same laws were proposed for any other products. I've brought that point up a few times. Scoffing and saying 'that will never happen' isn't exactly the best plan. I for one don't want that sort of precedence on the books in any case. You just have to read a history book to see the examples of why disarming an entire nation is a bad plan. Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler.. Even something as simple as forced registration is one step down a path I don't want to take.
As for the picture, I'm well aware of where it's from. They didn't just make it up, all they did was animate it. I figured the primary colors and flashing things would liven up the thread
Written by :FT
but I would side you on "state" vs. "federal" legislation, ONLY IF there would be a SOLID border between each and every state of the US.
Huh? What does having a solid border have to do with anything? There is no solid border between the US and Canada. And by in large at least from my experience, no real "solid" border throughout most of Europe (correct me if I'm wrong). That idea is so convoluted in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
Written by :FT
I do know that "the system" is in desperate need of criminals and anit-social elements, which is why I don't expect any government to work on the true causes for criminality (equal range of choices/ good education) any time soon.
Huh? Thats a crazy conspiracy theory if I ever saw one. Sure I guess crime is job security for me, but I would be happy to be out of a job if there were no crime. I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't work on the CAUSE of the crime. It's just that you seem to think that guns make people criminals.
As for Mascot, I got no problems with good hearted flamebait, although it's a bit more fun when there is content to reply to
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:So I did review and revise my statement of you and Faith vs. felons just a post further down... Not necessary to elaborate further...
Dunno how you would determine a felon against a CEO "when they're trying to hurt you or your family" but we're going astray on this one.
The mayor difference between the US and the EU is that, as we have abolished the borders in between our countries (errm "states") we aim to harmonize most if not all of our legislation. The gun laws in the EU do not differ that much from state to state as they may differ within the US.
Fact of the matter is that guns are heavily restricted from purchase in the EU - and fact of the matter is that most Europeans feel quite comfortable with it.
Your example with Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and even Mao....
what the heck do they have to do with anything in here? Did any of them disarm their countries? Please quote your sources that back up this claim.
Personally I would not have much of a problem with the gun laws in the US, if they would not rub off in their international policies. The paranoia and "shoot first (if at all) ask much later" attitude is clearly showing on the international stage.... IMO... just look at Afghanistan and Iraq...
Why should Mc Donalds be held responsible for stupid people not noticing that hot coffee actually has a temperature above what regular skin can easily tolerate? If I'd be digging into US legislation and consumer protection, I could come up with heeps of examples where the US American consumer public seem to be having no brain whatsoever and is still entitled to sue the manufacturer. That's another weak argument. Smoking is dangerous to your health - what a surprise!?! Outrage! Still the tobacco industry could be sued for compensation... how reasonable is that?
As to the picture: If you could back up the numbers with reliable and peered sources, I would pay attention to it.
You have quoted Macchiavelli at one stage, but you seem to never really have bothered looking any deeper into his theory of (justified) politics. It's just not fun to argue with you, if you don't even know about the most basic aspects/ how a political system actually works... Or better asking: Why do you think are so many gun and liquor stores in dodgy areas? Demand and supply
Not necessary to elaborate further...Dunno how you would determine a felon against a CEO "when they're trying to hurt you or your family" but we're going astray on this one.
The mayor difference between the US and the EU is that, as we have abolished the borders in between our countries (errm "states") we aim to harmonize most if not all of our legislation. The gun laws in the EU do not differ that much from state to state as they may differ within the US.
Fact of the matter is that guns are heavily restricted from purchase in the EU - and fact of the matter is that most Europeans feel quite comfortable with it.
Your example with Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and even Mao....
what the heck do they have to do with anything in here? Did any of them disarm their countries? Please quote your sources that back up this claim.Personally I would not have much of a problem with the gun laws in the US, if they would not rub off in their international policies. The paranoia and "shoot first (if at all) ask much later" attitude is clearly showing on the international stage.... IMO... just look at Afghanistan and Iraq...
Why should Mc Donalds be held responsible for stupid people not noticing that hot coffee actually has a temperature above what regular skin can easily tolerate? If I'd be digging into US legislation and consumer protection, I could come up with heeps of examples where the US American consumer public seem to be having no brain whatsoever and is still entitled to sue the manufacturer. That's another weak argument. Smoking is dangerous to your health - what a surprise!?! Outrage! Still the tobacco industry could be sued for compensation... how reasonable is that?
As to the picture: If you could back up the numbers with reliable and peered sources, I would pay attention to it.
You have quoted Macchiavelli at one stage, but you seem to never really have bothered looking any deeper into his theory of (justified) politics. It's just not fun to argue with you, if you don't even know about the most basic aspects/ how a political system actually works... Or better asking: Why do you think are so many gun and liquor stores in dodgy areas? Demand and supply
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Smoking is a person's choice.
Now I did here about a good law in Mass. I think. It holds the gun owner responsible nearly comprable to the person using it (in situations where they aren't the same person of course).
I think a gun law like that would lead to more responsible ownership. I don't really want new laws but I think this one is a really good one
Also, I would say a majority of those store owners probably own the guns legally. So why is that a bad thing. They are exercising their right to protect themselves
Now I did here about a good law in Mass. I think. It holds the gun owner responsible nearly comprable to the person using it (in situations where they aren't the same person of course).
I think a gun law like that would lead to more responsible ownership. I don't really want new laws but I think this one is a really good one
Also, I would say a majority of those store owners probably own the guns legally. So why is that a bad thing. They are exercising their right to protect themselves
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
Posted:Well... that had hardly anything to do with my post..
As you can see by the map, our gun laws are fairy similar minus a few misguided states, although you would probably try and argue that they're "more enlightened" which is odd because they typically have higher crime rates.. OWNERSHIP laws don't generally change across borders, transportation rules, concealed carry, and purchasing regulations do.
If Europeans feel fine with being controlled and forced into a nanny state that is their business, but don't tell me my way is wrong simply because it's different from yours.
And yes, nearly every 'tyrant and dictator' has heavily controlled who can carry arms. You shouldn't have to look very hard to find numerous examples. I just gave a few. Why do you think the 2nd amendment was put in to begin with? To say the military is allowed to have guns? Give me a break.
McDonalds should NOT be held responsible for stupid people burning themselves with HOT coffee I agree. So do you think manufacturers should be held responsible for what people do with their products or not? Because you seem to have just contradicted yourself.
You're complaining that it's not fun to argue with me because I didn't feel the need to do in depth research on the personal history of a single quotation I made 12 pages ago? Look at your own replies, you avoided everything I said just to cry foul again and whine for sources. Whats wrong with just having an actual conversation without having to cite where every fact was obtained?
As you can see by the map, our gun laws are fairy similar minus a few misguided states, although you would probably try and argue that they're "more enlightened" which is odd because they typically have higher crime rates.. OWNERSHIP laws don't generally change across borders, transportation rules, concealed carry, and purchasing regulations do.
If Europeans feel fine with being controlled and forced into a nanny state that is their business, but don't tell me my way is wrong simply because it's different from yours.
And yes, nearly every 'tyrant and dictator' has heavily controlled who can carry arms. You shouldn't have to look very hard to find numerous examples. I just gave a few. Why do you think the 2nd amendment was put in to begin with? To say the military is allowed to have guns? Give me a break.
McDonalds should NOT be held responsible for stupid people burning themselves with HOT coffee I agree. So do you think manufacturers should be held responsible for what people do with their products or not? Because you seem to have just contradicted yourself.
You're complaining that it's not fun to argue with me because I didn't feel the need to do in depth research on the personal history of a single quotation I made 12 pages ago? Look at your own replies, you avoided everything I said just to cry foul again and whine for sources. Whats wrong with just having an actual conversation without having to cite where every fact was obtained?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Faith: As repeatedly stated I do neither oppose the right for self defence, nor do I oppose self protection (of a selected few, highly targeted individuals), Banks are an example of institutions who seem to need protection. Especially in the US, where guns are freely available, armed guards are not only to protect the employees but also the customers while they visit the bank.
Owners of regular shops *automatically* having the right to carry? Dunno about that. But again: in an environment that is pested with (illegal) guns it seems to be necessary to put a sign on the door "(Heavily) Protected by Smith and Wesson". If every shop has the right to keep a firearm it's obvious that robbing/ looting this shop will result in another (illegal) firearm in criminal hands.
Lurch, So we're back into the low key debate?
Why would I constantly try to make the time researching the validity of your (weak) arguments and Google each and every one? If you're not able to provide the simplest of courtesies to back your arguments with verifiable facts, but polemic and rather antiqued websites/ numbers then why would I do the effort? I am simply not answering to your baseless claims and those you draw from dubious sources.
You present statistics older than a decade and ignore studies that are not even two years old from reputed institutions. Are you informing yourself about (recent) European (violent) crime statistics? Are you informing yourself about European gun laws? I just can't see that - pls forgive me. (Pls note that I'm talking about European not merely those of the UK)...
You're making baseless claims, for example that Hitler or Stalin disarmed their entire countries and expect others to prove you wrong... Just can't be bothered, brother.
Do you really believe that the general public would be able to fend off a coup d'etat that is supported by the regular Army? If you really believe that than I can't help myself but noticing you're living in dreamland. There are enough civilians (as armed) that would find their reasons to support that coup, so you would never find a full scale majority fighting against the government and their army.
The 2.nd ammendmend was constructed in different times for different reasons. These are different times now. You really reckon that it's more the 200 million handguns in civilian hands that keep aggressors from US shores, rather than the arsenal of nukes? In which delusion are you living?
Owners of regular shops *automatically* having the right to carry? Dunno about that. But again: in an environment that is pested with (illegal) guns it seems to be necessary to put a sign on the door "(Heavily) Protected by Smith and Wesson". If every shop has the right to keep a firearm it's obvious that robbing/ looting this shop will result in another (illegal) firearm in criminal hands.
Lurch, So we're back into the low key debate?
Why would I constantly try to make the time researching the validity of your (weak) arguments and Google each and every one? If you're not able to provide the simplest of courtesies to back your arguments with verifiable facts, but polemic and rather antiqued websites/ numbers then why would I do the effort? I am simply not answering to your baseless claims and those you draw from dubious sources.
You present statistics older than a decade and ignore studies that are not even two years old from reputed institutions. Are you informing yourself about (recent) European (violent) crime statistics? Are you informing yourself about European gun laws? I just can't see that - pls forgive me. (Pls note that I'm talking about European not merely those of the UK)...
You're making baseless claims, for example that Hitler or Stalin disarmed their entire countries and expect others to prove you wrong... Just can't be bothered, brother.
Do you really believe that the general public would be able to fend off a coup d'etat that is supported by the regular Army? If you really believe that than I can't help myself but noticing you're living in dreamland. There are enough civilians (as armed) that would find their reasons to support that coup, so you would never find a full scale majority fighting against the government and their army.
The 2.nd ammendmend was constructed in different times for different reasons. These are different times now. You really reckon that it's more the 200 million handguns in civilian hands that keep aggressors from US shores, rather than the arsenal of nukes? In which delusion are you living?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Hi Tom.
I've got to say...I've never had a problem with Lurch's sources. I've checked out every one and granted, there was some weirdness over Kellerman and his two studies, but eventually that got sorted out.
Gunnutterydotcom looked alright when I checked it out. As far as this conversation is concerned, the only useful thing on the site is the map as the rest of the site deals specifically with Minnesota gun laws but I have no reason to believe that the information conveyed by the map is in any way faulty.
Ummm, yea, the general public vs the army..sure it's possible i suppose but rather moot because the army has real weapons and i highly suspect that given the current political climate in the Us that most gun owners would be fighting on the side of the government rather than against it.
Aside...I bounced the idea of the Japanese invading the continental US ( and Canada ) during WW2 off my history buff father in law and he just laughed saying there is no way that the Japanese could have come up with the manpower to make such an invasion possible and the comment about " a rifle behind every blade of grass" was merely one tactic used to counter what was a way overly ambitious plan.
I've got to say...I've never had a problem with Lurch's sources. I've checked out every one and granted, there was some weirdness over Kellerman and his two studies, but eventually that got sorted out.
Gunnutterydotcom looked alright when I checked it out. As far as this conversation is concerned, the only useful thing on the site is the map as the rest of the site deals specifically with Minnesota gun laws but I have no reason to believe that the information conveyed by the map is in any way faulty.
Ummm, yea, the general public vs the army..sure it's possible i suppose but rather moot because the army has real weapons and i highly suspect that given the current political climate in the Us that most gun owners would be fighting on the side of the government rather than against it.
Aside...I bounced the idea of the Japanese invading the continental US ( and Canada ) during WW2 off my history buff father in law and he just laughed saying there is no way that the Japanese could have come up with the manpower to make such an invasion possible and the comment about " a rifle behind every blade of grass" was merely one tactic used to counter what was a way overly ambitious plan.
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.