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

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2829303132...44
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

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

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

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pro-guns

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

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

Anti gun

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

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

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

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

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

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

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

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Stout
Stout

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

My freedom is more important to me than my safety. If you can't understand that then you won't understand me.


Lurch, that's easy to understand, how you dont want what basically amounts to self determination taken away from you and is an acceptable defense when the topic is disarming America.

The hard part, that those of us living in gun controlled societies have is equating personal firearms ownership with freedom.

If Canada suddenly adopted US gun policies, then I wouldn't feel more free, I would feel more threatened.


Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:And I understand that, I haven't been pushing our policies on anyone. The others seem to think that the US is ignorant for not "following their lead"

When you get down to the core of it, it really has nothing to do with the fact that it is a gun.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I had a picture in my head about someone getting their gun and doing a happy dance in the store, "I'm free, I'm free."

You are absolutely right, Lurch. It isn't about the gun and I think some other people have issue with that.


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

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Lurch, I do understand you. To some extent this is even an honorable attitude.

You have stated something about gun control in Germany beginning of the 20st century, somehow I stored it differently as to what you are indicating now.

However: Gun control was implemented by the Weimar Republic, partly as to protect the young democracy in Germany from reactionary forces within - when monarchy was abolished in the WWI aftermath. It's been widely countered by conservative groups who didn't want to enter either: 20st century and democracy.

They defended their 'freedom' and supported the NSDAP instead - which *appeared* to care for their freedom (at first)...

Wars had been fought very differently since beginning of the 20st century and now we're talking about forces that are very hard to resist by civilians, unless in difficult terrain like Afghanistan and unless scrupulous forces like those of 'civilized countries'. An invasion of the US would not be possible due to other reasons rather than 200 million handguns. It's the nukes that 'protect' your 'freedom'.

On the other side your democracy (like ours) has mechanisms that protect it from history repeating itself. It's within these guidelines that reactionary forces can operate (bad enough). Even though it's no 'real' democracy, it will not fall back into dictatorship (unless that's the will of the vast majority - which you couldn't resist, guns or not).

So neither against an external enemy, nor the enemy within guns are needed in civilian hands - and the fact that passive resistance is in fact changing the course of history is prevalent by the uprising in India against the British occupation (we were going over this one already).

The wolf-sheep-shepard dog-analogy ain't quite working... yet I find it a strange conception that by fighting the wolf I would have to become a wolf myself. It's not about being sheep - but by becoming a wolf myself I would perpetuate the problem (IMO).

I honor your intentions about freedom and protection, serving the public and laws that infringe with your self-determination - something the helmet-thread has opened my eyes to a little more. Thanks for your participation in the discussion.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch

My freedom is more important to me than my safety. If you can't understand that then you won't understand me.


Bare bones of the matter, that's more like it. ubbrollsmile

The essence of the dispute is that there are two kinds of freedom here: freedom-to and freedom-from. Liberal gun laws give a person lots of access to fire-arms, the freedom-to, but are in direct conflict with another person's freedom from threat.

I value my freedom to live without threat to my life more than I value Lurch's freedom to own a gun. For that reason I support more conservative gun laws (ie. hand-guns restricted to law-enforcement and gun-ranges). If enough people agree, it can be made law, if not, then Lurch's preference remain the status quo.

Either way, someones freedom gets squashed in favour of another persons.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Indeed the Weimar Republic laws were created to help defend against a group such as the Nazi Party from gaining control by force. We see how well that worked. It only goes to show you that the 'slippery slope' argument is most certainly a real concept. And yes, wars have been fought very differently than in the past. But you have to admit, by in large, the rest of the world doesn't take notice until there is bloodshed and death. I hope and pray there is never another 'World War' with similar consiquences as the holocaust, but I know it will probably happen, and worse, at some point. As much as we would like otherwise history does repeat itself.

You may think that the mainland invasion of the US is held off by our military forces, and for the most part you're right. But sooner or later every invasion comes against the civilan population, and an armed civilian population willing and able to fight back is much harder than one 'passivly resisting'.

I don't even understand how that is a question, you tell Man A and Man B to leave their property, the US has been invaded and they needs to report to the detention facility to be shipped overseas as prisoners. Man A grabs a hunting rifle and sidearm and fights, Man B goes along with it, but makes sure he says something mean so they know he doesn't like it.

Man A may very well end up dead as a result of his actions, but I'd take that position over B anyday. Civilian guns may not play much of a role if you try and take a hippie suburb in California, but you start invading "hick" towns in the Mid/NorthWest and shits gonna hit the fan, and you'll see pissed off American's like you've never seen before. Military or not people will die, but at least it wont be one sided.

As for the Sheep, Wolf, and Sheepdog analogy, perhaps you should re-read it. Sheepdogs look a lot like the wolf to the sheep. Which is why the sheep (dare I lump you in with the sheep?) are scared of the Sheepdogs, you can't tell us apart easily, we both have teeth, and we're both able and willing to fight. The difference is the Wolf preys on the sheep, and the Sheepdog protects them.



Jeff: I was reading an editorial the other day written by an ill-informed journalist complaining about open carry laws across the US. That would be NON-concealed weapons. A gun on the hip, plainly visible for the world. There are many things we can get into over that, but for now I'll leave it be.

We need to be clear about something though, me wearing a gun, does *not* threaten you. It may make you nervous, or feel uneasy, but me, standing there, with a gun, is not necessarily a threat. Quite the contrary actually, but thats for another post as well wink

You don't have the "right to be free of guns" At least not in the sense that you can restrict my right to have them. On that note though, I'd like to quote one of the comments a reader left on the open carry article I was discussing above.

 Written by

I choose to possess my legally unconcealed firearm and enjoy my U.S. Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Walsh [the author] chooses not to do so, and instead to enjoy her U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech. The differences between us don't end there, however.

I enjoy my rights freely and because I choose to do so, but she enjoys hers for cash payments and professional enhancement.

I encourage her to enjoy hers with integrity, but she opposes mine despite my integrity.

My enjoyment of rights helps guarantee that she can continue enjoying hers, but her enjoyment advocates the abolition of mine.

I agree that others who abuse their rights to arms must lose them, but she has never agreed that others who abuse their rights to speech must lose them.

I like knowing that there are groups which defend her rights to speech, but she castigates groups which defend my rights to arms.

I agree that others who enjoy their rights to speech aren't tainted by those who abuse them, but she blames others who enjoy their rights to arms for the abuse of a relative few.

I like that all her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but she would like to pick and choose mine.

I accept that there are others who oppose my rights to arms, but she seems unable to abide others who oppose her rights to speech.

And finally, I understand the gravity of my rights to arms and act accordingly to avoid even the slightest mistake, but she seems nonplussed when she gets her facts dead wrong.

Now, who's the bigger threat to our nation?



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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch

You don't have the "right to be free of guns" At least not in the sense that you can restrict my right to have them.


On the contrary, I live in the UK, so I do have the right to be free of armed civilians.

As more and more people concur, eventually the right to have a pistol will be revoked in the US by democratic pressures. We don't need to convince you, just everybody else.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:You'll have a hard time convincing all of us, seeing as the Washington DC gun ban trial that's working it's way through the supreme court is looking at going in our favor...

Either way, it's going to be a *long* time before personal weapons are banned, and I hope I never see that day. Not only would they have to change the constitution of the country, but the constitutions of nearly every state. But that doesn't change the fact that you're restricting the rights of the people, and to make it worse, you don't care because A: it made you uneasy to begin with, and B: You don't exercise that right in your personal life so it doesn't effect you. Neither of those seem like particularly good reasons to me..


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, you asked recently, in the helmet thread, why I had given up trying to convince you that owning a gun puts innocent people at risk.



The answer, put simply, is its difficult to overcome the ingrained conditioning that guns have in American society. How so? Well, one of the arguments for guns in the USA appears to be that any restriction on guns will infringe on the right to self-determination.



Now, I might have missed the point, but I thought self-determination happened in 1776, when the colonies gained independence from the British Empire to become the USA. So, it would appear that self-determination and guns are so ingrained in American society that people are still fighting for their rights to guns and self-determination, 232 years after Independence.





 Written by Lurch

I hope and pray there is never another 'World War' with similar consiquences as the holocaust, but I know it will probably happen, and worse, at some point. As much as we would like otherwise history does repeat itself.





Lurch, I not so sure I agree. When you put it like that it could appear as if you would like history to repeat itself. You even preempt it by saying it will probably happen again; not that it will never happen again. Then you go on to justify guns by making up B grade fantasies about a mainland invasion of the USA.



 Written by Lurch

Civilian guns may not play much of a role if you try and take a hippie suburb in California, but you start invading "hick" towns in the Mid/NorthWest and shits gonna hit the fan, and you'll see pissed off American's like you've never seen before.





I find that a bit fanciful. A more likely scenario is the S*** will hit the fan when oil runs short, and people start shooting each other over petrol. Then anarchy, guns and mob rule become the government; just like what happened after Katrina (regardless of who was in the wrong).



Anyhow, re history repeating itself. People commonly think that Karl Marx said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." What Marx actually wrote was this: Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce (net quotes).



I think a more appropriate quote would be: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it by George Santayana. And, that certainly seems to be the case with America, especially when you take into account the current gun laws and the carnage they cause, and international examples like the Vietnam and Iraq wars.



I dont think guns buy freedom, and I dont see how you can equate living in an armed society as living in a free society. Having a gun might give a person the feeling that they are in control, and even have some control over their own destiny, but that is an illusion. Real freedom comes from living in a society where guns are superfluous.







edited for clarity.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1214289540)


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

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch

But that doesn't change the fact that you're restricting the rights of the people, and to make it worse, you don't care because A: it made you uneasy to begin with, and B: You don't exercise that right in your personal life so it doesn't effect you. Neither of those seem like particularly good reasons to me..


Disallowing civilian guns restricts the liberty of people to own them, allowing civilian guns restricts the liberty of people to live in a safer environment. Either way someone's liberties are restricted. I prefer one way, you prefer another. No need to act sanctimonious about it.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

hamamelis
hamamelis

nut.
Location: Bouncing off the walls.
Member Since: 5th Jan 2006
Total posts: 756
Posted:Um.. just a couple of random thoughts... sorry if I'm repeating something posted earlier- I've not read the entire thread.

There's a lot more restrictions about owning/driving a car than owning a gun- on the grounds that they're dangerous when misused. Is this a restriction of people's rights? Why/why not? Is it just because cars weren't invented when the US bill of rights was drawn up?

There's a lot of different weaponry in existance, from pocket knives up to nukes- where exactly do you draw the line between 'reasonable for a private person to possess' and 'only suitable for the (US) military'? And why?

Personally, I draw the line around the point a potential weapon can *only* be used as a weapon- it annoys me a bit that the UK govenment bans me from taking my pocket knife (mainly used for sharpening pencils) around with me on the grounds that it locks open, but I support the gun restrictions on the grounds that allowing everyone to own a gun can start what is basically a small-scale arms race between criminals and non-criminals. I don't believe that allowing the general public to carry a gun will deter armed muggers/robbers, it seems to me it'll just ensure they carry a gun in case their victims have one too, and increase the chances of someone- on either side- firing. I also can't imagine a situation where the US gets invaded despite the military, and a bunch of armed cilvilians repel the invasion- though I can see it making a popular film script..

Guns are just too easy to make a mistake with- it only takes a second to shoot the teenage intruder climbing over your back fence; if you grabbed the kitchen knife to defend yourself, you might spot the football he just kicked over.. I know that's an extreme and hypothetical situation, but it's not entirely unrealistic. I wholeheartedly support my government (a pretty unusual thing for me wink ) in trying to reduce the odds of me getting shot, intentionally or by accident, even if it does mean when The Bad Guys invade I'll have to fight back with the kitchen knife or a pitchfork.

As an incidental- anyone living in the Chester area of England, did you know your local police accidently deleted their entire gun licence records about 4 years back, and just issued anyone who showed up to renew 'em with a new one without checks?


THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!


If that's okay with you?

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I'm not trying to act sanctimonious jeff, sorry if it came across that way. I've been dealing with people who have been trying to convince me that my way is wrong, and they are right.

But with all due respect, 'the liberty of people to live in a safer environment'? Forgive me if I don't know as much about foreign systems, but umm.. no? Me carrying a gun does nothing to threaten, or harm you. That is, unless you try to attack me. But I'll assume you're a good person who isn't prone to violent outbursts, so we can all live happily.

 Written by

There's a lot more restrictions about owning/driving a car than owning a gun- on the grounds that they're dangerous when misused. Is this a restriction of people's rights? Why/why not? Is it just because cars weren't invented when the US bill of rights was drawn up?



Well I'm not sure about overseas, but there aren't a lot of restrictions for *owning* a car here. If you have the money for it you can own it. *driving* is somewhat different, although license requirements only apply to public property and roadways. Licensing and fees are to ensure safety and help pay for maintenance. Some people do actually argue that the license is illegal, but I accept it. All that said there are no requirements if you're driving on private property. Like on a farm for example

 Written by

There's a lot of different weaponry in existance, from pocket knives up to nukes- where exactly do you draw the line between 'reasonable for a private person to possess' and 'only suitable for the (US) military'? And why?



We've kind of gone over this already, although I couldn't tell you where, so it would be a lot of digging. The Federal government categorizes weapons, Class III being things like machine guns, silencers for weapons, and all the other big bad ones. You need special permits and fairly extensive background checks to legally purchase any of those. I've never said that there shouldn't be *any* legislation controlling guns. But I will never support an outright ban. We (for the most part, states make their own laws) require a license to carry concealed in public, and I don't even have a problem with that.

 Written by

Personally, I draw the line around the point a potential weapon can *only* be used as a weapon- it annoys me a bit that the UK govenment bans me from taking my pocket knife (mainly used for sharpening pencils) around with me on the grounds that it locks open, but I support the gun restrictions on the grounds that allowing everyone to own a gun can start what is basically a small-scale arms race between criminals and non-criminals. I don't believe that allowing the general public to carry a gun will deter armed muggers/robbers, it seems to me it'll just ensure they carry a gun in case their victims have one too, and increase the chances of someone- on either side- firing. I also can't imagine a situation where the US gets invaded despite the military, and a bunch of armed cilvilians repel the invasion- though I can see it making a popular film script..



If you could get a permit to carry your knife would you? Would you oppose those who did? I've always got a knife on me, and it's not for defensive (or offensive) purposes, it's utilitarian. So I ask you, if someone is trained, has had a background check, and has jumped through all the legal loopholes to carry a weapon, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If they were a criminal, they would just carry it anyways.

As for an 'arms race' between civilians and criminals, I have yet to see that happen. Most places see at least some drop in crime after concealed carry was introduced, rarely does crime increase. I'll have to look it up because FireTom will whine that I don't have sources right now, but there is also a significant statistically difference between the average civilian committing a crime, and the average weapon holder. I'll give you a hint, someone with a CCW will do more to prevent a fight than someone without. There isn't the Vigilante syndrome that FireTom likes to talk about, carrying a gun doesn't make one judge jury and executioner.

So let me ask you this, if you put yourself in the criminals mind, as a mugger. Would you rather arm yourself with a gun, and go after another person with a gun, who has gone through the training and jumped the hoops to make sure its legal, and would probably be perfectly willing to fight for their life. Or would you rather go after someone who is unarmed and scared? It's been posted (and cited) before, that the UK has a much higher percentage of home invasion style robberies, meaning robbing a house while the family is home, than the US does. Part of that is most likely due to the idea that the only thing the family could be armed with is a pitchfork and a kitchen knife, while the criminals still have guns.

 Written by

Guns are just too easy to make a mistake with- it only takes a second to shoot the teenage intruder climbing over your back fence; if you grabbed the kitchen knife to defend yourself, you might spot the football he just kicked over.. I know that's an extreme and hypothetical situation, but it's not entirely unrealistic. I wholeheartedly support my government (a pretty unusual thing for me ) in trying to reduce the odds of me getting shot, intentionally or by accident, even if it does mean when The Bad Guys invade I'll have to fight back with the kitchen knife or a pitchfork.



With proper training guns are not all that dangerous, just follow a few basic rules. I don't know about you but I was given my first knife as a kid, and along with it came the basic rules of how to use it safely. So far I haven't stabbed myself or cut off a finger. The scenario you present up there would be a bad shoot. Anyone and everyone would agree with that. Even if it was a criminal hopping your fence to break into your house it's still a bad shoot. I wholeheartedly support my right to defend myself, and not rely on a third party when I'm in trouble.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch

Me carrying a gun does nothing to threaten, or harm you.


You having a gun means others have the right to a gun, other people like these. Unless they've started demanding IQ tests and a teetotal pledge with the gun license, that means a lot of drunken idiots with guns.

Idiots+guns=/=saftey


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:You cite Fark as your example of people you don't want to have guns? confused

As I've said before though, every state has their own laws regarding purchasing and possessing guns. Federal laws are fairly limited, and thats entirely intentional. By in large, being drunk and carrying a gun is illegal. And the people who carry their guns *legally* generally know better anyways. So yes, idiots + guns =/= safety. But idiots will carry guns regardless of whether it's legal for them to or not.


As a side note, hooray for the supreme court ruling in favor of the private citizen in terms of the 2nd Amendment!


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch


You cite Fark as your example of people you don't want to have guns? confused


Fark, the collections of news stories usually committed by exceptionally stupid people...

I think it was implied that I was refering to the subjects of the stories, not the owner of Fark. Apologies to all who were confused by that.

 Written by

But idiots will carry guns regardless of whether it's legal for them to or not.


And should be put away for a long time because of it. That's how the law works.

 Written by


As a side note, hooray for the supreme court ruling in favor of the private citizen in terms of the 2nd Amendment!


As the constitution stands and it's traditional interpretation, I would regard the supreme courts ruling as being legally correct in this case (but morally incorrect).

America requires to amend the amendment. All this interpretation malarky is foolish.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I don't think it's morally incorrect at all. Do you think it's pure coincidence that the major cities that have insanely strict gun laws also have the highest murder rates and gun violence? You are (were?) more likely to be killed as an American in DC than in Iraq.

DC had an extremely unreasonable ban on all handguns, and rifles/shotguns had to be disassembled unloaded and locked. Making them useless for a defensive situation, and the law wasn't even clear if they *could* be used in defense of a person. But the criminals still had their guns, and used them openly because no one could oppose them legally.


#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:jeff, I thought your post was the best in this discussion so far.

 Written by Jeff(fake)

You having a gun means others have the right to a gun, other people like these. Unless they've started demanding IQ tests and a teetotal pledge with the gun license, that means a lot of drunken idiots with guns.

Idiots+guns=/=saftey



I think its obvious from the response that the safety of others is not an issue. As long as people have their individual rights to freedom, as perceived through gun ownership, then they just dont care.

 Written by Lurch

So let me ask you this, if you put yourself in the criminals mind, as a mugger. Would you rather arm yourself with a gun, and go after another person with a gun, who has gone through the training and jumped the hoops to make sure its legal, and would probably be perfectly willing to fight for their life. Or would you rather go after someone who is unarmed and scared?



Lurch, you have told me before that it is difficult to detect a concealed weapon, so how would a criminal know you had a concealed weapon?

I think it takes more than buying a gun to simulate confidence. So I take umbrage at the suggestion that someone who is unarmed is scared or a coward. I dont feel scared if I dont have a gun. Though, I can see how someone would buy a gun if they became scared; say too scared to say walk down the street.

So, from my point of view, what you are really saying is that people start to carry guns because they are scared. Therefore, a criminal is most like to go after a person carrying a gun, because the are obviously scared and present an easy target.

 Written by Lurch

As a side note, hooray for the supreme court ruling in favor of the private citizen in terms of the 2nd Amendment!



I thought the lower court ruling was a face, and I still cannot fathom how an amendment reading: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" can somehow be interpreted as giving the right to individuals to bear arms.

 Written by Washington Post

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.



Hmmm, historical narrative. That seems more like hear say than compelling evidence.

 Written by Lurch

DC had an extremely unreasonable ban on all handguns, and rifles/shotguns had to be disassembled unloaded and locked. Making them useless for a defensive situation, and the law wasn't even clear if they *could* be used in defense of a person. But the criminals still had their guns, and used them openly because no one could oppose them legally.



Thats funny, the Mayor of Washington DC fears more handgun violence. And from what you say, it seems like this ruling could be the start of an 'arms race' between civilians and criminals. Not to mention that the ruling against trigger guards and other safety measures could see an escalation in accidents and violence in the home.


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: Written by :Stone

Lurch, you have told me before that it is difficult to detect a concealed weapon, so how would a criminal know you had a concealed weapon?



At some point up there I was discussing open carry for a short bit, I apologize if things got confusing. Regardless though, the argument still stands. There is a reason gun advocates refer to "gun free zones" as 'unarmed victim zones.' When you have an entire law abiding population that is guaranteed to be relatively defenseless, they're ripe pickings.

 Written by :Stone

So I take umbrage at the suggestion that someone who is unarmed is scared or a coward.



Well I'm sorry if it came across that way. You have every right to refuse to arm yourself, I'm not asking that you be required to. It's your *choice*. Thats all I want. Again, you've narrowed your vision down to the only reason someone would want to carry, or even buy a gun is because they're scared, that is simply not the case.

 Written by :Stone

I thought the lower court ruling was a face, and I still cannot fathom how an amendment reading: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" can somehow be interpreted as giving the right to individuals to bear arms.




I'm pretty sure I've posted a link to the transcripts form the court hearings. They make a decent case, and even support *reasonable* restrictions on the types of weapons one can own. That was the problem with the DC ban, there was nothing reasonable about it.

 Written by :Stone

Thats funny, the Mayor of Washington DC fears more handgun violence. And from what you say, it seems like this ruling could be the start of an 'arms race' between civilians and criminals. Not to mention that the ruling against trigger guards and other safety measures could see an escalation in accidents and violence in the home.



Indeed he does, I guess time will tell whether removing the ban will help or hurt. Well.. it can't really hurt the law abiding citizens much now can it? The criminals already have their way.. Maybe we'll end up with more dead criminals. Written by :Stone

Lurch, you have told me before that it is difficult to detect a concealed weapon, so how would a criminal know you had a concealed weapon?



At some point up there I was discussing open carry for a short bit, I apologize if things got confusing. Regardless though, the argument still stands. There is a reason gun advocates refer to "gun free zones" as 'unarmed victim zones.' When you have an entire law abiding population that is guaranteed to be relatively defenseless, they're ripe pickings.

 Written by :Stone

So I take umbrage at the suggestion that someone who is unarmed is scared or a coward.



Well I'm sorry if it came across that way. You have every right to refuse to arm yourself, I'm not asking that you be required to. It's your *choice*. Thats all I want. Again, you've narrowed your vision down to the only reason someone would want to carry, or even buy a gun is because they're scared, that is simply not the case.

 Written by :Stone

I thought the lower court ruling was a face, and I still cannot fathom how an amendment reading: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" can somehow be interpreted as giving the right to individuals to bear arms.




I'm pretty sure I've posted a link to the transcripts form the court hearings. They make a decent case, and even support *reasonable* restrictions on the types of weapons one can own. That was the problem with the DC ban, there was nothing reasonable about it.

 Written by :Stone

Thats funny, the Mayor of Washington DC fears more handgun violence. And from what you say, it seems like this ruling could be the start of an 'arms race' between civilians and criminals. Not to mention that the ruling against trigger guards and other safety measures could see an escalation in accidents and violence in the home.



Indeed he does, I guess time will tell whether removing the ban will help or hurt. Well.. it can't really hurt the law abiding citizens much now can it? The criminals already have their way.. Maybe we'll end up with more dead criminals.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :Lurch

Do you think it's pure coincidence that the major cities that have insanely strict gun laws also have the highest murder rates and gun violence?


Whilst I'm happy to agree to disagree on your views which stem from different values, you are demonstrably wrong on this point. Urban centers the world over have higher crime rates than their equivalent rural areas, irrespective of local changes in gun laws. In the UK where we have to conservative guns laws I advocate which do not change according to city, you still see an increase in gun violence in cities.

Whilst I cannot make any hard claim on why the US gun laws change in big cities, I would hazard a guess that stricter gun laws were introduced because of the higher rates of gun crime which were already endemic. If anything, it is possible that the "insanely strict" gun laws may actually lower what would be an even greater rate of gun violence which would exist without the restriction. In the absence of a proper study by competent statisticians we really can't say one way or another.

In short, be careful with correlation, and always check the control group.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Then doesn't it stand the guns don't make the violence anyways. So what's the problem

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

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by :faithinfire


Then doesn't it stand the guns don't make the violence anyways. So what's the problem


I'm sorry, but for the life of me I can't make head nor tail of your logic. Are you saying that because guns are not the sole cause of violence that they have absolutely no effect? confused


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Jeff - ignorance can be blissful... something me learns from this and other threads. wink

The gun debate lacks of logic once and so often... Thanks for bringing more reason into it and participating hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:I'd like to keep the discussion about guns and gun laws and (the psychological reasons for) school shooting(s) separate - if that's possible...

Originally Posted By: MSNBC
(...)
Interior Minister Anne Holmlund told a news conference that police were in contact with Saari a day before the shooting.

She said they had been alerted to footage posted on the Web showing him firing a handgun at a shooting range, but were unable to get in touch with him immediately.

"Police reached him on Monday, September 22, and asked him to be interviewed regarding the shooting video," Holmlund said.

She said Saari had a temporary permit for a pistol, but that the permit was not withdrawn.

"Police action will be examined in more detail later. The gunman had a temporary permit for a .22 caliber pistol, and he had received it in August 2008. It was his first gun."

The Internet connection revived memories of last year's deadly attack at Jokela high school, where student Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed six fellow students, the school nurse and the principal after broadcasting his intent in a YouTube video.

(...)

Crime rates are low in Finland but gun ownership is among the highest in the world.

(...)

Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, ranking third after the United States and Yemen, according to a study last year by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

After last year's Jokela shooting, the Finnish government took some steps to toughen gun regulations. On Tuesday, it held an emergency meeting of governing coalition party leaders.

Originally Posted By: MSNFinnish media focused heavily on how police, alerted to Saari's videos, could question him Monday but not confiscate the gun, why Saari could get a gun in the first place, and how to tighten Finland's gun law.

Tuesday Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said Finland should consider banning private handguns altogether.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Fire TomI'd like to keep the discussion about guns and gun laws and (the psychological reasons for) school shooting(s) separate - if that's possible...

Fire Tom, when its all said and done, I dont think you can separate "guns" from the psychological reasons for school shooting. Using guns as inspired by a violent gun culture has a lot to do with these shootings.


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

Delete

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

Suggesting that people ignore the role that guns play in theses situations is a form of censorship, IMO wink Romancing guns and going down in a blaze of glory, with as much publicity as possible, has a lot to do with the motivation behind these school shootings.

Here is a near miss, from wiki:

A 16-Year old boy was arrested after notebook retrieved from his locker at Penn High School stated I wanna break the current shooting record. I wanna get instant recognition. He and a 33 year old possible accompolice, Lee Billi, were charged with conspiracy. Trials Pending. June 4, 2008, Mishawaka, Indiana, United States.

Saari left behind two handwritten notes in his school dormitory stating that his motive for the shooting was: "I hate the human race." He also wrote: The solution is Walther 22, a reference to the handgun used in the shooting. The notes revealed that he had been planning the massacre for six years. A police spokesperson commented: Saari left notes saying he had a hatred for mankind, for the whole of the human race, and that he had been thinking about what he was going to do for years. The notes show he was very troubled and he hated everything. One former classmate, Susanna Keronen, stated: "He was happy, a social guy -- there was nothing exceptional - and he got along with people well and he was not lonely. He had friends (wiki).


I agree with the President, Tarja Halonen, and the Prime Minister who both said that a review was necessary, with Vanhanen suggesting that the time had to question whether or not private persons should be allowed to own handguns, in particular, automatic pistols (the kind used by Saari being a semi-automatic). He argued that Finland would only be bringing its laws into closer alignment with gun regulations the EU had set the previous summer. Halonen and Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb said that the government would discuss a divergence in policy between gun control for hunting rifles and handguns. Hunting remains a highly popular sport in Finland, and the Finnish Shooting Sport Federation executive director Risto Aarrekivi said that if people wanted to commit a crime such as this, they would gain access to a handgun regardless of the law. However, he did concede that allowing beginners to buy real firearms as their first guns should be reconsidered (wiki).

Join the dots.


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:At least the Finnish government seems to be taking a responsible approach to the school shootings. They are questioning the private ownership of handguns, and are considering bringing in gun regulations more in line with the civilised world. IMO, this is way in advance of the American solution, which you guessed it, is more guns.

Texas school OKs gun-toting teachers

Quote:A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district's superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The next thing you know it will be kids taking guns to school (it's their second amendment right you know), and we are back to square one.

I can hear it now Hey mum Im late for school, have you seem my gym shoes, my AK and my Glock?




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:Kids used to take guns to school Stone, even as recently as my parents generation it wasn't uncommon to have rifles or shotguns in pickups parked at the school.



But you're right, we should re-examine and remake our constitution and laws whenever someone abuses a right.

/sarcasm


#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: LurchKids used to take guns to school Stone, even as recently as my parents generation it wasn't uncommon to have rifles or shotguns in pickups parked at the school.

But you're right, we should re-examine and remake our constitution and laws whenever someone abuses a right.

/sarcasm


Sarcasm aside Lurch, you make a good point. Perhaps it is time America re-examined and remade its constitution and laws. Other countries have re-examined their position on private ownership of guns following gun massacre's, why not America??? Because one thing is for sure, things are not working and people are getting killed for no reason.


Many years ago my father used DDT down on the farm, he though it was great for killing insect pests. Unfortunately, it was found to have toxic side effects on humans, and it had to be banned. Times change, so isnt it about time America grew up as a nation, and introduced modern and civilised gun laws.


EDITED_BY: Stone (1222743263)


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

GitasGuy
GitasGuy

Pooh-Bah
Location: Brisbane
Member Since: 6th Jun 2006
Total posts: 2303
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchKids used to take guns to school Stone, even as recently as my parents generation it wasn't uncommon to have rifles or shotguns in pickups parked at the school.



But you're right, we should re-examine and remake our constitution and laws whenever someone abuses a right.

/sarcasm

Your parents era also had blacks as second class citizens and didn't allow then to vote. Your opinions are able to be changed if you try! Change is necessary for a country/race/culture to survive.


:admires giant wooden aeroplane: Its about time trees were good for something, instead of just standing their like jerks!!! ubblol ubbtickled

Homer rocks!!!! ubblol ubbrollsmile

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Oh Really? Because gun laws have only gotten stricter over the past few decades, and drastically so. Guns have become taboo, and sensationalized by people who scream 'guns are bad!' and do nothing to encourage any sort of positive role model.

You ever wonder why there are less shootings in rural communities, where there are far more guns? People are taught from a very young age about firearms, their rules, to respect them, and understand them. Compare that to urban culture where their only contact with guns is in movies and in crime and it's not very hard to comprehend why they are used inappropriately.

Whether you believe it or not, guns are not the enemy. The corruption of society is the enemy. And if you *still* think that guns are, wouldn't it be better for everyone to have a healthy understanding of them both good and bad, and the consequences associated with them rather than just blatantly categorize them as evil and lock them away?


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Page: 1...2829303132...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..