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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1819202122...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

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Never ending thread..I'll say..but IMO it gets my nomination for thread of the year. smile

It's interesting to read all the different perspectives on gun ownership in here, most notably the perspectives that view guns as anti-personnel weapons vs. guns as a sporting implement.

Since this is really a 2nd amendment thread, and therefore a discussion of guns as anti-personnel weapons, I do have to agree with Tom's "dark energy" sentiments. OK maybe those aren't the best words but I think we all have to agree that when one is holding a .30-06 with a beautifully finished stock and a scope on the top, we're holding a weapon that's designed strictly for sporting purposes. OTOH, if we're holding an uzi with a 30 shot clip, then we're holding a weapon designed with the express purpose of killing people.

Sure, there's a crossover between the uses for both types of weapons and that crossover has been illustrated several times on this thread, but one really has to question the motivations for a person wanting a weapon like an uzi, really.

So where does that leave handguns? Well, it's that perspective thing again. Lurch, you claim your primary motivation for owning handguns is a sporting one, with a 2nd amendment bonus, fair enough but would you agree that there's a difference between yourself and someone who buys a pistol strictly for 2nd amendment purposes ? ie buying a gun as a weapon vs. buying one for fun.

Hey, I'm no stranger to the fun aspect of guns myself, although I got bored of shooting paper targets quickly and developed a taste for shooting things that altered their form dramatically when hit with a bullet ( molotov cocktail + 12 gauge with a rifled slug = great fun , errrrrr..... wink ) but NEVER, EVER did I consider using any of my guns on another person. Things might have been different though, had I bought myself a gun manufactured for killing people. I've never owned a handgun and maybe if I had, I might have come to think of it as more of am anti-personnel weapon than simply a fun toy that had serious consequences...I dunno, that was then. Now, if I bought a handgun it would be more for shooting people than anything else, but I don't want one, I don't need one, I don't appreciate the sporting aspect, however I refuse to dismiss those who do.

I can think of lots of other things that people find fun but don't actually do it for me, like stamp collecting.

So I'm thinking that maybe the statistics about firearm injury and death are OK tho the American voting public, I'm thinking that America appreciates the "look after yourself" attitude as a traditional cultural value that defines them in the rest of the world. ( I was going to say unique cultural value, but I have been in societies where gun control is non existent eg. Honduras ) Maybe Americans view their government more as employees, rather than the Canadian view of regarding the government more like you would your parents.

Mind you...I'm the kind of guy who quit a set for life union job in favour of a career as an independent artist.

Tom...does your view of not casting judgements also apply to those who live a predatory lifestyle ? ie "the wolves" . Are you OK with people victimizing others for profit ( or kicks ) ?


Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:can I ask a question... is there a "gun profficiency" exam? like a driving test to decide if a person is capable of sensibly handling a gun? as something designed for killing I would have thought that some form of test would be in place, and not just accuracy but theory etc like police training. you could create a few more jobs if you had training centres like driving schools.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:No but it is one of the things we have discussed. I think that it is a good idea...along with random drug testing. If you fail either you can try again in six months.
And the drug test should be a hair test. Piss tests are too easy to pass


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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:hair tests however are not time based, you can only tell if someone has done them at some point which I suppose is good for guns. unless the individual has been spiked or been to amsterdam. hair tests don't give an indication of the persons current state. and if you did that you'd have to class alcohol the same.

how about if you own a gun your NEVER allowed to drink alcohol incase said gun is required whilst under the influence?


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Stout
Stout

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

Are you absolutely, positively 100% certain you want to go down that drug testing by the government path ? Sure, testing legal gun owners SEEMS like a good idea, but what happens when this expands into, say, renewing your drivers licence ? What happens when it expands further into a positive result in a government conducted drug test morphs into an automatic conviction for possession ?

Do piss tests give a reliable indication of a persons current state ? If I went to a party last week, and somebody in the room was smoking a joint, and I inhaled some second hand smoke, would I pass a piss test today ?

Mynci..good point about the booze, but are you talking just about CCP holders, or all gun owners ? Suppose i had a shotgun in the back of my closet because I go duck hunting a couple of times a year, are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy a beer ? I could see carrying a CCP gun while under the influence of alcohol being made a crime ( and maybe it is ) much like DUI...but never drinking ??

Just how much of a police state are you willing to accept ?


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:maybe more handguns

you would pass your test.

as for hair test. there is an average growth rate. so they would be able to have a rough estimation on when you last used.


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

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

Tom...does your view of not casting judgements also apply to those who live a predatory lifestyle ? ie "the wolves" . Are you OK with people victimizing others for profit ( or kicks ) ?



If I get your question correctly, I would have this answer: We should cast judgement, if someones actions are under trial - apart from that we should try to understand. It's not an easy task and I can't claim to have completely understood the mechanics of detachment in order to avoid judgement myself.

Look back into kindergarden: Kids were victimizing each other for "profit" and "kicks". Nothing much has changed since. Those generals, politicians and industrials are aged kids - nothing more, nothing less. If a poor guy steals 10.000 bucks, he's a felon - if a rich guy steals 10.000.000 bucks, he's a "dog". If the guy on the corner is hooked on crack, the lock him away - if Kate Moss does the same, she still gets fashions ad contracts. Same applies to many other cases.

"We" judge upon "them" the same way "they" judge upon "us". A criminal is a criminal by judgement and conviction, not necessarily by action.

I have accomodated to the initial problem as far as: "Keep your gun - but know what it is, why you got it in the first place and what you are causing, simply by purchasing/ owning it. Know the risk you put your self and your family and friends in - and (if the [censored] hits the fan) don't pretend you didn't know."

That's it. Quite simple, huh?

Not quite.

As much as it's healthy to me I will raise my voice against gun ownership and stand up against those who claim this to be the proper solution for conflicts and problems (of society). I am certain that *most* of those who get themselves involved in (recreational) shooting, do so with the best intentions, wish to protect their family and themselves. I am certain that *most* of those who own guns try to act as responsible as possible. Reality proves (and that is one basic of this debate) that things go wrong, not just according to "Murphy".

I get your point with the licenses (drug testing). But I'll tell you what: We might experience mandatory drug testing for achieving/ renewing (drivers) licenses in our lifetime. (I wouldn't have to, as Germans keep their license for life). However, would you not support drug testing for someone who is applying for a license, say driving a dangerous goods lorry, or Greyhound bus, Metro train. I would certainly feel safer, if that pilot wouldn't have a record of cocaine abuse, wouldn't you?

The point is: what kind of test? Different tests require different "time outs". If this would mean "pee-test", I would support it, because you would have to stay clean anywhere around a months period. If I couldn't manage to stay clean for that period in order to get my license (renewed), dude, I should seek counselling and not drive a vehicle of any kind.

If you're a CCWP-holder you are entitled to carry your gun in public at any time. Now how about going out and getting f*cked over a few Vodka, maybe some spliffs. One thing leads to the other and whooops, one can't handle the situation just as straight as one used to. I would ask CCWP holders to undergo frequent mandatory drug screenings (incl. alcohol). You want to bear responsibility? Start with your self.

But we are comparing apples and oranges here. A gun does not equal a car.

I agree on the comparison between a hunters rifle vs. UZI/AK47 and definitely support: If you keep a gun in your house *safe* chances are that it won't be available at the time you need it (ex. burglary).

However: Thanks all for participating in this discussion. My opinion got shaped. hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Tom, I'll admit the idea of reserving ( or not passing ) judgement is a very difficult one and something I struggle with on a daily basis ( thinking of all the times I've "assessed" a situation and proven to be completely wrong on that assessment only minutes later ) it's is something that's far easier to do from afar.

If we take the case of Arthur Buford ( again ) , sitting here, from afar, with what limited information we have, it's not too difficult to paint Aurthur as a tragic figure who was a victim of incompetent parenting......etc. However, when the man who shot him was faced with this same figure wielding a pistol, he, unfortunately didn't have the time to indulge in such thinking. He was in a split second decision making situation, and quite obviously passed judgement on a man and situation where his "best" course of action was to respond with deadly force.

In effect, you could view AB's actions as being under trial , albeit by a jury of one.

Yes...things do go wrong, horribly wrong as several other things in life do. My suggestion is that the cultural and psychological benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs of things going wrong ( to the American voting public ) much in the same way we ride motorcycles with the knowledge that even a "small" accident can have dire consequences. We know the risks, or at least think we do, but we take the chance anyway. Of course it goes without saying that legal guns beget illegal guns leading to more things going horribly wrong.

I'm not suggesting that firearms are the solution, or even a proper solution for problems in society...only that they're only one solution to be applied in very specific circumstances.

Drug testing to do a specific job is a different issue. It can be viewed as a matter between employee and employer, or as a "private matter" The big difference between employer drug testing, and government drug testing can likened to freedom of speech.
I don't have a problem with someone telling me what I can say, do, think on private property, after all I can always leave if I object. But once the government starts telling me what I can say and think...then it's cause for alarm.

I could suspend 420 for a month if need be, but it's more of a principal issue than anything. maybe it's my inner libertarian talking, or maybe those stories of random drug testing in Bangkok nightclubs ( could it happen here??? I sincerely hope not ) that have got me thinking about drug testing as an issue. Or maybe I just fear an Orwellian future. heck, I live in a society where we maybe photo radar an election issue and got rid of it based on it being too " big brother " same same for collecting highway tolls using those sticker/scanner devices ( like in London ) noooo way.

We want real cops writing real tickets, not robots mailing us out fines.

I would support making CCWP while under the influence of anything a crime though, much like drinking and driving. How about CCWP while under the influence of prescription meds ?


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, thats great that you acknowledge that guns are dangerous. After all the time you spent telling me that guns are safe, at least we can agree on that.



 Written by:

Again, why do you think I want to go run around playing vigilante? I've said time after time, deadly force is a last resort. If it comes to that, you simply do not have time to wait for a police officer to come and save you. You would be dead if you didn't do something. Thats hardly a bunch of 'amateurs running around trying to help'. That is someone fighting to stay alive. You call that a recipe for disaster?





Lurch, people living in other civilized western countries dont have this problem of having to carry a weapon to survive the risk of serious bodily harm or even death. It seems peculiarly American. A recipe for disaster that is evident by the number of Americans that are killed by guns each year. In all honesty, if you were a mate living in Australia, and felt that insecure, then Id say get over it or get some therapy.



 Written by:

Maybe I am making moral judgements, but you don't really see the full scope of the situation from where you sit across the pond. I never said any of those people 'deserve to die'. Nor did I say that I didn't have compassion or want to help the people who were physically unable to remove themselves from the threat. It was the people who didn't leave when they were told to, simply because they didn't feel like it that I don't have as *much* compassion for. Those are the same people cheating the system, yes, they are cheating the system, and they know full well.





I think you would agree that my opinion is no more valid than your opinion. While we might agree on the principle that all people are created equal, we all have different opinions on morals: what is right and what is wrong; who deserves to live and who deserves to die.



When you refuse to help fellow human beings, for whatever reason, you are saying they deserve to die. The reason you give for condemning them is they didnt do what you wanted them to do, and in your opinion they were on welfare and cheating the system.



What is a vigilante?



 Written by:

The traditional view of vigilantism is that when people see their governments as being ineffective in enforcing the law, they justify violent acts in order to bring about justice. "Vigilante justice" is usually spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is insufficient to the crime, or nonexistent. Persons seen as escaping from the law, or "above the law" are generally the targets of vigilantism. Some vigilantes see ethics and moral laws as superior to governmental laws and may believe that the ends justify the means (wiki).





The kids getting their semi-automatic weapons at gun shows and their ammo at k-mart was a reference to the Columbine massacre. Though, it is still apparent that there are no regulations on second hand gun sales at gun shows, and anyone can get a gun, criminals included. Furthermore, the NRA is against doing anything to closes this loophole because it interferes with their perceived second amendment rights to do what ever they like.



Mynci good point:



 Written by:

how about if you own a gun your NEVER allowed to drink alcohol incase said gun is required whilst under the influence?





Then there is the problem with concealed weapon carriers going into bars. What if a fight erupts? Imagine the carnage.



faith, Ive never been called an extremist before. I understand why police carry guns. Though, in my country a lot of people have been shot unnecessarily, and there is a move away from guns to capsicum spray and other non-lethal methods. By the way, thats not a criticism of the police.



Where does the money go? What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy



Stout, for me its about not casting moral judgements. By that I mean we dont add our personal moral judgements to agreed laws or principals. All people are created equal, means exactly that all people are created equal.



Take the case of Arthur Buford. The first thing to do is take out all the emotion from the story.



Damon Wells had a permit to carry his gun. A pair of teenagers approached him Saturday night on his front porch. One of the youths pulled a gun, Wells shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said. Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught Monday night. Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells, the police report shows. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. Arthur Buford, 15, died. City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged (Plain Dealer).



The rest is made up story 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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted: Written by: Stout



Do piss tests give a reliable indication of a persons current state ? If I went to a party last week, and somebody in the room was smoking a joint, and I inhaled some second hand smoke, would I pass a piss test today ?



Yes actually you would the second hand smoke mixed with standard air wou;d keep the THC effects down I've sat in a caravan for 4 hours with people smoking and me not and felt no effects, 1 toke on a spliff gave me more of am effect. I used to get random drug tested at work and spent a lot of time with home kits wink yes the test can be beaten but you need a lot of water and prior notice and official tests will keep you under observation and if urine is too watery will wait for a concentrated (sorry, yellow) sample much like when I was tested doing professional sporting events.

the ultimate problem I feel is that there are so many guns in America now that even if a law was passed to make the US like England it would only mean the innocent would lose guns, criminals would keep them and the US would be in a much worse state. I'm glad there are some responsible gun owners over there hug


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Well i'm on vacation here, so thats why I haven't replied but I'm relaxing now instead of out doing things so I figured I'd reply.

Mynci, you couldn't 'go out killing anyone,' perhaps you should read back through the thread and see where you are legally allowed to use deadly force. You're saying I shouldn't be scared of a gun because it might be unloaded? What sort of logic is that? Do you really want to take that chance? If someone is willing to pull a gun on you, I'm going to play the safe side and assume they're willing to use that gun, and act according to the threat.

There are tests to get a concealed permit, which would be akin to a drivers license. You don't need a license to purchase a car, and even less to buy a car second hand. But you still need the license if you plan on driving around in public.

 Written by:

so someones broken into the house... there is a noise behind, you turn and shoot, your child is now lying dead on the floor... if you didn't shoot, the robber has now killed you for hesitating...



That's just rediculous. There is logic behind what I've been trying to say, it's not 'shoot everything and ask questions later' Come on. YOu don't shoot unless you *know* your target and what's beyond. That's firearms 101, and you also don't shoot unless you're legally and morally allowed to do so.

 Written by:

but as defense in a house? I just don't see the logic.

if for defense would it be easily accessible? say where a child could get it?
or
safely locked away? where it could be impossible to get should you have an intruder?



Guns should not be left unlocked. There are quicksafes specifically made for such situations, with either key or electronic locks so they have be quickly accessed, but still secure from children and prying eyes. You'r pulling up statistics, have you not noticed that home invasion style robberies, where the criminal comes into the house knowing the owner is home, is far more common in the UK than in the US?

 Written by: stout

would you agree that there's a difference between yourself and someone who buys a pistol strictly for 2nd amendment purposes ? ie buying a gun as a weapon vs. buying one for fun.




There is a difference, but legally I don't have any problems with someone buying a gun purely for defense. I have a problem when they will not, or don't practice with that weapon to be efficient and safe. But as for the actual purpose of the gun, no.

 Written by:

can I ask a question... is there a "gun profficiency" exam? like a driving test to decide if a person is capable of sensibly handling a gun? as something designed for killing I would have thought that some form of test would be in place, and not just accuracy but theory etc like police training.



That depends on the state. Many require a 'purchase permit' that you have to pass before you can even buy a gun, and all require some level of training before you can carry concealed (save alaska AFAIK) Most require range time, and classes that teach safe handling and storage of your weapons etc. Not to mention all the paperwork required. I would say at least in the states, it's far easier to get your drivers license than a concealed permit.

 Written by:

how about if you own a gun your NEVER allowed to drink alcohol incase said gun is required whilst under the influence?



Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a crime in most places. Again, it depends on the state/county/city. Most states also ban carrying a weapon in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption. AKA Bars.

 Written by: firetom

As much as it's healthy to me I will raise my voice against gun ownership and stand up against those who claim this to be the proper solution for conflicts and problems (of society).



Do you really not read anything I write FireTom? deadly force is far from the ideal solution to a conflict, but *sometimes*, even stone (and yourself i believe) have admitted that it is neccessary. Even Murphy would agree, that it's possible.

 Written by:

However, would you not support drug testing for someone who is applying for a license, say driving a dangerous goods lorry, or Greyhound bus, Metro train. I would certainly feel safer, if that pilot wouldn't have a record of cocaine abuse, wouldn't you?



You're not making fair or valid comparisons. For a regular drivers license? No would I would not be in favor of mandatory drug tests. As long as the person does not drive while under the influence, they can do whatever they want to do. For HAZMAT or commercial purposes that requires a commercial drivers license (CDL) which have completely different regulations and rules. I might be able to bend to force drug tests at that level, but it would be up to the individual employer more than the government to regulate that.

 Written by:

If you're a CCWP-holder you are entitled to carry your gun in public at any time. Now how about going out and getting f*cked over a few Vodka, maybe some spliffs. One thing leads to the other and whooops, one can't handle the situation just as straight as one used to. I would ask CCWP holders to undergo frequent mandatory drug screenings (incl. alcohol). You want to bear responsibility? Start with your self.



Drug and alcohol convictions are some of the things that will make you exempt from obtaining a CCW. If you don't have that level of self control than no, you shouldn't have a gun. But we're not nearly as stupid as you're making us out to be.

 Written by:

Lurch, thats great that you acknowledge that guns are dangerous. After all the time you spent telling me that guns are safe, at least we can agree on that.




Guns have the 'potential' to be dangerous. They're no more deadly than a chainsaw or a car. Dead is dead, you can't be 'more dead'

 Written by:

When you refuse to help fellow human beings, for whatever reason, you are saying they deserve to die. The reason you give for condemning them is they didnt do what you wanted them to do, and in your opinion they were on welfare and cheating the system.




Not true, If I tell you 'you can't breath underwater' and you go "nu uh I can too!" and I tell you again 'no you can't you'll drown' and then you go and drown to death, is that my fault? If I were right there watching you drown, of course I would do my best to save you, but if it comes down to saving you because you're an idiot and want to prove how tough you are, or saving the elderly crippled person drowning next to you, I'm going to choose the one who can't help themself.

 Written by:

kids getting their semi-automatic weapons at gun shows and their ammo at k-mart was a reference to the Columbine massacre



The guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally, the laws that are ALREADY in place were not enforced, and they slipped through. Making more laws isn't going to change it. There are less regulations on second hand vehicle sales, which cause thousands more deaths than guns. There are laws making it illegal to sell a gun to a criminal, do you want another law saying the same thing?

 Written by:

Damon Wells had a permit to carry his gun. A pair of teenagers approached him Saturday night on his front porch. One of the youths pulled a gun, Wells shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said. Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught Monday night. Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells, the police report shows. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. Arthur Buford, 15, died. City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged



Still sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force. Would you really want to take the chance that the badguy won't shoot you?


#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:Mynci, Im not sure about the hair test, but a psyche test would be an excellent idea. There was talk of this in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre because many of the shooters had psychiatric problems. Clearly we dont want delusional and paranoid people running around with weapons putting society at risk.



There used to be much drinking and carnage at duck opening. So something that worked well was the introduction of a species identification test to get a duck hunting license. This sorted out the real hunters from the wannabes.





Lurch, it seems like you are a bit confused about the real danger of guns.



 Written by:

 Written by:

Of course guns are dangerous, thats why all I ask for is proper training and safety





Guns have the 'potential' to be dangerous. They're no more deadly than a chainsaw or a car. Dead is dead, you can't be 'more dead'







You seem to consistently underplay the danger of guns. Saying guns are no more dangerous than a chainsaw or a car is ludicrous. Chainsaws and cars dont fire projectiles designed to explode and kill, so its not a valid comparison.



I agree that guns can be fun, but the fun goes out of guns when they become weapons. A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun ) used to injure, defeat, kill, or destroy; or in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy. So we are talking assault and concealed weapons here.



This is rubbish:



 Written by:

The guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally, the laws that are ALREADY in place were not enforced, and they slipped through. Making more laws isn't going to change it. There are less regulations on second hand vehicle sales, which cause thousands more deaths than guns. There are laws making it illegal to sell a gun to a criminal, do you want another law saying the same thing?





To say the guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally doesnt solve the problem, it just sweeps it under the carpet. Apart for the age law, there are NO laws in place to prevent anyone acquiring guns at gun shows. The kids got someone to buy the semi automatic assault weapon and shotguns for them. This is such a common practice that it has its own name, it's called a straw purchase. Thanks to the NRA putting assault weapons back on the street, today the kids could have got a real AK.



Licensed gun dealers must be approved by and register with the federal government. But in most states, someone can be an unlicensed "private" seller of guns. A "private" seller has no obligation to conduct criminal background checks on buyers or keep transfer records for law enforcement - as long as he/she claims to be a "hobbyist" and is not "engaged in the business" of selling guns.



Police can only trace a serial number back to the first retail sale of a new gun by a licensed gun dealer. Therefore, if someone buys a secondhand gun from a "private" seller, the gun can't be traced back to its illegal seller or the purchaser.



There is no commitment to enforce laws you have either. Anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, and no records are kept. A "private" seller of guns can advertise and set up tables at a gun show or flea market right next to federally licensed gun dealers who must obey all the rules. Many federally licensed gun dealers sell guns illegally.



Federally licensed gun dealers fail to report stolen or missing guns, they generally face only misdemeanor charges even though thousands of guns are stolen annually from gun stores. The rifle used by the metro DC snipers was allegedly stolen from a gun store, the same store that "lost or misplaced" 238 guns in three years.



Gun owners are not required to report thefts of their guns to law enforcement. Nearly half a million guns are stolen annually.



Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) sold guns at gun shows as a "hobbyist." In one two-year period in the late 1990s, one fifth of all federal gun trafficking investigations involved unlicensed "private" sellers. On average, each of these "hobbyists" was involved with 75 gun sales.



 Written by:

Damon Wells had a permit to carry his gun. A pair of teenagers approached him Saturday night on his front porch. One of the youths pulled a gun, Wells shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said. Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught Monday night. Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells, the police report shows. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. Arthur Buford, 15, died. City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged





 Written by:

Still sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force. Would you really want to take the chance that the badguy won't shoot you?





Lurch while it sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force to you. To me it sounds like a gunfight. Most gunfights are portrayed in films or books as having two men square off, waiting for one to make the first move. This was rarely the case. Often, a gunfight was spur-of-the-moment, with one drawing their pistol, and the other reacting.



Wells drew first and shot, and Buford, with multiple shot wounds to the chest, collapsed in the corner. Not much has changed since the days of the Wild West has it? If anything, America has got more lawless. Sound more like the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Arizona, 1881 than Cleveland 2007. Except, the confrontation that led to the OK Corral gunfight grew out of Virgil Earp's determination to enforced Tombstone's law prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons.





eek


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
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Maybe if you got the idea out of your head that we all have guns on us, or even in our homes. Most people will never be on the other end of a gun. Most owners are responsible

We aren't cowboys. Most of the country isn't dangerous. Even here, gun crime has gone down.

You just show what bias you have that is not founded in realtiy and is just a misperception


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
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Faith, that's one thing I've been trying to figure out. Just how prevalent are guns in American society ? I've got a bazillion anecdotes from Canadians relating their own travels in the US, plus my own experiences and I have very little evidence to to support the idea that guns are as big of a problem as the "media" leads us to believe.

A while ago, I said i didn't have time to participate in this thread in the way I'd like and what I meant by that is I didn't have time to do my own research on the subject. The more I dig into this, the more I'm convinced that gun laws are more of a state to state thing rather than being applicable to the US as a whole and if I were to immigrate to the US , I'm currently under the impression that, were I to make gun laws my # 1 criteria for selecting a state to live in, I'd have the option of picking one that fits my particular views.

The NRA, however, isn't looking so hot from my computer bound, non-American perspective. Ok, I'm basing this on a few websites ( like the NRA site ) most notably I've been putting most of my effort into Ted Nugent ( hey...I like Ted ...ever tried spinning to Wango Tango ? Stranglehold ? ) anyways...he's looking more and more like the stereotypical gun nut than the get outdoors and harvest your own food kinda guy that I thought he was.

Check out this youtube video or

AWW crap, I didn't want that second video to imbed, the first one's way more dramatic.


WARNING...both videos NSFW rolleyes

Is this really the voice of the NRA ??? Unfortunately it's not like I can run down to my local chapter to check them out first hand.

Aside...Anybody else run across Pink Pistols ? IIRC, I found this link on the NRA's website. It looks like their Canadian chapter has crashed and burned..luckily...because if Canada started giving out CWP permits based on sexual orientation, I'd me mighty pissed off about it.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Should we judge PETA on their "leaders." Environmentalists by Sheryl Crow and her one square theory?

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
I just thought this was funny

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomTrendsInOneVar.cfm
They only have rates up to 2005. I know that we are down a few murders this year

http://www.guncite.com/success.htm
Some programs that have worked to lower gun crimes

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm
has anyone linked this article/study before? Defensive statistics


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
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Ok faith, how dangerous is it?

On one hand you tell us that:

 Written by:

Maybe if you got the idea out of your head that we all have guns on us, or even in our homes. Most people will never be on the other end of a gun. Most owners are responsible

We aren't cowboys. Most of the country isn't dangerous. Even here, gun crime has gone down.

You just show what bias you have that is not founded in realtiy and is just a misperception.



On the other hand its:

The law-abiding citizens of America use guns to defend themselves against the bad guys 2.5 million times every year or about 6,850 times a day.

So, is it necessary to carry concealed weapons, allow assault weapons like AKs and Uzis on to the street for self defense, and permit people to justifiably use of deadly force (kill) other good citizens?


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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



We aren't cowboys. Most of the country isn't dangerous. Even here, gun crime has gone down.

You just show what bias you have that is not founded in realtiy and is just a misperception



do you have a link to show the reduction in gun crime because I haven't been able to find anything that says US gun crime is on the decrease. confused


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Okay, another merry-go-round:

1) If guns were not THAT much of a problem in the US - how come that so many ppl die in shootings? Do you want to tell us that these numbers are "smoking guns"? A media campaign against "evil guns" or "irresponsible gun owners", against "criminals"? You want to make us believe that all these people are not dead, like all those VT students now live in a secret settlement, along with those 9/11-victims that (in reality) never died?

2) Guns purchased "illegally" - Second hand sales should be made illegal, or a prior notification of 2nd hand sales to the corresponding authorities should be mandatory.
Lurch, it bothers me that you find refuge on "illegal purchases" when the only thing illegal in those purchases might be the intent under which these guns are bought, or that the guy buying the guns is (to become) a felon. That's just ridiculous. Second hand and gun show sales are PERFECTLY LEGAL!

3) Comparison of guns and cars - stick it up your backside, dude and you find the difference between the two (no personal offence meant).

Whilst a cars primary design is to transport ppl and goods, with fatal accidents and pollution as a sad side effect - a guns primary design is to kill, with protection as a beneficial side effect. It's designed, crafted and sold by the same companies who supply 2nd/ 3rd world, oppressive regimes. It can be carried concealed - try that with your SUV.

4) Drug testing on CCWP - one decides to apply for a permit and therefore take on heightened responsibility for the safety of your fellow citizens. As with police, politicians and judges, one should be ready to pay the price for it and stay sober (in your judgement). A judge appearing drunk in court, a cop high on crack, or a politician on cocaine somehow is not whidely accepted in society - same should apply to CCWP holders.

4.1) Drug testing on (driving) licenses: Please READ my post - I was referring to commercial licenses. Drug abuse is illegal and a person abusing (illegal) drugs should NOT be allowed to own a gun. Do I have to spell that out for you, or are you desperately trying to defend your (ridiculous) stance that even heroin addicts should have the "right to own a gun" (as you displayed a few pages back).

5) NRA - if one really wants to inform ones self about the racist and offensive views of NRA leaders, DON'T just look on the NRA-homepage.... (sigh) A few pages back we have posted sources, where one can obtain reliable informations about what they have to say.

6) Home invasion - one would need to be really cold blooded, to keep cool in such a situation and double-check on the target. Humans are humans, not robots - especially if they eventually will experience ONE invasion in their lifetime (max.). Gun related accidents "even" happen to law enforcement officers, who deal with ugly situations daily... now estimate on a civilian.

7) Safe storage - ppl barely buy a headset for their mobiles (2$), even if they drive Mercs. A gun safe (link) costs between 50 and 100 times more. Educate me about mankind...

8) Responsibile citizens - we are human, as such designed *not* to be perfect. IF all gun owners would act as responsible as you claim, not even a tenth of the accidents would occur. Reality is proving your ridiculous argument wrong.

Stop posting lies and fairy tales! Wake up to reality!

9) Buford - yes, it *might* sound like a "justified use of deadly force" (even though I doubt that "several shots to the chest" were *needed* to stop this amok driven 14 yr teenage menace[/sarcasm]).

Point being that his accomplice is now charged with MURDER (you know I am talking about that other teenage boy who didn't even fire a single shot, but ran) and another point being:

IF A DEDICATED CRIMINAL HAS HIS GUN ALREADY PULLED AT YOU - CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH YOU GET SHOT BEFORE YOU CAN REACH YOUR GUN! This is not "High Noon" or any other glorified Hollywood production in which the NRA despotes seem to live - this is R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.

Avoid a conflict! Keep your money in the bank and an alarm system in the house, if you have valuables to protect. Stay in your bedroom if a burglar is in the house, call the cops. If your childs bedroom is at the other end of the castle, like in the "west wing" - install a domestic phone and tell it to lock it's door, but stay in your room...

If you are not satisfied with the performance of law enforcement in your area, consider that they are not Rambos or cowboys but have a family too. Demand more funding of local police, rather than rocket shields against Russian missiles and sufficient supply of bullet proof equipment rather than sending more than 3.000 GI's into certain death somewhere in the Gulf. In essence: USE DEMOCRATIC MEANS!

Funny, there are drugs produced in many parts of the globe, more than a government could eventually eradicate - still they make an effort...

In any one year (numbers not from a reliable source, but I am short in time):

- 5,000 (+) die from illicit drug abuse
- 125,000 (+) die from alcohol abuse
- 473,000 (+) die from tobacco abuse

At some stage we would have never thought that smoking (tobacco) would be under regulation in the US. Simply because smoking and the US has been a synonym (at least to many of the Europeans). Watch times change... Meaning that the war on drugs (in the US) might be due to 5.000 fatalities a year (and corresponding crimes). 100 times MORE die from legal substance abuse... How much money is spent on the war on drugs? - .... how many die in gun related accidents/ crimes? umm

IMO gun owners seem to equal NIMBYs: don't take away MY gun. It's MINE! And I have a constitutional RIGHT to own it! Kindergarden! Needs kindergarden measures, like: "Kids, some of you seem to be incapable to handle these toys in peace, so..."

If I ride a motorcycle and got an accident, chances are that I PERSONALLY will die or get seriously wounded. Yes, I am weighing benefits and risks and continue to ride my motorcycle, simply because a car takes more fuel, money and space. I use responsibility over MY PERSONAL LIFE. IT IS NOT THE SAME as keeping a gun... A comparison between the two clearly proves that I may do as I please (and not even that!) if only my personal life is involved. But (to stay in the motorist comparison) that is NOT the case.... the government forces me to use a seatbelt or a helmet, infringes with my personal freedom (of choice). How dare they?

The pro-gunners (UP UNTIL TODAY) fail to produce credible numbers from peered institutions that proove their claim ( privatly owned handguns prevent as much or more crimes than they produce). Most pro gunners arguments against gun regulations are so far unfunded and subjective.

Killing over material possessions is wrong. "Even" the pro gunners acknowledge that. They claim the reason to still keep a firearm in the house being "to protect their beloveth ones" from .... shrug

IMHO you are like that frog, sitting in a pot of luke warm water, heat slowly administered and increased, dying.

The European stance (as the Australian) on handguns is clear: They are to be banned, or access needs to be restricted in such a way that it's "relatively safe".

And miraculously (compared to the US) .... it is. And this is what the (US) pro gunners ignore: The western civilized world (And I am only talking about those 500(+) million people living outside the US, namely in Canada, the EU and Australia) does just fine without (that many) guns. HOW COMES!?!?!?!?!

wink


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:Sorry, mynci, I was talking about milwaukee. I posted a link awhile back.
AKs and Uzis are generally not used for selfdefense. Handguns, shotguns, and an occasional rifle

And it can be both ways. We have said that most will never need their weapon in self-defense. Many just use them for sport. People own more than one. I couldn't find the stat on that. Responsible owners do not want to use their weapon in self-defense.


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

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

Responsible owners do not want to use their weapon in self-defense.



confused shrug

 Written by: Stout

What happens when it expands further into a positive result in a government conducted drug test morphs into an automatic conviction for possession ?



This would be an illegal approach. Just because it's in your body, doesn't mean that you were actively in possession at any time. ubbangel

Mynci: "Serious crimes" statistics dropped by 50% since 1993 (to 2005).

This trend seems not to have continued since. Check

The problem we are facing is that the "pro gunners" are not acknowledging the problem. Most of them live in denial and dismiss any (even moderate) approach, because in their eyes there i s n o p r o b l e m to start with.

VT and other school shootings, the number of gun victimisation/ accidents - all this simply is collateral damage for their individual right to bear arms. They claim that the current legislation is sufficient and if existing laws would only get enforced there would be even less than no problem.

This is denial to the extent of outright lies and a slap in the face of the victims families (to come).

Existing laws on gun ownership need to be adjusted, loopholes need to get closed. New regulations need to get ratified and implemented.

Second hand/ Gun show / Internet sales without background checks need to be made illegal. In fact ANY sale without proper background check needs to be made illegal and punishable up to jail and loss of (gun selling) license.

Assault weapons need to be banned and further regulations have to be implemented on the numbers and types of guns in possession. Licensing and training needs to be made mandatory, before aquiring guns or in order to (legally) keep them.

This would be major steps into the right direction, reduce (lethal) victimization on all levels.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Faith..yes, I tend to judge organizations based on the actions of their policy makers. ( BTW, Sheryl Crow was joking )

I was under the impression that Ted was more of a Kill it and Grill it kind of guy and when I see him up on stage, shrieking about how important his machine guns are to him, and how evil "the other side" is for wanting to limit his capacity to put a maximum amount of rounds downrange in the minimum amount of time, I tend to question what the organization he represents is all about. If machine guns are not commonly used in self defense...then what's Ted doing ? Selling them as offensive weapons ? Or fun toys to use in the backyard...

Tom, for me, it's all about questioning the size of the "problem" I'm willing to discard the emotional aspect of this discussion in favour of comparing the deaths/accidents per year in comparison to other so called harmless ( or innocent ) activities that we all engage in, like riding motorcycles ( when a nice safe SUV will do ) or swimming pools ( when one cal cool off under a nice, safe sprinkler )

There could be immense psychological benefits to owning a gun...I dunno, I live in a gun controlled country where the government has pledged to protect the public from anti personnel weapons ( ie handguns ) , so far, they seem to be doing a pretty good job insomuch as I don't have to worry about running into armed criminals ( at least not armed with guns ) But as soon as I start having to share a society with Ted Nugent influenced " I demand my offensive weapons" types, and my government is unable to control them, then you bet I'll be campaigning against gun control and campaigning for the right to own and carry the tool I might need to defend myself.

If America wants to "take a step in the right direction" and limit the amount of deaths due to firearm misuse they they'd probably best limit the "scary looking guns" and LCMs, and foremost, make the attitudes of guys like Ted, most uncool.

Interesting insight int the loopholes and second hand gun sales. Here in Canada, buying second hand is the same as buying form a dealer. Were I to sell ( privately ) a gun to someone without the proper paperwork...I'd be in a lot of trouble.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Tom: I meant we hope never to need to use it. When to use a gun, we disagree on. smile

Stout: I guess I try to judge on a local level. Also, I believe we agree I do not think regular citizens should own AKs and Uzis, and most don't. I would also like to see a registry created for secondhand sales with stiff penalties for not doing the paperwork. This should include gifts also.


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stout: point being that ppl consider the US to be so deeply down the gutter (when it comes to guns) that they believe "nothing is going to change this/ the necessary efforts are way too high/ criminals will not surrender their guns"...

Whilst some of this might contain some truth, I would say: "Every 1.000 mile road starts with the first step." Baby-steps maybe, but better than none.

Another point being that "pro gunners" act a lot like "high volume meat eaters". They deny their impact on society and (global) suffering, they dismiss that there is a problem to start with.

Riding a motorcycle by no means can be compared to owning a gun. I am certain that I misunderstood what you're trying to imply here. MY decision to ride a motorcycle are many: I get a better mileage/ use less fuel (pollution), it's cheaper in tax and running costs (repairs and spares), I find a parking spot every time + I don't really NEED a car. By riding motorcycle I take responsibility for MY OWN life.

How can this eventually find comparison to owning a firearm?

Faith: "Responsible gun owners hope to never use their firearm" - is this what you wanted to say?

IF "regular citizens" do not (and should not) own "assault weapons" - then what is the problem in making this a legal approach and prohibit civilians to own such weapons?


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:We have already agreed on this point, tom

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
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Tom, my comparison of guns to motorcycles revolves strictly around "the numbers" Now i haven't done any real research on this but I have a sneaking suspicion that id I were to compare the number of people killed/injured in motorcycle accidents to the number of people killed/injured in an alternative mode of transportation like say...a transit bus, then am I going to come away convinced that motorcycles are more dangerous.

If I were convinced, then wouldn't I be able to assert that maybe motorcycles should be limited, or outright banned ?

Likewise, owning a second amendment gun could be viewed as taking responsibility for one's own life too. You don't figure there's a higher chance that you may kill someone while riding a motorcycle as opposed to riding the bus ?

I'm also putting forth that there could be benefits to owning a second amendment gun that we who live in gun controlled countries are unable to appreciate. There could be a large " refuse to be a victim" component here, a sort of empowering the individual thing.

I posit you like riding a motorcycle because you like motorcycles,,I like motorcycles ( I've even toured Europe on one ) and are willing to assume those increased risks of injury/death in the pursuit of pleasure ( I would/did/do ) . The same could apply to firearm ownership in general.

So if someone came up with a proposal to ban motorcycles, based on "the numbers" I'd want to fight that, even though I don't own a motorcycle at the present.

The thing about the assault weapons is..it would have to be an Australian type ban on all semi automatics. Hey...wait a minute, if I can own a semi automatic ( with a 5 shot clip only ) in Canada...I wonder if that semi automatic could be an assault weapon ? I'll have to check into that one, it's just that I've never heard of anyone legally owning an assault weapon in Canada. But anyway, the way I see it, I can buy a semi automatic rifle that's just as deadly as an AK, only it just looks less so.

What do you actually need a semi automatic rifle for anyway ? Maybe if you want to thin out that pack of coyotes that's been menacing your chicken coop ?

Tom..I understand your meaning about the drug testing and commercial licences, I just don't agree, that's all. I feel that if there is to be drug testing, it should be done by the employer ( of course this raises questions about owner/operators ) NOT the government.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, there has been plenty of research of done on motorcycle accidents. Motorcycles are generally considered more dangerous than cars. However, in 80% of car / motorcycle accidents its the car drivers fault. Motorcycle riders are the most alert and skilled people using pubic roads. Thy have to be, their lives depend on their ability to avoid half-witted car drivers.



Sure lot of people want bikes banned. But its not so much killing someone while riding a motorcycle, as being killed by a careless car driver, driving on auto pilot.



If you think that there are benefits to the second amendment name them. I dont think refusing to be a victim is one of them. Thats just a made up story, and I thought we did victims.



What do you actually need a semi automatic rifle for anyway ? Good question. Any advances on the coyotes in the chicken coop theory.



PS: The drivers that, appear to, cause the most deaths, accidents and carnage on Australian roads are truck drivers.







biggrin

EDITED_BY: Stone (1188601716)


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
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Stone, I'm comparing motorcycles to buses, not cars.

You don't figure empowerment through taking control over one's self defense issues and improving self confidence is i valid benefit ? Like martial arts schools advertise as a benefit of studying their art. Don't you walk taller knowing you're a little more in control should a confrontation arise ? However remote the possibility of a confrontation may actually be.

Yes..it could all be cow's poo.

Aside, this summer, we've had an unusually high incidence of experienced motorcycle riders involving themselves in single vehicle accidents where speed and a loss of control art the culprits. All guys in their 40s....weird


Delete

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

 Written by:

have a sneaking suspicion that id I were to compare the number of people killed/injured in motorcycle accidents to the number of people killed/injured in an alternative mode of transportation like say...a transit bus



Sorry, I thought cars were an alternative mode of transportation cf bikes.

 Written by:

You don't figure there's a higher chance that you may kill someone while riding a motorcycle as opposed to riding the bus ?



NO!

People are always trying to ban motorcycles.


 Written by:

Aside, this summer, we've had an unusually high incidence of experienced motorcycle riders involving themselves in single vehicle accidents where speed and a loss of control art the culprits. All guys in their 40s....weird



Experienced riders, or riders getting back on bikes after a mid life crisis?

If you need to carry a gun to walk tall, then you have a self confidence problem.



(More later, have to run, meditation class)

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

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, I have more time now. I think the comparison between bikes and buses is a private verse public transportation issue. Im not sure about buses, but certainly a lot of Australians have been killed or injured by trains in recent years.

I think the main reason for the high incidence of bike accidents with guys in their 40s is a lack of experience on modern bikes. They probably used to ride in their 20s, then got married, brought a house and sold their bike. Twenty years later, when the house is paid off, they go out and buy another bike. In the 20 year period bikes have quadrupled in power, they are very race orientated, brakes are better, tyres are now radial, very fat and sticky. The bike you buy today in more like a hard edged race bike of 20 years ago, and you really need to learn to ride them all over again.

As far as the second amendment and assault weapons goes. I think its a NRA reaction to 9/11. The NRA came up with NRA Safe, but it never got off the ground (or went underground) because most people considered they were raising a militia.

 Written by:

Orlando, Fla. (CNSNews.com) - Citing a "frustrating absence of reliable, relevant information" for average citizens who want to know how to respond to terrorist threats, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced Friday the creation of a new website devoted to "news, information and 'connectedness.'" The NRA has teamed with Survival, Inc., headed by Rick Stewart - a former Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape trainer for the U.S. Air Force. Stewart has provided nuclear, biological and chemical weapons response training to the U.S. military, the CIA, NASA and the U.S. Navy's elite SEAL teams, 2003.



haveagoodweekend 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

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Stone, I'm not underplaying or confused about the damage that can be caused by guns. I've seen it first hand in people, animals, and targets, I don't need any more convincing about their deadly force. That is why I choose them for self defense. They are effective at what they do, what would be the point in having something that wasn't?

If I want a specific tool, for a specific circumstance (a situation where deadly force is needed as a last resort) I want the tool for the job, I shouldn't have to try and find a substitute on the fly.

 Written by:

A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun ) used to injure, defeat, kill, or destroy; or in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy. So we are talking assault and concealed weapons here.



If you are using attack to imply offensively I would disagree. It's tactically unsound to go on the offense in most situations especially by yourself, not to mention morally and legally questionable. The Damon Wells case for instance, is not offensive, but defensive, as he is the one reacting to the initial threat, and he is cornered on a his front porch with a most likely locked door (as he was just coming home) and armed teens on the other, but as you've pointed out we don't have *all* the details.

As for the 'rubbish' about columbine, I would have to disagree, I'm not sweeping anything under the carpet. There *are* laws that are in place for gun shows, and by in large it is up to the individual state, not the nation, to decide which laws to have. There are federal laws governing sale of guns for business, and those people have to be licensed, and must do background checks for every weapon sold. Whether that's from their storefront, their living room, or a table at a gunshow, background checks are mandatory. It's the only product in American that requires federal approval to purchase.

Yes, people can privately sell guns, and those people can be considered 'hobbyists' as you put it. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill though in this regard. How many gun shows have you actually been to? The VAST majority of people actually selling firearms (which is less than you would imagine, many sell clothing and accessories rather than actual weapons) are all licensed dealers.

Does a man selling a hunting rifle to his brother in law need to go through the background check process? I would say usually not, but you would obviously disagree. According to the Department of Justice report from 1997 "Homicide in Eight US Cities" only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. By the way, a "Straw purchase" is not limited to guns, but in such cases it's been a federal crime since the late 60's.

Since Stout started posting videos I figured I might as well too wink If you'd be so kind as to actually watch and comment on them

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eE-jrJ-7Sek

 Written by:

Many federally licensed gun dealers sell guns illegally.



They do? That's one hell of a statement to just fling out there.

You really need to think about what you're asking. To say 'it's a gun, it's different' to distinguish it from any other property is only asking for trouble in the future, because soon it will become "It's okay for guns, it should be okay for <insert whatever you want to oppress> "

 Written by:

Lurch while it sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force to you. To me it sounds like a gunfight. Most gunfights are portrayed in films or books as having two men square off, waiting for one to make the first move. This was rarely the case. Often, a gunfight was spur-of-the-moment, with one drawing their pistol, and the other reacting.



Well of course it was a gunfight, it was a fight, with guns. You say "gunfight" to the general paranoid public, and they envision Hollywood style fighting running around blowing up cars and flying 20' when shot. What you're missing, or ignoring, is that no innocent bystanders were injured, and as far as we know, every shot fired hit it's intended target. So what exactly are you against here? That he used a gun to defend himself against a deadly threat? That it involved a teenager (who illegally had a gun)? That he shot him 'too many times'? What would you have preferred? Him to call the police and have everybody wait while the bad guys held him at gunpoint until the police could resolve the situation to make everyone happy? Why would you ever take it on faith that someone 'doesn't really want to shoot you' when they try to strong arm rob you and you're the only witness to their felony?

 Written by: Stout

The more I dig into this, the more I'm convinced that gun laws are more of a state to state thing rather than being applicable to the US as a whole and if I were to immigrate to the US , I'm currently under the impression that, were I to make gun laws my # 1 criteria for selecting a state to live in, I'd have the option of picking one that fits my particular views.



Very true, and also part of why I (and the NRA) has been fighting these proposed federal regulations. In reality it's not up to the federal government to regulate things like Gun show sales. They have no constitutional right to do so, yet somehow they are because enough people are letting it slide "because guns are bad"

As for the comments about Ted Nugent, you have to remember he is an entertainer as a career first and foremost. If you look at him outside of his shows, while he is outspoke, I don't think he's *that* unreasonable, and his is well informed.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q3Xthr1-uwQ

 Written by:

So, is it necessary to carry concealed weapons, allow assault weapons like AKs and Uzis on to the street for self defense, and permit people to justifiably use of deadly force (kill) other good citizens?



What? Why are you stuck on AK's and Uzi's so much? We've already gone over that a (civilian) AK (semiautomatic) is not really any different from any other semi automatic rifle on the market, why do they require special attention from you? A semiautomatic Uzi or AK shouldn't be considered any different from any other gun that functions the same way, just because it has a recognizable name it's suddenly worse?

 Written by: Mynci


do you have a link to show the reduction in gun crime because I haven't been able to find anything that says US gun crime is on the decrease.



I believe I posted these earlier in the thread, but it would be a lot to ask you to go find them so I'll repost, they're from the Bureau of Justice


Non-Https Image Link



Non-Https Image Link



Non-Https Image Link



Non-Https Image Link


 Written by: FireTom

Second hand and gun show sales are PERFECTLY LEGAL!



There are really two determining factors there FireTom. First off, is the person purchasing the fire arm legally allowed to do so, if not, they are committing a felony by buying said firearm. Plain and simple. Secondly, does the person selling the weapon *know* that the other person is illegal? If they do, then they too, are also committing a crime, and making the gun sale illegal. Now you say 'well what if they got someone to buy the gun for them!?' Well that would be a straw purchase, which is not only a crime, it's a federal crime, so you go to federal PMITA prison for that one. Furthermore, if the seller knows that it is a straw purchase, they are also breaking the law.

You see how that works? Illegal on all 4 fronts

 Written by:

4) Drug testing on CCWP - one decides to apply for a permit and therefore take on heightened responsibility for the safety of your fellow citizens. As with police, politicians and judges, one should be ready to pay the price for it and stay sober (in your judgement). A judge appearing drunk in court, a cop high on crack, or a politician on cocaine somehow is not whidely accepted in society - same should apply to CCWP holders.



Carrying while under the influence is widely illegal, again, it's not illegal to be drunk (usually) and it's not illegal to drive, it's illegal to be drunk, while driving.

 Written by:

7) Safe storage - ppl barely buy a headset for their mobiles (2$), even if they drive Mercs. A gun safe (link) costs between 50 and 100 times more.



Adequate gun safes, especially defensive pistol safes, can be had for as little as $20-25, and obviously the price goes up from there. When you're dropping $200-800 for the gun itself, the safe isn't much more. That's for a safe, gun locks are commonly given out at local police agencies for free to anyone who wants one.

 Written by:


8) Responsibile citizens - we are human, as such designed *not* to be perfect. IF all gun owners would act as responsible as you claim, not even a tenth of the accidents would occur. Reality is proving your ridiculous argument wrong.


Stop posting lies and fairy tales! Wake up to reality!



There's over 2.5 million guns and only a few thousand accidents. They have a better safety record than ladders and swimming pools

 Written by:

9) Buford - yes, it *might* sound like a "justified use of deadly force" (even though I doubt that "several shots to the chest" were *needed* to stop this amok driven 14 yr teenage menace[/sarcasm]).

Point being that his accomplice is now charged with MURDER (you know I am talking about that other teenage boy who didn't even fire a single shot, but ran) and another point being:

IF A DEDICATED CRIMINAL HAS HIS GUN ALREADY PULLED AT YOU - CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH YOU GET SHOT BEFORE YOU CAN REACH YOUR GUN! This is not "High Noon" or any other glorified Hollywood production in which the NRA despotes seem to live - this is R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.



Yes, his accomplice is being charged with murder, we've gone over all that before, all I can say it's common practice in similar situations where there is an accomplice, and a death involved.

Yes, if a dedicated criminal already has a gun on you chances are very high you'll get shot. The first thing I would say is don't let yourself be in a situation where a criminal would have the drop on you. The second thing, would be if they're committed to hurting you, it's not going to matter whether or not you draw on them, they'll shoot you anyways. And thirdly, if you're going to get shot, are you just going to stand there and take it, or are you going to fight back? Yes, this is reality, and the reality is the criminal is expecting a scared helpless victim, and can usually be caught by surprised when one fights back. Buford probably didn't even realize it was a gun and not a wallet until it went *bang*

 Written by:

Avoid a conflict! Keep your money in the bank and an alarm system in the house, if you have valuables to protect. Stay in your bedroom if a burglar is in the house, call the cops. If your childs bedroom is at the other end of the castle, like in the "west wing" - install a domestic phone and tell it to lock it's door, but stay in your room...




Quite the optimist aren't you. And what if the intended target of the break in was your child, not your material possessions? Are you going to sit in your room and do nothing?

 Written by:

Just because it's in your body, doesn't mean that you were actively in possession at any time.



Actually positive drug tests can lead to possession charges

 Written by:


VT and other school shootings, the number of gun victimisation/ accidents - all this simply is collateral damage for their individual right to bear arms. They claim that the current legislation is sufficient and if existing laws would only get enforced there would be even less than no problem.

This is denial to the extent of outright lies and a slap in the face of the victims families (to come).



What is a slap in the face to the victims families is the the 'victim disarmament' policies of such places that refuse to allow them the right to protect themselves. Thousands of people legally carry weapons every day without ever having to use one. Most will never use it in their lifetime against another person. If a lawfully armed civilian had ended the killing spree at 31 instead of 32 it would have been worth it.

Stone: You may appreciate this article, it's a bit long, and a bit old, but I found it an interesting read

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Page: 1...1819202122...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 &quot;License to murder&quot; [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..