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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...45678...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

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:The gun owners here have made it more than clear that the surrounds are not as peaceful as the surface looks
Where I used to live, there were regular shootings, robberies and rapes. There are neighborhoods that you don't walk into unless they know you. There was a threat to kill us, so we made sure that people thought it would be a fight, ended up talking it through
pounce has potentially violent situations in her line of work, where people are armed
lurch does rescue, and not all animals are cute and fuzzy

and stop talking down to us like we are children

OWD and Lurch: I used cowboys, I think someone else did too, but I used it to represent the US take on how we feel about the "frontier philosophy." Sorry, for any confusion


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: Written by:

To me it is simply ridiculous that one would own and hold a gun in his possession (with this putting his own and the lives of his relatives and friends at a higher risk) whilst he is living in one of the most peaceful surroundings... you are right: I do NOT understand this.



Me having a gun doesn't put anyone at more risk, save someone who may be intending to do me harm, in which case I'm perfectly justified, morally and legally in defending myself.

 Written by:

Are you declaring yourself to be the sheperds dog, where there are no wolves around... ??? If this is for the vast chance that you one day have got to fight your own government, or are you simply bored out of your skull and try to impress the ladies?



Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there. I'm not preparing for Armageddon, but as it has been said before, I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. And no, I'm not trying to impress the ladies, my girlfriend actually doesn't even like shooting.

 Written by:

Lurch, you did say that "this kid deserved to die" - later putting this statement more politically correct... unlike in this discussion, out there you may not as easily be able to reconsider your judgement... Why do you oppose mandatory, random drug testing and registering of gun ownership? Because you refrain from recreational drugs? If so, how about others, who are abusing all kinds of drugs, altering their perception and affecting their sound judgement?



People who've been convicted of domestic abuse, or have committed a felony are not allowed to have guns. That is the law, I'm fine with that. They have proven themselves to be irresponsible, and criminal. Until that has been proven however, there is no reason to randomly accuse people. Just as a police officer cannot pull you over and demand a field sobriety test on a whim, he *must* be able to justify his reasoning. I don't do drugs, I know people who do. And I know people who know when they can, and when they can't. If you got drunk once does that mean you should lose your license? No, if you were drunk and decided to drive, that is a different story.

Restating my opinion did not change it any. The kid brought the end result on himself. I hold no pity for him.

and Yes, I know of Macciavelli, I need not subscribe to all of his thinking. Just because I agree with parts, doesn't mean I'm required to believe everything. Just like if I at some point, by some rare chance wink agreed with you on something, it doesn't by default mean I must agree with you about everything.

 Written by:

seemed to be implying that guns were essential to maintain social order- maybe I've misunderstood and you could explain why you were using that quote?



In some cases, owning arms can aid in ensuring order. It is not a requirement, it is a safeguard.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch





 Written by: me

seemed to be implying that guns were essential to maintain social order- maybe I've misunderstood and you could explain why you were using that quote?





In some cases, owning arms can aid in ensuring order. It is not a requirement, it is a safeguard.





Nevertheless, the quote you posted, did not say can aid in ensuring order- it said that it was essential for the people to be armed, in order to secure the kingdom.





 Written by:



Written by:



No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. - James Burgh







As for possession of guns being a safeguard, again, I'll point out that there are many countries where gun ownership is restricted/banned, that are at least as safe as the U.S. equivalent and, when it comes to gun crimes, considerably more safe.



I agree with you that it is easy to imagine scenarios where a gun would be useful for defence, or to quote actual instances of such- the fact remains that, in the UK and Europe where guns are disallowed, it's just plain far less likely that you will ever face a gun.



That's not going to sway you cos, from what I understand, you'd rather that it was statistically more likely you'll face a gun and have your own gun at hand for defence; than for it to be far less likely to face a gun and have no gun in your possession.


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

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


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

Delete

Yakumo
Yakumo

veteran
Location: Oxfordshire
Member Since: 31st May 2006
Total posts: 1237
Posted:Could be wrong, but I think the probability of a gun accident to any average law abiding citizen is probably higher than the probability of them being attacked by someone with intent to kill them, far more likely if anything happens it's just a robbery, and the gun is either there purely as a threat/leverage device, or for defence.
(see the arms race for comparison)

I'd figure even if that's not the case, there are a hell of a lot of deaths that wouldn't have occurred if someone on the defensive didn't have a gun too (ie attacker holds you up, sees gun, panics, shoots you).

we've all seen the movies where one person pulls a gun, other pulls a gun and a stand-off comes about, paranoia, fear, and shoot first attitude of the general populace makes me think such occurrences are insignificant compared to the occasions at least one of the weapons is fired.

Friend of mine the other day caught some kid/troublemaker/opportunist maybe even, trying to short cut through his garden, went out to shout at him, just caught his back as he bolted through the side gate and across the street in front of his house. didn't think twice about it till another friend said if it was the US, it'd be quite likely the guy could have had a gun, would assume he had a gun in the house, and would probably have felt no choice but to shoot first as my friend stood at the door shouting, or catch it in the back as he tried to run away.

lot of pro-gun ppl would simply say damn right I'd maim/kill to save my wallet/garden gnome/whatever, but that's a deep seated and probably unchangable attitude that I personally find quite sickening.

I don't for one minute beleive these people saying 'I want my gun to keep my right to overthrow the government' it's all I want my gun to make ME (/my family) feel save & these accidents we keep hearing people claim happen could never happen to me / my loved ones.


Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously grin

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:faith, yes I think there is a difference in how we both view our respective Governments foreign policy. I suppose Im judgmental because Australian leaders tend to follow America blindly, and have for a long time. All the way with LBJ and all that.

One reason we are still talking about foreign policy is because it mirrors your domestic politics.

Guys, if you think most of Iraq is peaceful then you must be asleep. Even Kadhim al-Jubouri, the weightlifter who knocked down Saddams statue, says Iraq was better under Saddam, compared to the Americans. US regime worse than Saddam, statue slayer says

Lurch, Im not sure why you are quoting Machiavelli. But as far as Im concerned, Machiavellianism is primarily the term some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain.

 Written by:

Have you talked to any vets? You might hear a vastly different story from what you hear through the media



Former deputy commander of Australia's special forces in western Iraq recently criticised Australia's decision to join the US invasion of Iraq as "morally bankrupt.


We will stop calling your gun policies frontier philosophies when you change. Its not an insult. Its just how the world perceives you. Which is through your actions.




smile


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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Furthermore, Lurch are you saying President Bush is giving cowboys a bad name?

I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' (George W. Bush, 9/17/01).

The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom (George W. Bush).

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilised world and will be confronted(George W. Bush).

Our nation is somewhat sad, but we're angry. There's a certain level of blood lust, but we won't let it drive our reaction. We're steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we'll have to start displaying scalps (George W. Bush).

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking (George W. Bush).


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Let me throw in some more quotes:

 Written by: influencial men in the 20st cenury


"Strength lies not in defense but in attack."
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
"A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic."
"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."
"The only real power comes out of a long rifle. "

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."



Keeping a gun at home increases the likelihood that one of the residents, their relatives or friends gets involved into a gun related accident - Jeff and others have tried to point this out to you before, and it seems more than obvious: no guns present, no gun related accidents.

"Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there."

rolleyes shrug

"Just as a police officer cannot pull you over and demand a field sobriety test on a whim, he *must* be able to justify his reasoning."

Cops do check for sobriety on a random basis in traffic, they do not need to justify that - claiming that simply is neglecting the facts.

IMHO mandatory, random drug testing of gun owners -especially for those who are permitted to carry heir guns in public - is simply a necessary precaution that I (if I were to be an american citizen) would demand my government to install, if no other measure can be implemented.

The law is there in oder to prevent crime. A heroin addict should never be able to have a "concealed weapon carry permit (CCW)" - same applies to someone on prescriptive mind altering drugs. Someone who has a "CCW" already and becomes a drug addict has to loose this permit. In order to verify his state of mind and health, regular but radom drug tests need to be implemented on a mandatory basis.

People who make decisions (based on opinions) and by that affect the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens must be able to be as clear and sound in their judgement as somehow possible - it's the governments duty to ensure and enforce that, in order to protect the others. You simply cannot revive someone, after you fatally shot him. Get it in your head. An erroneous decision with a deadly weapon in your hand simply might be final. In my eyes you have not presented yourself responsible and mature enough that I would trust my life or that of my beloveth ones on you... shrug

PS: the above quotes are from Hitler and Stalin shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

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: Written by: faithinfire

Majestik: it would be more helpful if we knew the areas that they are being displaced from and where they ended up and how they feel about the displacement.



how they feel about displacement? do you suppose 1.8 million people would all be happy about being displaced? "why yes, i love the fact i have no home, employment or stability in my life"umm i find that an insane question to ask.

i know i dont have the exact info you would love to hold, but lord knows i'm not paid to be a research assistant. i'm simply stating that things are not going well in iraq and the instability caused by the invasion is not helping. at least when Saddam was in power they knew he would stay and keep order, with the international forces there it gives disgurntled factions the knowledge that eventually you WILL leave, which encourages the fighting, which in turn is going to screw the civillians over.

meanwhile, i'm sure everyone will be happy to know while the masses in iraq are in the [censored], iraq oil production hit a new high(in june last year). i'm sure all that money will be going toward helping the inhabitants, via of course profits from oil sales to the us being fed to us reconstruction companies...

frown guns and iraq are both [censored] up, and whats more they seem to go hand in hand.

*is all frustrated*


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

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Majestik: you're right. It was poorly worded. I guess I was thinking about the Katrina victims. Many of the lost everything and ended up doing pretty well. It was silly of me to think of it that way. Seriously. No sarcasm. But if they are displaced, maybe they are some place a little less dangerous, where people aren't disappearing or strapping bombs and targeting weddings?
Is Iraq as a whole more peaceful? no. I wasn't trying to say that but apparently it came across that way. What I am saying is that you only hear about the violent parts. Take a map and see where these news stories come from. There are areas with little to no violence where progress is being made on infrastructure.

There should be restrictions to licensing, but I don't know how fair it is to say you are/were on drugs for mental well-being and now you can't own a gun. They were trying to help themselves. Some people take antidepressants for a bit after tragedies. Women with postpartem sometimes end up on antidepressants. Should they never be allowed to own a gun. I was an addict and before that I was on antidepressants. Should I never be able to own a gun? What if I got my wish and got back on antidepressives? Should my gun license be revoked even though my depression has nothing to do with gun violence? (personally, knives are more dangerous to my well being-should I not be allowed to have sharp objects in the house)


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

sagetree
sagetree

organic creation
Location: earth
Member Since: 7th May 2006
Total posts: 246
Posted:if there are any other anti-gun americans reading this thread i just wanted to say that i feel your pain.




 Written by: lurch

Oddly enough I agree. We *could* be doing a lot better over there, we've been restricted. The war was doomed from the start because we didn't have enough support going in, and the troops weren't allowed the resources they needed. Now more than ever they need that support, and now more than ever the people are refusing to give it. It's a sad state..



not enough support eh

"On September 7th, 2003, President Bush announced on national television that he was going to ask the Congress to grant him an additional $87 billion dollars for the fiscal year, beginning October 1, 2004, to continue the fight on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since before then, to the end of September, 2007, the United States has dedicated approximately $315 billion dollars to the cause."


Non-Https Image Link


 Written by: President Bush, Jan. 6, 2003

Our administration is concerned about deficits, and the way they deal with deficits is you want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that the appropriations process is focused on those issues that -- those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people. I'm pleased that members of the Congress are talking about deficits. It means they understand their obligations not to overspend the people's money.




Non-Https Image Link



Non-Https Image Link


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

Keeping a gun at home increases the likelihood that one of the residents, their relatives or friends gets involved into a gun related accident - Jeff and others have tried to point this out to you before, and it seems more than obvious: no guns present, no gun related accidents.



You guys have posted your "evidence" and I have posted mine, I'm not going to get into that loop again.

 Written by:

Cops do check for sobriety on a random basis in traffic, they do not need to justify that - claiming that simply is neglecting the facts.



Very different, LEO's do a very superficial "sobriety check" at those places, looking for visible outward obvious signs of impairment, they are *not* doing BAL level tests without probably cause. Regardless, it is up to the individual state whether to allow such insances, and sobriety checkpoints are in fact illegal in MY state.

 Written by:

IMHO mandatory, random drug testing of gun owners -especially for those who are permitted to carry heir guns in public - is simply a necessary precaution that I (if I were to be an american citizen) would demand my government to install, if no other measure can be implemented.



Being drunk, (or high) and owning a gun, have nothing to do with each other. Just as being drunk, and having a car have nothing to do with each other. It's when you are drunk and you DRIVE your car that it becomes a crime.

 Written by:

The law is there in oder to prevent crime. A heroin addict should never be able to have a "concealed weapon carry permit (CCW)"



What sort of qualifications do you have to make such a statement? Personally, soft 'drug' type crimes have little to nothing to do with someone owning a gun. It's rediculous to overstep lines like that, but it happens all too often. The same way people caught urinating in public are now labelled sexual offenders. Drugs do NOT = violent crime. While I wouldn't particually like drug addicts walking around with guns, I will fight to the end for their right to do it *legally*. Luckily, the ones I would truely have to worry about would rather spend their money on drugs, than on a CCW permit and legal weapon, so they're doing it illegally anyways, and are criminal, and should be charged. You happy there?

 Written by:

People who make decisions (based on opinions) and by that affect the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens must be able to be as clear and sound in their judgement as somehow possible - it's the governments duty to ensure and enforce that, in order to protect the others. You simply cannot revive someone, after you fatally shot him. Get it in your head. An erroneous decision with a deadly weapon in your hand simply might be final. In my eyes you have not presented yourself responsible and mature enough that I would trust my life or that of my beloveth ones on you...



You don't have to trust anything to me. I'll take care of myself, you take care of your self. Next time someone's attacking you I'll just keep on walkin, that seems to be what you guys want.

 Written by:

PS: the above quotes are from Hitler and Stalin



They were both crazy, evil people, but some would argue they were both genius' Hitler also disarmed the people shortly before the war started, stating something to the effect of if people want to use guns, join my army. rolleyes

 Written by:

not enough support eh



*le sigh*... MONEY does not = support. We've spent an assload more, trying to make up the difference *because* there is a lack of support.

 Written by:

Could be wrong, but I think the probability of a gun accident to any average law abiding citizen is probably higher than the probability of them being attacked by someone with intent to kill them, far more likely if anything happens it's just a robbery, and the gun is either there purely as a threat/leverage device, or for defence.



'A gun in the house' theory has yet to be proven. They'll probably tell you it has, but I've shown enough contradictory evidence to at least question it.

If a gun is pulled on you, you cannot, and should not assume that it is there just as a threat/leverage device. Such shortsighted assumptions may very well cost you your life. Complying with a criminal is very often the best way to get out of the situation, but NOT ALWAYS.

 Written by:

there are a hell of a lot of deaths that wouldn't have occurred if someone on the defensive didn't have a gun too



Estimates also say that there are close to 2,000,000 uses of defensive guns (that don't involve killing someone) that STOP crimes in progress.

 Written by:


we've all seen the movies where one person pulls a gun, other pulls a gun and a stand-off comes about, paranoia, fear, and shoot first attitude of the general populace makes me think such occurrences are insignificant compared to the occasions at least one of the weapons is fired.



Thats just that. A movie. There isn't really a "shoot first" attitude, if you read back either in this thread or the VT thread, I go over all the of requirements to have a legal self defense shoot, and it's drilled into the head of anyone who carries a gun long before they get a permit.

If you were robbing a store, and I was a bystander.. I would probably not draw if it looked like you would leave peacefully. If you'd already hurt people, then I would be justified to brandish and challenge, and at least draw your attention to ME rather than an innocent person. If you put down your gun, thats it, it's over.. If I see you shoot someone in cold blood, and I have reason to believe I, or someone else is going to be next, you better believe in shooting first and asking questions later.

 Written by:

Friend of mine the other day caught some kid/troublemaker/opportunist maybe even, trying to short cut through his garden, went out to shout at him, just caught his back as he bolted through the side gate and across the street in front of his house. didn't think twice about it till another friend said if it was the US, it'd be quite likely the guy could have had a gun, would assume he had a gun in the house, and would probably have felt no choice but to shoot first as my friend stood at the door shouting, or catch it in the back as he tried to run away.



Wha? That is just full of insane assumptions that shows that you guys don't really know much about society over here. The logic itself is rather screwed up as well, if a criminal thinks everyone is armed, and going to shoot them in the back for running through a back yard. WHY would they run through a back yard?? Running through a yard is NOT justification to do *anything*. We're not a bunch of gun toting sociopaths looking to kill anyone who steps on our toes.

 Written by:

lot of pro-gun ppl would simply say damn right I'd maim/kill to save my wallet/garden gnome/whatever, but that's a deep seated and probably unchangable attitude that I personally find quite sickening.



Um, no, again, wild assumptions. Killing over material possessions is wrong, and illegal regardless. A DVD player can be replaced. A wife, or child, cannot. I too find that sickening, and sickening that you would blindly assume thats how we are. We're not nearly as reckless as you people seem to think.


 Written by:

I agree with you that it is easy to imagine scenarios where a gun would be useful for defence, or to quote actual instances of such- the fact remains that, in the UK and Europe where guns are disallowed, it's just plain far less likely that you will ever face a gun.

That's not going to sway you cos, from what I understand, you'd rather that it was statistically more likely you'll face a gun and have your own gun at hand for defence; than for it to be far less likely to face a gun and have no gun in your possession.



For a criminal to illegally get a gun in the UK is probably not much harder than for a criminal to illegally get a gun in the US. "Gun crime," between the two, as we've already established, is just as effected by cultural difference as a legal differences. Yes it's less likely you'll face a gun, but what were the chances of you facing a legally owned gun to begin with? As long as you weren't doing something criminal that justified that legally owned gun being pulled on you. Probably close to nill, which is the same here. So all you've really done is two things, outlawed guns that were already outlawed (kinda redundant) and removed the guns from people who might actually have a reason for owning them.

So yeah, I'll take my laws over yours, at least my way I have a choice.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:*LE SIGH*

1) Compulsory sobriety checks are perfectly legal in my country, especially if the LEO's do notice any irregularity in the way someone is handling his vehicle (that might start by not putting out their indicator when changing lanes)

They do happen in the US too. Trust me. And no officer will face charges for doing so. Maybe even in your state...

2) Owning and carrying a gun (in public) whilst high on mind altering drugs, who change the perception and clarity of judgement DO NOT mix well.

You are simply resenting and refrain from comprehending with the most obvious of all. As a matter of fact you start to discredit yourself getting regarded as a serious participant discussing this topic - especially if you "fight to the end for their (herion addicts) right to do it (owning and obtaining/ keeping a CCW permit) *legally*. " Right, drugs do not equal violent crime. Cease putting words into my mouth... wink

3) You please keep on walking - that's pefect with me, I'll handle my own problems clap The same way I always had to. peace

4) Those evil madmens get quoted, without some people even noticing who they quote. You quote Macchiavelli (by the time it suits you and your personal opinion and) using quotes of crazy people I guess one is not signing up for all the rest of their philosophy, right? wink

5) You dismiss all evidence that guns in the house increase gun related accidents - which is preposterous in itself ( I repeat: No gun = no gun related accident) - and at the same time claim (unverified) evidence that guns do prevent crimes... (*yawn*) - and expect the rest of us to buy it...

6) You do have a "shoot first/ ask later" attitude yourself by putting judgement on that 15 yr old kid. You - in fact at least - appear potentially dangerous to me, as you see criminals where in fact (statistically) there are none and vice versa. You arm yourself (endangering family and friends) to defend your rights (basically to arm yourself)...

Yes, I am getting quite personal on this, as you seem to continuously close eyes and ears to any reason. I do still acknowledge that I do not know you personally - take into account that outside this board you might even be a nice guy. Where - measured by the choices you propagate and words you use - I might fail even in the kindest of descernments.

But hey - maybe I'm just wrong trying to emphasise that guns are not the solution to crime, maybe I'm the problem here? This I'm certainly not ruling out... But if you do not want to get talked to like children, maybe stop acting like some. Guns will not help you to grow up... especially not if you depend your survival on them.

hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I don't think we are closing our minds to reason, but we live in a different place too

both who own guns here have made valid points for owning them

Guns are not the solution to a crime, stopping the criminal before he commits the crime would be a more than viable solution.

You really do not seem to have an open mind about this subject and therefore your part of the discussion goes nowhere. We are always repeating ourselves and we get stuck in a loop.

We are not acting like children. We do not think guns help us grow up.

Save your hugs for someone else, it does not minimize or soften what you said. There is no point to the hug and seems patronizing...IMO shrug

lurch has stated why he arms himself, so has pounce, i said why i briefly did and I was the only one who might not have had a valid reason. If you cannot see that, then you have blinded yourself with your own "dark energies."

Objects only have the power you give it.


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

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch









 Written by:





I agree with you that it is easy to imagine scenarios where a gun would be useful for defence, or to quote actual instances of such- the fact remains that, in the UK and Europe where guns are disallowed, it's just plain far less likely that you will ever face a gun.



That's not going to sway you cos, from what I understand, you'd rather that it was statistically more likely you'll face a gun and have your own gun at hand for defence; than for it to be far less likely to face a gun and have no gun in your possession.







 Written by:





Yes it's less likely you'll face a gun, but what were the chances of you facing a legally owned gun to begin with?







Pretty low. The only guns that are legal are those held by police. As an innocent person, the chances are near-zero that you'd face a gun (not toally zero, as several innocent people have been shot by mistake by armed police).



Throughout, the inescapable fact remians that, in the UK, citizens are far less likely to face a gun than in the U.S.





 Written by:



So all you've really done is two things, outlawed guns that were already outlawed (kinda redundant) and removed the guns from people who might actually have a reason for owning them.





Well no... cos it seems there is a third effect, which is that, for whatever reason, citizens here are far less likely to be the victim of gun crime than U.S. citizens- that is undeniable, proven fact.



And, whatever rationalisations you use to say that easy access to guns for legitimate citizens doesn't increase criminal access to guns, or that criminals will obtain guns regardless of their legality, that simple undeniable fact remains- that:



in the UK where guns are heavily restricted/illegal, it is a fact that citizens are far less likely to face a gun, than are U.S. citizens.



Now, having expressed your dislike for 'going round in circles' isn't it time you addressed that?



Cos I've posted it in several different versions, hoping you'd at least comment on it, yet you seem to be not doing so.


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

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


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by: faithinfire


I don't think we are closing our minds to reason, but we live in a different place too

both who own guns here have made valid points for owning them

Guns are not the solution to a crime, stopping the criminal before he commits the crime would be a more than viable solution.

You really do not seem to have an open mind about this subject and therefore your part of the discussion goes nowhere. We are always repeating ourselves and we get stuck in a loop.

We are not acting like children. We do not think guns help us grow up.

Save your hugs for someone else, it does not minimize or soften what you said. There is no point to the hug and seems patronizing...IMO shrug

lurch has stated why he arms himself, so has pounce, i said why i briefly did and I was the only one who might not have had a valid reason. If you cannot see that, then you have blinded yourself with your own "dark energies."

Objects only have the power you give it.



Faith, not only have you proven yourself and your peers to have zero responsibility over owning a gun, you don't even bother to inform yourself by yourself about European gun laws - which are the base of two differing viewpoints here and enable us to have this disussion in the first place... well, maybe not quite.

May I remind you of your very own stories and what you did with the gun you owned? IMHO this is a very good example WHY GUNS NEED TO GET BANNED!

However I went from TOTALLY opposing ANY guns in civilian hands to say that there MIGHT be some out there who in fact UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES could be allowed to hold guns (and CCWP's).

These circumstances include:

- proper and mandatory background checks
- mandatory and random drug tests
- proper education and training
- registration with officials
- limited supply of ammunition
- limited numbers and types of guns

Is that what you call "a closed loop"/ too much to ask?

BTW I do enclose smileys and hugs to whomever takes them - and they do hold the energy that you put in them yourself. But you seem not to have anything logical or beneficial to add here...

So please, gimme a break now will ya? umm

[/tired and frustrated response]


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Weeeee round 'n round we go!

 Written by:

1) Compulsory sobriety checks are perfectly legal in my country, especially if the LEO's do notice any irregularity in the way someone is handling his vehicle (that might start by not putting out their indicator when changing lanes)

They do happen in the US too. Trust me. And no officer will face charges for doing so. Maybe even in your state...



I'm sorry that they're legal in your country. I don't agree with them. They are against my state constitution, (yes, there are federal AND state consitutions), so no, they do NOT happen here (some states do allow them), and the officer WILL be disciplined if he cannot justify a reason for the initial stop.

 Written by:

2) Owning and carrying a gun (in public) whilst high on mind altering drugs, who change the perception and clarity of judgement DO NOT mix well.



I agree, however, owning a gun, and carrying a gun are different. Just the same as owning a car, and driving said car are different. If you are impaired, you should NOT be carrying. In fact most (pretty sure all) states have very specific laws regarding this, and even banning carrying concealed in establishments selling alcohol, whether you're drinking or not. How are you going to enforce your plan though? Do you want manditory ID checks on street corners and if they have a CCW you inspect them? Concealed carry means just that, CONCEALED, noone should know you have a weapon. If a LEO talks to you, it's proper ettiquite (and law in some cases) to inform them you are armed, as they have the right to disarm you for officer safety while they are talking. They do however, have to give you your gun back when they're done if you've done nothing wrong.

I will fight for the rights of any citizen of this country. Heroin addict or not. Unless they're a felon, or in jail, they still have their rights. Just as an alcoholic is allowed to have a drivers license as long as they don't drive drunk. What is difficult to comprehend about that?

 Written by:

3) You please keep on walking - that's pefect with me, I'll handle my own problems The same way I always had to.



I really wish all situations could be handled peacefully, with no violence needed. But that isn't the case. It does remind me of an amusing anecdote though... If you are a true pacifist, and someone walked up and punched you in the face, you would rightly get angry with them... They would remind you that you're a pacifist, and cannot retaliate or strike back.. You'de probably calm down a bit, at which point they would hit you again, and repeat the cycle. How long would it take you to strike back if the only way to stop them was to meet violence with violence?

 Written by:

5) You dismiss all evidence that guns in the house increase gun related accidents - which is preposterous in itself ( I repeat: No gun = no gun related accident) - and at the same time claim (unverified) evidence that guns do prevent crimes... (*yawn*) - and expect the rest of us to buy it...



I apologize, I don't dismiss all evidence that guns increase gun related accidents. By logic guns present = gun accidents. This can however be quelled through education, and in reality the number of accidental gun deaths is fairly small when compared to other types of preventable accidental deaths.

What I was dismissing was the claims that guns in the house make you more likely to be killed (homicide). Guns can, and do STOP violent crimes from happening. Do you agree with that? I can present (and have) many such cases. And many more go unreported. To say that guns have no positive impact on the fight against crime is what is preposterous, the argument you should be making is whether or not the negative outweighs the good, not that the good is not there at all.

 Written by:

6) You do have a "shoot first/ ask later" attitude yourself by putting judgement on that 15 yr old kid. You - in fact at least - appear potentially dangerous to me, as you see criminals where in fact (statistically) there are none and vice versa.



Wha? Where did I see a criminal where there was none? HE WAS COMMITING ARMED ROBBERY. He had a gun, and threatened to kill a man. Do you let things like that slide as teenage hijinks? What if it was a knife to your throat? I would take that as a very serious threat to my life, teenager or not.

 Written by:

You arm yourself (endangering family and friends) to defend your rights (basically to arm yourself)...



How am I endangering my family and friends? My weapons are unloaded and locked when they're not on me. When they are on me, they're under my control at all times, I'm not going to be aiming them at random people playing cops and robbers or something.

 Written by:

But hey - maybe I'm just wrong trying to emphasise that guns are not the solution to crime, maybe I'm the problem here? This I'm certainly not ruling out... But if you do not want to get talked to like children, maybe stop acting like some. Guns will not help you to grow up... especially not if you depend your survival on them.



Guns are not the solution to crime, I never said they were the end all be all in terms of crime prevention. Education and changing our media would be the two biggest steps towards helping crime. Whether I have a gun or not doesn't do much in determining if johnny 14 miles away is going to turn into a criminal, it will however make me safer if johnny decides to try and kill me.

You can't talk yourself out of all situations, animals doen't listen to reason so well wink

 Written by:

Pretty low. The only guns that are legal are those held by police. As an innocent person, the chances are near-zero that you'd face a gun (not toally zero, as several innocent people have been shot by mistake by armed police).



I ment before the gun ban was in place. If you were to come 'face to face' with a gun, the chances of that being a legal vs illegal gun are probably about the same as they are today.

 Written by:

in the UK where guns are heavily restricted/illegal, it is a fact that citizens are far less likely to face a gun, than are U.S. citizens.



You still haven't really established that it is the gun, and not the culture that would make these differences. If you remove gun, gun crime will go do, but will violent crime? There are specific places in the US where crime is rampent, but the majority is fairly calm. Oregon (roughly the same size as the UK) has very similar violent crime and murder rates, our gun rates are up yes, but it's just about the same violent crime per capita across the board. If you look at washington DC, the nations capital, has the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the highest murder rates. California has far stricter gun laws than Oregon, slightly less gun deaths per capita, but nearly 3 times the homicide, and double the violent crime.

 Written by:

These circumstances include:

- proper and mandatory background checks
- mandatory and random drug tests
- proper education and training
- registration with officials
- limited supply of ammunition
- limited numbers and types of guns



#1 - Done
#2 - already discussed, you don't need a drug test to get a drivers license why would you need one for this?
#3 - Done
#4 - Done
#5 - Why?
#6 - Again, why?


#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, you said in relation to gun deaths in the home:

 Written by:

You guys have posted your "evidence" and I have posted mine, I'm not going to get into that loop again.



Yes we posted evidence; you posted your opinions.

 Written by:

A gun in the house theory has yet to be proven. They'll probably tell you it has, but I've shown enough contradictory evidence to at least question it.



Again Lurch all you do is post your opinion. When other peoples provide evidence that does not support your case you changed it until it does. I posted an example from a Canadian newspaper that said 220 people were killed in American school shootings in the last six years. You changed this to a couple people being killed, because "in your opinion" the others didnt count. Talk about pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Like Fire Tom said no gun = no gun related accident

 Written by:

*le sigh*... MONEY does not = support. We've spent an assload more, trying to make up the difference *because* there is a lack of support.



Do you mean a lack of support by Iraq or at home?

As far as support in Iraq goes, I suspect Sheriff Bush expected the Iraqi people to shower the American troops with accolades when they invaded Iraq. The Iraqis are not sheep.

American support for the war in Iraq is waning at home because 70% of Americans have woken up, and now realise that the invasions was a mistake. After all, the war has dragged on four years and killed 3,442 US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

There are non as blind as those who do not see. America is the one riding around in circles. Stuck in a time warp. Americas answer to everything is governed by Wild West culture, and Sheriff Bushs solutions are based on cowboy gun mentality.

You are stuck in a loop because you dont learn from your mistakes. Look at the mess that was Vietnam, and now an even bigger mess Iraq. You are way over the average on gun related deaths, yet you dont even see a problem.

As you said Lurch, animals don't listen to reason so well.

Its complete paranoia all these stories of having to protect your self from all these criminals running around America. You make it up to justify keeping guns.

Lurch you said earlier about criminals that Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there. To say that is being completely paranoid. Just like them mystical weapons of mass destruction. Well we aint seen them yet either. Though, not seeing them didnt stop America invading another country.

Time to grow up, hang up your guns and stop playing cowboys. Even if your SUV's are running out of hay.

wink


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

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch




 Written by:

in the UK where guns are heavily restricted/illegal, it is a fact that citizens are far less likely to face a gun, than are U.S. citizens.



You still haven't really established that it is the gun, and not the culture that would make these differences. If you remove gun, gun crime will go do, but will violent crime? There are specific places in the US where crime is rampent, but the majority is fairly calm. Oregon (roughly the same size as the UK) has very similar violent crime and murder rates, our gun rates are up yes, but it's just about the same violent crime per capita across the board. If you look at washington DC, the nations capital, has the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the highest murder rates. California has far stricter gun laws than Oregon, slightly less gun deaths per capita, but nearly 3 times the homicide, and double the violent crime.




You're right- I haven't established that it's the guns and not the culture.

Still, it seems a bit of a co-incidence that, in the many countires where guns are heavily restricted/banned, gun crimes are at far lower levels than in the U.S. where guns are not heavily restricted.

I appreciate the point you're making about Washington- nevertheless, presumably there's no actual borders between Washington and surrounding states, so guns presumably can easily be brought in by criminals form other states.

But yes, I admit that I can't prove that the problem is the gun, rather than the culture.

I guess the main value of the fact that gun crime is so low in the many cultures where guns are banned/restricted (UK and Europe and Australia) is that it does prove the following to be untrue-

1. civilian gun ownership leads to lowered gun crime
2. banning/restricting guns leads to a population of 'sheep'
3. banning/restricting guns 'diminishes', in any way, a culture

those kind of things have been implied or directly asserted, by U.S. pro-gunners, in this thread.

I trust that they won't be implied or asserted again, as the existence of perfectly healthy and low-gun-crime cultures clearly demonstrates that the above are false.


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

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


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

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

Yes we posted evidence; you posted your opinions.



I have posted many opinions, in that case however I posted multiple sources saying that the 'evidence' that you presented was manipulated, and not by any means 'fair and balanced.'

 Written by:

Again Lurch all you do is post your opinion. When other peoples provide evidence that does not support your case you changed it until it does. I posted an example from a Canadian newspaper that said 220 people were killed in American school shootings in the last six years. You changed this to a couple people being killed, because "in your opinion" the others didnt count. Talk about pulling the wool over your own eyes.



Please, give me *your* personal definition of a "school shooting." It might just be me, but a middle aged drug dealer getting killed in an elementary school parking lot at 4am should qualify.

 Written by:

Sheriff Bushs solutions are based on cowboy gun mentality.



That would be the type of derogatory "cowboy" comments I was refering to earlier. Regardless, if we were to use the "cowboy" approach we would have just nuked the middle east a long time ago.

 Written by:

Its complete paranoia all these stories of having to protect your self from all these criminals running around America. You make it up to justify keeping guns.



See, you resort to mockery and overexagerations to make arguments that you don't understand. "All these criminals running around America"?

Talk about paranoia rolleyes

 Written by:

Still, it seems a bit of a co-incidence that, in the many countires where guns are heavily restricted/banned, gun crimes are at far lower levels than in the U.S. where guns are not heavily restricted.



Again, you've done little to prove guns and crime go hand in hand. Do more guns mean more crimes will be committed with guns? Of course, but does that mean that the crime would not be committed at all? Remember Correlation does not equal Causation! Lets go back to the Swiss for a bit, where gun ownership is at least equal to, if not greater than over here, yet they have 1/4 the murder rate. If the deciding factor on violent crime is the number of guns, than they should have an equal rate should they not? As I've said before, education about crime, as well as responsible gun ownership and handling is more important.

 Written by:

I guess the main value of the fact that gun crime is so low in the many cultures where guns are banned/restricted (UK and Europe and Australia) is that it does prove the following to be untrue-

1. civilian gun ownership leads to lowered gun crime
2. banning/restricting guns leads to a population of 'sheep'
3. banning/restricting guns 'diminishes', in any way, a culture




Again, stop looking at gun crimes specifically, this goes far beyond that, start looking at violent crime in general, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault.

You say I want guns because of paranoia. I say you ban guns from paranoia, overreactions and fear of them.


#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, a middle aged drug dealer getting killed in an elementary school parking lot at 4am, could be telling you something is wrong. You are right. Its probably more about drugs than the gun. However, it was a killing involving a gun at a school.

How so is it derogatory to call Sheriff Bush a cowboy? Its on record that he appointed Prime Minister Howard his Deputy Sheriff for the region, when the struggle for East Timors independence came up.

You havent nuked the Middle East because America supports Israel. As far as the big guns go. I like the way President Bush sits on a massive stock pile of nuclear weapons, and then has the cheek to start telling Iran that they cant make a bomb.

Not that anyone would want to see Iran with a bomb. And there lies the source to some important questions. Why does Iran want a bomb for in the first place? Why does North Korea? Why is nuclear disarmament not on the table?

To be honest, I didnt make the connection between paranoia and - Ken Elius, 32, Imperial Death Star guard, being pinned to the ground and handcuffed by the other Force the Victorian police force - after he was spotting marching through the city with a replica laser blaster poking out of his backpack. Its a good point.

Perhaps the world is a little bit more paranoid in this new era. An era President Bush calls the new normal. In this era of terrorism, who would know if it was a real laser blaster or a replica laser blaster poking out someones back pocket wink

It also could be because we are on red alert with President Bush coming too Sydney in September for APEC.

Who would know?


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:There were many cases in that study that you sited before that weren't even on school grounds, they just involved students, many of whom were involved in dealing drugs.

OF COURSE there is going to be a massive number of "school shootings" when you include such instances. That is just twisted logic, it even includes suspects shot by police officers after they fled onto school property. It makes their argument stronger to have the shock value in saying that *gasp* 220 people were involved in school shootings! The higher that number is the more outrageous it will seem, and sadly no one questions it, they just point and scream 'look at all the people!!'

You might as well say that shoes must make people violent, since nearly all violent crime involves someone wearing shoes!

 Written by:

Why does Iran want a bomb for in the first place? Why does North Korea? Why is nuclear disarmament not on the table?



Why is disarmament not on the table? Because of MAD. I understand that mutually assured destruction probably goes against everything in you, but it *is* effective..

 Written by:

To be honest, I didnt make the connection between paranoia and - Ken Elius, 32, Imperial Death Star guard, being pinned to the ground and handcuffed by the other Force the Victorian police force - after he was spotting marching through the city with a replica laser blaster poking out of his backpack. Its a good point.



Well there are a couple things that one could get from that article. Clearly there is a bias to that article that shouldn't be overlooked. The media *loves* to sensationalize such stories, by using key words like "machine gun." (which it looks nothing like) Secondly there was just a wee bit of an overreaction to the whole thing. There was no need for him to be "surrounded by armed police, forced to the ground and handcuffed." He presented no threat, even if it was a real gun, it was in his backpack, not in his hands or pointed at anyone. They couldn't have just asked him about it instead of tackling the poor guy? But OH NO!! there is a GUN!!! AHHH!!!! rolleyes


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:I guess we are clear upon: No Guns = no gun related accicent? umm wink

- Increased risk of gun related crimes (homicide) when a gun is present (in the house)

 Written by: Lurch



 Written by: ...

Yes we posted evidence; you posted your opinions.



I have posted many opinions, in that case however I posted multiple sources saying that the 'evidence' that you presented was manipulated, and not by any means 'fair and balanced.'



You may have posted many opinions, hence an opinion doesn't overrule evidence. Again, try to see this under legal aspects. As long as those ppl - whose opinions you are quoting - or yourself, don't come up with proper studies, proving these opinions - they have to stand back behind evidence.

My list:

1) - proper and mandatory background checks
2) - mandatory and random drug tests
3) - proper education and training
4) - registration with officials
5) - limited supply of ammunition
6) - limited numbers and types of guns

 Written by: Lurch


#1 - Done
#2 - already discussed, you don't need a drug test to get a drivers license why would you need one for this?
#3 - Done
#4 - Done
#5 - Why?
#6 - Again, why?



1) wrong - as seen in the VT shootings. Handing someone a gun, who is "a threat to himself" is irresponsible... try ropes instead.

2) Is drug abuse a ciminal offence in your country?

Told you (many times) before: Drug (ab)use does alter someones perception and judgement. FACT! To me that would include alcoholism. An alcoholic with a gun (legal or not) - to me - is a nightmare, especially one that has a CCWP.

Try to approach this from a legal point of view (personal sympathies set aside).

2.1) If you are a drug addict - in my country - you loose the right to operate a motorised vehicle on public roads. You will have your license revoked and to undertake efforts (medical/ psychological tests) in order to reclaim it. You will have to prove to society, that you are responsible enough to operate a vehicle on public roads.

It's ridiculous now to explain to you that a car has to be in motion/ running to be potentially lethal - whilst a gun is far easier to operate, or mishandled.

2.2) In regards of LEO's officers acting illegal when randomly checking on drug offenders in traffic (IN YOUR and a few other states): please, try to dig out one (court)ruling, where a LEO got sentenced or disciplined for making such a test. At least a single ONE...

3) WRONG: If training and education would be "proper", there would be less gun related accidents than present, and ppl would neither leave them in other ppl cars, nor "trade them for food"!

4) So ALL legally owned guns, gun owners are registered with the autorities? Not CCWP...

5) A handgun can hold up to 10/ 15 rounds? For self defense you do not need to hold a high ammounts of ammunition. Limiting ammunition reduces the risk of abuse.

Switzerland for example limits the supply and holds gun owners responsible. These are educational measures, as opposing to the laisse faire handling in the US.

6) Hunters need rifles, security need handguns. Guns intended for self defense do not need to be AK 47's nor Gatling machine guns.

One does not need to hold an arsenal of guns, if he intends to protect himself. IMNSHO 2 handguns/ 2 rifles should be absolutely sufficient and max .

Paranoia: What is more paranoid (your own commens excluded) - LEO's not taking chances on something that clearly is designed as a weapon (but not functional) or aviation control banning 3 ft long didjeridoos from carry on luggage? umm

You - IMHO - do not understand at least on the scale you accuse others... Violent crimes do not necessarily include guns. This discussion is about gun laws (and maybe double standards of US policies reflecting inter/ nationally). IMO We do not need to open focus to aggravated assault and the like, because it simply is not the topic here.

We do not overreact to guns. We do react to the disturbingly high nubmers of gun related deaths within the US and the attempt of your government to impose your standards and values on the rest of the world.

We do point out your double standards and lack of cleaning out your closet, at the same time forcing your interests upon us.

The Twin Tower, London and Madrid, the attempted bombings in Germany are a direct result of US policies abroad.

You are a supporter of these policies! Maybe you try to live up to your responsibility at some stage in your life and take a closer look at coherences APART from your US media propaganda. This is a unique chance to exchange with real people abroad, to listen to what they have to say and why they say it. To get new evidence and aspects, that might - if incorporated - help you build that "greatest democracy on earth" in the vast future... weavesmiley

How 'bout that? Finally get the message? ubbidea


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

1) wrong - as seen in the VT shootings. Handing someone a gun, who is "a threat to himself" is irresponsible... try ropes instead.



He was not technically in the wrong. ONE person from hundreds of thousands is a rare exception. I'm not going to dig up all the facts again, but basically he snuck through the system because the charges against him were dropped, and when that happened he couldn't be punished for it.

 Written by:

2) Is drug abuse a ciminal offence in your country?

Told you (many times) before: Drug (ab)use does alter someones perception and judgement. FACT! To me that would include alcoholism. An alcoholic with a gun (legal or not) - to me - is a nightmare, especially one that has a CCWP.

Try to approach this from a legal point of view (personal sympathies set aside).



Yes, look at that from a legal viewpoint. I never said that drugs don't alter perception. Alcohol does have negative effects on people. Being an alcoholic is NOT illegal. Being drunk is legal (in some cases). Driving is also legal (in some cases). Being drunk AND driving, is not legal. (in all cases). You MUST be able to seperate the two. Until the person drives while under the influence, they haven't commited DUI.

 Written by:

3) WRONG: If training and education would be "proper", there would be less gun related accidents than present, and ppl would neither leave them in other ppl cars, nor "trade them for food"!



You're right, I apologize, there should be more training and education involved. But there are classes required already.

 Written by:

4) So ALL legally owned guns, gun owners are registered with the autorities? Not CCWP...



Why do they need to be?

 Written by:

5) A handgun can hold up to 10/ 15 rounds? For self defense you do not need to hold a high ammounts of ammunition. Limiting ammunition reduces the risk of abuse.



Depends on the gun, some are single or double shots, goes up from there.. Are you asking to limit the amount of ammunition one can carry on them? Or purchase at one time? I'm confused on that one... My handgun for example carries 12+1 (12 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber) I can also empty the gun in literally a couple of seconds, so no that is not always adequate in a self defense situation. Usually yes, but not always.

 Written by:

One does not need to hold an arsenal of guns, if he intends to protect himself. IMNSHO 2 handguns/ 2 rifles should be absolutely sufficient and max .



One does not need a lot of things. But why 2 and 2? What about 3 and 1? 4/0? Why only 4? I've only got two hands. You're just arbitrarily picking a number that sounds 'reasonable' to you without any sort of basis to it. Different guns are for different things, they have different requirements. What if I were to doing pistol sporting competitions? Cowboy (revolver) and unlimited classes. There are two guns right there. Then there is pistol hunting, usually revolvers again, but larger. Duck, geese, quail, deer, bear, elk, moose.. They all have preferential guns. Why not allow for each of those? There are dozens of types of rifles, and long arm sports.

 Written by:

Violent crimes do not necessarily include guns. This discussion is about gun laws (and maybe double standards of US policies reflecting inter/ nationally). IMO We do not need to open focus to aggravated assault and the like, because it simply is not the topic here.



I disagree, violent crime is the basis of what we're talking about, gun crime being a very specific type. You should not seperate the two, don't assume that simply because a gun is not present, no crime will happen. If one is intent on comitting armed robbery they're going to use whatever weapon they have on hand.

 Written by:

London and Madrid, the attempted bombings in Germany are a direct result of US policies abroad.



You're blaming US for those? What ever happened to blaming the people actually responsible for the evil act? Oh wait, I forgot.. It's not the criminals fault that they commit violent acts, it's these darn guns and their 'dark energy' making those good little angels do bad things... rolleyes

 Written by:

Maybe you try to live up to your responsibility at some stage in your life and take a closer look at coherences APART from your US media propaganda. This is a unique chance to exchange with real people abroad, to listen to what they have to say and why they say it. To get new evidence and aspects, that might - if incorporated - help you build that "greatest democracy on earth" in the vast future...



You may want to think about taking your own advice on that one as well. There is little in the way of 'US media propaganda' in the form that you are imagining. I prefer to get as many sides of an argument as possible and then make my decision. Of course, I just love playing devils advocate as well... wink


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Oh, you're right - I have got to apologize this time. It certainly is the criminals fault that they choose to be born in a society, which on one side provides 2% of the people with 90% of the wealth, in the meantime tells everybody that they can become part of those 2%, but hardly provide he means and then enables them access to guns... You're right, the Al Quaeda network was never funded by the CIA and neither was Saddam Hussein... You're right - I'm wrong...

And your ammount of rational argument simply overwhelms me. I give in, let everybody have a gun... AND 50.000 rounds of ammunition - I guess that's just about right - of course ONE rifle EACH game and why not 20+ handguns each persons (one for every different type of criminal)... ? I'm certain that you need a different gun for bank robbers, than you would need for rapists, or burglars... and those kids invading your backyard? Let them taste AK 47s or Gatlings - they certainly deserve to die.

So basically... don't change. Why change anyways? All is perfect. By the ime you get tired of your gun, you may be able to trade it for a Hersheys chocolate, yummy.

And to follow Stalins quote: By the time the gun related deaths in the US hit the millions, they merely are a statisic...

confused but wait... now I get the plot. ubbidea we should even encourage gun sales to the US!!!!

I say: Quatruple them! Might be the only chance to save this planet! devil


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, you said:

 Written by:

It makes their argument stronger to have the shock value in saying that *gasp* 220 people were involved in school shootings! The higher that number is the more outrageous it will seem, and sadly no one questions it, they just point and scream 'look at all the people!!'



So whats the problem? 220 people were involved in school shootings. Sure, Im making a point and Im screaming is not right or acceptable that all those people were killed at schools. Im surprised you see nothing wrong with this situation. You are even trying to lower the number of people killed by guns to hide a serious problem, make guns look better.

Im not sure about the shoes argument. But if you substitute guns for shoes then you might have a point. Try this you might as well say that guns must make people violent, since nearly all violent crime involves someone using a gun wink

 Written by:

Why is disarmament not on the table? Because of MAD. I understand that mutually assured destruction probably goes against everything in you, but it *is* effective.



Its mad not to consider disarmament, and too right I think that mutually assured destruction is stupid. The way forward is to bring people closer together, not push them away.

As far that mutually assured destruction being effective, what do you think was the motive behind the Twin Tower, London and Madrid, the attempted bombings in Germany?

I agree there are a couple things that one could get from that article about Ken Elius, 32, Imperial Death Star guard, being pinned to the ground and handcuffed by the other Force the Victorian police force.

I saw more humour in the article I read, than sensationalism ie. he was pinned to the ground and handcuffed by the other Force the Victorian police force.

Before Bush became president, I would have agreed that There was no need for him to be "surrounded by armed police, forced to the ground and handcuffed." However, we live in a different world today, and with all the treats from terrorists with guns, and with APEC coming up, perhaps the police were justified. Its a bit like the overreaction in airport security. Which is a direct result of American foreign policy.

smile


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

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


Lurch, you said:

 Written by:

It makes their argument stronger to have the shock value in saying that *gasp* 220 people were involved in school shootings! The higher that number is the more outrageous it will seem, and sadly no one questions it, they just point and scream 'look at all the people!!'



So what’s the problem? 220 people were involved in school shootings. Sure, I’m making a point and I’m screaming “is not right or acceptable that all those people were killed at schools”. I’m surprised you see nothing wrong with this situation. You are even trying to lower the number of people killed by guns to hide a serious problem, make guns look better.



Lurch's point is that what people normally understand by 'school shootings' are gun incidents in school time, such as the Virginia Tech shootings.

Lurch is stating that the number quoted is heavily distorted due to the fact that it includes any shooting that took place on school grounds, regardless of whether it was during school hours or anything to do with the school.

Personally, I wouldn't want to class a shooting involving a pursued drug dealer who happened to run into a school ground at nightime, as being a 'school shooting' in the sense of the Virginia Tech shootings.


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

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


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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:OWD I not sure what you are playing at here. The whole point of the Canadian newspaper story was that Americans did not see anything wrong with having 220 school killings in six years. I think this point has been proved by Lurch.



Perhaps you should read the original article. The article did not say 220 people were massacred by wild gun men in American schools in last six years. There could be some stats that get included unnecessarily, so take off 10% for error and you still get about 200 school killings.



Edit: I have changed this post because it was a bit over the top spank

EDITED_BY: Stone (1180312834)


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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Post deleted by Stone

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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Apologies Dave, that last post was over the top, so I modified it.

ubbangel


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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave Im still not sure what you are playing at here.

Are you pro-gun or against guns in the community?


Problems with statisticsThe use of statistics in resolving the gun debate can be very difficult in practice. Advocates on both sides are often accused of manipulating or misrepresenting the figures. While this is not always the case, the charge often gains at least the appearance of validity for many reasons, including honest disagreement about the meaning of certain statistics.


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

Page: 1...45678...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..