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

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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2425262728...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

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

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

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pro-guns

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

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

Anti gun

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

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

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

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

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

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

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

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Oh come on guys, we've been over this argument before. Remember when I said I wasn't "Pro-All Weapons"? This is where I shifted along side you a little bit. BCN weapons shouldn't be allowed into civilian hands. I don't really have a problem with the restrictions and regulations on Class 3 weapons, but like I've said before, no legally owned class three weapon has ever been used in a crime. Not only that, but to my knowledge (and according to the report I posted earlier) no one has been killed in the US with a .50 cal rifle. They aren't a Class 3 weapon, but you seem determined to lump big bore rifles in with your other "assault weapons"

I'm all for reasonable restrictions on weapons, but as the Supreme Court just said, there is "nothing reasonable about an complete ban."

There are laws already in place that allow for *legal* "machine guns" for certain people. THOSE guns, and THOSE people are not the problem, they aren't used in crimes, they're purely recreational. People who spend the time and money to get a Class 3 permit are likely going to be very well educated about their weapons, and very unlikely to have an accident. So if there aren't accidents, and they aren't causing crimes, why do you have a problem with them? Or is it because they scare you?

You're right FireTom, I did attempt to compare your seemingly phobic reaction to guns accidents, with your complacency of cars. As I recall you even said that you rarely wear your seatbelt? IIRC your main defense to that comparison is that cars were "needed" in everyday life. But swimming pools aren't "needed" in every day life, they're purely recreational, yet still nearly 3x as many people drown every year in this country as are accidentally shot. Even higher among children no less, and there are very few laws regarding safety precautions for pools.

So if gun accidents is your biggest fear, lets examine that for a second shall we? Remember, phobia is roughly defined as an unrealistic, irrational, persistent fear of an object or situation. There is some discrepancy here of course, most lists have slight variations but they're all basically the same in terms of the leading causes of accidental deaths in the US.

Car Accidents - ~44,000 dead
Falling - ~15,000 dead
Poisoning - ~9,500 dead
Fire - ~3,700 dead
Drowning - ~3,500
Choking - ~3,200
Medical Complications - ~3,000
Firearms Discharge - ~1,150


So you're nearly 40 times more likely to die in a car accident, than a accidental gunshot. Actually you're even more likely since not wearing your seatbelt is a significant risk factor, yet you have a FAR stronger fear of gunshots? Sounds mildly phobic to me.. And you call us paranoid wink


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, for the ultimate self defense weapon, check out this bad boy.





Come Lurch, you dont have a problem with class 3 weapons, the next guy doesnt have a problem with BCN weapons. Neither should be allowed into civilian hands. Whats the motto I have the right to keep and bears arms? That could include nuclear arms.



Are you serious that no class 3 weapon has ever been used in a crime? What about the Tommy gun, aka "Chopper", "Chicago Typewriter" and "Chicago Piano"?



A TEC-DC9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre, and whos to say Uzis wont be the gun of choice for criminals in the future.



Sure there are laws, but as the American population is so pro gun it sees all laws as an infringement on their right to bear arms, so no one respects the laws. Therefore, assault weapons pass easily into the hands of criminals, terrorists and children.



 Written by Lurch

I'm all for reasonable restrictions on weapons, but as the Supreme Court just said, there is "nothing reasonable about an complete ban."





No one is suggesting a complete ban, however assault weapons, like BCN, weapons seem inappropriate in civilian hands.



BTW, the title of this thread is US Gun laws become "License to murder" so if you want to start a thread on pool or car safety go ahead. Pools and cars are not intentionally designed to kill. On the other hand the Glock is a man stopper.


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Eggsactly, Stone.

Lurch, Dave - I have changed my stance to:

Some ppl should be allowed to bear arms (for the time being)

(Body) Guards, Law Enforcement Officers, Hunters, Deputies, Rangers, (Olympic) Athletes are amongst them. For the time being I also do not support a complete ban.

I suggested regulations as in numbers and types of guns, numbers and types of ammunition. It got completely dismissed - as far as I remember. Good to read that Lurch now is supporting "reasonable restrictions".

California has reasonable restrictions and demands.

What's wrong with Microstamping, Ballistic fingerprinting, Restrictions of sales to persons under 21, Background checks, Waiting period, Ban on gun show "cash and carry" sales, Child access prevention, Child safety locks, Restrictions on 2nd hand sales and the other stuff that the Brady campaign demands?

*Turns to fading HAL voice Dave...... Dave....... Dave*

The second amendment does not state anything about restriction of arms "for the use of self defence" only.... and even if - doesn't it depend on the threat? "A well armed militia".... ???

Lurch, I reckon there is no argument that I eventually could come up with to convince you... We had it before... Now again you are reducing it on 'accidents' with guns... how about including the criminal use of cars and the criminal use of guns... rolleyes


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:This is getting weird with the whole auto/semi auto thing again. Stone, are you implying that the Columbine shooters converted a semi-automatic handgun to full auto before they went on their rampage?

Likewise, were those tommy guns used in the 1930's considered "legal" class 3 weapons?

I find the accident comparisons interesting although I'm curious about injuries caused by accidental firearm discharge as well as deaths.

Tom, it's curious that you'd include bodyguards in your list of "approved" gun carriers. I side Lurch in his accusations of hypocrisy concerning what's her name and her armed bodyguards. Anti gun is anti gun and paying someone to do your "dirty work" for you is no excuse. So only the rich...those who can afford to pay bodyguards should be allowed firearms for self defense ?


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by :Stone


Faith, I like your idea of psych tests.


 Written by Faith

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



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



Again what does it have to do with our domestic policy and please desist from the stupid cowboy allusion because it is ridiculous and it is quite petty


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Well faith, if you don't like stupid cowboy allusions, then how do you think it feels to be appointed Deputy Sheriff by the President of the USA? You think I made that up?

Stout, tommy guns are class 3 weapons. The uzi could easily become the next tommy gun.

The Columbine shooters used a TEC-DC9.


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

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I'm looking for verification of this in an offical term...it sounds like ranchers talking

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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Stone...indeed the uzi could become the next tommy gun. One hing I'm wondering about is how many class 3 weapons are "lost" or stolen and end up being used in the commission of crimes.



Anything I can find on the TEC-DC9 says that it's a semi automatic weapon ( ie not a machine gun ) It looks more like a handgun with a humongous magazine and is most likely bought ( as it's marketed ) as a really cool, scary looking gun. akin to the semi automatic version of the uzi.



I'm guessing that the guys who buy these things probably don't pay too much attention to gun safety ( I'm assuming class 3 weapons owners do ) and are more a part of the problem than the solution.



ETA...the Deputy Sheriff term is legit....Search

EDITED_BY: Stout (1206731874)


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Well if you want to get technical about it Stone you should probably do a little more research.



First off I've been saying that no *legally* owned Class 3 weapon has been used in a crime. That would no doubt imply since there were restrictions placed on them with the gun control act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The people who legally own these guns are collectors, and recreational shooters, they are not criminals, and they do not commit crimes with them.



And no Stone, a Tommy gun is not always a class 3 weapon. You can go out and buy a Thompson today, but that doesn't make it a Class 3 weapon. In fact, if you change out the magazine and stock I don't even think it would classify as an 'assault weapon' according to the typical definition. Do you see why there are problems with that arbitrary useless "definition"? It's going to be a semi-automatic. And since the Tommy gun fires a .45ACP round, it's basically a giant pistol. The Tec 9 in Columbine wasn't a Class 3 weapon either, it was not fully automatic, and even if it was it obviously was not legally owned, and wouldn't really apply to the conversation at hand. You're probably not going to go out and find a full auto Uzi for sale either. Did you forget this conversation from before?



You take the semi-auto of either of those three guns, A Tommy Gun, Tec 9, or an Uzi, and it's not any different from any other gun. It shoots as fast, and as accurately as the shooter can accomplish. Their function is virtually identical to any other semi-auto gun out there. And lets be honest, it should be the function of the weapon that you're worried about not the name right? They aren't full auto, you aren't banning or restricting based on logic, you're restricting guns based on your (incorrect) perceptions and fears of them.



If you really want to learn about Class 3 weapons and the hoops you have to go through to get them check out here: http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html



FireTom: I've always supported 'reasonable restrictions' it's our opinion of reasonable that differs. I don't think California's gun laws are reasonable at all. Neither do I think restricting the number of guns you can own, or the amount of ammunition. There is nothing wrong with microstamping, but whats the point? How is that going to stop crime? Same with ballistic fingerprinting. What sales restrictions to people under 21 are you referring to? If it handguns and handgun ammunition that's a federal law already in effect. The Brady Act already requires background checks to be done by FFL dealers, and I don't have a problem with that. And Gun locks are fairly universal now anyways.



Are you really going to try and argue 2nd Amendment issues? Maybe you should read the recent oral arguments over the 2nd amendment trial: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, thanks for looking up the President Bush Deputy Sheriff statement.

I dont have any idea how many class 3 weapons are "lost" or stolen. However, given the gun expertise in the USA, Id be more worried about people converting semi automatics to fully automatics.



Thanks for that Lurch. Lets say submachine guns have proved popular with criminals in the past. Some Tommy guns are Class 3. I think the deluxe version.

No one is trying to argue the second amendment (the Peter Pan amendment). Just point out the stupidity of having a large number of readily availability guns in the community, and violence that results.


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by : Stout

Tom, it's curious that you'd include bodyguards in your list of "approved" gun carriers. I side Lurch in his accusations of hypocrisy concerning what's her name and her armed bodyguards. Anti gun is anti gun and paying someone to do your "dirty work" for you is no excuse. So only the rich...those who can afford to pay bodyguards should be allowed firearms for self defense ?



I know what you mean: "double edged policy, protection for the rich and famous only? Hypocrite!"

Note that there still is a difference between: "those who can afford to pay bodyguards" and "those who should be allowed firearms for self defense"... In this case political activists and so called VIP's face a heightened threat from the violent and armed society around them - they are in a very different position than the "average Joe". Further a 'bodyguard' is a highly trained individual, a "semi-law enforcer" so to speak and after all a 'guard', much like the one standing in the lobby of a bank. His profession is to put his body in the line of fire as to provide protection... yaddayadda.

Lurch: Ain't that cheeky?

 Written by : Lurch

I've been saying that no *legally* owned Class 3 weapon has been used in a crime.



Meaning that *illegally* owned Class III weapons have been used in crimes?

Again tired of this endless debate.

I want Cruise Missiles be included in the 2nd amendment, at least grenades and ammunition with Uranium cores. Also WMD's. Balance of power. I don't trust my government to be capable of protecting me against this "axis of evil", I'm a law abiding citizen and will undergo background check, training and the like. What's wrong with that? I want a jet-fighter plane, a MIG preferably. What's wrong with it? I'm a law abiding citizen! Never hurt anyone!

Giant pistol? I show you a giant pistol and I want one!

Everyone should be allowed to have one!

Ditch that .44 ... HA! 9mm.... preposterous! I say: 80CM


Non-Https Image Link


Asking you: What's wrong with it? Huh? C'mon tell me. I'll not use it *illegally*, promise!


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Go for it, if you want a cannon be my guest. Pass the background checks, pay for the permits, pay for the weapon itself, find a state that will allow it and have fun. There isn't anywhere you'll ever be able to shoot it, but good job. Don't forget you'll have to pass all the explosive handling licensing requirements and fees if you want any sort of ammunition for it. There is quite a large difference between a Destructive Device and a firearm. You complain about me comparing apples to oranges? Come on. Is this really what your argument has come down to?

I could care less if you had a Mig, or any other fighter jet, even military planes have to subscribe to FAA rules. You know how many vintage WWII fighters are in private hands?

My problem with you guys is that you want to make more guns illegal, instead of dealing with the ones that already are. If LEGAL class 3 weapons aren't being used in crimes, and aren't causing accidents, what logical reason do you have in restricting the ones that aren't hurting anyone further? I fully endorse going after and prosecuting illegal weapons to the full extent of the law. I don't want bad people have guns any more than you do. You seem to ignore that and are apparently only concerned with removing guns from responsible legal civilians.

Criminals don't follow gun laws, how many times do I have to say that? Stop asking for more 'feel good' laws that don't do anything towards dropping the numbers of illegal guns or gun crimes, and how about we push the laws we already have and actually get some of them out of the criminals hands? *gasp* what a novel idea!


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Yes Lurch, it has.

- Ever heard of ballistic fingerprinting/ microstamping and full records on ALL guns, that would enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their owners?
- Ever heard of 2nd hand sales NOT requiring background checks, by that INCREASING the number of ILLEGAL guns?
- Ever heard of gun show "cash and carry" sales that don't require background checks and also INCREASE the number of ILLEGAL guns?

- So what's your *opinion*: why are so many (bad) guys (carrying guns (il/legal or not) in the US?

- Read about Smitherland and a slight majority of ppl PRO stricter gun laws? No opinion on this one?

- Read the studies of Harvard Public School of Health? No opinion on this one?

- Are there *ILLEGAL* Class III weapons used in crimes?

I just can't take your argumentation remotely serious anymore, if you continue to dismiss and ignore valid, reasonable arguments and scientific studies. Same (in this discussion) applies to OWD. I even start considering to have this thread locked.

Maybe one more approach: What then IS YOUR suggestion (other than keeping 2nd hand sales without background checks perfectly legal, to favour the dismissal of the AW ban, etc) to diminish the number of illegal guns on the streets of the US? Huh?

(March 24) some more accident happening recently on an airplane - fortunately nobody hurt

(March 18th) Another accident in March, boy survived

(March 28th) And this one is the height of stupidity:

Man kills wife in freaky gun accident

 Written by : Telegraph

An American man accidentally shot dead his wife while trying to install satellite TV in their bedroom.

Ronald Long of Missouri did not own a drill, so he used his .22 calibre handgun to fire two shots into the wall of the room so that he could run a cable through from outside.

Mr Long's wife Patsy was standing outside the house when he fired the gun. She was hit by the second bullet and died from her injuries in hospital.



RIP Patsy, bet you didn't see that one coming, errm you married a moron... shrug

(sidenote: that much about the effectiveness of .22 calibre)

It's a loonatic world, guns do create unnecessary suffering on at least the same scale as they prevent it, if not they even create MORE unnecessary suffering. Buying guns supports a violent, careless industry that is causing UNNECCESSARY suffering on this planet. Water is wet and the sun shines even if you can't see it...

cool


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :FireTom




Lurch: Ain't that cheeky?

 Written by : Lurch

I've been saying that no *legally* owned Class 3 weapon has been used in a crime.



Meaning that *illegally* owned Class III weapons have been used in crimes?




I have to confess to some unease on this-

1. given that, by definition, any weapon used in a crime is being used criminally, is there much point in stressing the fact that no legaly owned class 3 weapon has been used in a crime?

2. as firetom asks- can we assume that illegally owned class 3 weapons have been used in crimes and, if so, do you have any stats about how many (or what proportion of gun crimes involve illegally owned class 3's)?

3. given that illegally owned class 3's are used in crimes, do we need to think about the supply chain for them. For example, what proportion of illegally owned class 3's started their life as legally owned class 3's?

If that proportion is quite high, then are there grounds for restricting legal ownership of class three weapons, on the grounds that it will cut down the number of illegally owned ones used in crimes?


"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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :FireTom





I just can't take your argumentation remotely serious anymore, if you continue to dismiss and ignore valid, reasonable arguments and scientific studies. Same (in this discussion) applies to OWD. I even start considering to have this thread locked.







I'm starting to find your perpetual accusations about me 'ignoring' what you see as valid arguments, to be annoying.



Fact is, that what you, in your opinion, consider to be valid arguments and valid studies, are, in my opinion, somewhat dubious.



i.e. it's a difference of opinion.



On this, and several other threads, despite the fact that I've spent my valuable time writing long posts in reply to yours, I'm finding it increasingly tiring when you then persist in accusing me of avoiding answering the particualr points that you want to focus on.



Fact is, i'm under no obligation whatsoever to feel obliged to answer every issue that you want to focus on.



 Written by :FireTom



I even start considering to have this thread locked.







A lot of people have put a lot of work into this very long thread- luckily, only a mod can lock it and I don't think that any mod is going to see any grounds for doing so- but, I've got to say that I find it dissapointing that you would want to have so many peoples hard work ended purely cos things aren't going the way you'd like.



It takes a lot to wind me up, but you've managed to achieve it smile



If you don't like the way I conduct a debate, then consider not debating with me- if you want to continue debating, then I'd ask you to cut out this kind of pointless and annoying baiting-



 Written by :FireTom







*Turns to fading HAL voice Dave...... Dave....... Dave*







and face up to the fact that I'm in these threads as a public discussion- NOT to personally respond to every little point that you consider to be relevant.


"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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:And, if you've got any issue with what I've written above and feel the need to discuss it- please do it here on the public thread, i've got no time to be wasting with pms.

"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


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Correct my wording: I'm *considering* asking the mods 'to have this thread locked'. It's their decision after all. It's just a given fact that there has been no progress made in this thread, it repeats itself. No new arguments have been raised.



Personally I'm in no need of you repeating my questions to Lurch. I'm certain he has understood what I'm repeatedly asking from the first time I asked it. He - unlike you (as in "appear to") - in fact thoroughly reads and responds to each and every "little point" [ed]except for the ones that he feels to uncomfortably tackling his preconception....[/ed]



Which is why I (insistently) repeat my queries - these points are not "little" but "fundamental": the arms industry, their products and their handling create unnecessary suffering on this planet! I won't let him or you get away with blatant ignorance, erroneous arguments and by that creating a falsified view of reality and promote it.



In the meantime you could tell me how many hours you have undertaken in research and posting? I'm certainly in a three digit number - same applies to Lurch, Stone and Stout.



What (new) arguments have you brought forward? Have you *proven* any arguments to be somewhat dubious? umm

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1206767043)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, as one law abiding citizen to another, thats a cool shooter. But hey, even with that 80 cm do you really feel safe from the bad guys? I mean, can one really have enough firepower to feel safe?



Im against locking the thread. I think we have brought new discussion, like showing the logical extension of the second amendment having the right to keep and bear arms would include biological, chemical and nuclear arms. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it aint half as ridiculous as flooding the community with semi automatic AKs and UZIs. What were they thinking? rolleyes









Lurch, fair enough there have been tight controls on class 3 weapons since 1934. The United States Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 because of the perceived popularity of submachine guns such as the Thompson with gangsters in the 1920s and 1930s (Wiki). So, presumably fully automatic Tommy guns were legal at the time, and use in numerous criminal activities.



Anyhow, the problem I have is with the semi automatics, especially when kids can easily buy them and commit massacres like Columbine. Perhaps, the guns were purchased illegally, but this would not have been possible without the support of American gun culture ie. your so called law abiding citizens.



The next bit is from the article, Federal ban on assault weapons expires. Well worth a read.



 Written by

Victims of gun violence called the expiration of the ban a tragedy. Tom Mauser of Littleton, Colo., said in a statement that "a small lobbying group" had triumphed over "the safety of our entire nation." He said he would protest Bush's visit to Denver today, wearing the shoes his son Daniel was wearing when he was killed in the massacre Columbine High School in 1999.







The law enforcement community is split between Kerry and Bush. The 236,000-member National Association of Police Organizations endorsed Kerry on Monday. He also has support from the 10,000-member International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the 30,000-member National Coalition of Public Safety Officers. The Fraternal Order of Police, with 318,000 members, endorsed Bush last week.





Its obvious from the high level of gun violence in the USA that the biggest problem is with legal civilians who, for what ever reasons, are not responsible gun owners. Education has not proved effective in the past; therefore some people might have to give up some of their perceived rights for the good of the community. Unlikely, given the selfish nature of most gun owner as show by remarks such as from my cold dead hands or Ill never give up my gun, never.



The point is most suicides, accidents and acts of domestic gun violence are committed by responsible legal civilians, not bad guys. You consider yourself a good citizen. So put aside the good guy-bad guy scenario for a minute. Consider, how in all honesty you could not contemplate giving up your guns if it was for the good of the community?









OWD



 Written by OWD

Fact is, that what you, in your opinion, consider to be valid arguments and valid studies, are, in my opinion, somewhat dubious.





OWD, Id suggest if you did some research, instead of blindly accepting NRA pro gun hyperbole, you would find that current independent researchers considers the results of Lott, Kleck and other NRA studies dubious at best.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1206783686)


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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I can't see including WMDs as a "logical" extension of the 2nd Amendment as part of this discussion at all. It's really just an extension of those hypothetical gun free utopias arguments that assume legally owned guns never pass into the hands of criminals. We could try the militia argument on this I suppose, but since this is about guns for self defense and all the misuse of those guns, it's more of a distraction than anything else.





Tom, I know bodyguards are trained, but what's to stop a private citizen becoming a bodyguard just so they can own their own personal weapons ? I'm also curious as to just what percentage of bank guards would take a bullet for the boss. I sure wouldn't



I'm liking that story where the guy shot his wife through the wall, just another example that the general population shouldn't be trusted with guns. I don't know where this guy lived, but I would hope he was rural as someone stupid enough to shoot a hole in their wall because they couldn't be arsed to find a drill is someone I don't want as a neighbour in a suburban neighbourhood.



 Written by

Its obvious from the high level of gun violence in the USA that the biggest problem is with legal civilians who, for what ever reasons, are not responsible gun owners. Education has not proved effective in the past; therefore some people might have to give up some of their perceived rights for the good of the community. Unlikely, given the selfish nature of most gun owner as show by remarks such as from my cold dead hands or Ill never give up my gun, never.





Damn...that's good

EDITED_BY: Stout (1206874947)


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:OWD You may note that I'm as passionately opposing US gun laws, as Lurch is supporting them... Which is why I got carried away with my wordings. I'm trying to keep it as friendly as possible and try to honour your opinion as much as everybody else's. I welcome your contribution as much as Lurch, Faith, Dragon_Dafin, Simta. It would just be helpful if you base it on verifiable facts and not just post blindly.



I am not focussed of Class III or assault weapons, which is why (to me) it's unnecessary to persist to have this 'one' sliced off. I oppose guns in civilian hands generally.



I would highly appreciate it if you undertake more research or would at least verify the arguments brought forward before you take sides.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1206852326)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stout: Nothing stops them to become a cop, deputy or a hunter either... guns (as stupidity) might never fully get eradicated but we can aim steps into this direction and make this world a safer place.

Sure I mentioned WMD's as an exaggeration, YET

the 2nd amendment does not state the intended use of these arms, neither does it classify their size, range and capacity of destruction. So I need to ask: WHY NOT allowing WMD's into civilians hands, as long as they are law abiding citizens and receive proper training?

Maybe it's helpful to view the topic on an enlarged scale as to show the obvious. The US opposes nuclear arms to be held by Iran and North Korea. These countries are *bad* and irresponsible, they violate human rights. What about China, I ask you? They do have nuclear arms and never abused them. The US is even undertaking a great deal of cooperation with them. Why those ambiguities and this bigotry?

Please note:

This thread is *not* about "guns for self defence" - it's *not* about forming preconceptions on US (citizens) or to ridicule their culture. This thread is about the *perverted US gun laws*, the *negative impact they have on society*, the *subsequent (avoidable) suffering* and the support for *a unscrupulous industry that is the cause for immense suffering on this planet*.

I'm frustrated that so many otherwise smart ppl (and especially men) loose their rational when it comes to guns. It's a psychological problem some seem to have with destructive forces.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:- Car accident vs. gun statistics:

Are the *illegal/ criminal uses* of cars included in the statistics of accidents? I say there is no distinction in these statistics as to whether the operator was holding a license, was intoxicated, speeding or holding on to his cellphone, etc (as in "not obeying the traffic rules").

(as a sidenote: I feel repelled by your habit to hardly ever quote your sources, Lurch. This is a sensitive, highly political topic. I call on you to make *consistent posts*, that everyone can *easily verify* - maybe it's more useful in this context to accuse you of posting outright lies and 'made up stories' (as you did in the past) and by that you directly violate HoP posting guidelines)

- I repeat my questions:

- Why do you oppose ballistic fingerprinting/ microstamping and full records on ALL guns,

These measures IMO enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their owners.

- Why do you oppose the regulation of 2nd hand sales that don't require background checks?
- Why do oppose banning "cash and carry" sales on gun shows that don't require background checks?
- Why do you oppose the regulation of gun sales to ppl under the age of 21?

These measures IMO are to prevent guns from getting into criminals hands or to be handled wrongfully and irresponsible.

- In your opinion: why are so many bad guys (carrying guns) in the US?

- What do you think about the (slight) majority of Swiss citizens who just recently favour a stricter gun legislation in their country? (just as you have referred to Switzerland earlier)

- How do you feel about the 2007 studies of Harvard Public School of Health, I posted earlier?

- Have *ILLEGALY purchased* Class III weapons ever been used in crimes?

And finally: What is YOUR suggestion to diminish the number of illegally owned guns in the US? Your proposal on how to reduce gun violence and gun accidents?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted: Written by :FireTom


...I won't let him or you get away with blatant ignorance, erroneous arguments and by that creating a falsified view of reality and promote it.



Tom, I'd like to point out that this is a public discussion. Posting needs to be within the site rules, and the people that police that are the Mods (you can always report a post).

Unless the postings you are alluding to are breaking the rules (I think you will find they arent) then there really isnt anything you can do to stop anyone posting anything that you think is wrong.

You can post a better counter argument, and hope the reader is smart enough to see the difference.

You certainly cannot demand to have your points answered.

Josh


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Hey Tom...even though I didn't make your welcomed posters list....you get them anyway.

This IS a gun control thread, like it or not. It's the same as any other gun control thread with one notable exception.

Every single American who's posted on this thread has defended the right to bear arms...every one. There's a couple of deductions you can make from that statement.

You might want to try this discussion on an American based forum, although you'll most likely run into "No, please...not again" but if you apply a little inginuity, like titling the thread "Would you give up your gun(s) in a hurricane Katrina situation ? " or something along those lines ( that one's already been done on the Straight Dope ) you may be able to stimulate a discussion.

I'd link to it, but I let my subscription lapse.

Or...come on over to the JREF and try it there.

http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php?s=bcadd637de9d8371d97542369a81751f


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stout, I referred to those whose opinion I oppose. I didn't mean to cut you or Stone out - I considered it to be evident. You (both) ARE on my "preferred posters" list...



Yes it IS a 'gun control' thread and there might have been Americans who joined our side of the chorus, even though not many and those not by more than one or two times.



Josh, I can but have no means to enforce my demand. Thanks for pointing this out.



 Written by : Pyrolific

Unless the postings you are alluding to are breaking the rules (I think you will find they arent) then there really isnt anything you can do to stop anyone posting anything that you think is wrong.





Lurch has previously admitted that he made up (at least) one story as to prove his point and by that directly violated the posting guidelines. Which is the reason why I'm now asking him to back up his arguments with links and to quote his sources. Thanks once more for raising my awareness: In the future I will report each and every of this kind to the mods when it comes to my notice that falsified informations got used. I just didn't want to appear as a squealer.



Harmony.....



[ed]And since this appears to be a brand new page, I would like to repeat my latest query (as for making it easier to follow up upon)



- Car accident vs. gun statistics:



Are the *illegal/ criminal uses* of cars included in the statistics of accidents you mentioned? (as to whether the operator was holding a license, was intoxicated, speeding or holding on to his cellphone, etc ("not obeying the traffic rules").



- Why do you oppose ballistic fingerprinting/ microstamping and full records on ALL guns (amongst other measures)



These IMO enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their owners.



- Why do you oppose the regulation of 2nd hand sales that don't require background checks?

- Why do oppose banning "cash and carry" sales on gun shows that don't require background checks?

- Why do you oppose the regulation of gun sales to ppl under the age of 21?



These measures IMO are to prevent guns from getting into criminals hands or to be handled wrongfully and irresponsible.



- In your opinion: why are so many bad guys (carrying guns) in the US?



- What do you think about the (slight) majority of Swiss citizens who just recently favour a stricter gun legislation in their country? (just as you have referred to Switzerland earlier)



- How do you feel about the 2007 studies of Harvard Public School of Health, I posted earlier?



- Have *ILLEGALY purchased* Class III weapons ever been used in crimes?



And finally: What is YOUR suggestion to diminish the number of illegally owned guns in the US? Your proposal on how to reduce gun violence and gun accidents?



IMO the 2nd amendment does not state the intended use of arms, neither does it classify their size, range and capacity of destruction. I need to ask: WHY NOT allowing WMD's into civilians hands, as long as they are law abiding citizens and receive proper training? umm [/ed]

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1206933394)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Tom...gotcha on the opposition I didn't actually notice that and it was my ego craving attention.

So pretty much that can be said about this issue, has been said about this issue so naturally we're going to be revisiting old topics. The supporting the arms industry by buying a shotgun locally, and the global suffering issue's an interesting idea. I wouldn't try it, but if you feel it's valid, give it a go.

And then there's the "Is it all worth it?" argument. Is it worth all the extra hassle and fear, and lets face this is a fear issue ..... of having to think about firearms. Since I don't actually live in the US. I can't claim any direct perceptions of what it's like to live in a society where you have to think that pretty well anyone could be packing heat.

I have to rely on my view from the outside.

I'm thinking that the lack of American anti, on this thread at least may be an indication that Americans think YES it is worth it . That guns are something you just accept as being "normal" and all the accidents, assaults, suicides, fear, are worth it from whatever their perspective is.

Speaking of fear...check this out. Bullet proof parks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-design26mar26,0,4390861.story?page=1

I'm assuming this is an extreme case and not representative of the US as a whole. BUT..... yikes !

I don't remember any made up stuff from Lurch, Are you thinking of that 11 year old shotgun champion who dropped the two illegals ? The one that said NRA files...as a source ? That one got squished pretty fast .


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Wow, I leave for a couple days and all hell breaks loose. No FireTom, I'm not going to post each and every source I use. We're talking on a forum, I'm not writing a research paper. If you want to contradict my numbers feel free but I haven't just blatantly made up any of my statistics.

 Written by :FT

- Ever heard of ballistic fingerprinting/ microstamping and full records on ALL guns, that would enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their owners?



You still haven't told me what that is going to gain FireTom. American's don't like 'nanny state' governments. I know this may be contradictory to you're thinking but thats just how we are. You don't have any right to know how many guns I own, what they are, or where they are. The government has a right to clear me, so that I'm allowed to purchase that gun, but thats where it should end. Sorry if that disturbs you, but I'm far from the only one who feels that way. Since you didn't seem to have a problem with the thousands of privately owned guns blatantly being illegally seized during Katrina, I don't think you'll ever truly understand why people are opposed to registering their property.

Not only that, but I'm sure you'll agree the vast majority of guns used in street crimes are illegally possessed/"owned." So your pretty little micro stamp thats going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, may track you back to the original purchaser, or more likely it will give you some obscure useless result like 'this gun was stolen 3 years ago 400 miles away.'

Ballistic fingerprinting is the biggest sham/myth out there. Not only is it *very* difficult to do accurately, but it is rarely even possible to attempt. Normal wear and tear of the gun changes the ballistic fingerprint. Simple after market barrels void it completely, as does multiple very simple techniques to alter the striations. It's just 'feel good' legislation that doesn't actually DO anything to curb illegal weapons.

 Written by :FT

- Ever heard of 2nd hand sales NOT requiring background checks, by that INCREASING the number of ILLEGAL guns?



WHY? You still haven't told me WHY you would require background checks? I can think of many reasons why it would be pointless to do them. How about if I'm selling the gun to my brother? or some other friend I've known my entire life? How about if I'm selling it to an active duty police officer? Criminals don't buy legal guns that can be traced back to them, and they don't go into gun stores to buy them either. Most people sell their guns to people they know, not to total strangers. I fully endorse and encourage doing a background check on someone if you don't know them. In fact most states offer free criminal background checks for just this purpose, REQUIRING it is just more useless legislation. If you're selling guns as a business, you need to be a licensed dealer, and follow the FFL requirements.

 Written by :FT

- So what's your *opinion*: why are so many (bad) guys (carrying guns (il/legal or not) in the US?



Because they're criminals? They don't follow the laws.

 Written by :OWD

1. given that, by definition, any weapon used in a crime is being used criminally, is there much point in stressing the fact that no legaly owned class 3 weapon has been used in a crime?



I definitely think there is a point to it. Criminals don't follow gun laws, they don't acquire their weapons through legal means, so can anyone explain to me how further restricting the guns that aren't hurting anyone is going to help?

You can look at the somewhat old and outdated DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

It was published in '95, and crime has dropped since then. But it still states obvious key points.

Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns
According to the Victim Survey (NCVS) Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns
In the 1991 BJS Survey of State Inmates, about 8% of inmates reported that they owned military-type weapons. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcerated.
A Virginia inmate survey between 1992 and 1993 found similar results: About 10% of adult inmates reported that they had ever possessed an 'assault rifle' but none had carried at the scene of a crime.


Now keep in mind this report was done before the "assault weapons ban" was really studied. If you ever say that it ever really was. But obviously the Class 3 weapons are not the problem that we need to be focusing on in terms of gun violence.

 Written by :FT

[ed]except for the ones that he feels to uncomfortably tackling his preconception....[/ed]



I think you may misread my skipping parts of your posts FT. I don't skip them because I can't answer them, I skip them because I've already answered them too many times to bother to do it again.

 Written by :FT

In the meantime you could tell me how many hours you have undertaken in research and posting? I'm certainly in a three digit number - same applies to Lurch, Stone and Stout.



Now now, play nice FireTom. I have no problem with OWD's posts, even if they were against me (they were in the beginning remember?). He argues with logic not statistics, I find his comments refreshing, well thought out, and relatively unbiased in an otherwise cyclical debate.

 Written by :Stone


Anyhow, the problem I have is with the semi automatics, especially when kids can easily buy them and commit massacres like Columbine. Perhaps, the guns were purchased illegally, but this would not have been possible without the support of American gun culture ie. your so called law abiding citizens.



I disagree, the American gun culture doesn't support that type of activity at all. We condemn it completely, and rightfully so. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the guns in Columbine were stolen were they not? With the exception of one? And I believe that seller was prosecuted. There is enough legislation already in place to properly restrict gun sales to the appropriate people. Harsher punishments and better enforcement for breaking those rules need to be explored before making new law. If one law doesn't work, you need to re-examine how you're implementing it, not just continue to make more and more repetitive and equally useless laws on top of one another.

I do find it a little ironic that the person you quoted carries the family name of Mauser, one of the most influential gun makers in history.

 Written by :USATODAY

Kerry said, is that Bush caved to the NRA. "It is a test of character," he said. "In a secret deal, he chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect." He said Bush has made it easier for terrorists to do their jobs and harder for police to do theirs.



I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that one. Most law enforcement could plainly see through the BS that the "assault" weapons ban was. Nor did they endorse it to begin with. They claim gun prosecutions went up 68%? Well no duh, you took something that was (and should be) perfectly legal and suddenly made it a crime. That doesn't mean gun violence went up 68% though.

 Written by :Stone

Its obvious from the high level of gun violence in the USA that the biggest problem is with legal civilians who, for what ever reasons, are not responsible gun owners. Education has not proved effective in the past; therefore some people might have to give up some of their perceived rights for the good of the community. Unlikely, given the selfish nature of most gun owner as show by remarks such as from my cold dead hands or Ill never give up my gun, never.



Really? You think it's obvious that the legal civilians do the majority of the violence? I think that's just a bit misguided and misrepresentational don't you? Granted there are 'legal' civilians that jump to the criminal side every day, for whatever reason, but most criminals are repeat offenders. I don't think education has been given a proper modern chance. There used to be far more hands on education, hunters safety classes, shooting clubs in schools. Back until about the 70's when the peace craze took off and guns suddenly started to become taboo. Less responsible interaction with a potentially dangerous product brought about obvious results. It conveniently coincides with an increase in violence. People like yourself have been remarkably effective at preventing people from implementing proper education programs by crying foul and saying it will never work.

You don't think it might be somewhat understandable to make such comments when you're threatening to take away what we believe to be a fundamental right? You'd better bet I'm going to be "selfish" and hold onto what little freedoms and rights I have with everything I have. You may not see it as a big deal but I do. Many men far better than I have died to prevent that very thing from happening.

 Written by :Stone

The point is most suicides, accidents and acts of domestic gun violence are committed by responsible legal civilians, not bad guys. You consider yourself a good citizen. So put aside the good guy-bad guy scenario for a minute. Consider, how in all honesty you could not contemplate giving up your guns if it was for the good of the community?



So what is your argument exactly? You keep switching back and forth, is it Suicides and accidents or gun crimes? This thread started about our gun laws being a "license to murder" did it not? Accidents and suicide are more effectively tackled with education, WHILE maintaining our fundamental rights. Suicide is certainly a problem, and it is certainly tragic. Removing guns may drop the suicide count by a little bit, but isn't it more effective to attack the cause, not the tool? If you think removing the guns is going to fix our suicide problem you're horribly mistaken. It may just be me but I would prefer to fully explore other opportunities before you start stripping me of my rights. There are an estimated 1,150 accidental gun deaths a year, and what, 700,000 self defense uses is the low ball estimate out of the multiple studies? I'm sorry if it sounds cruel, but 1,000 lives is worth 700,000.. The same way you accept 40,000+ deaths by car accidents by driving.

In all honesty, as an LEO it's better for my community if I remain armed :P

 Written by :Stout

I can't see including WMDs as a "logical" extension of the 2nd Amendment as part of this discussion at all. It's really just an extension of those hypothetical gun free utopias arguments that assume legally owned guns never pass into the hands of criminals. We could try the militia argument on this I suppose, but since this is about guns for self defense and all the misuse of those guns, it's more of a distraction than anything else.



Well if you go back to my earlier post I put up a transcription of the Supreme Court's Oral Arguments over the 2nd Amendment. Forgive the long and somewhat awkward quotation but I think it bears some relevance:

 Written by :US Supreme Court


JUSTICE STEVENS: May ask this question, Mr. Dellinger? To what extent do you think the similar provisions in State constitutions that were adopted more or less at the same time are relevant to our inquiry?

MR. DELLINGER: I think they are highly relevant to your inquiry because now 42 States have adopted constitutional provisions.

JUSTICE STEVENS: I'm not talking about those.

MR. DELLINGER: You're talking about at the time.

JUSTICE STEVENS: I'm talking about the contemporaneous actions of the States, before or at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment.

MR. DELLINGER: I think that the -- the State amendments are generally written in different -in different terms. If you're going to protect the kind of right that is -- that is being spoken of here, different from the militia right, the plain language to do it would be "Congress or the States shall pass no law abridging the right of any person to possess weapons for personal use." And that's not the right that is created here.
One of the troublesome aspects of viewing this as a right of personal use is that that is the kind of fundamental liberty interest that would create a real potential for disruption. Once you unmoor it from -- or untether it from its connection to the protection of the State militia, you have the kind of right that could easily be restrictions on State and local governments and -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, there's no question that the English struggled with how to work this. You couldn't conceal a gun and you also couldn't carry it, but yet you had a right to have it.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the Second Amendment is more restrictive or more expansive of the right than the English Bill of Rights in 1689?

MR. DELLINGER: I think it doesn't address the same subject matter as the English Bill of Rights. I think it's related to the use of weapons as part of the civic duty of participating in the common defense, and it's -- and it's -- it's -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think that would be more restrictive.

[...]

JUSTICE SCALIA: And as I recall the legislation against Scottish highlanders and against -against Roman Catholics did use the term -- forbade them to keep and bear arms, and they weren't just talking about their joining militias; they were talking about whether they could have arms.

MR. DELLINGER: Well, the different kind of right that you're talking about, to take this to the question of -- of what the standard ought to be for applying this, even if this extended beyond a militia-based right, if it did, it sounds more like the part of an expansive public or personal -- an expansive personal liberty right, and if it -- if it is, I think you ought to consider the effect on the 42 States who have been getting along fine with State constitutional provisions that do expressly protect an individual right of -- of weapons for personal use, but in those States, they have adopted a reasonableness standard that has allowed them to sustain sensible regulation of dangerous weapons. And if you -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?

MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?




It certainly goes on, it's just not all that easy to pick out bits and pieces that make sense.


 Written by :FT

Maybe it's helpful to view the topic on an enlarged scale as to show the obvious. The US opposes nuclear arms to be held by Iran and North Korea. These countries are *bad* and irresponsible, they violate human rights. What about China, I ask you? They do have nuclear arms and never abused them. The US is even undertaking a great deal of cooperation with them. Why those ambiguities and this bigotry?



Many would argue that the only reason we haven't had a problem with China, (or Russia/Soviet Union) is because of mutually assured destruction. We are as capable of harming them as they are of us. Part of the reason we don't want NK and Iran to be nuclear capable is because the people they would potentially go after are not. Which would force someone else to step in on their behalf. So take your analogy, and shrink it back down again, only this time include MAD. If someone wants to kill you, do you think they're going to be more likely to give it a shot if you're defenseless? or if you're readily capable of administering just as much damage to them?

 Written by :FT

maybe it's more useful in this context to accuse you of posting outright lies and 'made up stories' (as you did in the past) and by that you directly violate HoP posting guidelines



LOL outright lies? where? I recall posting one story that I had found online, and redacting it as soon as I found out the truth about it. I wouldn't call that posting an outright lie or 'making up stories' though. I have posted multiple hypothetical scenarios, generally at your implied request, to which I'm usually heckled afterwards for "making up lies." Well.. no, I'm not making up lies, if you ask for examples of situations where lethal force would be needed I'm going to give you an example of such a situation. Hypotheticals are not lying.

 Written by :FT

- Why do you oppose ballistic fingerprinting/ microstamping and full records on ALL guns,

These measures IMO enable law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes back to their owners.

- Why do you oppose the regulation of 2nd hand sales that don't require background checks?
- Why do oppose banning "cash and carry" sales on gun shows that don't require background checks?
- Why do you oppose the regulation of gun sales to ppl under the age of 21?

These measures IMO are to prevent guns from getting into criminals hands or to be handled wrongfully and irresponsible.



Well just to answer these twice in the same post.. Most guns used in crimes aren't legally owned, which means you may be able to track that gun back to someone, but more likely than not it won't be the criminal who used it.

Forgive me, but I didn't know a whole lot about microstamping so I looked it up, and immediately laughed. Engraving a code onto the head of the firing pin? If done in secret that *might* work, for a little while, but the availability of firing pins, and the ease of changing them out is ridiculous to use this as any sort of reliable identifying tool. Not to mention it would be simple to remove the engraving all together with everyday tools. And the potential for "forgeries" to misidentify someone else's gun.

If anything microstamping will simply encourage using revolvers so they don't have to collect their brass after a crime and can dispose of it at their leisure

(you may want to look at these) http://www.physorg.com/news97430920.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Gun-Microstamping-and-5-Huge-Problems&id=689613
http://www.gunmuse.com/News/Micro%20Stamping%20Gun%20Bill%20Opposition

I think my opposition to the pointlessness of second hand gun sales has been stated enough. It's not going to do anything to stop guns getting into criminals hands.

I don't think I've ever directly opposed requiring background checks and gun shows. Like I said before, if you're selling weapons for a business, you should be following FFL guidelines which require background checks. One guy, selling one gun, isn't the problem.

You still haven't answered what exactly about restrictions to people under 21 I'm opposing confused Federal law already says you must be 21 to buy a handgun or handgun ammunition. I'm fine with that.

Since the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen however, thats not going to do anything to stop them from getting into criminals hands! It costs taxpayers money to incorporate pointless procedures and laws that aren't really going to fix the problem.

 Written by :FT

- How do you feel about the 2007 studies of Harvard Public School of Health, I posted earlier?



Didn't read it yet :P been busy

 Written by :FT

- Have *ILLEGALY purchased* Class III weapons ever been used in crimes?



Do you really have to ask that? Illegally buying a class 3 weapon would be a crime in itself, use some common sense here FireTom.

 Written by :FT

What is YOUR suggestion to diminish the number of illegally owned guns in the US? Your proposal on how to reduce gun violence and gun accidents?



I've already posted my suggestions, apparently you've glossed over them.. Or maybe you ignored them because you feel uncomfortable tackling your preconceptions? (whether you intend it or not FireTom, you do have a tendency to troll and post flame bait.)

Diminishing the number of illegal guns is not going to be done by outlawing them even more. Take a minute to think about that until it fully sinks in. For a peace lover you sure seem hellbent on negative reinforcement. How about positive reinforcement? Gun trade in programs "no questions asked" have been quite popular in the past, and relatively successful. Creating incentives for turning in illegal handguns is going to be far more successful than more punishments. On the flip side however, once those incentives, and the ability to *safely* remove illegal guns from the community have been fully established punishments for illegal possession does need to be increased. Fines and jail time for illegal sales.

As for reducing violence, we need to take a deep hard look at our mass media and how they glamorize and portray violence. The news, movies, and music industries being major culprits. You should not become famous for killing people.

Reducing gun accidents can be accomplished the same way we reduce any other sort of accident. Education! This taboo view you have of guns is shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended). By not being knowledgeable and knowing the cardinal rules of gun safety you're putting yourself exponentially more at risk to having an accident others. This also ties back to the medias portrayal of guns.




I think I caught up there... sorry if I missed anything important..


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, I hear your frustration, but you are basically dealing with the standard NRA propaganda based on irrational arguments. You can find well-researched comments on all the NRA propaganda at the Brady Centre.



Americans dont appear to be interested in gun safety unless it involves a shoot out. The logic being that an armed good guy citizen some how manages to always overcome the bad guy, bad guy, and make headlines.



The big issue at the moment is the pending Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, and their interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms.



Its pretty obvious that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stuffed up in Parker v. District of Columbia by misinterpreting United States v. Miller (1939). But who can say how the Supreme Court will rule at the end of June.



"The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second amendment. Judge Laurence Silberman (Bush crony) found that the Second Amendment right is not limited to the possession and use of firearms in connection with service in organized militias, but rather extends to the personal possession of guns for private purposes like self-defense and hunting.



The Court order granting review took it a step further. The one section that will be at issue that goes beyond handguns is the provision that requires that any gun kept at home be unloaded and disassembled, or at least be locked (wiki)". This means guns dont have to be locked away from children, or lifesaving trigger guards fitted. Go figure ubbloco



The implication is that the any decision by the Supreme Court will affect the gun laws in all States. One can only imaging that a pro selfish-defense decision will lead to an unprecedented escalation gun violence.







Lurch, I'll have to read your reply before commenting further.


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
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Lurch




 Written by :OWD

1. given that, by definition, any weapon used in a crime is being used criminally, is there much point in stressing the fact that no legaly owned class 3 weapon has been used in a crime?



I definitely think there is a point to it. Criminals don't follow gun laws, they don't acquire their weapons through legal means, so can anyone explain to me how further restricting the guns that aren't hurting anyone is going to help?





 Written by :Lurch


 Written by :FT

- Have *ILLEGALY purchased* Class III weapons ever been used in crimes?



Do you really have to ask that? Illegally buying a class 3 weapon would be a crime in itself, use some common sense here FireTom.






I think that this one would be best answered simply by, if you have some figures, indicating how many times class III's have been used in a crime, in the sense of being used as a gun (either to shoot or to threaten with).

I do realise that, as crime weapons they have the obvious limitation, compared to a handgun, that they can't easily be carried concealed, but, it would be useful in this case to have, at best, some valid stats about their actual use in crimes, or, at least some vague figures.


"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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by : Lurch



 Written by :



In the meantime you could tell me how many hours you have undertaken in research and posting? I'm certainly in a three digit number - same applies to Lurch, Stone and Stout.





Now now, play nice FireTom. I have no problem with OWD's posts, even if they were against me (they were in the beginning remember?). He argues with logic not statistics, I find his comments refreshing, well thought out, and relatively unbiased in an otherwise cyclical debate.




Thanks for that Lurch: in the context of me feeling (rightly or wrongly) somewhat battered by the (IMO), needless hostility that has been focused on me by some in this thread, your observation is both timely and appreciated smile


As you say, i do argue with logic, not statistics.

Neither am I that keen, when it comes to controversial/emotion-provoking issues, like this one, to be forming a viewpoint based purely, or mainily, on published reports by organisations who clearly may have a bias/agenda, or scientific studies funded by such organisations.

This is why, through such threads, I restrict myself to focusing on those points and issues which can be resolved through logical reason.


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

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


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

Delete

Page: 1...2425262728...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..