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

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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1920212223...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

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

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

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pro-guns

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

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

Anti gun

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

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

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

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

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

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

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

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Stone...I agree, they could be guys who haven't been on a bike in years and went out and bought themselves more bike than they could handle. Thant info wasn't included in the news story I heard on the radio last week.

What I was trying to get at was a comparison of modes of transportation with one being considered safer than the other. Were I a dedicated bus rider, I may think people who rode motorcycles were crazy ( based on "the numbers" ) and judge that motorcycles should be eliminated as a public health issue. After all, I can't remember ever needing protective gear, or getting road rash from, riding a bus.

Anyways...the ban motorcycles theory was something I made up. or thought I did until your response prompted me to google the subject. OK..there are people who want to do so...in the UK.

Lurch. I posted those videos only to question what I saw as an aggressive, offensive attitude coming from someone who's on the board of directors of the NRA. I realise Ted's an entertainer foremost, and no doubt his popularity had something to do with his acceptance to this position.

Unfortunately, I can't watch those videos you posted right now ( it's 6: 20 am, wife and kid sleeping in the next room, and I have to get ready to go to work ) so I'll prepare to give him the benefit of the doubt and expect an interview with someone who takes their influential positions as both an entertainer and a board member a little more seriously than the examples I posted. Interesting article though smile


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Lurch, somehow you have not answered my question, so I adress it again: Why is the majority of the 500 million western citizens OUTSIDE the U.S. (in Canada, Europe, Australia and New Yealand) doing just fine without the "2nd ammendment" gun ownership rights/ without guns? I could add more to these numbers, living in Asian countries (namely India), who do not see the necessity to democratically change their existing gun regulation.

And I note that you still can't come up with (credible) numbers to back up your claim on the benefits of guns. Therefore it's simply your opinion - nothing remotely to be considered a FACT.

Please link to storage safes for as low as $20 bucks, don't just claim that they exist - provide useful information. Ppl purchase cars for $70.000 ( 50.000) and miss out on $2 headsets, your analogy is flawed.

Same applies to your claim "carrying whilst drunk is whidely illegal" - rubber terms... Please back them up/ specify... we have undertaken efforts by reading into state laws about gun ownership too. Not asked too much for you to do the same.

 Written by: Lurch

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



I not only "see how it works" - I told you so. You are finding refuge on "illegal sales/ purchases", whilst you and your government accepts that it happens, not willing to do anything against it. No, I do not say: Well what if someone... I ask YOU: what exactly made the purchases of the guns for shootouts in Columbine and VT "illegal"? Have the guys been felons? What drives you to the statement that "the purchases have been illegal"?

 Written by: Lurch

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.



Again: It was stated by members of the jury, that we, the public "don't have all the details" - not disclosing those missing... How/ where did you learn that Wells "was just coming home and cornered by a locked door and some gun wielding teens"?

Lurch, throughout this thread you "occasionally" made up stories, such as to back up your claims/ make your arguments look better and directly insulted ppl (including me). This is straight against the HoP posting guidelines ("is it the truth?" "is it fair to all concerned?" etc) - do you think "rules" only apply to those with certain decency or moral stance? Are you "walking tall" because you are in the safety of your living room and got a gun?

Stout: I get your point on testing, but this situation is different, can't you see that? On one hand you have employees who are handed responsibility for other peoples lives (bus drivers, pilots) or the environment (dangerous goods carriers) - on the other side you have ppl who just take a responsibility into their own hands, without getting asked to do so and without asking those they aim to protect.

Apart from the claimed benefits that guns (for self defence) might provide, I am asking fundamental questions, which too remain unanswered:

1) Do you acknowledge that by purchasing a firearm (for self defense) you are closing shoulders with/ finance an industry that helps to perpetuate (armed) conflicts on this planet? (no judgement, just simple plain facts)

2) Do you acknowledge that (statistically) by purchasing a firearm you are putting yourself, your family and friends at risk to suffer a gun related accident? (again, no judgement - just referring to (credible) statistics)

3) Do you acknowledge that some ppl are willing to exploit the existing gun laws as to (il/legally) purchase guns in order to victimize others?

I am not ready to continue this argument (with 600+ posts and close to 10.000 views) before these fundamental questions have been answered by those who participate in this discussion. Please kindly note: I am not questioning "the right to defend ones self and family"!

smile


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Actually, the Wells/Buford story was pretty clear cut, it was the guy lying in bed and attacked with brass knuckles who shot the guy in the front seat of his car that was "missing" some of the details. As far as I know, the only "questionable" ie made up story that Lurch's posted was the one about the 11 year old skeet shooting champion who defended her home against the two armed attackers. The internet kicked the crap out of that story pretty quickly, and, as it turns out, it appears to have been made up by the NRA. ( at least, the source traces back to something called "NRA files" )

Tom. I do see your point on drug testing, I just don't agree that's all. I don't want my government to start drug testing me for any reasons. Likewise, I don't want to see UK style gun control being invoked here either. I have a friend who lives in the UK and owns a shotgun. He tells me that a couple of times a year, government representatives randomly show up at his door asking to see both the shotgun and the ammo, and if both aren't locked up properly ( separately ) then it's trouble time.

As to..

#1 yes, I do agree, somewhat. Although I'll deny that my purchasing a firearm is related to instigating global conflicts, I'll acknowledge that maybe, just maybe my purchasing a firearm increases the profits of the "arms industry" therefore allowing them to manufacture more firearms just that much more cheaply, therefore making them just that much more affordable to those who use them in those conflicts.

Not being a gun shopping kind of guy, I suspect I can buy sporting arms that aren't made by companies that manufacture weapons for military conflict, eg a shotgun I'm thinking I may have a tougher time following this line of reasoning with a handgun though. But if I buy a gun made by an American company, and I see a global conflict being played out with Chinese/Russian weapons, I figure I'm off the hook on this one.

Who's do say those conflicts wouldn't have been just as deadly without my subsidising the industry anyway ? IIRC, there was a conflict played out recently involving machetes ( Rwanda )

#2 Yes. the risk in increased and I'd like to think it's a risk I could manage, however....

#3 Yes, there are predators out there who will exploit existing gun laws. We have them here in gun controlled Canada, and they arm themselves with illegal American guns leaving us with no way do defend ourselves against them. Luckily, most of these guys are shooting each other, rather than us innocents, but they ARE taking down innocent bystanders in their shootouts. ( Toronto, boxing day 2005 )

Lurch...on the videos. Yes Ted looks like he's pretty well spoken and I'm assuming that's the side of his "personality" that got him onto the NRA board of directors ( that, and his fame ) I haven't had time to do much NRA research yet, I haven't got past Ted ( damn music videos distracting me.... cool ) and John "a computer fell on my bookcase" Lott...hey, this guy doesn't look like a slouch, maybe he is telling the truth.

I had trouble staying awake through the second one, but I don't see a problem with a law requiring gun owners to report their lost/stolen firearms to the police post haste. In fact I can't see why anyone wouldn't. Seems to me that if I somehow lost a legal gun, I'd rather deal with the police by reporting the loss rather than deal with a gun that's traceable back to me being used in a crime of some sorts.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stout, there is a misunderstanding somewhere. That brass knuckle incident is the Gary Lee Hill case. Buford has been the teen that approached someone standing on his padio "wielding a handgun" and got shot several times in the chest. His "accomplice" running away. Later a gun found in a mailbox, associated with him and charges of murder been put forth against the "accomplice". I put this in marks, because "the public doesn't know all the details"...

It's your civil right to disagree with my opinion on drug testing. wink Trust me, that I am all for less control and regulations, especially if it comes to the government. When it comes to high responsibility sectors, like dangerous goods transports or (in this case) CCWPs, I am more leaning to the restrictive side of legislation. I have compassion for the opposition of citizens against their government (especially in the US and CDN) - it's the underlying vibe and one reason ppl initially went there: freedom of religion and escaping opressive (european) dictators/ royals (slavery).

Just yesterday the German interior minister has proposed to lower the legal age accessing high caliber (sports) guns to 18yrs, which has been restricted after the Erfurt massacre in 2002. He withdrew his proposal a few hours later. We have about 7 million handguns in civilian possession in Germany (which is less than 9% vs the gross population) and you will basically not get any political support or sympathy in this country if you're trying to arm the public, especially not teens. Commentators say, that the youth is getting more and more violent, or ready to use physical violence - to provide them access to (high caliber) firearms is simply stupid.

Reason for him proposing what he proposed within the past months (German military to act as police within the country, legally killing terrorists, high volume surveillance without court approval, government troyan intrusion into PC's to search databases, etc) is to de-sensitize the public, touch every political "no-no" and wait for another terrorist act to happen and then find justification and support...

I am asking above questions again only to perform a "reality check". Much like with airtravel and high volume meat consumption it's somewhat hard to draw a reasonable line, but necessary.

If you like to know more about NRA leaders and what they have to say, we posted some links and quotes on bottom of page 20 and on top of page 21. You may Google yourself "NRA leaders statements" or go to: http://www.nraleaders.com/ to get some more info.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Sure Stout, its true many people think bikers are crazy, and should be put off the road. Welcome to my world, with idiots trying to run you off the road all the time. I still like bikes, but I hung up my leathers when I decided riding was dangerous, perhaps even anti social at times. I make the same request of gun owners; hang up your guns.



So Lurch, we agree guns are dangerous. Why not have the most effective weapon if you are planning to kill another human being in a legal use of deadly force. I mean having to try and find a substitute on the fly sounds a bit premeditated to me.



The bit about weapons was to define weapons ie. 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.



Lurch the NRA could be a powerful force to help prevent another Columbine, but instead they put AKs and Uzis back on the street. The problem is there is no commitment to doing anything to enforce federal gun laws. In fact, the NRA hinders any federal move to reduce gun violence. Because as we all know; there is only one gun law in America, and that law is the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, under the present state arrangements this means having no responsibility for the consequences of bearing such arms.



It fine and dandy to say:



 Written by:

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.





These laws are not enforced, and private sellers arent regulated. The metro DC snipers guns was allegedly stolen from a gun store, the same store that "lost or misplaced" 238 guns in three years. Come on, really! Many federally licensed gun dealers seem to loose a lot of guns illegally. Gun owners are not required to report thefts of their guns to law enforcement. Nearly half a million guns are stolen annually.



Guns are bad when they are used for law enforcement, by unconstitutional militia and vigilantes. I think there is a case for federal gun control regulations Clearly the idea of separatism you and the NRA propose for the states is leading to more violence, if not another another civil war. And why not a federal firearm laws? After all, America has a National Riflemans Association, so why not national firearms laws under a federal government?



Is this a trick question?



 Written by:

Does a man selling a hunting rifle to his brother in law need to go through the background check process?





Sure, why not. The man selling a hunting rifle to his brother in law is no different to a any other man selling a gun. To suggest otherwise is nepotism.



I totally dont get this:



 Written by:

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> "





Back at the ranch. A kid pulls a gun, after a spur-of-the-moment decision, and is gunned down with seven bullets to the chest. Sure sounds like a gunfight. Wells was an experienced gunfighter, the quick draw, no bystanders injured, and several shots hit the kid in the chest all indicate that.



Kleck suggests, in America there are 2.5 million gunfights every year or about 6,850 gunfights a day. Even though the use of deadly force was not necessary in all gunfights, thats a lot of gunfights. What this suggests to me is that America is a violent and lawless country, and nothing has changed since the days of the Wild West.



 Written by:

What? Why are you stuck on AK's and Uzi's so much?





Sorry, I dont consider an AK to be a sporting rifle; semi automatic or not. I can understand an old shotgun on the wall over the fireplace, but not a AK.



Lurch, as you say gun laws are state issues. However, when you use the Bureau of Justice Statistics all the gun crime figures for each state are averaged. So while the nation's crime rate has fallen, its entirely possible that crime in some states has risen. Particularly in states that loosened their concealed weapons laws. And crime has been on the way up since 2005.



An analysis conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: allowing more people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States



 Written by:

Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.



Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.





I dont know if England is more crime-ridden than the U.S. but what I heard last week, after a spate of shootings, was England was worried about the rise of what they called American gun culture.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1188939219)


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

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:"Lurch the NRA could be a powerful force to help prevent another Columbine, but instead they put AKs and Uzis back on the street"



This is reactionary and mostly untrue. The majority of weapons are handguns and shotguns/rifles. They are either used for protection or sportmanship. The higher percentage are not buying assault weapons. Most people are not hurt by those types of weapons. It's ridiculous and pointless to keep bringing up those weapons like assault rifles are being carried all over our streets.



Okay, are there any statistics that you guys will accept. You wanted stats, you got them and you still say it's not good enough. Cause it seems to me unless it's supportive of your side all stats shall be ignored. It's good that violence has gone down.

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1188918088)


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

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Here stone, I'll give you a pretty animation showing the general concealed carry laws for the US and how they've changed over the past 20 years


Non-Https Image Link


So crime has been dropping, while more and more states are allowing their citizens to carry weapons. Wouldn't that be contradictory to what you're saying?

You're trying to twist my words. I'm not planning on killing anyone, I just want to have the most effective tool to protect myself. Would you try to build a desk with a butter knife? Or use a rope as a seatbelt? To say that my carrying a gun is premeditation for murder is just ignorant.

 Written by:

Lurch the NRA could be a powerful force to help prevent another Columbine, but instead they put AKs and Uzis back on the street. The problem is there is no commitment to doing anything to enforce federal gun laws. In fact, the NRA hinders any federal move to reduce gun violence. Because as we all know; there is only one gun law in America, and that law is the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, under the present state arrangements this means having no responsibility for the consequences of bearing such arms.



Could you show me the part where the NRA wants guns in the hands of children? Other that supervised range trips or hunting I'm pretty sure the NRA doesn't condone giving kids guns. Don't say there is "only one gun law" in America when you clearly know otherwise. I'm not going to pull a FireTom and say you're a liar, but I've been saying this whole time that we need more enforcement of our current laws, not more laws. You also seem to agree that we need more enforcement, but want more laws on top of that. If we can barely manage the manpower to use the laws we already have, how is making more going to help?

That is what the second video I posted was about Stout. They wanted to push a law requiring an owner to report a lost/stolen gun within 48 hours. As part of the process the city council asked for an investigation into other cities with similar laws and how they're working, every other city they talked to said that they had never used the law, even though it was on the books. There were never any prosecutions for it. Not one. It was a 'feel good' law to make people feel safer, even though it did nothing in terms of actual effect on the community. They wasted the money and passed the law anyways, because it helps to advance their political careers.

 Written by:

Guns are bad when they are used for law enforcement, by unconstitutional militia and vigilantes. I think there is a case for federal gun control regulations Clearly the idea of separatism you and the NRA propose for the states is leading to more violence, if not another another civil war. And why not a federal firearm laws? After all, America has a National Riflemans Association, so why not national firearms laws under a federal government?



For the thousandth time, I don't condone using guns for 'vigilante justice' nor have I ever said so on here. I condone using deadly force for SELF DEFENSE. Where your (or someone else's) life is immediately at risk, there is a huge difference. Why is that so difficult to understand? Or is it that you're fine with deadly force in self defense, it just sounds better to call it vigilante justice?

We don't want federal laws. Gun laws have nothing to do with the federal government, they are up to the individual state to decide. Our country is set up different than yours, and we like how it's done. We are the United States of America, you can think of each state as a separate nation if you'd prefer. They have the right to choose their own rules, and don't like it so much when the federal government tries to tell them otherwise.

 Written by:

Kleck suggests, in America there are 2.5 million gunfights every year or about 6,850 gunfights a day.



Not true, Kleck says there are ~2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. That doesn't mean someone was killed each time, and doesn't even mean a shot was fired. Simply showing a gun and showing that you are able to defend yourself when deadly threats are put against you ends many conflicts. I would say the majority of the time the defender never needs to shoot.


 Written by:

Sorry, I dont consider an AK to be a sporting rifle; semi automatic or not. I can understand an old shotgun on the wall over the fireplace, but not a AK.



But... shouldn't all firearms be in locked bombproof containers with 24 digit passwords? What difference does it make if someone defends themselves with an antique shotgun or a collectible weapon? A gun is a gun, once the bullet is out of the barrel it acts the same. You're judging on cosmetics and reputation, not on fact.

There is a fundamental problem with removing weapons from the public. That puts a forced reliance for protection on Law Enforcement. The same law enforcement which has been found by the courts to have no duty whatsoever to actually protect you.

 Written by:
THE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Handguns are the weapons with the most utility for self-defense. American citizens use handguns in lawful self-defense between 1.5 to 1.9 million times [Page 178] a year, while all firearms are used in self-defense between 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year.[202] Felony victims who resist by means of firearms are significantly less likely to be killed or injured than those who do not resist.[203] Other methods of self-defense are of extremely dubious value.[204] Felony victims who resist by means other than firearms are in fact more likely to be killed or injured than those who do not resist at all.[205] The fact that handguns are used far more often in self-defense than other firearms indicates that they have far more utility for self-defense than other firearms. Certainly, they are much more practical to carry for defensive purposes than are long guns. The fact that resistance with firearms is the only method of resistance which improves the victim's chances of escaping unharmed indicates that the right to self-defense as a matter of necessity must include the right to carry firearms. As Florida's experience shows, there is considerable social utility in allowing honest citizens to carry handguns to defend themselves. It results in the commission of fewer murders and rapes than would otherwise occur. By contrast, the District of Columbia's experience proves that banning possession (let alone carrying) of handguns by honest citizens results in more murders and rapes than would otherwise occur. The effectiveness of handguns for purposes of self-defense, and the fact that "gun control" laws (such as laws forbidding carrying concealed weapons) actually increase crime proves that Justice Louis Brandeis was right when he said, "We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force in defense of a just cause."[206]

[...]

The right to carry weapons for self-defense is particularly important because courts have repeatedly held that police departments exist to prevent crime in general but have no duty to prevent any specific crime or protect any specific person, no matter how clear and present the danger faced by that person. [210] If the state will not accept responsibility to defend its citizens, citizens need the right to possess and carry weapons to defend themselves. Even if a state were to accept responsibility to make reasonable efforts to defend citizens from criminal assault, the "thin blue line" of police protection is wafer-thin. The vast majority of criminal assaults are completed within a few minutes of their inception.[211] It is extremely unrealistic to think that the victim could manage to get to a phone, call the police, and expect to see an officer arrive while the offense is still in progress. Although anti-gun politicians have strong-armed several police organizations into publicly opposing right-to-carry bills and actually forbidden police officers to publicly support right-to-carry bills,[212] most police officers recognize the fundamental futility of relying solely on police protection from criminal assault.[213] Seventy-six percent of police managers and street officers believe that concealed weapon permits should be issued to every trained and responsible adult applicant.[214] Many police officers would not let their wives or girlfriends out on their own without a gun.[215] Especially the members of the "thin blue line" recognize just how thin that blue line really is.

[url=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Espohl1.htm


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:The more I look into it the more the NRA's looking like a gun owners ACLU. So when a democratically elected body, like a city council, enacts a law that reflects their views on gun control this national organization comes barging in and demands respect for a federal constitutional amendment on behalf of the city's gun owners. NRA and proposition H

They're believers, I'll say that.

Stone...Motorcycles antisocial ? A straight pipe Harley maybe, but what about the other 98 %? .....perish the thought.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Harley's are highly social. Well, the owners. There are clubs, dating groups. They are part of our parades. They are active members for community service. I just saw a special about the growing Harley club in South Africa


As for your links. What's wrong with that? The NRA is defending the law abiding owners. It's unfair of the city to say no guns. This is a time when the NRA should be there for it's citizens. It's in the state law that a city cannot do what they tried.


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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:The key words there being "straight pipe" of course.

So if a city like Kennesaw, Georgia can pass a law requiring all residents to own guns, then why can't another city get away with passing a law requiring the opposite ? Like Kennesaw, SF could make this strictly symbolic to communicate their "distaste" for handguns.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Ah but the noiser the better

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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:There is that Loud Pipes Save Lives philosophy...true. But when I was running a straight pipe bike it was more of an outlaw, I'm super cool and if you want quiet ...then you're not living!!! kind of thing. In retrospect, I was doing it for antisocial reasons.

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Cities have the right (well in some cases depending on state law) and states *do* have the right. Hence the DC ban (Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the country and the strictest gun laws.) NYC and California are also notoriously difficult to get concealed permits in for legal carry.



For a state like my own, there is a law in place saying that county and city laws can only restrict the rights of people *without* a concealed permit.



 Written by: ]166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.



(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:



(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.



(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.



(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.



(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370. [1995 s.s. c.1 4; 1999 c.782 8









There is a huge difference between allowing a city/county/state to make it's own decision about something like this, and *forcing* them by creating federal laws.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I agree on the huge difference, but I'm stumped as to why a national group like the NRA would want to oppose something like this. Unless it's strictly on principal.

The DC example only serves to illustrate just how ineffective a city passing a law like this actually is. Heck if I were a gun totin' criminal, I might just take it on myself to head into that city where handguns are banned because there's less chance of getting shot.

Faith. is that state law ( or the California equivalent ) that Lurch quoted above what when you said that San Fransisco cannot do what they tried ?

I had no idea that US gun laws were so complex and varied..locked in the trunk of a car, not allowed in national parks...but at least the NRA site has all ( most ) of them in one easy to access place.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Mostly I would say it is on principal. They oppose useless gun laws. It's a "feel good" law that doesn't do anything at all. Why would would anyone want to endorse useless legislation? To say it "saves lives" is just fooling yourself.

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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:No, if we use DC as an example, we can't honestly say it saves lives. But is this how the politicians are marketing these laws, as lifesavers ? Or do they freely admit that it's only a feel good law ? But if the NRA is acting on principal, I can see why they oppose these laws. OTOH, they could just ignore them for what they are and in the instance that a legal handgun owner just happens to get charged under one of these laws, simply fund the defense, like they fund the defences of hundreds of other gun cases.

But if California state law prohibits SF from doing what it's trying to do, shouldn't the state, not the NRA be going after the city instead ? Maybe the NRA feels that the state won't


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch Im not happy, help me see where Ive got it wrong.

 Written by:

Don't say there is "only one gun law" in America when you clearly know otherwise. I'm not going to say you're a liar, but I've been saying this whole time that we need more enforcement of our current laws, not more laws. You also seem to agree that we need more enforcement, but want more laws on top of that. If we can barely manage the manpower to use the laws we already have, how is making more going to help?



There is "only one gun law" in America, and that law is the right to bear arms wink

Exhibit A:  Written by:

That is what the second video I posted was about Stout. They wanted to push a law requiring an owner to report a lost/stolen gun within 48 hours. They wasted the money and passed the law anyways, because it helps to advance their political careers.



They wanted to push a law requiring an owner to report a lost/stolen gun within 48 hours. Shock, horror, why not ? You would report you car stolen. The laws arent working because no one wants then to work; perhaps for clandestine purposes.

Lurch, I can see why you would call the San Francisco gun ban a feel good law ubblol

 Written by:

The San Francisco gun ban would have prohibited law-abiding city residents from purchasing firearms - rifles, shotguns and handguns - for any lawful reason, whether for self-defense, hunting or recreational shooting. In addition, current law-abiding gun owners would have to surrender their registered handguns to the police.



Exhibit B:  Written by:

Mostly I would say it is on principal. They oppose useless gun laws. It's a "feel good" law that doesn't do anything at all. Why would anyone want to endorse useless legislation? To say it "saves lives" is just fooling yourself.



Lurch, you say the NRA opposes gun laws because they save lives. Any law to increase safety is foolish, any law is useless, unless its about the right to bear arms Am I wrong? When I said there is only one gun law in America I was speaking figuratively, in that its the only gun law in America that is take seriously.

 Written by:

There is a fundamental problem with removing weapons from the public. That puts a forced reliance for protection on Law Enforcement. The same law enforcement which has been found by the courts to have no duty whatsoever to actually protect you.



Why do you always run down the police force? I suspect its an excuse to justify carrying weapons.


 Written by:

If a lawfully armed civilian had ended the killing spree at 31 instead of 32 it would have been worth it.



See, even now you are still smarting that you werent the hero. Why not contribute something to help prevent the next VT. Like, be prepared to report a stolen or lost gun within 24 hours. It might actually save someones life, without the use of legal use of deadly force.

 Written by:

You're trying to twist my words...



Lurch, Im not twisting your words, as much as taking out the euphemisms. I agree, why not have the most effective weapon if you are planning to kill another human being in a legal use of deadly force. Its just that I think people living in civilized countries dont go around carrying guns in the off chance that might need to kill someone, in self defence.

 Written by:

So crime has been dropping, while more and more states are allowing their citizens to carry weapons. Wouldn't that be contradictory to what you're saying?



Sorry, Lurch I fail to see the contradiction. For a start the crime rate in America started to rise again in 2005. Your animation shows dates, not figures, for when the CCW laws changed, nothing else. See the Brady Centre report it clearly shows that violent crime has risen in states that loosening the restrictions on the concealed carrying of weapons.

 Written by:

We don't want federal laws. Gun laws have nothing to do with the federal government, they are up to the individual state to decide. Our country is set up different than yours, and we like how it's done. We are the United States of America, you can think of each state as a separate nation if you'd prefer. They have the right to choose their own rules, and don't like it so much when the federal government tries to tell them otherwise.



Yes I know you dont want federal laws, but someone has to do something to reduce gun violence. If you think of each state as a separate nation, the you are hardly a United States.

How about a national approach on "microstamping" run by the NRA?

 Written by:

The California State Senate will vote soon on the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 (AB 1471). This crime-fighting legislation will help law enforcement solve gun crimes and reduce gun trafficking.

AB 1471 would require new models of semi-automatic handguns be equipped with "microstamping", a technology that allows police to match bullet shells found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets



Link not working


Ha, Harley-Davidson, Milwaukee Iron. Me last bike was a 1995 Speed Triple Triumph, with a carbon fiber pipe. Blow you to the weeds

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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:hmmm, Lurch is not "pulling a FireTom"... what are you indicating and where do you find me calling you an outright liar? I guess there is a difference between someone making up stories, someone propagating "facts" without verifying them and someone wanting to believe in (questionable) theories - only to prove their opinion.

Find me "pulling a Lurch" by not excusing myself for possible offences taken wink

Do you get my call? The further you dig into the topic, the more information you'll find - on both sides. Let us know which ones are defending your position on the "benefits of guns" - thanks heeps for the info provided above (even though you decline to clearly respond to my latest questions).

However, how do I have to read the map you posted, Lurch? Is it states, who enacted "right to carry laws"? Is it the ration of significance about said topic? I'm unclear on this.

I understand that banning guns won't solve the problem as in (mass) killings. It's not the "one and only" solution. Educating children that violence is not a proper response and unsuitable to solve a conflict will be more effective in the long term. I understand that there are many gun laws in effect already that would need to get enforced - or reviewed and adjusted. I understand that each state has it's own (independent) legislation - which complicates matters.

I understand that "gun free zones" in schools will not make the difference, as long as there is no (armed) security on campus. (And please note that I am accepting guards to be armed)

A simple general ban will not end all violence.

But MORE guns certainly will not be an answer either.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:its not the guns causeing the problem. If you look at the statisitics of guns to muders and compair the US to Switzerland or Cannada, it becomes pritty clear that for some reason americans are just more inclided to murder than all but about 8 other nationalitys (though several of those have on running conflicts so dont realy count) wether that be with guns, sticks, knives or there bare hands.



for example more people are murdered not useing guns in american than are murdered in total here in england and thats acounting for the relitive population sizes.



of course why americans seem to kill each other more that we would expect them to given the highly developed state of there country is a total and baffling mistery and while guns may exaserbate the problem there not the root cause.



ref http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1189089417)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Somewhere in this conversation we had a link with all the state laws regarding gun control.

I believe Lurch was quoting from his state law. But the link in regards to the proposition showed that the state law forbid the forbidding of gun ownership

Microstamping seems like a good idea in theory, but I can already think of problems with it.

What are you trying to say by more guns are not the answer? So if I decided to start going to the range with my friend, I can't buy a gun because you think there are too many out there?

Each state has it's own laws because each state is different. The populations are different. The cultures are different. The terrain is different. The climate is different. The animals are different. I'm not a rancher needing to get rid of a problem animal, but I may be a deer hunter. Or I may live in an area that I feel the need for a gun as protection. Each state has it's own needs. We have many things that are state regulated. It doesn't not diminish us as the United States because we will and do come together as a whole. We will tease people from other states, but we will defend ourselves as a country


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

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:faith, you tell me that:

 Written by:

Each state has it's own laws because each state is different. The populations are different. The cultures are different. The terrain is different. The climate is different. The animals are different. I'm not a rancher needing to get rid of a problem animal, but I may be a deer hunter. Or I may live in an area that I feel the need for a gun as protection. Each state has it's own needs. We have many things that are state regulated.




Yet its considered fine for the National Riflemans Association to come in and bully San Franciscos democratically elected body on proposed new gun laws.


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

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:This would be the united part of the country. And they aren't bullying.

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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:People in civilised countries don't go around carrying guns on the off chance that they may need to kill someone in self defence...Stone, sorry if I'm paraphrasing your quote, it's just this message board has been running very slowly over the past 3 days, and after waiting 10 minutes for the quote function to work. I gave up.



Try as I may, there's no way I can come up with anything to refute that statement.



Even I don't buy my own argument about the second amendment being a valued cultural tradition once I reflect on the number of shots I've taken ( and still take ) against other culture's traditions.



IMO, in this thread both Stone and Tom have been presenting "big picture" arguments ( Mynci and Rob too ) which I've been trying to avoid in favour of the "pro gunners" arguments like using deadly force to defend one's life and I do believe that in certain instances, there are people out there who DO deserve to get shot. ( one day I may share my experiences about sharing a neighbourhood with a serial arsonist who the police told me outright, they were unable to protect me from )



From outside America, and from a big picture perspective, I fail to understand why a group like the NRA has become so involved in protecting and IMO overvaluing the second amendment ( maybe the board members own shares in the arm industry ) when, as Tom stated, the rest of the world gets along just fine without packing heat.



Even here in gun controlled Canada, I have access to firearms if I so desired. If I want a loaded handgun sitting here beside my computer( at home ) , I can have one. Rifles, shotguns..no problem. I just can't pack them around with me...in the city.



I also proposed that if America's alright with the death toll due to firearms, maybe we should be to. I can subscribe to that idea, but I can understand why others can't, or won't.



I've also learned just how hard it is to try and stay neutral in this argument. Not this thread specifically, but the argument as it's been presented in the hundreds of websites this discussion has led me to over the months since the VT massacre.



Another thing I was hoping for was a little insight into the reasoning behind Michel moor's statement " guns don't kill people, Americans kill people " and I've come to the conclusion that the passionate defense of the second amendment eg,,Ted Nugent up on stage with a pair of machine guns, has A LOT to do with it.

EDITED_BY: Stout (1189178636)


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Faith, I cant find myself hung up on assault weapons. It has been made clear that those do not hold any benefit for the average Joe, but they are a potential and serious threat to his safety.

If assault weapons are no issue - why are you so eagerly defending civilians right to own them?

I understand that states and citizens are different - ppl are different all over the planet. But when it comes to foreign politics, you seem to be able to speak with one voice... this unity seems to be skindeep only.

To every solution there will be another potential problem popping up. I acknowledge that. I am not a safety freak either, but does reality need to prove that there is a (gun related) problem within the USA over and over again?

It is obvious that society can do well together, without the need to enforce privacy or safety by owning guns. It is obvious that the (gun abuse) problem is proportional to their availability and the presence of social problems.

As I understand it, the pro gunners would prefer a less restrictive system (towards gun ownership) and/ or claim that gun abuse can be prevented by proper education/ training and the enforcement of existing (gun) laws.

The arms industry unlike any other is not in responsibility to care for the damage caused by their products (which IMHO is just crazy). Im disappointed that the US is unable to come to a mutual approach and that a large part of the population turns a blind eye on old and bad habits. I do not believe that any reasonable person would see the US as a country where guns are omnipresent and all ppl wander around with a sixshooter at their hip, but I see the US as a country where certain problems remain untouched (due to a historical/ socio-cultural bias).

Would it be democratic to say that obviously the number of anti-gunners within the US has not yet reached the critical mass as to influence state law?

But how can the public stand aside and watch their president elect help to dismiss an entire industries liability? The tobacconists for example have to sponsor campaigns and programs to correct the impact of their products to public health and funds to support their victims and their families.

If one compares guns with cars, motorcycles or swimming pools, why not comparing them to cigarettes?

Certainly the gun topic is a US homebred problem, we have no right to tell you what to do and if/as reasonable argument seems to fail - well have it your way. But as I said before: it just ain't that easy as you sponsor international gun manufacturers and as one of the most powerful nations on the planet, you spread your national paranoia to global levels.

You seem to be stuck in the cold war, just that it shifted to be more of a national/ civil war.

As long as violence and arms are propagated to be "cool" there will be little to no change in the near future. shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:before you start at me, please actually respond to something that was said. I am not ok with civilians owning assault weapons. I don't think I ever said so.

You really haven't listened at all. We don't want necessarily less restriction, but we do want current laws to be enforced before new laws are in place

Seriously, have you listened to anything that we've said? Anything?

State laws are more practical overall because the states vary so much. One set of laws federally just wouldn't work for reasons posted earlier

We aren't paranoid. How do you figure?


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


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Whenever I am trying to talk to you, all you do is getting me wrong and ranting about what I am trying to communicate - best is I cease to adress you alltogether.



Finally: Maybe you eat your own advice and re-read my post (and put it in context with what you posted)...



 Written by: faith

"Lurch the NRA could be a powerful force to help prevent another Columbine, but instead they put AKs and Uzis back on the street"



This is reactionary and mostly untrue. The majority of weapons are handguns and shotguns/rifles. They are either used for protection or sportmanship. The higher percentage are not buying assault weapons. Most people are not hurt by those types of weapons. It's ridiculous and pointless to keep bringing up those weapons like assault rifles are being carried all over our streets.





The assault weapons ban was not renewed. Ppl are again allowed to purchase them. Who said that the "majority" would be AW's? Nobody! Nowhere! But the NRA is helping more AW's to go public - WHY? If nobody needs them?



And this is one way I figure that you're paranoid: Your repeated reactions on what ppl suggest in order to help. You react like someone drowning - one has to watch out not to get hit in the face.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:We have been talking about gun violence. Most gun violence is not done with these weapons. Is it not better to focus on the larger problem?
I cannot remember the last time I've heard of an assault weapon being used in a crime. Maybe with a bank robbery in some really large city. I've heard of them being found, but not being used.
Even these weapons are not readily available. You can't go to Cabellas or Gander Mountain and buy one of these as far as I know. None of the shops around here have them

As for the lack of renewal. It is but one example. One example an argument does not make.

I don't get your analogy. How are we drowning?


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


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Compared to the rest of the (so called) "civilized world" you are drowning in (gun) violence and (gun) crime. There (currenty) is no other westernized country on the planet where massacres or gun related deaths happen to the same extent.

I asked: IF assault weapons (so far) are only a small portion of the guns in civilian possession AND do not serve a "reasonable purpose" - WHY then are the pro gunners so eagerly defending their availability to the public? To me this is a sign of "stand my ground at all costs" (which is characteristic).

Focussing on the larger problem: I don't know where you focus on the problem alltogether, you're not even ready to answer simple questions (that I adressed on previous page). I'm uncertain whether you acknowledge that there IS a problem in the first place.

Maybe it's that the majority of the american public considers the carnage of Columbine, VT and the daily madness as "2nd ammendment collateral damage"?

Nobody said that guns and gun violence is omnipresent on US streets. But there are gun related accidents and abuse on a daily base all over the US.

I would really LOVE to see this thread moving towards a useful and responsible source of information from all participants...

Even though I was talking about "gun safes" that cost a lot more than a mere lock, Lurch you are right: Free gun locks are distributed by Sheriff Dept. and other organisations.

Sounds very nice at first sight... Actually:

 Written by: HOORAY, QUOTE YOUR SOURCES!!!!http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/aug/10/free_gun_lock_program_faces_funding_challenge/

Since the program began in 2002, more than 220,000 locks have been distributed by roughly 300 agencies statewide. Nationwide, 35 million locks have been distributed, said Shari LeGate of Project Childsafe.

Funding for the national program has decreased nearly every year since 2002, when it had a $5 million budget, LeGate said. In 2006-07, the funding was cut to $912,000, a $4 million decrease from the previous years budget.

This year Project Childsafe has received 560,000 gun lock requests nationwide and has been able to fulfill only about half of those, LeGate said.



I'm quite uncertain how many of these free gun locks are now to protect someones bicycle from theft however.

2005 crime statistics by the FBI

 Written by: FBI

The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous years data. (...)

A breakdown of the 2005 data by population group revealed that all city population groups experienced increases in violent crime when compared with those data reported for the previous year, with the exception of the Nations largest cities, 1 million and over in population, where the number of violent crimes was down 0.4 percent. (...)

The Nations four regions all saw increases in violent crime in 2005.



That much on "dropping crime rates".

Lurch for example seeks refuge in "illegal sales" that lead to crimes throughout the US. But if these illegal sales are happening and it's whidely known, why then is still no action taken to prevent them? If traders "loose" (track) on their handguns, why are dealers licenses not revoked?

Why is there so little action taken? And why is the little action that is taken under criticism by pro gunners? Why are 90% of the national laws reg. gun control not enforced?

 Written by: Faith

Microstamping seems like a good idea in theory, but I can already think of problems with it.



shrug but you don't want to let us know about it?! rolleyes

 Written by: Brady campaign

The California State Senate passed the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 (AB 1471) to require new models of semi-automatic handguns be equipped with "microstamping" technology that allows police to match bullet shells found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets.



Now if dealers continue to "loose" firearms, this certainly is going to help as much as if second hand sales don't have to be reported.

According to this Wiki article "David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (between 1987 and 1990)" ... now compare this to 1.8 million violent crimes happening (in 1990)... "This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame".

You want to claim that a 0.2% chance is a number that justifies gun ownership and gun related accidents?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Tom, that's been my question throughout this entire thread. Is there a problem,,really.?

The more I look at the issue, the more convinced I become that, yes, there is a problem. Maybe Americans are OK with it though, all those injuries and death may just be worth it for the added "freedom" the second amendment provides.

I somehow feel less free knowing that my ability to own an assault weapon has been denied to me by my government. wink

One of the problems with microstamping is...suppose a criminal went to the range and randomly picked up brass off the floor, or out of the trash ( assuming, of course that this can happen ) and "seeds" a crime scene with phony microstamped "evidence"

Faith, America is definitely becoming more and more paranoid. This might not be evident from inside America, but to those of us outside, looking in, we all see it. ( and I'm one of the last people who cares about spewing anti-American sentiment just to sound "cool" )


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Hey is it just me or is this forum running really really slowly ? Slow enough to basically be unusable. Please excuse the raw links, but there's no way I'm waiting another 10 minutes for the reply window to open. It's been this slow for four days now.

Anyways.

I came across this.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busines...E2?OpenDocument

woot...less hassle..more impulse buying.

And..that rifle the man's buying in the photo...just what every household needs a sniper/counter sniper weapon.

http://www.gunblast.com/DPMS-308.htm


Delete

Page: 1...1920212223...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..