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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...3536373839...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

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:I was most amused that people were speaking for me while I was away, and thats ok to a certain extent. Though, perhaps, people should stop assuming what they think other people think, and let people speak for themselves.

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

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneFor, example, the Judge asks you why you broke the law, and you if you say I broke the law because I think its stupid. Then I think you would end up in contempt.


That's just disrespectful. Please stop with the straw men.

"I think it's stupid" and "I think it is fundamentally unconstitutional" might say something very similar, but one is far more nuanced. One is an actual argument.


That aside I'd like to ask, How do you propose to remove guns from society?
I mean this VERY seriously. A thought experiment I suppose. How do you suggest society as a whole rid the world of guns? Surely gun violence can not be removed if guns are still there.


Delete

Lev
Firedance Philosopher
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Member Since: 19th Jan 2009
Total posts: 79
Posted:Quote:What about a machete? O.o
That's considered a weapon, it's usually illegal to carry it around and is hard to find, my friend has one but that's because he grew up with forestry parents.

Quote:Yeah, I am way to far gone...
I agree that violence is natural, but humans have no apparent use or place in nature, I believe our society is built around fighting that nature as well as a path to whatever use for ourselves we decide on as a people.

Again, _you cherish your own life more than peace_, you are a supporter of murder and war through your actions.

Quote:god-given
What God? Clearly not the God as mentioned in the teachings of Jesus, for that would be against his teachings.

Quote:What would you do
That certainly depends on the scenario, but I believe most are solved best with jui jitsu, and it also depends on the family in question and how many people in your household are physically capable. In this household I have myself and my friend both physically fit, agile and strong, and a wolfbread Alaskan Malamute (albino because of the wolf blood).

Quote:By law I have absolutely no duty to put myself in harms way for your protection.
Of course, but legal obligation aside the rules and procedures of a police officer are not superceded by those laws are they?
If they are, then I'd say those laws are created to protect the police officers more than the people.


Just to make myself perfectly clear, a good Christian would never even OWN a gun, you aren't allowed to kill other human beings according to the only scripture Christians believe to be ACTUALLY written by the Christian God (see: 10 commandments).


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Originally Posted By: stoneLurch, this is my take on what you are saying; correct me if Im wrong. You are only prepared to obey and enforce the laws that you personally agree with. And, as you say, its lucky that you agree with most laws in your state, because otherwise you might end up in prison. We all have to obey the law, even laws we think are stupid, and thats the rub with living in a community. For, example, the Judge asks you why you broke the law, and you if you say I broke the law because I think its stupid. Then I think you would end up in contempt.

Not at all, my enforcement of laws doesnt have to do with whether or not I "personally" agree with it or not. There are many things that I may not agree with but will enforce, but those are legitimate laws and constitutional laws. If they violate my state, or countries constitution I'm going to have a hard time justifying it's enforcement. As should anyone.

My constitutional rights trump state and federal laws. That is the fact of the situation, and if some power decides they want to make a law that goes against that, it should be the duty of anyone who cares about those rights to stand up and say something. I don't just blindly follow orders, I have discretion, and a duty to myself and by oath to follow my morals and set ethical standards.

Obeying and agreeing with a law are two entirely different things.

Quote:Id suggest that as a law enforcement officer you do give up the right to criticize your government, at least in public.

I would say that as a peace officer, I have a duty to speak up against immoral and unethical laws that violate the rights of the people..

Quote:That certainly depends on the scenario, but I believe most are solved best with jui jitsu, and it also depends on the family in question and how many people in your household are physically capable. In this household I have myself and my friend both physically fit, agile and strong, and a wolfbread Alaskan Malamute (albino because of the wolf blood).

Have you actually ever used your jui jitsu in a defensive situation? I'm not talking about training, or competition, I'm talking about someone is actively trying to hurt or kill you. Most martial arts break down with the reality of street fights. Granted some of their techniques and discipline can be valuable, but more often than not you're going to resort to something more primitive.

Quote:Of course, but legal obligation aside the rules and procedures of a police officer are not superceded by those laws are they?
If they are, then I'd say those laws are created to protect the police officers more than the people.

I have no obligation, rule, or SOP to put myself in harms way for you either, as I've said before. Will I? Probably. Will most others? Probably. Do they have to? Not by any means. We accept the dangers of our job when we put on the bullet proof vest, badge, and gun, along with all the other weapons and tools. I may just be me, but as a civilian, I feel that *I* have an obligation to be responsible for my own safety. I don't want to have to ask another person to put themselves in harms way for *me*.

Quote:Just to make myself perfectly clear, a good Christian would never even OWN a gun, you aren't allowed to kill other human beings according to the only scripture Christians believe to be ACTUALLY written by the Christian God (see: 10 commandments).

WHAT?!? Now I'm not going to pretend to be heavily religious by any means. But it's my understanding that it is thou shall not murder. Meaning unjust killing. If you really want to get into the bible and self defense we can, but I don't think you're going to win that one. I know plenty of christians with guns, I know plenty of police officers who're christians, who either have, or would be willing to kill in defense of themselves or a third party. If they aren't willing to do that they have no business being a cop.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Mother_Natures_Son
Mother_Natures_Son

Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Member Since: 1st Aug 2007
Total posts: 2418
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneThough, perhaps, people should stop assuming what they think other people think, and let people speak for themselves.



I fully agree.

Originally Posted By: StoneExcept you dont agree with reducing gun violence because you think its stupid. That is, trying to reduce gun violence is stupid, because its about regulation, and a waste of money.


hug

Delete

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:peace officer??? laugh3

That's the best piece of spin I've read in a long time

please, a law enforcement officer is NOT a peace officer, it someone who ENFORCES the law

state sanctioned violence if you ask me

ubbrollsmile


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Actually we're defined as peace officers in the law books wink

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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Cheers Lurch, thanks for all the information on the safeties my understanding of these devices was rather antiquated.

So, as it turns out this wasn't about the colour of the gun at all, at least according to Stone's link. Do you agree ?

I can't see any problem with DC wanting to stick to registering guns considered "safe' by California's standards, maybe DC should come up with their own list but that's just duplicating work already done though.

To me it makes sense that DC would want to keep weapons like that Saturday night special that you found in your grandfather's basement off the street. Obviously, Springfield armoury is unconcerned about selling this two tone model in California.

Stone

Ummm yea, Vancouver. I've only been reading one source on these shootings ( the CBC ) and one thing I have notices is the type of weapons used is never mentioned. I've suspected assault weapons just based on the number of rounds fired in some instances but there could be two shooters with handguns. They're certainly not using sporting rifles with legal sized magazines.

The one shooting that really hit home with most people and actually sparked an anti gun violence rally in Vancouver was the shooting of a woman who was driving through an intersection with her four year old son in the car. She ended up dead, with the car still rolling....

There's been no mention of defensive gun uses however a few of the victims were saved by wearing body armour.


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:That's just the thing though Stout, their 'Safe Gun Roster' doesn't *really* have anything to do with safety. You would be hard pressed to find any modern gun in the US that doesn't pass their simple fire and drop tests. Even those 'saturday night specials' that I would not be comfortable shooting. Their new 'requirements' are just as stupid.

It wasn't a new "model", it's the exact same design as the other weapons already on the list, it's a material change that came out later. Because of the updated regulations in California they said it needed to have a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect to be on the list. But anything that was already on the list was apparently 'safe enough?' It's just mind boggling to know that people actually get away with this, and still others encourage it. Could you imagine if this was applied to any other industry?

Just for some more education, A loaded chamber indicator is just what it sounds like, it's a visual and physical indicator that there is in fact a round chambered. Theoretically any round in the gun should be a live one. Glocks for instance have an external extractor (the hook that drags an shell from the chamber after it's been shot) This sticks out a little bit when it's sitting on a loaded chamber, and it's a visual and tactile way to 'check' to make sure you're hot. The XD has a small little lever on the top of the slide that is pushed up when there is a round chambered. I have no problem with these, but *anyone* who's a gun person will tell you flat out never to trust one. Not because they fail, but because it's just basic gun safety, you always treat every gun like it's loaded. There shouldn't *need* to be a LCI on guns.

The 'Magazine Disconnect' is one that I don't agree with at all. Basically it wont allow the gun to fire unless there is a magazine in it. This sounds good to the layperson (no offense), but it's a terrible idea. Which is why most modern guns do not, and should not have it. You will have a hard time finding any cops, or military that carry weapons with magazine disconnects. It breeds lax safety practices, and it compromises the weapon. Again, any weapon should be treated like it's loaded, following the basic safety rules removes the need for this "safety". If simple education of the basic gun safety rules were encouraged, instead of anything 'gun' related being branded as taboo, maybe we would have less accidents.

So lets think about this a different way. Say this was the auto industry, and the 'state' would only allow you to buy cars on their 'safe' list. To get on that list, they need to pass their safety tests, which including.. driving around a parking lot, and a 5mph seat belt test 'crash'. They also need to pay a fee for the testing, and an annual fee to stay on the list. Hooray! any cars that pass that test are now safe by the state. But the car you want only comes in black and blue, and you really want a red one. You know they're coming out with it in a month, so you'll wait. There is no design change, it's not "updated" it's not next years model, it's just red. Then they change the requirements to be considered 'safe' by requiring child locks, and red turn signals. Models already on the list are still considered safe even if they don't pass the "new standards". But your red version that just came out has amber turn signals, and will thus be denied, as it isn't safe enough.

All of these regulations *could* be good in practice, but they get so skewed and contorted by lawmakers and lobbyists that they're nothing close to what we need. California is notorious for being strict with their guns, DC has just taken it to another level by making it illegal to even *own* any gun not on the list. A list that isn't *really* about safety, and everyone knows it. If it WAS actually about safety, I wouldn't have near the problem with it I do now. Gun makers are held liable just the same as any other industry. If their weapon malfunctions and blows up and injures someone, or if the safeties fail, they can have civil charges against them. They have a duty to make safe guns, and by in large they do exactly that.

EDITED_BY: Lurch (1237396729)


#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:Stout, thanks for the update on Vancouver. I hope the authorities are able to get the situation under control quickly.

MRC, put it this way, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that gun laws are stupid then Id be rich. How do I suggest that society as a whole rid the world of guns? Try staring by respecting laws that are designed to reduce gun violence instead of calling them stupid. Ive never said we need to remove all guns, just the 99 % of unnecessary ones. If you are looking for a model, then I suggest you look up the Australian experience. We removed surplus guns from our society a few years back with a buy back scheme because we were fed up with gun violence. Perhaps when the people living in your country are fed up with gun violence they will do the same.


Originally Posted By: LurchMy constitutional rights trump state and federal laws. That is the fact of the situation, and if some power decides they want to make a law that goes against that, it should be the duty of anyone who cares about those rights to stand up and say something. I don't just blindly follow orders, I have discretion, and a duty to myself and by oath to follow my morals and set ethical standards.

Lurch, didnt they teach you about discipline and obeying orders at the sheriff academy? Because, even if you were a constitutional lawyer, all you are really saying is that you are only prepared to obey and enforce the laws that you personally agree with. And dare I say it, if you follow that line its not long before people are making their own interpretations of the law, that have been previously expresses as judgements about people deserving to die.

Originally Posted By: StoneId suggest that as a law enforcement officer you do give up the right to criticize your government, at least in public.

Originally Posted By: LurchI would say that as a peace officer, I have a duty to speak up against immoral and unethical laws that violate the rights of the people.

I think you missed my point, which was as a public servant (or whatever) you have probably signed a contract which would restrict what you can say in public and to the media.


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

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
MRC, put it this way, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that gun laws are stupid then Id be rich. How do I suggest that society as a whole rid the world of guns? Try staring by respecting laws that are designed to reduce gun violence instead of calling them stupid. Ive never said we need to remove all guns, just the 99 % of unnecessary ones. If you are looking for a model, then I suggest you look up the Australian experience. We removed surplus guns from our society a few years back with a buy back scheme because we were fed up with gun violence. Perhaps when the people living in your country are fed up with gun violence they will do the same.
I looked up Australian gun crime and got this.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
br>A VERY even handed analysis. At least on the provided material.

We could say there is largely little change. Nothing strikingly significant as a result of the law change.
I offer though that gun ownership is not the source of crime itself. For that matter I don't think crime itself is TRULY the problem. Both of these things are symptoms. In my mind a huge problem is education. I'm not even sure I care a whole lot about history, math science and such. In my mind one of the biggest problems is english. People have a general inability to communicate well. This strikes me as a MASSIVE hurtle. I'm not perfect, no one is. I make a lot of typos and I have some poor grammar. However I've even had personal experience where people simply benefit from knowing more words. I have seen people struggle with finding the correct words to express simple concepts.
It isn't hard to imagine this sort of thing causing a problem.

This lack of education also seems to go hand in hand with a lack of empathy. I'm not sure how that works. I just know that our issue isn't the guns themselves it is the society that seems to allow for this sort of violence to occur. "Not Snitchin'" is a good example.
One decent looking paper on the subject( thought admittedly I didn't read terribly far at the start).
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf


Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Lurch, Might these safety features be designed more for situations where the gun ends up in the hands of a lay person, or for the sake of argument, a complete moron, instead of an experienced shooter ?

With the magazine disconnect, i could envision a scene whereby someone comes by a handgun with the magazine out of the weapon and sitting beside it and just *assuming* that the weapon was unloaded and safe.

I know the first rule of safe gun handling is always assume the gun is loaded, but does everyone else know that ?

Maybe i should elaborate on the moron idea first. When I was 11 years old, a friend and i both had pellet guns and used to randomly shoot at things in the neighbourhood, Not a big deal, this was the 1970's and a kid walking around with a pellet gun wasn't a big deal. We got stopped by the cops a few times, but they didn't pay us much notice as we weren't shooting at people or cats or houses.

Well one day my buddy finds his grandfathers hunting rifle in grandpa's basement and...lo and behold, a box of shells. So buddy chambers a round, holds on real tight and pulls the trigger. The basement room where he fired the gun was pretty much made of concrete as it was below ground and the bullet hit this wall and richocheted into a box of books which luckily stopped the round from careening off walls.

I wasn't there for the event, but I did see the aftermath, the damage to the wall, the box of books with the bullet in it and i had to listen to my buddy tell me how long he was grounded for.

So why am I telling this story ? Grandpa may have known a lot about gun safety and made the assumption that everybody else knew what he did ( who, after all in their right mind would fire a rifle inside a concrete room ? ) and had there been gun safety regulations in place, like in the UK where you have to keep the weapon and rounds locked up separately, this incident wouldn't have happened.

Might the same sort of thinking gone onto DC adopting California's safe gun roster, protecting idiots from themselves rather than trying to "punish" legal, competent shooters.

Stone.

The authorities in Vancouver are claiming they're going to start making arrests soon. There appears to be a problem with our judicial system as most of the people who ve been shot are "known to police" as they've been arrested before. but been let go due to "technicalities". Hospital staff have expressed their concern now, thinking that if someones shot in an execution attempt, and doesn't die, that the shooter may head to the hospital to finish off the job.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi Stout, that is a pretty grim situation if hospital staff are scared for their lives. I hope things improve. Apparently, there is a similar situation occurring in Tijuana.

MRC, Im pretty lukewarm on that website. I think you are missing the point. The point being that as a country we were prepared to do something to reduce gun violence. And while I think you are right about education being important for long term change, Im not sure I follow how communication, empathy and the Berkeley paper are related.

I agree that it is a social issue, however, Id suggest that the problems are directly related to the guns themselves. The sole purpose and design of a gun is to kill. Even target practice is simulated killing, as in hitting the eye of a bull, a clay pigeon or a facsimile of a human being. So if gun ownership is not the source of crime itself, then why would something own a gun, whose sole purposes is to facilitate killing?

The Berkeley paper describes a relationship between poor education and crime. Given the current situation of education in America, do you think it was a good idea for the gun lobby to put semi-automatic assault weapons back on the street? And make no bones about them being assault weapons. Thats how they are marketed, and they are flying out the doors while hunting guns sit on the shelves.



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:I understand that, but there's so many things wrong with it it's mind boggling. Why doesn't everyone know? They *used* to know. Guns used to be commonplace, gun safety was commonplace. There were shooting clubs in middleschools. My dad brought rifles to school so he could go hunting afterwards. My grandpa used to take his .22 rifle and go plinking when he was 10.

Basic gun safety isn't something that is too complex to be taught to a kid. But people have become so paranoid, even the mention of guns is taboo. As a result unless their parents have guns, and have taken the time to teach them properly, most kids know only what they've seen in movies. And lets face it, that's not exactly accurate, or good. It really *is* about education. If they weren't shunned by society for no real reason there would probably be less accidents.

Stone:

It's always amusing when you completely ignore the content of my posts and pick out one insignificant thing to turn into a huge tangent.

The very first part of virtually any law enforcement oath is something along the lines of 'I solemnly swear to uphold the constitution of the United States of America'. *That* comes before everything else. Violating someone's constitutional rights goes against my moral code, and it could quite easily cost me a career. So I'm sorry, but no, I wont follow orders that are unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with whether or not I personally agree with it. Officers have discretion. We *have* to have discretion, if we arrested, or cited someone for every single crime or violation we saw we would barely get a block down the street in an entire shift. Take that how you will, badmouth me if you want. My conscious is clean. I'm actually helping my community, are 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:Originally Posted By: LurchIt's always amusing when you completely ignore the content of my posts and pick out one insignificant thing to turn into a huge tangent.

What can I say Lurch, the devil is in the detail. And times have changed, we dont live in the 1950s anymore.

Anyhow, I dont want to startle you too much, so Ill just keep to my usual low standard. Id suggest that the worrying thing about the United States constitution is that it has been reduced, by many people, to little more than the right to bear arms, thats all you need to know (AR 15 / Black Butt web site). The other worrying thing is you keep referring to your moral standards.

Originally Posted By: LurchI'm actually helping my community, are you?

:lol. Thats almost a call out. Lets say Ive been helping with fire recovery, but I dont go around bragging. Have a good weekend 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

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
MRC, Im pretty lukewarm on that website. I think you are missing the point. The point being that as a country we were prepared to do something to reduce gun violence. And while I think you are right about education being important for long term change, Im not sure I follow how communication, empathy and the Berkeley paper are related.
I think trying is on some level admirable, but if you are aiming to treat the symptom you will not cure the disease. At best you will only alleviate it temporarily.

Quote:I agree that it is a social issue, however, Id suggest that the problems are directly related to the guns themselves. The sole purpose and design of a gun is to kill. Even target practice is simulated killing, as in hitting the eye of a bull, a clay pigeon or a facsimile of a human being. So if gun ownership is not the source of crime itself, then why would something own a gun, whose sole purposes is to facilitate killing?
I think this is incredibly naive. Killing has been a favored pass-time for more years than we have been recording history. Violence and crime existed in abundance throughout humanity's tenure. Rocks, clubs, knives, spears, bows, guns...bombs. The tools change but the effect always was, and always will be the same. The gun itself is simply a means to an end. It cannot, in itself, cause violence to occur. It is very plainly the most convenient method of killing. However knives are still a popular weapon of choice.

Hell look at prison violence, they still commit crime without the guns.

If the number of car accidents goes up due to negligence you don't sue the car manufacturer. It was the method but it was not the cause.


Quote:The Berkeley paper describes a relationship between poor education and crime. Given the current situation of education in America, do you think it was a good idea for the gun lobby to put semi-automatic assault weapons back on the street? And make no bones about them being assault weapons. Thats how they are marketed, and they are flying out the doors while hunting guns sit on the shelves. I'll say that in my experience people don't buy a lot of new hunting guns. You own one gun for a long time. Many people inherit their guns, and continue to operate them.
Sort of beside the point though. I don't think allowing most people to drive is a good idea considering our education. I don't have much say in it though either.
I also think make any kind of gun illegal is missing the point still. Aren't criminals still the people most likely to use the guns illegally, and aren't they simply going to ignore it? People who want to meet and end will find the means. The way solve the problem, in my mind, is to address why people want these particular ends. We need to stop people from WANTING to commit violence rather than pretending that making one of their options illegal is going to stop them.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MRCI think this is incredibly naive. Killing has been a favored pass-time for more years than we have been recording history. Violence and crime existed in abundance throughout humanity's tenure. Rocks, clubs, knives, spears, bows, guns...bombs. The tools change but the effect always was, and always will be the same. The gun itself is simply a means to an end. It cannot, in itself, cause violence to occur. It is very plainly the most convenient method of killing. However knives are still a popular weapon of choice.

Hell look at prison violence, they still commit crime without the guns.

If the number of car accidents goes up due to negligence you don't sue the car manufacturer. It was the method but it was not the cause.

Well MRC, I think what you say may well be true for America. Killing for pleasure would certainly explain the introduction of the Make My Day Laws and putting semi-automatic weapons like the AR 15 back on American streets. However, just because you can kill doesnt mean you have too. The first human societies were egalitarian in nature, and many societies have evolved beyond the killing for pleasure disease that seems to inflict so many Americans.

Originally Posted By: MRCI'll say that in my experience people don't buy a lot of new hunting guns. You own one gun for a long time. Many people inherit their guns, and continue to operate them.
Sort of beside the point though. I don't think allowing most people to drive is a good idea considering our education. I don't have much say in it though either.
I also think make any kind of gun illegal is missing the point still. Aren't criminals still the people most likely to use the guns illegally, and aren't they simply going to ignore it? People who want to meet and end will find the means. The way solve the problem, in my mind, is to address why people want these particular ends. We need to stop people from WANTING to commit violence rather than pretending that making one of their options illegal is going to stop them.

I brought up hunting guns because the original premise was there was no difference between hunting guns and semi-automatic assault weapons. However, according to gun shop owners, semi-automatic assault weapons are flying out the door because they are marketed as scary assault weapons (not hunting guns).

Id suggest that putting semi-automatic assault weapons in the hands of criminals is like putting petrol on a house fire. If you want to stop people committing violence then you have to do something to evolve beyond the killing has been a favored pass-time for many Americans syndrome.


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:Building on my last post.

How about getting on board, and turning darkness into light


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

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone

Well MRC, I think what you say may well be true for America. Killing for pleasure would certainly explain the introduction of the Make My Day Laws and putting semi-automatic weapons like the AR 15 back on American streets. However, just because you can kill doesnt mean you have too. The first human societies were egalitarian in nature, and many societies have evolved beyond the killing for pleasure disease that seems to inflict so many Americans. [/qoute]

That is almost offensive. I am not a patriotic individual, I am anti-nationalism, yet somehow that bothers me a lot. America has a big problem yes, we have our cultural issues but how dare you act like the world would be death free without us. I know I'm exaggerating your point a tad but you are being absurd. Egalitarianism my ass for that matter. Where are you getting that from, some rosy atavism complex?
This is incredibly frustrating so I will try not to be insulting.

The idea that humans were somehow magically egalitarian before we invented the first weapon is...astonishingly silly. Should we talk about all the killing in human history, within the last 100 years? The last 50? Lets not get holier than thou over culture, no one is perfect and that attitude is backwards.

[quote]
I brought up hunting guns because the original premise was there was no difference between hunting guns and semi-automatic assault weapons. However, according to gun shop owners, semi-automatic assault weapons are flying out the door because they are marketed as scary assault weapons (not hunting guns).

Id suggest that putting semi-automatic assault weapons in the hands of criminals is like putting petrol on a house fire. If you want to stop people committing violence then you have to do something to evolve beyond the killing has been a favored pass-time for many Americans syndrome.

I'm not up to date on all state gun regulations, not even my own as I presently have no gun and don't feel a need to own one. I still tend to think quite a few restrict sales with AT LEAST a criminal background check. Not all criminals obtain their guns from legal sales. Even if gun ownership was legalized in the same way it is in Mexico there will be another source for the guns. No military is going to give up its guns so they will need supplied, and there will always be weak links. For that matter all countries in the world will not marvelously agree to the exact same arms bans.
For that matter you cannot un-make a technology, the gun is here to stay and if someone wants to use one they will find a way, if they have to make their own they will.

As well stop acting as if violence is american, murder existed LONG before this country did. Hell, killing was around before there were humans.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:MRC, if you disagree with any my statements then you are quite welcome to look them up, before you go off on tangents.

Originally Posted By: MRC...Egalitarianism my ass for that matter. Where are you getting that from, some rosy atavism complex? This is incredibly frustrating so I will try not to be insulting...

The idea that humans were somehow magically egalitarian before we invented the first weapon is...astonishingly silly. Should we talk about all the killing in human history, within the last 100 years? The last 50? Lets not get holier than thou over culture, no one is perfect and that attitude is backwards.

Originally Posted By: WikiDuring the Mesolithic as in the preceding Paleolithic period, people lived in small (mostly egalitarian) bands and tribes. However, the Neolithic Revolution involved far more than the adoption of a limited set of food-producing techniques. During the next millennia it would transform the small, mobile and fairly egalitarian groups of hunter-gatherers that had hitherto dominated human history, into sedentary societies based in built-up villages and towns, which radically modified their natural environment by means of specialized cultivation and storage technologies (e.g. irrigation) that allowed extensive surplus production

Originally Posted By: MRCAs well stop acting as if violence is american, murder existed LONG before this country did. Hell, killing was around before there were humans.

As to the semi-automatics, I suggest keeping an eye on what is actually happening - Clinton vows US backing in Mexican drug wars. This war, and the war in Canada are the direct result of the NRA and Bush putting semi-automatic Assault Weapons back on the street so them good o'l boys could keep having fun!





EDITED_BY: Stone (1238365053)


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

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:You're right, I should have considered wikipedia's fantastic simplification of complex anthropology as a resource of information on humanity's egalitarian past.

If the USA made selling these automatic weapons illegal, the Mexican drug gangs would still find guns. Guns are fungible, and for that matter capably transported in illegal fashions. It would make acquiring them more costly and an inefficient but they will still be obtained.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MRCYou're right, I should have considered wikipedia's fantastic simplification of complex anthropology as a resource of information on humanity's egalitarian past.

Ill take the You're right and leave the sarcasm. Perhaps you should examine where all this false information is coming from. Like, you are making up history to justify you moral ideals on killing and guns.

Originally Posted By: MRCIf the USA made selling these automatic weapons illegal, the Mexican drug gangs would still find guns. Guns are fungible, and for that matter capably transported in illegal fashions. It would make acquiring them more costly and an inefficient but they will still be obtained.

Well funnily enough, these guns were illegal under Clinton, but the problem escalated when Bush removed the ban. Now we have seen what happens when these guns are put back on the streets. Obviously Clinton did the right thing, and while Bush tested the NRA theory that these weapons would not cause damage in the community, they obviously have.



Lurch do you agree that under the circumstances, Barack Obama would be doing the right thing for the community if decides to restrict the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in the future?


EDITED_BY: Stone (1238370369)


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

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
Ill take the You're right and leave the sarcasm. Perhaps you should examine where all this false information is coming from. Like, you are making up history to justify you moral ideals on killing and guns.
What are my moral ideals on killing and guns? Personally I don't like murder. I think killing is an option of last resort only and believe in it's use on a survival basis only. I own no guns, and I don't advocate that people own guns. I don't collect any weapons....and hell, my diet is primarily vegetable based.

The thing is, I don't see myself as making up history. I'm not saying one thing did or didn't happen. We can't very well prove the attitudes of people we were never there to meet. I simply regard egalitarianism, anarchy(social philosophies), and any other utopian idea as...largely unlikely to function on a significant basis.

Even among groups who claim to be without leadership, there are those in passive and active roles. I know some small groups have popped up over time to live a life of minimalism and sharing but they are not typically a long lasting lot. I could be wrong but in most pack based animals there tend to be leader animals as well. Gorillas, chimps, dogs/wolves, some big cats, birds, and so on. Even ants have a single leader, and they strike me as being the most selfless creature imaginable(whether by impulse or option). In so far as all concepts of our pre-historic past are theory, I tend to theorize that no utopias have ever existed, because discord is inherent in life.

Quote:
Well funnily enough, these guns were illegal under Clinton, but the problem escalated when Bush removed the ban. Now we have seen what happens when these guns are put back on the streets. Obviously Clinton did the right thing, and while Bush tested the NRA theory that these weapons would not cause damage in the community, they obviously have.
I'm curious though, do you agree that guns are fungible?


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

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

Just to make myself perfectly clear, a good Christian would never even OWN a gun, you aren't allowed to kill other human beings according to the only scripture Christians believe to be ACTUALLY written by the Christian God (see: 10 commandments).

As Lurch mentioned, it's murder-unjust killing. There is plenty in the Bible regarding the soldier. Much of it postCommandment introduction. Your point is pointless smile


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:Originally Posted By: MRC..In so far as all concepts of our pre-historic past are theory, I tend to theorize that no utopias have ever existed, because discord is inherent in life.

Ok MRC, let's just ignore what the archaeologists discovered and go with your theory. If as you insist, discord is inherent in life then it would appear to me that restricting assess by the general public to assault weapons would be an important for the safety of the community as a whole. Otherwise we end up with anarchy, as we often see in America.

Originally Posted By: MRC..I'm curious though, do you agree that guns are fungible?

Fungible is not a word Im familiar with, Ive never heard it used in conversation; not even on the telly. Given that, I dont think assault weapons are fungible.



Lurch, the question still stands. Do you agree that under the circumstances, President Obama would be doing the right thing for the community if decides to restrict the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in the future?



Faith, the commandment is "thou shall not kill" and there are no exceptions.


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:You're contradicting yourself Stone. By any sort of military definition an 'Assault Rifle' is capable of more than just semi-automatic fire. In fact, that's kinda the point.

The legally owned TRUE "assault rifles" are subject to the class III weapons restrictions by the feds already.

So would Obama be doing the right thing by further restricting *any* gun? NO. Hands down, NO. Why is it so hard for you to understand that's it's a BAD thing to remove the guns from the good guys, and let the bad guys keep theirs? There are 'sides' to this, despite what you want to think. There are people that will follow those laws, and those that wont.

On to the religious side... You guys *really* want to go there?

I'm not really religious by any means, but I know enough to know better wink You really want to take every word of the bible literally? Either way I'll fall back to Lt Col Grossman again (please keep in mind this book is written to military veterans as the target audience)..

Originally Posted By: Lt Col Grossman - On KillingMuch of this anti-military bias is founded on the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," but within the realm of Christianity there is a great disagreement on this matter, and it is not nearly that simple. For the sake of therapy among soldiers I have found that there is great value in presenting the other side of the theological debate about killing.

In Exodus, Chapter 20, we find the Ten Commandments. Almost four hundred years ago the King James Version translated the Sixth Commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." When the translators wrote that, no one ever dreamed that "God's word" would be taken so out of context as to interpret this commandment to mean that the death penalty or killing on the battlefield is wrong. In this century, with only one exception, every major modern translation has translated this commandment as "Thou shall not murder." In Chapter 21 of the same book of the bible (on the same page as the Ten Commandments in most Bibles) the death penalty is commanded when it says: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12) The Hebrew word used in the original text of the Sixth Commandment refers to killing for your own personal gain; it has nothing to do with killing under authority. And this is not the first or the last time the death penalty is commanded by God. In Genesis 9:6, when he got off the ark, Noah was commanded by God, "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

King David was a "Man after God's own heart," and he was also a man of war. The Bible praises David for killing Goliath in battle, and as a king he was praised: "Sol Killed his thousands, but David killed his tens of thousands." Killing in war, under authority, is presented as honorable and acceptable throughout the Bible. It was only when King David committed murder, in killing Uriah, that he got in trouble with God. The Old Testament is full of such righteous warrior leaders. David, Joshua, and Gideon are just a few of the hundreds of soldiers mentioned in the Old Testament who found favor in God's eyes for their labors on the battlefield. In Proverbs 6:17, the Bible says that God "hates... shedders of innocent blood [emphasis added]." But there is nothing but honor in the Bible for soldiers who kills in just combat.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, if looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. As far as Im concerned, an "assault weapon is an assault weapon and thats how they are marketed and sold. Fortunately, I dont think it will be long before semi-automatic assault weapons are restricted again.

The question related to President Obama restricting semi-automatic assault weapons like the AR 15s that are being sold to Mexicans and Canadians. Given its the so called good-citizens that are selling semi-automatic assault weapons like the AR 15 to the so called "bad-guys", I dont think he could avoid restricting them. Over 5000 people have been killed so far, and whats going to happen when they call in the National Guard?

Lurch, Ive researched the commandment thou shall not kill" previously, and I have no doubt the original intent is not killing. It's obvious that if people respected the commandment thou shall not kill" then world would be a better place, especially the Middle East and America for that matter. I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Christian if they support violence. Diluting the commandment to thou shall not murder is a cop out, and allows for people to justify violence.

haveagoodweekend.




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:It's not 'diluting' the commandment if that was it's original intent. Come on now stone.

The problem is not the legal sale of weapons, the problem is illegal sales and smuggling. Both of which are ALREADY illegal. If you think mexicans and canadians are coming across and buying weapons in our gun stores you're mistaken. At least not legally. FFL's can't sell to non-residents (of their state, let alone the country). It must be shipped to a local FFL dealer in their home state for the final transfer. And if they aren't buying them legally, then IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL. We don't need more laws, we need more people to enforce the laws we already have.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:P.S.

Before you go blindly believing what you hear out of a politicians mouth, you may actually want to look into something yourself. Or at least *think* about what the other side of the story may be.. I'm not even asking that you believe the article below, but you should at least question the fear mongering statistics obviously biased politicians spew out.

90% Myth

Quote:The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

EXCLUSIVE: You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

Video:Click here to watch more.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

'These Don't Come From El Paso'

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."


#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:laugh3


Quote:William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S."

It's never true laugh3

And only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. What ONLY 17%? That's 17% too many.

I'll read the whole article later

Wonders if "Maxim Lott" co-author is related to "Jonn Lott" NRA cronie laugh3


EDITED_BY: Stone (1238723218)


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

Delete

Page: 1...3536373839...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..