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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...3435363738...44
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.

Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.

Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section

Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.

If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.

As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.

Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.

The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.

I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.

Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.

Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.

I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.

You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...

In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:

Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"


Pro-guns

National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Anti gun

Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study

Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:First off, I was never *complaining* about the idea that someone might want to shoot me. Maybe that's where you keep getting confused. I was merely stating a fact. I'm commenting on *reality* not a fairytale land where there are only good people, and the only bad things that happen are accidents.

The plain reality is it's *not* in my best interest to remove guns from my society. Even as an LEO I have no problem with law abiding citizens lawfully carrying their weapons. I even encourage it. Those LAWFUL people are not the problem. I'll even let them keep their weapon on them during a stop most of the time, and I have every right to take it away temporarily. The good people who go through the process to carry their guns legally and correctly are some of the most responsible people I've met. But again, you've got this notion that guns are bad and the only people who own them are looking for a fight, so you refuse to even accept the possibility of such a reality. It's sad really..

You're arguing about technicalities you don't even understand Stone, and not even giving details that would be needed to actually make sense of your argument. A 'modified assault rifle' could mean anything. Changing the sights is a modification, it doesn't mean it was fully automatic. And even if it *WAS* fully automatic, it obviously was NOT legally owned. And I've been all for cracking down on criminals with illegal weapons THIS WHOLE TIME! Why is that so difficult to get through to you? CRIMINALS are the problem, not the guns.

You should probably do some research on Katrina, read the reality after the fact, not the false gossip the media spewed out during. The worst crimes where the massive illegal confiscation of private citizens property without cause.

You really need to lighten up


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

railspinner
railspinner

journeyman
Location: canada
Member Since: 8th Oct 2008
Total posts: 99
Posted:the amount of justfiable homicides makes me wonder just how effective arming a populace really is. in 2007 there was only 254 justifiable homicides. out of all the crime that occurs in the US, that's a pretty small number of killings in self defense. It seems your a lot more likely to be a victim then to have a chance of defending yourself. i wonder what the statistics are for justifiable shootings that were non lethal, Im having a hard time finding statistics.

The less people know the more they believe

Delete

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
Doppel, its seems to me that an AR is really a gangster gun. I know you guys havent gone metric yet, but 300 yards is not 600 yards, and the degree of difficulty increases expediently from 300 to 600 yards. The point about the 5 shots bolt action was its not a semi automatic. As for a hurricane hitting and a civil war breaking out, it happened. What do you need, a road map?

Lost for words MRC?


Funny I always thought the glock was the "gangster" gun, and if you are implying the AR is a gangster gun because of my handle in this forum, I suggest you take your smart ass to a dictionary and look up the word.

Second, I was never trying to convert yards to metric, but thanks for the petty slight. I was simply enforcing my point that it does take skill to handle a 30rnd magazine, and that my AR is not something you just open fire and pray with. Why on earth would I ever need it to fire 600 yards?

As for the "civil war" you keep whining about, I know perfectly well where it happened, and never suggested I did not, but simply informed you that all your hyped up media info is incorrect, and that a war did not break out. The weapons used were used in defense of property being looted in an IMPOVERISHED area.

As for the comment you made about us being afraid of being shot at, that is again so far from the truth. I don't worry about getting shot, it's not something I lose sleep over. I trust that other Americans like myself, enjoy their guns, and wouldn't use them in an offensive situation. You're delusional Stone.

As for your Stats on the "assault weapons deaths" just because they were done with "black rifles" doesn't mean they would have never happened. Of course when a gun is legalized more people will own it, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If they were smart they would have pulled their jobs with pistols (which can hold up to 15 rounds, so don't even think of trying to pull an angle) and been concealed better. The weapon doesn't make the crime stone, it would have happened one way or another.

And no Stone, a "modified assault rifle" is just that, a modified one. That could be so much as a shortened barrel, or a scope, or a bipod. The news likes to say modified because it sounds scary, so the "simpler" people *cough* get frightened and panicked until they turn into whinny little sheep that think they know absolutely everything.

As for the words you think MRC lost, I believe they were: "Zip it"


Human

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, im guessing you missed the point on drama. So moving right along, we mainly have police officers in Australia, so Im wondering whats the difference between a police officer and deputy sheriff in your part of the world ?

railspinner, you are right about the stats. The argument for guns has nothing to do with reality. It seems to be more about the second amendment, and the perceived right to bear arms.

Doppel, if you always get so upset when people disagree with you, and resort to name calling and threats. Then Id be looking as some anger management.


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

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneLurch, im guessing you missed the point on drama. So moving right along, we mainly have police officers in Australia, so Im wondering whats the difference between a police officer and deputy sheriff in your part of the world ?
I'm not sure where mr ganger(hurr) is from, but there are federal officers, state police, and local sheriff offices(by county/city). In some cases there are also private police forces (campus police, federal reserve police, etc.). Mostly it means that we have a few different types of car to look out for when we break the speed limit.


Quote:railspinner, you are right about the stats. The argument for guns has nothing to do with reality. It seems to be more about the second amendment, and the perceived right to bear arms.
You don't make a lot sense.

Quote:Doppel, if you always get so upset when people disagree with you, and resort to name calling and threats. Then Id be looking as some anger management.
I'm sorry, that statement is only allowed to be used by sensible and polite individuals.


Delete

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
Doppel, if you always get so upset when people disagree with you, and resort to name calling and threats. Then Id be looking as some anger management.


No, I get upset when people don't use common sense in their arguments, and hey, if the shoe fits.

I am just glad to see your amazing argument crumble to the point that you are digressing into personal attacks smile

And when did I threaten you?

Also, since there seems to be some confusion about my handle, it is not supposed to imply anything "Gangster" related, in fact, I dislike gangsters a lot, and I am living in Montana, there are no gangsters here - and I hope there never will be.


Human

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: doppel Funny I always thought the glock was the "gangster" gun

in australia the Police carry glocks smile

EDITED_BY: Mr Majestik (1235970426)


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

railspinner
railspinner

journeyman
Location: canada
Member Since: 8th Oct 2008
Total posts: 99
Posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7916982.stm


The less people know the more they believe

Delete

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Wow, what is the world coming to? Can't even carry a knife anymore?

Brave New World, Look Out!


Human

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Majestik, I could be wrong, but I think the Victorian police were looking at getting glocks, but the Commissioner decided against them. There reason given was they are prone to jamming up.


Originally Posted By: DoppelGnagerNo, I get upset when people don't use common sense in their arguments, and hey, if the shoe fits.

I agree, so how about some constructive comments rather than you're a moron, bottom line. I think your delusional. Go ahead, roll around in your ignorance. So the "simpler" people *cough* get frightened and panicked until they turn into whinny little sheep that think they know absolutely everything. When did you threaten me? In the school shooting thread I'll put a bullet just there. As to the confusion about your handle, I dont know how you jumped to the conclusion that I called you a gangster. I called the AR 15 a gangster gun. Ganger has a different meaning in Australia.




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

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Yeah, that was a threat. Right. In the context it was spoken : If you try to come to my door and take my gun, I'll put a bullet just there.
Nice of you to conveniently pull it out of context, but I am getting used to you playing words to aggravate people and steer the conversation away from the point. It's actually really sad.

As for constructive comments, my last n posts have been nothing but explaining gaps in your logic, and perfectly relevant to the conversation. Stone, you don't even know the basics about firearms, as you have illustrated in your most recent posts, so yeah - you are talking about something you don't even understand. The fact that you keep pushing it with such a poor understanding screams moron to me.

I get your point, away with all guns and the world is happy, but over here in reality, that's not going to happen. And if it DID happen, the only people left with weapons would be those that had them for ill-intent in the first place, which completely destroys your entire theory.


Human

Delete

Lev
Firedance Philosopher
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Member Since: 19th Jan 2009
Total posts: 79
Posted:Knives, I believe our laws state if the blade is under 6 inches it's not considered a weapon unless you are intending to use it as such. I don't know why anyone would carry a bigger knife than that as a tool though.

Quote:only people left with weapons
Besides government run programs, you know... the police and the army, the people who are supposed to protect you.

Quote:If you try to come to my door and take my gun, I'll put a bullet just there.
At this point I don't think there's any possibility of salvaging this debate as far as doppleGanger goes, I'm sure you're a great spinner but you have destroyed all your credibility on this issue by admitting violent action in the face of change. You are extremely biased on the side of keeping your own firearm and that (to me) strongly implies your inability to overcome your addiction to the safety that firearm provides (safety to you, danger to others).

If you are around the age of 20-30 there is biologically hope for you to change your opinion, if you are over 30 I dearly hope you never get a chance to use your gun, whether that be in the defense of your home or the defense of your addiction.

EDITED_BY: Lev (1236040224)


Delete

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Originally Posted By: LevKnives, I believe our laws state if the blade is under 6 inches it's not considered a weapon unless you are intending to use it as such. I don't know why anyone would carry a bigger knife than that as a tool though.

Quote:only people left with weapons
Besides government run programs, you know... the police and the army, the people who are supposed to protect you.

Quote:If you try to come to my door and take my gun, I'll put a bullet just there.
At this point I don't think there's any possibility of salvaging this debate as far as doppleGanger goes, I'm sure you're a great spinner but you have destroyed all your credibility on this issue by admitting violent action in the face of change. You are extremely biased on the side of keeping your own firearm and that (to me) strongly implies your inability to overcome your addiction to the safety that firearm provides (safety to you, danger to others).

If you are around the age of 20-30 there is biologically hope for you to change your opinion, if you are over 30 I dearly hope you never get a chance to use your gun, whether that be in the defense of your home or the defense of your addiction.

Yeah, I am way to far gone. Yes, I ruined this debate, magically somehow. And yes, I am so addicted to my weapons. You don't even know me, so don't presume to know my "addictions." Of all the addictions I could likely have, I think a firearm addiction is about the most ridiculous.

"The people that are supposed to protect you..." All I can say to that is wake up buddy.

As far as the military and police still having guns, well no [censored] Sherlock. That still doesn't mean that criminals won't have them.

When was it that my credibility was destroyed? Oh that's right, because I am on the other side of the argument, and that's the easiest way to win. Why don't you tell me exactly what I said that was not credible?

Violent action in the face of change? First off, there is no change coming to my door, and if there was, it would be hostile change, and you're right, I would react violently to protect myself and family. What would you do, hide under the bed? So my credibility is shot because I I never lost my primal instinct? Because I don't hand my freedoms and liberties over like some pansy? Because I take care of myself, and don't vest my god-given right to defend myself to someone else? You may think I parade myself around flashing guns everywhere, but no one hold a few people even know I own them. The only reason I would USE the weapon is if I needed to, and again, contrary to popular belief, I have attended classes and would never draw the weapon unless it meant life or death, let alone let anyone know I have it. That's what you guys don't get, and never will.

I don't know what your knife chatter is about, we aren't talking about knives. But here is something for you: You say I am so addicted to my guns, I tell you, if no one in the world had a gun, I would be more than happy with a sword instead. But until that last gun is shipped to Pluto, I'll be damned if I am outmatched sword to gun. I suppose then you would say I have an addiction to a claymore? Maybe it's an addiction to not being a defenseless fish in the barrel, so that IF the day comes, I won't be walking over the bodies of my relatives. What are you going to do Levy ol' boy, when you realize that violence is natural, and you're on the wrong side of the fence? Probably die.

Oh and Lev, I am sure you're a great spinner too; like it has anything to do with this debate.


Human

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Originally Posted By: railspinnerthe amount of justfiable homicides makes me wonder just how effective arming a populace really is. in 2007 there was only 254 justifiable homicides. out of all the crime that occurs in the US, that's a pretty small number of killings in self defense. It seems your a lot more likely to be a victim then to have a chance of defending yourself. i wonder what the statistics are for justifiable shootings that were non lethal, Im having a hard time finding statistics.

Well you're really limiting yourself if you think guns can only be used in defense if the end result is a justifiable homicide. The *best* result (and dare I suggest most common) would be no shots are fired at all. So what you're really looking for are 'Defensive Gun Uses' where the presence, presentation, or use of the gun has stopped a violent crime from occurring. There have been about 14 different surveys, and their results are honestly all over the board, for various reasons, but they range from 700,000 DGU's to 3.5 million annually in the US. So even taking the lowball estimate that there are 700,000 violent crimes prevented every year by the use of private guns in lawful citizens hands I would say it's more than worth it.

Originally Posted By: StoneSo moving right along, we mainly have police officers in Australia, so Im wondering whats the difference between a police officer and deputy sheriff in your part of the world ?

Titles can vary state by state Stone. In Oregon, you've got the federal LE agencies, AFT, FBI, DEA, etc, Oregon State Police patrol the highways, doing mainly traffic, crash reconstruction, and also fish & wildlife regulations. The state is split into counties, each county has a Sheriff ultimately responsible for all LE in that county, but mainly focus on rural unincorporated areas, that also includes Search & Rescue operations. *Police* are city cops, their jurisdiction is within the city limits of where they work, they have power by the state to enforce laws outside of that, but usually that would be transfered to the sheriff. Hope that made sense... they're all the same, just a little bit different.

Because of their areas their actions will be different as well, Police in larger cities usually ride 2 to a car, and have backup a couple minutes away, if not less. Riding in the county is different though, and the nearest law enforcement backup could be well over 45 minutes away. You could have 2 single man cars patrol

Quote:railspinner, you are right about the stats. The argument for guns has nothing to do with reality. It seems to be more about the second amendment, and the perceived right to bear arms.

It's about both Stone.

Originally Posted By: StoneMajestik, I could be wrong, but I think the Victorian police were looking at getting glocks, but the Commissioner decided against them. There reason given was they are prone to jamming up.

Many agencies carry Glocks. It's not about quality, it's about cost, Glock offers amazing discounts to LE. That said, except for a few issues they by in large have proven themselves, if there are consistent 'jamming' issues it's more likely than not operator error. The *only* time I've had a FTF (failure to feed) in my glock was my own problem, shooting single handed lefty while being timed.

Originally Posted By: LevKnives, I believe our laws state if the blade is under 6 inches it's not considered a weapon unless you are intending to use it as such. I don't know why anyone would carry a bigger knife than that as a tool though.

What about a machete? O.o

Originally Posted By: LevBesides government run programs, you know... the police and the army, the people who are supposed to protect you.

That's just the thing. As a cop it is *NOT* my job to get shot for you, or even protect you. By law I have absolutely no duty to put myself in harms way for your protection. Would I? Yes, probably, most of us would without even thinking about it, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm not required to. My job is to arrest criminals after the crime has been committed, and build the case against them to keep them in jail, not prevent the crime from happening to begin with. There is plenty of case law stating just that.

Add to that what I said earlier, it may very well be 5-10 minutes before you get an officer on scene, and that's if you're in the city. If you're in the county it could easily be 30 minutes to an hour. How long does it really take you to get beaten up, raped, or killed? There is a saying 'A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.' I have *never* condoned vigilante justice, nor do I want people playing cop from their home. But I know the reality of the situation is by the time they call me, and I show up, whatever crime was going to take place has already happened. Private citizens should be allowed to defend themselves. The gun is not there specifically to kill people, it is a tool to keep the potential victim of a violent crime from being victimized. If no shots are fire that's AWESOME, no one is hurt. If the bad guy is shot and injured, hooray for that! no one is dead. If the bad guy dies, that sucks, but at least the right one went. If someone is going to get hurt, I would prefer it to be the criminal.

Criminals don't care about following the laws, that's why they're criminals.

doppel, you're not really helping the debate bud. I understand your thinking, and your humor, but people take things out of context, or without thinking it through, and it can sound really.. really bad..


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Such
Such

Rancor
Location: Right Here
Member Since: 17th Sep 2008
Total posts: 253
Posted:Well, I will leave on that note. I guess I am just not used to talking to hippies, and I think I know why...

Human

Delete

railspinner
railspinner

journeyman
Location: canada
Member Since: 8th Oct 2008
Total posts: 99
Posted:what's a DGU? It's kind of annoying when people use acronyms with no explanation.

The less people know the more they believe

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I said it in my post 'Defensive Gun Use' tongue2

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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

railspinner
railspinner

journeyman
Location: canada
Member Since: 8th Oct 2008
Total posts: 99
Posted:oh.

I can see how guns could prevent crimes without being fired, hell ive used threats to stop myself from getting mugged a few times.

Although people knowing you have guns certainly can make your a victim of robbery to, I have the misfortune of knowing a few people who like to go rob peoples houses for shotguns and rifles when they aren't home. When I get my land and a house im makeing sure I have a really secure safe bolted into the foundation, their gonna have to chip the foundation away then lug it up a flight of stairs to get my stuff.


The less people know the more they believe

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Thats fair enough, and it comes down to proper gun storage and safety. You have a duty to ensure your guns don't get stolen. I'm not going to pretend that the easiest way for a criminal to get a gun isn't to steal it. But at the same time, if that criminal knows there are guns in the house, it's *far* less likely they'll attempt to rob the house while it's occupied, ie home invasion style, which seems to be quite a bit more common in the UK, possibly because they know the family they invade probably won't be fighting back.


As I've said before... The safest place for my gun is on my hip

EDITED_BY: Lurch (1236068278)


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: Lurch
Originally Posted By: StoneMajestik, I could be wrong, but I think the Victorian police were looking at getting glocks, but the Commissioner decided against them. There reason given was they are prone to jamming up.

Many agencies carry Glocks. It's not about quality, it's about cost, Glock offers amazing discounts to LE. That said, except for a few issues they by in large have proven themselves, if there are consistent 'jamming' issues it's more likely than not operator error. The *only* time I've had a FTF (failure to feed) in my glock was my own problem, shooting single handed lefty while being timed.

well i can state as fact that police in tasmania carry glocks, and not that i go stalking police in other state but i'm fairly sure they're in NSW too.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Like I said, a lot of places carry glocks. Some require them, some leave leeway to carry whatever you want. Glock offers good discounts, and armorers course so the agency can have in-house techs. They're not my favorite, but they're good guns.

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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Silly? ME!?

I don't like the way these types of things go. I'd like people to sensibly discuss it, but these things always end up riling emotions. Any argument with the smallest degree of personal morals does it, I remember an argument me and a friend had with some other people about opinions on raising dogs (and other animals). It was annoying because it got us on edge and at one point I started yelling "I LIKE MUSICALS HOW ABOUT YOU? I THOUGHT RENT WAS PRETTY GOOD!" Just to make people laugh if nothing else.

It's why I brought up the driving thing way back. Great people can be frightening drivers. As such I can't wish violent car accidents on every life endangering driver, just that at some point they realize what they're doing.

anyway...

I still hold to the idea that the weapon is not the cause of violence it is the person. Even if all guns disappeared people would still be dying violent deaths. Besides, there is truly no way to rid the world of guns. I am fine with people owning any gun they want. I think we need VERY thorough screening processes, and that will be the best we can do to logically limit gun ownership. It is a very slippery slope to start denying people rights, and a right to property(whatever it may be) is pretty important.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone


Faith, there were no weapons of mass destruction. That’s a good example.



Not a good example. Too general and has to do with the government, not with me owning a pearl handled pistol


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

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Here's the kind of ridiculous laws that Stone seems to be so proud of. This is what you get when you make law based on fear, not on fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030903240.html
br>
She was denied a gun permit (which she shouldn't even need in the first place IMHO) purely because of the color of the gun. Absolutely nothing to do with the function, the caliber, the magazine size. It was just the wrong color and didn't fit with their arbitrary list of "approved" guns. There isn't even logic to it! They have no reason that it's not on the list, they just choose not to accept it. Like I said, you apply these restrictions to any other industry and there's no way in hell it would fly. Could you imagine the government banning all blue cars, just because they don't fit on their list of acceptable car colors? People who are scared of guns find these stupid regulations acceptable because they don't affect them, and they endorse them because they seem to think anything against guns is good, but it's setting a very bad precedent.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Hi Lurch.

I'm not claiming to speak for Stone, but I can't see him being "proud" of a law that restricts a gun based on it's colour. Yep, we've all seen the pictures of those pink camouflage guns designed to appeal to the likes of Strawberry Shortcake, yet they remain lawful.

So California has a "safe gun roster" where they actually test guns for things like not going off when dropped, or not discharging a bullet into your gonads when you lean over to tie your shoe, and Dc has decided to adopt this roster as a guide for just which handguns they figure will result in less accidental shootings. OK. Maybe DC authorities want to lens some credence to the idea that "guns don't kill people......" by disallowing cheap pieces of crap in their jurisdiction.

One thing they're not telling us is just why this two tone weapon isn't on the list. Maybe it's a bureaucratic oversight ? I read one article that described Hanson's weapon as being made by Springfield Armoury, yet it's only a S&W that I can find that comes in a colour called "dark earth". So what's the deal with the two tone model ? Might this be some 30 year old, hair trigger, goes off whenever it feels like it type of safety hazard ?

If blue cars demonstrated a penchant for spontaneous catastrophic steering failure causing them to careen out of control without warning, wouldn't you expect someone to do something ?

I highly suspect this has nothing to do with the colour of the gun, and everything to do with the lawyer for the case making another career move as a gun rights advocate by trying to overturn DC's adoption of California's list. As a libertarian, Alan Gura no doubt sees DC's restriction on cheap crappy guns as government tyranny and would most likely want to see those cheap crappy guns on sale in the Wal-Mart check up line, right next to the candies and magazines.


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Well I'm pretty sure Stone would be happy with *any* law that further regulated guns, but hopefully he would at least see the bad precedence that things like this set.

California's "Safe Handgun" list is ridiculous in it's own right. I know this might seem like an odd statement, but most guns are far safer than you'd think. You would be hard pressed to find a modern semi-auto from any reputable manufacturer without multiple redundant internal safeties. Modern guns, from decent companies don't have safety issues like you're describing. Glocks for instance have 3 safeties that you probably never even notice, a trigger safety, a firing pin safety, and a drop safety.

The trigger safety doesn't allow it to be pulled by sideways pressure, for example it keeps the trigger from being pulled if something gets snagged while holstering.

The firing pin safety is a physical block that keeps the firing pin from moving forward unless the trigger is pulled

and the Drop safety physically removes the trigger bar from the equation until the trigger is pressed, so it cannot release the firing pin, but even if it does there is still a physical block from the firing pin safety in the way.

Other guns like the Springfield XD have similar features, trigger safety, and drop safety, along with a grip safety (you have to actually be holding the gun and depress a safety on the backstrap) and an 'in battery' safety which prevents firing unless the gun is in battery (slide closed completely) Some even have a thumb safety. And yes, they're offered in Dark Earth, which is essentially desert tan.

I mention those two guns specifically because they are two that I have, and use. The XD happens to be the same model she is trying to register.. I have a black one, my sister has a bi-toned black/stainless model, there is *no* functional difference between the two, I assure you.

Now, if you want to get a bit more detailed as to specifically *why* the XD in black/stainless is not on the list, but the others are, the answer is fairly simple. At the time the black/OD green/Dark Earth models were put onto the list, the stainless was not available. The requirements to be on the list were then altered, requiring a loaded chamber indicator (The XD has this) and a magazine disconnect (a ridiculous "safety" feature that is more dangerous than good). The XD does *not* have this feature, and I'm grateful that it does not. Since the first three colors were already on the list, they were grandfathered in and not required to have those features. The stainless was not so lucky, even though it functions exactly the same, with all the same features, and reliability of the other models.

It's not because it's any less safe than it's compatriots. California demands money to make it on their roster. Passing their 'safety tests' can be done by all the terrible 'unsafe' guns of the past that you speak of. Modern manufacturers are better than that though, they are, and should be, held to the same standards as any other industry. They cannot be negligent in their products. The same way car makers can be sued and held responsible if their safety features fail. Tires explode, cars flipping over etc. It's no different. The makers have a duty to ensure their products will not catastrophically fail and injure the users.

The gun roster only limits guns certified for sale by FFL dealers in the state of California. It doesn't limit ownership, or private sales or transfers. It just doesn't allow federal gun dealers from selling said guns to *civilians*. Law enforcement and military can still buy them.

Manufacturers must give the state three guns of each model for testing, which includes a firing test and a drop test (which like i said, any gun worth it's salt will pass easily). They also must pay a fee for said tests. Along with an annual fee to keep the gun on the roster, for every gun they submit. Cosmetic changes like color, count as a different model and must be payed for separately. Guns can be on the roster, and fall off not because of any change of the gun itself, but simply because the company didn't pay the annual fee.

So now there is a whole other side to this argument. I'll just quote from a far more eloquent article than I could write..

Quote:The District is the only jurisdiction, other than California, to use the roster, and it uses it far more aggressively than California does.

In California, it is not against the law to own a handgun that is not on the list. It is simply illegal for that gun to be manufactured or sold by a dealer. Guns that are not on the list can be brought into the state by a new resident, or they could be sold or gifted between two private parties.

Another problem with the roster is a gun can be on it for years and fall off, and it is not because something has changed about the gun or the requirements to be on the list. Guns routinely fall off the registry because the manufacturer fails to pay the annual $200 fee.

Such is the case with one of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Gillian St. Lawrence's application to register a Para USA (Para Ordnance) P1345SR / Stainless Steel .45 ACP 4.25" was denied because it is not on the list. It had been on the list until 2005 when the model was discontinued and the manufacturer stopped paying the annual fee.

There is still a third flaw in the District's use of the California roster. Before the District adopted the roster, residents could register any revolver. Once the roster became the law of the land, handguns that once were deemed legal to register by the District are now illegal because not all revolvers are on the list.

Ironically, according to the lawsuit, the very model handgun that was at the center of the original Supreme Court case that forced the District to allow handguns is not on the roster.

According to the lawsuit, Paul St. Lawrence tried to register a High Standard Buntline style revolver and was denied. Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, sued the District for the right to register his Buntline revolver and won.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchHere's the kind of ridiculous laws that Stone seems to be so proud of. This is what you get when you make law based on fear, not on fact.

Lurch, my point is fairly simple. There is no room for semi-automatics and hand guns being made available to the general public in a civilized society. As to the gun laws in question, I think its just more sensationalism by the gun lobby. The idea being to focus on petty issues while ignoring the big issues like semi automatic assault weapons being made freely available to the general public, and the loop holes in gun show laws.

D.C. readies for another gun fight:

Quote:Gun rights activists would have you believe D.C. refused to allow a woman to register a handgun because of the color of the gun. That's not entirely true. But the lawsuit does bring to light a possible flaw in the District's new gun laws.

The reason the woman was refused registration was because it was a newer model that did not meet the current requirement. The new requirement is for all handguns to have a chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect device. The California DOJ ruled the newer model did not meet its new standard.

Lurch, you have a lot to say about gun laws, so Im wondering how that affects your position as a Law Enforcement Office. Surely, there must be a conflict of interest when you are required to enforce laws you so adamantly criticize? Anyhow, regardless of what you think, the lack of serious gun laws in America is causing grief for neighbouring countries.

Stout, whats happening in Vancouver? I was watching world news on SBS last week, and I was surprised to learn that there is an out-and-out drug war going on in Vancouver. Apparently, this war is fueled by semi automatic weapons brought in from the USA. The report actually stated that the weapons are purchased through loop holes in the USA gun show laws.


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

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:All I want you to do is THINK about it for once. The 'Safe Gun Roster' has nothing to do with safety, it's all about regulation, and it's a waste of money.

This is a case of two identical guns, that can be produced at the same time, come off the factory line together, and one is called "safe" by this list while the other is not. All because one made it on the list first. How is that a 'safety' list at all? Are you really saying one is more safe because it was registered first when they're identical?

As for a conflict of interest, I took an oath to uphold the constitution of my state and country, and enforce their laws. Luckily I agree with most of the laws of my state, as they aren't unconstitutional. But I most certainly have a duty to stand up and say NO if I'm ordered to do something unethical, or unconstitutional. It may just be me but I'm sure glad I have the *right* to criticize my government.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, this is my take on what you are saying; correct me if Im wrong. You are only prepared to obey and enforce the laws that you personally agree with. And, as you say, its lucky that you agree with most laws in your state, because otherwise you might end up in prison. We all have to obey the law, even laws we think are stupid, and thats the rub with living in a community. For, example, the Judge asks you why you broke the law, and you if you say I broke the law because I think its stupid. Then I think you would end up in contempt.

So, I put it to you that there is nothing inherently wrong with the 'Safe Gun Roster', and all the good citizens in Washington are trying to do is reduce gun violence. Except you dont agree with reducing gun violence because you think its stupid. That is, trying to reduce gun violence is stupid, because its about regulation, and a waste of money. The reason given for this is that any gun regulation apparently interferes with the god given constitutional rights for all red blooded Americans to bear-arms. And the right to "bear-arms", overshadows all other State and Federal laws. Which I'd suggest, is why you have so much violence in your country in the first place. Btw, Id suggest that as a law enforcement officer you do give up the right to criticize your government, at least in public.


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

Mother_Natures_Son
Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Member Since: 1st Aug 2007
Total posts: 2418
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneSo, I put it to you that there is nothing inherently wrong with the 'Safe Gun Roster', and all the good citizens in Washington are trying to do is reduce gun violence. Except you dont agree with reducing gun violence because you think its stupid.


I really don't think this is what he was saying...

The roster doesn't even have anything to do with violence, does it? Is it not about accidental injuries? And I dare say Lurch would be all for reducing accidental injuries AND gun violence... but not in a way that restricts needlessly.

Not to say I agree with a need for hand guns in the first place, but if you are to address Lurch specifically its only fair to actually address what he is saying.


hug

Delete

Page: 1...3435363738...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..