Right to bear arms prevents crime

[Eki]

Sure :

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


Gun-toting soccer mom, husband shot dead

By Edmund DeMarche
CNN

(CNN) -- Soccer mom Melanie Hain, who made national headlines last year by having a loaded, holstered handgun at her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game, has been found shot dead in her home along with her husband, police said Thursday.


Melanie Hain was found shot dead in her home along with her husband Thursday.

Information from 911 calls shows that it took a SWAT team nearly an hour and a half to gain entry to the Lebanon, Pennsylvania, home Wednesday evening. Inside, they found the bodies of Hain, 31, and her husband, Scott, 33, police Capt. Daniel Wright said.

[ShiftingGears]

Sure :

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Lets be honest here - they were nutters and could've killed themselves with a kitchen knife if they really wanted to. So I dont know how your thread title relates.

[Eki]

I figure my chances are better if I'm armed as opposed to them being armed and me not.
Chances of what? To be killed before you have a chance to use your weapon (the intruder acting in self-defense)? Or chances that your gun is stolen and maybe even used against you?

[Easy Drifter]

I don't know about crime in general.
In Minn. when it became legal to carry a concealed gun violent crime decreased. That has happened in other places as well.
In Canada it is very difficult to obtain a permit to own a handgun and even harder to get a permit to carry one. All long guns are supposed to be registered and it was to cost 2 million dollars to set up and run the registry. Over a billion dollars later the registry is rife with problems and many rural people have not and will not register their guns. The current Conservative Govt. has more or less suspended its operation and would like to shut it down. However, they are a minority Govt. and the other parties, including the Liberals who created the billion dollar boondoggle won't let them.
In the meantime illegal handguns have multuplied umpteen times and in some cities the gangbangers can even rent an illegal handgun. Shootings in all major cities are a way up, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Luckily most of these punks are terrible shots, although more and more innocent bystanders are getting hit as a result.

[Eki]

Oh, now the criminals are acting in self defense??

Why not? Do you think they want to be caught?

[Eki]

When they steal my gun, I'll buy another and we're back to square one.
Not while you lie dead in your bed or somewhere.

[Eki]

In what way is the initiator of a criminal act defending themselves? Your logic is faulty.

In the same way that defense lawyers defend criminals in court. They try to avoid being caught and sentenced.

[ShiftingGears]

In the same way that defense lawyers defend criminals in court. They try to avoid being caught and sentenced.

Being in court is not the same as committing an offense.

Committing an offense is not considered to be self defense when you are the guilty party, don't be petty.

[schmenke]

... I figure my chances are better if I'm armed as opposed to them being armed and me not.

I figure my chances are better if no one is armed in the first place.

[Eki]

Then the old saw is true - "When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns.".
The new saying is also true - "When lollipops are illegal, then only criminals will have lollipops".

[Easy Drifter]

Eki are you off your meds or into some really good stuff?
I rarely ever agree with you but you at least had an arguement. Now many of your posts are just blatherings that make no sense and have nothing to do with the posts.

[schmenke]

In theory, I would agree with you. It does not apply in real life anywhere that I'm aware of. You know what happens everytime you try to ban something. No matter what it is - booze, drugs, guns, prostitution - there has never, ever, been a success in eliminating it. You just drive it under ground. Then the old saw is true - "When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns.".

I'm not suggesting banning is the answer; in fact, I agree with you that this is a useless effort.
The problem lies within the bigger picture... There is something inherently wrong with a society that feels the need to for citizens to be armed to feel secure.

[Eki]

Eki are you off your meds or into some really good stuff?
I rarely ever agree with you but you at least had an arguement. Now many of your posts are just blatherings that make no sense and have nothing to do with the posts.
What part didn't you get? If owning a gun is a crime, then every gun owner is a criminal. The same goes for lollipops. If owning a lollipop is a crime, then every lollipop owner is a criminal. The saying "When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns" is self-evident, even if the only crime is to own a gun and there's no sense to point it out.

[Eki]

Being in court is not the same as committing an offense.

Committing an offense is not considered to be self defense when you are the guilty party, don't be petty.
Then how would you say "avoid getting caught and sentenced" using just one word if the word "defense" is reserved just for morally or legally just cases?

[Easy Drifter]

Many estimates say there are over a million unregistered long guns in Canada.
So I guess we have one heck of a lot of criminals, mostly farmers, by your reckoning.
We have enough gangbangers without trying to enforce a stupid long gun registry. The gangs sure don't register their handguns and they don't use long guns.
Remember the current Govt. has said, in effect, you no longer have to register the long guns.
Have you ever been to the US?
Have you ever been to Canada?
Have you ever been outside of Finland?
I mean really spent some time in another country, not just a weekend.
I think Finns called Eki should be made illegal. :eek: :p : :D

[chuck34]

What part didn't you get? If owning a gun is a crime, then every gun owner is a criminal. The same goes for lollipops. If owning a lollipop is a crime, then every lollipop owner is a criminal. The saying "When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns" is self-evident, even if the only crime is to own a gun and there's no sense to point it out.

You missed the entire point, yet again.

Right now, good people and bad people both own guns. If tomorrow guns are outlawed, the good people will turn their guns in. What do you think that bad people (aka criminals) will do?

[Eki]

Have you ever been to the US?
Yes. Twice (about 3 weeks combined).


Have you ever been to Canada?
Yes, but only for about 10 minutes (we had a chinese citizen with us and she would have needed a visa, so we all turned back to the US from the customs)


Have you ever been outside of Finland?
I mean really spent some time in another country, not just a weekend.

Yes, for example a week in Iceland and three days in Spitzbergen (both very beautiful and memorable places with friendly people).

[Eki]

You missed the entire point, yet again.

Right now, good people and bad people both own guns. If tomorrow guns are outlawed, the good people will turn their guns in. What do you think that bad people (aka criminals) will do?

For example they won't get more powerful weapons to stay ahead in the arms race. And they won't kill you first and take your money only after that if they can get your money without killing you.

[gloomyDAY]

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/pictures/slippery_slope.jpg

[chuck34]

For example they won't get more powerful weapons to stay ahead in the arms race.

So being killed by a 22 is better than being killed by an AK-47? Good to know I guess. I wished I liked in your happy little Utopian world, where everyone is an angel. It must be nice. Unfortunatly, I live in the real world.

[Eki]

So being killed by a 22 is better than being killed by an AK-47?
No, it's the same, but the one with an AK-47 probably has better chances to prevail than his opponent with a 22. Let's say 70-30 instead of 50-50.

[anthonyvop]

There is something inherently wrong with a society that feels the need to for citizens to be armed to feel secure.

Even worse is a society that abdicates it's right to self-determination to the state.

[anthonyvop]

No, it's the same, but the one with an AK-47 probably has better chances to prevail than his opponent with a 22. Let's say 70-30 instead of 50-50.
You know nothing about guns do you? I bet they SCARE you!

FYI. Did you know that the venerable M-16 uses a .22 caliber bullet?

The really interesting thing about criminals with AK's is that they never practice. they just spray and hope to hit something. Of course how they aren't full auto they just jerk the trigger as fast as they can. They would be in deep sh*t if they ran into me armed with my Ruger .22 pistol. That would never happen as I carry a .45.

[steve_spackman]

If Americans want to go around killing eachother, let em get on with it.

Im bored.....BORED of all these threads that seem to do nothing but incite hatred and fear into other peoples lives..Can we not talk about the good things in life for a change?

[Eki]

You know nothing about guns do you? I bet they SCARE you!

Nope. They don't scare me. When I was in the army (artillery) I shot 7.62 mm assault rifle and machine gun, 9 mm submachine gun, 122 mm howitzer and 130 mm cannon. In civilian life, the only gun I have is a 4.7 mm BB-gun I use for target shooting.


FYI. Did you know that the venerable M-16 uses a .22 caliber bullet?
So what? I'd trust my 7.62 mm RK 62 assault rifle anyday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62



The really interesting thing about criminals with AK's is that they never practice. they just spray and hope to hit something. Of course how they aren't full auto they just jerk the trigger as fast as they can. They would be in deep sh*t if they ran into me armed with my Ruger .22 pistol. That would never happen as I carry a .45.
What do you know about criminals? Bet you have never met one with an AK47. AK47s can be set to single shot mode, just like RK 62s, and in the army we were taught not shoot more than few rounds at a time in the full automatic mode for the barrel not to rise too much because of recoil.

[anthonyvop]

Nope. They don't scare me. When I was in the army (artillery) I shot 7.62 mm assault rifle and machine gun, 9 mm submachine gun, 122 mm howitzer and 130 mm cannon. In civilian life, the only gun I have is a 4.7 mm BB-gun I use for target shooting.


So what? I'd trust my 7.62 mm RK 62 assault rifle anyday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62



What do you know about criminals? Bet you have never met one with an AK47. AK47s can be set to single shot mode, just like RK 62s, and in the army we were taught not shoot more than few rounds at a time in the full automatic mode for the barrel not to rise too much because of recoil.
Ignorance suits you.

In the US AK-47's are semi-auto. Full auto weapons have been severely controlled since the 1930's.
Criminals are just that...criminals. they have decided to take what they think is the easy way. Considering that criminals cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms in the US it is a safe bet that you won't bump into them at the local range.
Interesting fact. In Florida they have issued over 100,000 concealed weapons permits over the years. Out of all those only 3 have committed a crime with a firearm.

Now really try and think logically and come to the logical conclusion....(this should be worth a laugh.)

[Eki]

Nope. They don't scare me. When I was in the army (artillery) I shot 7.62 mm assault rifle and machine gun, 9 mm submachine gun, 122 mm howitzer and 130 mm cannon.

130 mm cannon 130 K 54:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_mm_towed_field_gun_M1954_(M-46)

122 mm howitzer 122 H 63:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_H_63

7.62 mm Machine gun KK 62:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KvKK_62

9 mm submachine gun Suomi M31:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomi_M-31_SMG

[Eki]

Ignorance suits you.

In the US AK-47's are semi-auto. Full auto weapons have been severely controlled since the 1930's.
Criminals are just that...criminals. they have decided to take what they think is the easy way. Considering that criminals cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms in the US it is a safe bet that you won't bump into them at the local range.

"Criminals cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms in the US" is an oxymoron and kind of makes the point ""When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns" moot, doesn't it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

"Criminals cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms in the US" is an oxymoron and kind of makes the point ""When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns" moot, doesn't it?

The point is, and you usually lose it at some point Eki, is your thread is based on these idiots in PA with the legal guns dying in a Murder Suicide. You put this on to make anyone with a legal gun down as some sort of nut or criminal. Yet Anthony just pointed out with 100000 concealed weapons permits given out in Florida, only 3 were shown to have used them in crimes. That is lower than the crime rate of the population at large in just about any nation you can name. Ergo, people with legal guns are not the problem.

Your usual anti-US diatribe and slagging guns is the usual tripe. You own a BB gun, so therefore by your own logic you should be considered a crimnal? All guns are bad right?

I am of the opinion that gun ownership in a civilized society is perfectly normal and safe if the weapons in question are appropriate for personal protection and/or hunting. The USA defends this right in its constitution. They do this because of their history and the idea the population will not accept being unarmed by any government. If you understand US history, you can actually see where their point comes from, and until the constitution is amended to change that ( good luck ) then legal law abiding citizens will carry weapons. Whether they need them or not is inconsequential.

[AAReagles]

Eki are you off your meds or into some really good stuff?
I rarely ever agree with you but you at least had an arguement..


That arguement wasn't much more than a year ago, funny how he wasn't engaged in it then:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126174&highlight=Heston

That gun debate (AKA - Charlton Heston dies thread) went on for so long in time and thread pages it's a wonder why the gun-control debate is being brought up again.

[Eki]

You own a BB gun, so therefore by your own logic you should be considered a crimnal? All guns are bad right?

No, just those that are designed to kill. BB guns aren't.

[chuck34]

"Criminals cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms in the US" is an oxymoron and kind of makes the point ""When guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns" moot, doesn't it?

You really seem to be struggling with that saying. Maybe it's your English or something. It's a word play thing so perhaps you legitimatly don't get it. So let's break it down again, slowly this time.

Currently in the US there are a whole lot of people with guns (I don't have the exact number right now, maybe someone could look it up for me). Of those people some are criminals, but most are not.

Now the non criminals have at least some level of deterance against the criminals. Have you ever seen signs/bumperstickers that say "This house/car/whatever protected by Smith and Wesson Security" or something like that? What it means is that, hey criminal don't bother comming here, I can protect myself.

Let's say that you lot get your way and outlaw guns. A lot of law abiding people (who knows what the percentage would be) will turn their guns in. The criminals will not.

Now you have a situation where the criminals (you know the ones that are going to use a gun in a crime regardless of the law) are pretty much the only people who have guns. And the law abiding citizens no longer have a means to protect themselves. You seriously don't see a problem with that?

Look at it another way. After a gun ban law would be passed, the percentage of criminals with guns would stay the same (maybe even go up), and the percentage of law abiding citizens would dramatically decrease.

[Eki]

You really seem to be struggling with that saying. Maybe it's your English or something. It's a word play thing so perhaps you legitimatly don't get it. So let's break it down again, slowly this time.

Currently in the US there are a whole lot of people with guns (I don't have the exact number right now, maybe someone could look it up for me). Of those people some are criminals, but most are not.

Now the non criminals have at least some level of deterance against the criminals. Have you ever seen signs/bumperstickers that say "This house/car/whatever protected by Smith and Wesson Security" or something like that? What it means is that, hey criminal don't bother comming here, I can protect myself.

Let's say that you lot get your way and outlaw guns. A lot of law abiding people (who knows what the percentage would be) will turn their guns in. The criminals will not.

Now you have a situation where the criminals (you know the ones that are going to use a gun in a crime regardless of the law) are pretty much the only people who have guns. And the law abiding citizens no longer have a means to protect themselves. You seriously don't see a problem with that?

Look at it another way. After a gun ban law would be passed, the percentage of criminals with guns would stay the same (maybe even go up), and the percentage of law abiding citizens would dramatically decrease.

I knew what the saying was meant to mean, you don't have to explain it to me. My English isn't that bad, and it would be the same in any language. I just think the saying is stupid, because it's obvious that if owning a gun is illegal, every gun owner is then a criminal regardless if he was a criminal before owning a gun became a crime.

[Eki]

Have you ever seen signs/bumperstickers that say "This house/car/whatever protected by Smith and Wesson Security" or something like that?
Only in and around Los Angeles, where they often had signs saying "Neighborhood watch, armed response" and many seemed to have bars on their windows, which I thought was strange. Here criminals live behind bars, not decent people. But still I believe the bars work better against crime than any bumbersticker or sign. I thing the sign could just tell a potential criminal:

1) You have something valuable that you're ready to defend by all means.

2) He must sneak on you and kill or otherwise immobilize you before you have a chance to use your gun.

[donKey jote]

What it means is that, hey criminal don't bother comming here, I can protect myself.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-bk-winter-springs-fatal-shooting-100909,0,3718388.story

[donKey jote]

... many seemed to have bars on their windows, which I thought was strange. Here criminals live behind bars, not decent people. But still I believe the bars work better against crime than any bumbersticker or sign. I thing the sign could just tell a potential criminal:

1) You have something valuable that you're ready to defend by all means.
...


You might have a point... my parents' house in Spain has never been broken into while quite a few of the barred houses around it have :)

[Eki]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-bk-winter-springs-fatal-shooting-100909,0,3718388.story
Yes, that is one problem of being trigger-happy or jumpy AND owning a gun. IMO before getting a gun license, everyone should go through a medical examination, thorough psychological evaluation and training. I mean, at least here you don't get a pilot or driving license without a medical examination and training, and the military service also included psychological evaluation in addition to medical examination and training, so why should you get a gun without them?

[Eki]

I knew what the saying was meant to mean, you don't have to explain it to me. My English isn't that bad, and it would be the same in any language. I just think the saying is stupid, because it's obvious that if owning a gun is illegal, every gun owner is then a criminal regardless if he was a criminal before owning a gun became a crime.
Oh, and if civilian guns were banned, at least here the police and the military would have guns in addition to criminals, which IMO would be sufficient. It's the job of the police to fight criminals, not the job of ordinary citizens.

[Captain VXR]

Oh, and if civilian guns were banned, at least here the police and the military would have guns in addition to criminals, which IMO would be sufficient. It's the job of the police to fight criminals, not the job of ordinary citizens.

So if a gun toting psychopathic robber decides to break into your house, do you shoot or call the Police and wait 45 minutes as you're squealing like a piggy and then being shoved into bin liners?

[Eki]

So if a gun toting psychopathic robber decides to break into your house, do you shoot or call the Police and wait 45 minutes as you're squealing like a piggy and then being shoved into bin liners?
1) It's very unlikely 2) I'd try not to give him a reason to shove me into bin liners 3) I'd let him take what he wants and leave, then call the police and my insurance company.

[Jag_Warrior]

The dude should have just followed O.J.'s example and lopped her head off with a good, sharp knife. Then everything would be OK. :dozey:

[Captain VXR]

1) It's very unlikely 2) I'd try not to give him a reason to shove me into bin liners 3) I'd let him take what he wants and leave, then call the police and my insurance company.

1) Isn't it best to be prepared for the worst case scenario?
2) It happens because some kill without mercy - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8294185.stm
3) Not everything is replaceable

[airshifter]

Eki will ignore all of the links proving that weapons and the civilians that owned them protected anyone. Ask him who scored the first hit during the Newhall Massacre, or ask him if he knows who Massad Ayoob is. Most likely he knows neither answer, as it wouldn't suit his point of view. ;)

[Rollo]

So if a gun toting psychopathic robber decides to break into your house,

That gun toting psychopath in the US has the right to have that gun, therefore you have no right to complain about it.

[anthonyvop]

It's the job of the police to fight criminals, not the job of ordinary citizens.

It is? Maybe in your country and that is really sad that you have abdicated your right of self determination.

[Jag_Warrior]

That gun toting psychopath in the US has the right to have that gun, therefore you have no right to complain about it.

Not necessarily. If he's actually been declared a "psychopath" by a court, or if he's been previously convicted of certain crimes, he is banned from owning or possessing a firearm in the U.S.

Folks, I think what several are saying (in various ways) is, you can ban anything that you want. Whether or not the ban would be effective in accomplishing the goal of reducing crime is another matter. There is a ban on cocaine in the U.S. Yet, one of the France family pups just got busted for possesion of cocaine a few days ago. Words on pieces of paper mean nothing to people who either don't pay attention to words on pieces of paper... or who can't read words on pieces of paper to begin with.

Most Americans, including those of us who belong to the NRA and other pro-2nd Amendment groups, are MUCH in favor of enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. There is an EXTREMELY high probability that members of the Crips, Bloods, Aryan Brotherhood, the Triads, the Russian/Israeli and Italian mafias and the various South and Central American drug cartels are violating firearms and drug laws. If Bush had, or if Obama would, lay waste to these groups and the international financiers who launder their profits, average Americans of every political stripe would get behind the effort.

But as we've seen, actually doing somethng about the crime problem is a helluva lot tougher than just passing some meaningless, feel good law. And so, here we are. :dozey:

[Rollo]

Not necessarily. If he's actually been declared a "psychopath" by a court, or if he's been previously convicted of certain crimes, he is banned from owning or possessing a firearm in the U.S.

How'd he get it then? By stealing if off someone who does have the right? Either way because someone has the right, the chance of that gun being in someone's hands where it could be stolen was increased. That my friend, is not particularly smart.

[janvanvurpa]

The new saying is also true - "When lollipops are illegal, then only criminals will have lollipops".


Poiki in the part of town here where it was always full of Square-heads and herring Chokers (Swedes and Norwegians in the local dialect) and where even in the late 60s you could see advertisements in Swedish---Alla behöver mjölk!--- you can still see signs and bumperstickers "When Lutefisk is outlawed, only outlaws will have Lutefisk"

I wonder when they declare that crap illegal and "livsfarlig"?

[Jag_Warrior]

How'd he get it then? By stealing if off someone who does have the right? Either way because someone has the right, the chance of that gun being in someone's hands where it could be stolen was increased. That my friend, is not particularly smart.

How do people buy cocaine? How do people buy any number of banned items and substances? In the early 90's, there was a scandal in Washington, D.C., in which the city police were "losing", and then selling, their Glock 22's to local drug dealers. In Washington, D.C. at that time, it was illegal to own or possess a handgun, or even handgun ammunition (as yours truly found out). And even with that ban, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. was about the highest in the nation. The guns in D.C. came from lots of places... not just the police. There were straw-buyers and people who would illegally "import" them from other states. Bill "Assault Weapons Ban" Clinton had as his pal a gentleman whose company was working to illegally import (fully automatic) AK47's to American street gangs. Look up and read the story of Mr. Johnny Chung.

The very existence of an item increases the possibility of it being stolen. But is firearms theft the major crime problem that we are trying to address in the U.S.? I mean, are we now at the point that in order to keep thieves from stealing, we'll just not have anything?

I would very much like to see guns taken out of the hands of criminals... especially gangs. We have a terrible gang problem here in the U.S., mostly in the medium to larger cities. Call me cynical. But I find it very hard to understand how the U.S. government can trace a $50 money order said to be headed for Al Qaeda, but the combined resources of the DEA, FBI, IRS and Secret Service cannot locate the tens of billions of dollars that flow in & out of the U.S., fueling the drug trade.

One woman gets shot and killed by her insane husband. That is unfortunate. I really mean that. But meanwhile, thousands of lives are being ruined by gang violence and the hard drug trade on a daily basis.

How does a drug dealer buy a fully automatic AK47, Uzi or M16 (that no other American could legally buy)??? The same way that he gets his coke and heroin past DEA and Border Patrol agents. The same way that he gets the best lawyers to get him out of trouble. The same way that he gets a banker to launder his money for him. The same way that he gets witnesses to his crimes to remain silent or disappear. He pay$ well.

As I said, a ban is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. What is the government going to do if guns are banned and people don't comply? Kick down the doors of (now) legal gun owners? They can't do anything about the crime problem we have now, but they'd kick down the doors of (once law abiding) citizens. My goodness, talk about blood in the street. I'm not part of the lunatic fringe. But that sort of action would send me over to their side in a flash.

[DexDexter]

It is? Maybe in your country and that is really sad that you have abdicated your right of self determination.

Don't ever come here, they'll take your gun away and you're left without any defense against the 85% of male population that can use an AK 47 with their eyes closed. :eek: No spraying....

Around here the right to carry arms would make some sense since most males (at least) would actually know how not to shoot somebody.

[Eki]

Around here the right to carry arms would make some sense since most males (at least) would actually know how not to shoot somebody.
Yes, but the psychological tests of the military are not fool-proof, so there would still be risks. Remember Mika Muranen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Muranen


Mika Kalevi Muranen (born 1971 in Kotka, Finland), a military conscript, returned to his barracks in Hamina from a holiday on Sunday, April 17, 1994, stole an Rk 62 assault rifle from the barracks and fled to his hometown.

The next day, still dressed in his uniform, he entered his neighborhood and shot two of his neighbors, Reino Vulkko, 53, and his wife Sirkka , 54, with a crossbow he had taken from his home. On April 19 Muranen shot mailman Matti Olli, 45, with the assault rifle. He also shot randomly at nearby houses, escaping into the forest with his dog. During the chase, police shot the dog with a submachine gun, while Muranen returned fire with the assault rifle.

The police chased him for a day before slightly wounding him. After he was arrested he expressed regret that his military service would be terminated.

Muranen was found to be competent to stand trial. Kotka district court sentenced him to life in prison on three counts of murder, eight counts of attempted murder and three counts of attempted manslaughter. He was sent to a prison in Mikkeli and later transferred to a prison in Laukaa.

The same year, there was a similar case in Sweden, where army officer Mattias Flink killed seven people with an Ak 5.

In 2006, while Muranen was serving his sentence in Laukaa ,he gave an interview to the Finnish crime magazine Alibi

Muranen applied for parole in December 2007.[1]

[Malbec]

Both arguments for and against gun control are highly flawed. Gun ownership isn't directly linked to crime or the lack of it. The US has high gun ownership rates and high murder rates. Canada and Finland have the guns but not the crime. Europe and Japan have low gun ownership rates and low murder rates.

As others have said, gun crime in the US is mainly committed by gangs and is often directed against other gang members. The chances of someone living outside gangland areas being threatened by a gun is actually quite low (same for the UK). Therefore the justification that legal gun owners give for gun ownership, about the risk of facing gun crime, isn't one that is backed up by statistics. Those legal owners face far higher risks to their lives from car accidents or other more common problems.

Therefore the argument around gun control isn't based on the real likelihood of being faced with guncrime, its about perceptions of peoples rights specifically the right to bear arms. On that issue, there isn't much chance of people changing their minds whichever direction they are coming from.

[Easy Drifter]

I don't know where you got your info from but the major cities in Canada have a major gangbanger gun problem. Several innocent bystanders have been shot, and some killed, in Toronto.
The gangbangers are terribly inaccurate in their shooting and are as likely to hit a an innocent person as their target. They also do not care who they hit.

Long guns are another matter and in the northern part of Canada hunting is a way of life as is fishing. It is to provide food for the table not to get a trophy.
Even where I live in Central Ont. many people hunt and fish to provide food for themselves and family. Being an area that is heavily summer tourist oriented many people are laid off in the fall and not rehired until late spring.

[Malbec]

I don't know where you got your info from but the major cities in Canada have a major gangbanger gun problem. Several innocent bystanders have been shot, and some killed, in Toronto.
The gangbangers are terribly inaccurate in their shooting and are as likely to hit a an innocent person as their target. They also do not care who they hit.

The overall murder rate still falls far short of that in the US.

Read my post carefully, what you are saying is not far different from my point of view.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Some of the Americans on here seem to live in perpetual fear of other people and what they might do.

[Jag_Warrior]

Some of the Americans on here seem to live in perpetual fear of other people and what they might do.

Possibly. But it seems the very same could be said for those who believe in banning private ownership of weapons. They seem to want bans because they live in perpetual fear of what those with weapons MIGHT do.

Anyway, this discussion made me think of something I heard long ago:

Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[Eki]

Possibly. But it seems the very same could be said for those who believe in banning private ownership of weapons. They seem to want bans because they live in perpetual fear of what those with weapons MIGHT do.

Anyway, this discussion made me think of something I heard long ago:
True, but us believing in banning private ownership of weapons are more afraid what gun owners might do to their family members, co-workers and other people they know instead of what they might do to us. In Finland, most killings are done to people the killer knows and very few are done random by intruders. I'm sure that also in the US more family members, relatives, friends, fellow students and co-workers are killed by legal weapons than psycopathic intruders are. It's like the war against terrorism has killed more than the actual terror attacks have.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I just worry for humanity. Do we need to be fearful of each other and protective of ourselves? Can we change?

[BDunnell]

I just worry for humanity. Do we need to be fearful of each other and protective of ourselves? Can we change?

Those with a sense of paranoia about potential threats seem to be winning the day, alas.

[Jag_Warrior]

True, but us believing in banning private ownership of weapons are more afraid what gun owners might do to their family members, co-workers and other people they know instead of what they might do to us. In Finland, most killings are done to people the killer knows and very few are done random by intruders. I'm sure that also in the US more family members, relatives, friends, fellow students and co-workers are killed by legal weapons than psycopathic intruders are. It's like the war against terrorism has killed more than the actual terror attacks have.

And from what I've read, most sexual assaults take place between women and men that they know. I don't know what to say about that either. But my answer wouldn't be to suggest that women begin dating complete strangers, thereby lessening the chance that an acquaintance will rape them.

If crime in America is really of concern, then help us. Have your government write letters to our government. Maybe suggest that instead of us having troops in Europe, your troops will shoulder that burden and our soldiers should return to America and become part of a paramilitary force that will deal with violent street criminals. That's one idea. Most of us would like to see something done, on a national scale, to attack violent crime and violent criminals. But I see very little being done and very scant results. What is THE strategy for that attack? I'm not a crime expert. I don't know. I'd love to hear some ideas from others though.

We already have a ban in this country on convicted criminals possessing firearms of any type. We have a restriction on automatic weapons, that is so effective that no legally owned fully automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since at least 1968. But there are automatic weapons on the streets, and some have been used to commit crimes (i.e. the L.A. bank robbery a few years ago). How did those convicted felons secure weapons that no private citizen in the U.S. could legally acquire? Why did the U.S. government decline to prosecute the people involved in the Chung/Poly Technologies/Norinco case??? Why would our government not want to hang people up by the thumbs who were attempting to arm vicious street gangs like the Crips and the Bloods? Especially a government that was, at that time, promoting an assault weapons ban for the average citizen? So it's bad if John Q. Public buys a weapon that is a semi-auto, but it's OK if a violent drug dealer has a sub-machine gun?! That confuses me... and makes me that much more cynical about the true motives of (some) gun control advocates.

Why do so many children in the U.S. no longer have even the slightest bit of respect for the life, liberty and property of others? Why do so many of them place no value on their own lives, much less the lives of others? I really wish that I knew the answers to those questions. But I don't.

And I'm sorry. But I really fail to see how passing a law that prohibits otherwise law abiding Americans from owning firearms will make lil Johnny go to school, get a job and not be a drug dealer who kills people who get in his way. But I agree, we do have a problem here.

So let's get to the root cause of the problem. That's what I am saying. And one or two anecdotals about people shooting or stabbing their spouses doesn't get to the root cause, IMO.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Surely the root cause is the dysfunction of the human mind. And that dysfunction appears in, and is fuelled by, all of us. The act of trying to prove yourself right and others wrong on internet forums (which is what we're doing) is just a lesser manifestation of the same dysfunction that causes violence and war.

[Jag_Warrior]

I just worry for humanity. Do we need to be fearful of each other and protective of ourselves?

I'd say that the history of humanity suggests that it's most often wise to be at least careful, if not fearful, of our fellow homo sapiens much of the time.



Can we change?

Well, I suppose we can. But the question is, will we?

[Jag_Warrior]

Surely the root cause is the dysfunction of the human mind.

I think you're right. But that's the one "machine" that we've yet to really figure out. :(

[Rollo]

Well, I suppose we can. But the question is, will we?

In the case of the United States, the answer is a very very strongly world "no". The price of 11,000+ deaths a year because of firearms is acceptable or else someone would have changed the legislation, but due to the fierce defence of the second amendment, this will never happen.

[Jag_Warrior]

In the case of the United States, the answer is a very very strongly world "no". The price of 11,000+ deaths a year because of firearms is acceptable or else someone would have changed the legislation, but due to the fierce defence of the second amendment, this will never happen.

It seems we have come full circle.

Again I ask, how do words on a piece of paper solve a problem? Cocaine is a banned (controlled) substance. And yet, how many tons of it are smuggled into the U.S. every year? We already have legislatiion which deals with violent felons possessing firearms. But criminals being criminals, they don't seem too keen on following that (or any) law.

Rather than just speaking about some nebulous anti-gun legislation, I'd like for someone to give at least a brief concept about how this legislation would be enforced, especially with respect to the criminal element that isn't following the current legislation.

Let's even forget about whether it would be effective or not. How would it be enforced???

[gloomyDAY]

I'm going to exercise my right to bear arms today and look at or buy this gun:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1103&return=Y

[anthonyvop]

I'm going to exercise my right to bear arms today and look at or buy this gun:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1103&return=Y
Great little plinking weapon

[Rollo]

Let's even forget about whether it would be effective or not. How would it be enforced???

In Australia after an event in which 35 people were killed, the Federal Government and all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns.
There was a subsequent Government buy-back during an amnesty period, and the import of firearms heavily controlled.

According to the ABS Book of the Year for 2008 we had 39 deaths due to firearms in Australia, which means that the rates are still falling.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws,"

The biggest difference, between Australia and the US is that no such thing as the "right to bear arms" exists except for what could exist under the Bill of Rights Act 1689 (UK). Also, there isn't really a very big capacity to produce them here, where as in the US, there is a very big capacity to produce firearms and ammunition (Americans bought 7 billion bullets last year).

Obviously the two countries are vastly different, but the legislation which exists sets the tone, and by inference the results.

[gloomyDAY]

Great little plinking weapon :) I just want to start small and then I'll save up to buy it's big brother, Mini-14.

[Jag_Warrior]

The biggest difference, between Australia and the US is that no such thing as the "right to bear arms" exists except for what could exist under the Bill of Rights Act 1689 (UK). Also, there isn't really a very big capacity to produce them here, where as in the US, there is a very big capacity to produce firearms and ammunition (Americans bought 7 billion bullets last year).

Yes, those things, as well as the fact that Australia has a natural border (oceans), which makes controlling what comes into or leaves the country much easier than in the U.S. In addition to the legal and cultural differences, within the U.S. there are nearly a quarter of a billion firearms in circulation. That's a lot of guns to round up... and that's just the legal ones that the Dept. of Justice knows about. Who knows how many illegal Uzis, M16's, AK47's, etc. there are?



Obviously the two countries are vastly different, but the legislation which exists sets the tone, and by inference the results.

I compare legislation to the time when I used to write policies and procedures for projects. One would actually only address the legislation (policies and procedures) AFTER the problem has been properly defined, measured and analyzed. Only then can one attempt to improve the situation, and then control it. But here, what is the control mechanism? Or in the case of a law, what is the enforcement plan? Here again, I can point to the laws dealing with cocaine, meth and heroin. Drugs and drug dealing are actually at the heart of our crime problem here. But we have plenty of laws on the books which prohibit drug possession and sales. They ain't working. We've been pounding sand for nearly 40 years! Without a real and effective enforcement plan, laws just get put on the books to make people feel good.

Let's be honest, Rollo... as I have stated, it's already illegal for certain people to have guns now. So another law is not going to be followed by those fine folks. The only people who would be caught up in this net are otherwise law abiding citizens... the very people who are not major contributors to our crime problem. In fact, a lot of them are some of the most pro law & order people you'd ever meet.

It's fine to be anti gun. I don't agree at all with that position for my nation. But it's fine to disagree. But to say that it will reduce crime... well, I am a "show me how" kinda guy. And in all of my years of discussing this topic, no one has been able to do that. All of this ignores the fact that many Americans do not own firearms because of crime or to go hunting. But that's another matter altogether. ;)

[Jag_Warrior]

:) I just want to start small and then I'll save up to buy it's big brother, Mini-14.

Both are good weapons. But when you step up, have you thought about something in .308? I don't know what you primarily want it for, but do you really want a .223? You're in California? I don't know what is or isn't available and legal there. But there are some fine AR-15 variants in caliber .308/7.62x51mm. I've never been a big fan of AR's or the variants. But if I could only have one gun for the rest of my life, I'd probably get a top shelf AR variant in .308.

[gloomyDAY]

Both are good weapons. But when you step up, have you thought about something in .308? I don't know what you primarily want it for, but do you really want a .223? You're in California? I don't know what is or isn't available and legal there. But there are some fine AR-15 variants in caliber .308/7.62x51mm. I've never been a big fan of AR's or the variants. But if I could only have one gun for the rest of my life, I'd probably get a top shelf AR variant in .308.I just bought that little Ruger today and am really happy. The primary use is just target practice and some amusement with my friend's on the weekend. The cost was $250 with taxes included, but then :rolleyes: , I had to pay an additional $25 State of California tax for a 10 day background check. The total was $275 and some change and I'll get my gun on October 22 at the earliest.

The gun ownership laws in California are very stringent. Unfortunately, I'm s.o.l. because my favorite caliber is .223! I have some experience in shooting assault rifles but I'm short on options. Since the AK-47 (7.62mm), M-16, and M-4 are outlawed to California citizens (unless you have a special permit) my only option aside from the Mini-14/30 is the AR-15. I've fired the AR a few times and I didn't like it at all. Felt like I was walking around with a plastic BB-gun the whole time. So, in a few months I'll buy the Mini-14 with a wood stock and I'll be happier than a pig in .....

I'll make a thread later when I take the gun to the range.

[Jag_Warrior]

I just bought that little Ruger today and am really happy. The primary use is just target practice and some amusement with my friend's on the weekend. The cost was $250 with taxes included, but then :rolleyes: , I had to pay an additional $25 State of California tax for a 10 day background check. The total was $275 and some change and I'll get my gun on October 22 at the earliest.

The gun ownership laws in California are very stringent. Unfortunately, I'm s.o.l. because my favorite caliber is .223! I have some experience in shooting assault rifles but I'm short on options. Since the AK-47 (7.62mm), M-16, and M-4 are outlawed to California citizens (unless you have a special permit) my only option aside from the Mini-14/30 is the AR-15. I've fired the AR a few times and I didn't like it at all. Felt like I was walking around with a plastic BB-gun the whole time. So, in a few months I'll buy the Mini-14 with a wood stock and I'll be happier than a pig in .....

I'll make a thread later when I take the gun to the range.

Sounds like you'll enjoy the Ruger .22 then.

If you're talking about a real Colt M4 (or M-16), it's not California that's the problem with getting one. They're select fire weapons covered under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 - any select fire or fully automatic weapon registered after 1986 is not legally transferable to any private citizen of the U.S. Outside of cops and the military, what people think are M4's are really just semi-auto variants of the AR-15. I was thinking that pretty much all "assault weapons" were banned in California, including AR-15's. I'm surprised you can still get the Mini-14/30's out there. Better get it now! I hear your next governor may be named Brown... and he'll be looking for you (legal) gun nuts. :D

[Eki]

We already have a ban in this country on convicted criminals possessing firearms of any type. We have a restriction on automatic weapons, that is so effective that no legally owned fully automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since at least 1968. But there are automatic weapons on the streets, and some have been used to commit crimes (i.e. the L.A. bank robbery a few years ago). .
Yes, criminals get guns, legal or illegal, but how likely are non-criminals to aquire illegal guns? How often the guns used against family members and in school, workplace or orher senless massacres are legal? I believe in most cases. The illegal weapons of criminals are probably more often used to settle their internal disputes, against the police and as a threat in robberies. Did anyone die in that L.A. bank robbery or were they just threatening people with those automatic weapons?

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, criminals get guns, legal or illegal, but how likely are non-criminals to aquire illegal guns? How often the guns used against family members and in school, workplace or orher senless massacres are legal?

I have no data on that, Eki. I don't know. All I can tell you is that unless someone is a felon, has been dishonorably discharged from the military, has court recognized mental issues or has been convicted of domestic violence (maybe some other disqualifiers too... not sure), that adult person can legally obtain a firearm in most states in the U.S. Are there previously peaceful people who sometimes go off the tracks and commit crimes? Of course. Is that THE major problem that we're facing here? I would say not, based on the data that I have seen over the years.




I believe in most cases. The illegal weapons of criminals are probably more often used to settle their internal disputes, against the police and as a threat in robberies. Did anyone die in that L.A. bank robbery or were they just threatening people with those automatic weapons?

Criminals, especially gangs that do drive-bys, shoot at anyone and everyone. Innocent kids (and adults) are being killed daily in Chicago, L.A., Washington, D.C., Houston, Atlanta, Miami and other major U.S. cities by gang bangers and drug cartel members. They don't care if they happen to kill a mother and her 2 year old while they're shooting at Paco and Pookie. People used to not worry so much about the Italian mafia, because they had a sort of (loose) code, whereby they'd avoid mowing down civilians. That fantasy no longer exists. I watched a show about gangs earlier this year. It was sad to see parents describing how they made their children sleep on the floor in their bedrooms, so there'd be less chance that a stray round from a drive-by would kill them. CNN ran a piece on the violence taking place in Chicago right now. Gang bangers are shooting innocent people for the hell of it as they walk down the street on the South Side - many of them children.

I would say that gangs, organized crime and drug dealers/buyers are the source of most of the gun crimes in this country.

The odd story about a husband who offs his wife is sensational... and sad. But it strikes unnecessary fear, in the same way that stories about shark attacks cause people to stop swimming.

EDIT: Oh, and during the L.A. bank robbery, close to 20 people were injured by the gunfire. I'm not sure if any of them died, besides the robbers.

[janvanvurpa]

If somebody was interested in what types and percentages were, rather than talking about their gut feeling, one could look here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

[Daniel]

Right to kill family members strikes again!
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=150135592&ocid=today

[Rollo]

I would say that gangs, organized crime and drug dealers/buyers are the source of most of the gun crimes in this country.

Er no. The most common sources of gun crimes are either suicide or someone within the family murdering someone else within the immediate family unit according to Bureau of Justice stats.

Gangs and so called "violent" criminals account for less than 15%, it's just that they make the headlines.

[chuck34]

I can't help but notice that no one has yet mentioned the real reason the US Constitution has a gun ownership right in it. Our founding fathers were very wise. There are several reasons for it. Conditions at the time were that people needed firearms to hunt for their food and defend themselves from indians, etc. Both of those are pretty much obsolete. The real reason though, and remember how this country (the US) was founded, is that so long as there is a reasonably well armed population no government can become too abusive or controlling. Read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me.

Can't happen here in this day and age? Really? Think Bush 2 (along with Chaney); Nixon and McCarthy. All of the them were going in a very unhealthy direction.

I've brought that up before in these gun control debates. No one will believe you.

Here they come now with "shouldn't the population have nukes, etc."

[donKey jote]

Right to kill family members strikes again!
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=150135592&ocid=today

again ?! :eek: :eek:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=702538&postcount=40

:laugh:
:dozey:

[Daniel]

again ?!

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=702538&postcount=40


:dozey:
Yes! Again! She rose from the dead and he shot her again as she was a zombie :mark: :p :dozey:

Perhaps I should read threads through more often :p

[anthonyvop]

Can't happen here in this day and age? Really? Think Bush 2 (along with Chaney); Nixon and McCarthy. All of the them were going in a very unhealthy direction.
Actually the Carter years was when it almost came to pass.

[Jag_Warrior]

Er no. The most common sources of gun crimes are either suicide or someone within the family murdering someone else within the immediate family unit according to Bureau of Justice stats.

Gangs and so called "violent" criminals account for less than 15%, it's just that they make the headlines.

Well, this is from the DoJ site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relgun.png

By the Bureau of Justice/DoJ graphs, if I go to the latest reported year, 2005 (only), and add together the approximate figures for guns used on "intimate" and "nonintimate" family members (roughly 800 and 500), the combination would not equal the number for "stranger" (roughly 1800) alone. By the data, there has actually been a marked decline in the use of firearms in the deaths of intimate family members over the years. What you're claiming would have been true in 1975, but according to this data, it no longer is. The data shows that the use of non-guns has either grown or remained rather steady among intimate and nonintimate family members. Me, I keep a Roman gladius handy in case the gal-pal ever gets too frisky. :D

Believe me, Rollo, I'm not seeking to pick & choose stats to make my point. Data that proves me wrong on my assertion is welcome. But when I've seen stats on gun crime, I've never seen suicides included, unless it involved a murder-suicide. In following various links, I see that the majority of gun related deaths are suicides (56.5% of all gun deaths). But in the case of gun crimes, I am speaking to homocides, (10,100 homicides in 2005), but not suicides (16K+). BUT, if discussing the role of suicide AND drugs, another site links back to the DoJ site and states:
In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm


From the DoJ site there is this statement:

Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm#relgun


And on another site, I found this for Los Angeles:


Year 2001

Gang-Related Homicides
Los Angeles County: 587

All Homicides
Los Angeles County: 1,070

Percent of L.A. County Homicides Which are Gang-Related: 54.9%


http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr03x.htm

[GridGirl]

I don't know. When it comes to facts Rollo can usually beat everyone. :)

[anthonyvop]

I don't know. When it comes to facts Rollo can usually beat everyone. :)
Facts or meat?

He is good at finding unsubstantiated or unsupportable facts. As for his meat......I rather not know.

[Rollo]

The real reason though, and remember how this country (the US) was founded, is that so long as there is a reasonably well armed population no government can become too abusive or controlling. Read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me.

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that it is entirely irrelevant though.

Article 3, Section 3 also forbids the individual from waging war against the United States. Furthermore the findings in Texas v White also deny the states the right of secession.
If the US Constitution is the primary source of law within the US, and Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, then both of these have far more legal weight than the Federalist papers. Neither the individual nor the states are legally allowed to attack the government.

A so called "right to revolution" although it might be contained within the state constitutions, is by operation of law null and void when it comes to the Federal Government of the United States. A right never gives rise to break the law even if it does happen to exist in the ambiguousness of Amendments 9 and 10.

[chuck34]

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that it is entirely irrelevant though.

Article 3, Section 3 also forbids the individual from waging war against the United States. Furthermore the findings in Texas v White also deny the states the right of secession.
If the US Constitution is the primary source of law within the US, and Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, then both of these have far more legal weight than the Federalist papers. Neither the individual nor the states are legally allowed to attack the government.

A so called "right to revolution" although it might be contained within the state constitutions, is by operation of law null and void when it comes to the Federal Government of the United States. A right never gives rise to break the law even if it does happen to exist in the ambiguousness of Amendments 9 and 10.

A Revolution is only a Revolution if the rebels win. Otherwise it's an insurrection or Civil War.

Had the US lost the Revolutionary War, all the Founding Fathers would probably been hanged (hung?) as trator. And all of us would have learned about the "Tax Revolt" or some such thing in school.

Point is, laws only go so far as they can be enforced. Laws are only words on paper if no one enforces them. And if enough people don't agree with a law, there is no amount of ink or paper that will enforce said law. The Founders knew this when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And Jefferson most certainly knew this when he said "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

[Eki]

And Jefferson most certainly knew this when he said "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
Interesting. Is it because you have not been able to refresh it on home soil since 1865, you have started to refresh it with blood overseas? I think not everything someone said 200 years or 2000 years ago should be taken literally on the year 2009.

[Garry Walker]

Those with a sense of paranoia about potential threats seem to be winning the day, alas.

Another person with no grip on reality.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Another person with no grip on reality.

Really? I can't think of a situation in my life where a gun would've been required. Nor the lives of my friends and family.

[Garry Walker]

Really? I can't think of a situation in my life where a gun would've been required. Nor the lives of my friends and family.

You are lucky then. I could give you examples of the opposite, but as it is a public forum, I dont particulary wish to go into such discussions.

As for an example, I have been attacked on the street and only the fact that I know how to defend myself, saved my ass.

[Eki]

As for an example, I have been attacked on the street and only the fact that I know how to defend myself, saved my ass.
How did you get into that situation?

[BeansBeansBeans]

As for an example, I have been attacked on the street and only the fact that I know how to defend myself, saved my ass.

I doubt that situation would've been improved by being in possession of a firearm. It'd surely have made things worse.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The chances of getting shot are slim. If everybody owned a gun to mitigate against such an eventuality, the chance of getting shot would be much, much higher.

[chuck34]

Interesting. Is it because you have not been able to refresh it on home soil since 1865, you have started to refresh it with blood overseas? I think not everything someone said 200 years or 2000 years ago should be taken literally on the year 2009.

You really have no clue, do you? You're getting very tiresome and boring.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The history of your country (and most others) would seem to indicate that you are lucky to be living in a short calm period. They do happen from time to time. Your near neighbors over in Northern Ireland haven't been quite so lucky.

I work alongside a man from Belfast, as it happens. He says he's never felt the need to own a gun.

Guns aren't the answer, they just add to the problem.

[Eki]

Or maybe what you meant to say is "Some things said and written 200 or 2000 years ago are worthwhile and some are soon obsolete"?
That's more like what I meant. You shouldn't take everything that Thomas Jefferson, Bible and the Koran say literally. Times were different then. However, there still are some good stuff (like Jesus talking about forgiveness, sharing and caring) that are still valid, but we should forget "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" style and other bloody stuff and bigotry found in those texts.

[Easy Drifter]

Well in my family one grandfather was a RNWP officer and served in the Riel Rebellion. I sort of think he needed a gun. One uncle was a RCMP officer. Two uncles served in WW1 and one was a small arms instructor in WW2.
In the depression my father hunted to help provide food for the Hotel he lived in. He was a lawyer. The other members of his hunting group were the Crown Prosecutor, the Judge and the sole RCMP officer in the small Manitoba town. They all lived in the Hotel.
Although we certainly had adequate money when I was young we hunted and fished and ate what we caught or shot.
People in Canada's north hunt to eat. Even here many people supplement a pretty poor diet by hunting and fishing.
There are more and more stabbings in this country. Are we to try and ban knives next?

[chuck34]

That's more like what I meant. You shouldn't take everything that Thomas Jefferson, Bible and the Koran say literally. Times were different then. However, there still are some good stuff (like Jesus talking about forgiveness, sharing and caring) that are still valid, but we should forget "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" style and other bloody stuff and bigotry found in those texts.

So in other words Eki will pick and choose things to believe in without any REAL understanding. Sounds about right.

[BeansBeansBeans]

In the depression my father hunted to help provide food for the Hotel he lived in. He was a lawyer. The other members of his hunting group were the Crown Prosecutor, the Judge and the sole RCMP officer in the small Manitoba town. They all lived in the Hotel.
Although we certainly had adequate money when I was young we hunted and fished and ate what we caught or shot.
People in Canada's north hunt to eat. Even here many people supplement a pretty poor diet by hunting and fishing.
There are more and more stabbings in this country. Are we to try and ban knives next?

All very well but I'm talking about the possesion of firearms by civilians for self-protection.

[Eki]

Well in my family one grandfather was a RNWP officer and served in the Riel Rebellion. I sort of think he needed a gun. One uncle was a RCMP officer. Two uncles served in WW1 and one was a small arms instructor in WW2.
In the depression my father hunted to help provide food for the Hotel he lived in. He was a lawyer. The other members of his hunting group were the Crown Prosecutor, the Judge and the sole RCMP officer in the small Manitoba town. They all lived in the Hotel.
Although we certainly had adequate money when I was young we hunted and fished and ate what we caught or shot.
People in Canada's north hunt to eat. Even here many people supplement a pretty poor diet by hunting and fishing.
There are more and more stabbings in this country. Are we to try and ban knives next?
Yeah, and my grandfather's father was a company chief in the Red Guard in the Finnish Civil War, and I guess he sort of needed a gun too. He got 6 years in prison for it and for being on the losing side. But that was in 1918, now it's 2009, and I don't think we need another Civil War. I also think or at least hope that people learnt from the first one enough to not do it again.

[gloomyDAY]

Oh, then you are suggesting that the bible and the koran should be thrown away?Sure. Throw that crap out and you'll see a much happier world.

[schmenke]

...I am of the opinion that gun ownership in a civilized society is perfectly normal ...

I am of the opinion that that is an oxymoron.

[gloomyDAY]

I am of the opinion that that is an oxymoron.How is that an oxymoron? People need to hunt and defend themselves. Seems perfectly normal to me.

[BeansBeansBeans]

How is that an oxymoron? People need to hunt and defend themselves. Seems perfectly normal to me.

Defend themselves from whom? The bogeyman?

[BDunnell]

The history of your country (and most others) would seem to indicate that you are lucky to be living in a short calm period. They do happen from time to time. Your near neighbors over in Northern Ireland haven't been quite so lucky.

What has Northern Ireland got to do with anything? That was a civil war. And the fact is that the UK has never entered into a state of such mass paranoia about personal safety, even in wartime, as to have made the right to possess handguns a major issue.

[gloomyDAY]

Defend themselves from whom? The bogeyman?No, I'm not the paranoid type either.

I just think that having gun handy, and knowing how to use it, is very beneficial because you never know what kind of situation can arise. I live in a very safe and quiet neighborhood, but that doesn't make me an uncivilized person for owning a gun.

I mainly use my gun to go to the range with friends and have a good time. Simple.

[BDunnell]

How is that an oxymoron? People need to hunt and defend themselves. Seems perfectly normal to me.

Not needs that I have ever personally experienced, I must say. But if you want to live your life in a state of paranoia about potential threats, go ahead. Just don't disrupt the lives of those of us who are more relaxed about such matters.

[BDunnell]

I just think that having gun handy, and knowing how to use it, is very beneficial because you never know what kind of situation can arise.

Again, most of us in the UK and Europe seem to manage the situations that we encounter without recourse to firearms, or even without the thought entering our heads that having a firearm would make us feel less threatened.

[gloomyDAY]

Not needs that I have ever personally experienced, I must say. But if you want to live your life in a state of paranoia about potential threats, go ahead. Just don't disrupt the lives of those of us who are more relaxed about such matters.Yes, need. America is steeped in deep hunting traditions. I don't think it would be fair to take that away. Some people in the South rely on hunting especially now that money is more tight.

Also, I've never disrupted anyone. Why would I want to go around flaunting a rifle? Have you ever fired a gun in your life? I think this thread, and especially Eki's notion of the right to bear arms, is being blown out of proportion.

[schmenke]

How is that an oxymoron? People need to hunt and defend themselves. Seems perfectly normal to me.

From the Oxford English dictionary:

civilize:

(verb)

1. bring to an advanced stage of social development.
2. (civilized) polite and good-mannered.


Citizens requiring weapons to defend themselves hardly falls into the above definition.

[gloomyDAY]

Again, most of us in the UK and Europe seem to manage the situations that we encounter without recourse to firearms, or even without the thought entering our heads that having a firearm would make us feel less threatened.I don't feel threatened at all. Like I said, my neighborhood is quaint and quiet. The mentality in Europe is just very different from America, which I personally feel is a great thing. I can live with the fact that I can own a gun & I can live with the fact that Europeans don't really take to guns.

[janvanvurpa]

Actually the Carter years was when it almost came to pass.

You seem an amazingly, unbelievably ignorant person and like many other delusional and deluded individuals of your right wing Authoritarian slant you bring up Carter as some sort of boogie man.

How old were you during Carters term?
Where you you?
What were you doing?

I'm wondering where your sort comes to their opinion of Carter as some sort of monument to whatever?

Since it is fairly certain you know zero of what occurred in that time from first hand experience.



( A cynical person could say "why would knowing nothing of things stop Vop from blabbing endlessly about things---ever notice what he allegedly does full time for a living?")

[gloomyDAY]

From the Oxford English dictionary:

civilize:

(verb)

1. bring to an advanced stage of social development.
2. (civilized) polite and good-mannered.


Citizens requiring weapons to defend themselves hardly falls into the above definition. :eek: Guns prohibit people from socially developing? That's news to me. I guess that I should now take a dump in the outhouse rather than using my perfectly sound toilet a few steps away. Ridiculous!

I think you're misjudging people who own a firearm. Think about what you just wrote! You don't know me and if you did I'm sure impolite and ill-mannered would not be the first words that came to your mind when I shook your hand.

[BDunnell]

I don't feel threatened at all. Like I said, my neighborhood is quaint and quiet. The mentality in Europe is just very different from America, which I personally feel is a great thing. I can live with the fact that I can own a gun & I can live with the fact that Europeans don't really take to guns.

Fair points well made.

[Eki]

I can live with the fact that I can own a gun & I can live with the fact that Europeans don't really take to guns.
I think the problem is that some, even Europeans, take to guns too much. I like shooting big guns as much as the next man, but for the common good, I can settle for a BB gun. I could accept also bigger guns for hunting and target practise, if the guns were kept for example in local police stations where people go and get them when they go hunting or shooting and bring them back afterwards. I don't like the idea of people having lethal firearms at home where kids and drunken, angry or mentaly unstable family members have access to them.

[gloomyDAY]

I think the problem is that some, even Europeans, take to guns too much. I like shooting big guns as much as the next man, but for the common good, I can settle for a BB gun. I could accept also bigger guns for hunting and target practise, if the guns were kept for example in local police stations where people go and get them when they go hunting or shooting and bring them back afterwards. I don't like the idea of people having leathal firearms at home where kids and drunken, angry or mentaly unstable family members have access to them.You and I at least share one thing in common when it comes to gun ownership, there should be a limit. I've never understood the reason for a civilian owning an automatic weapon. What's the purpose? Sure, they're fun to shoot, but they're not necessary unless you're in a war.

The part where we differ is that you're willing to have a middleman to access your personal weapons. I really don't need anyone babysitting me or my weapons, especially the government, and in America any kind of bureucratic agency always manages to make things bloated an inefficient. For example, I bought a gun yesterday and will have to wait 2 weeks in order to receive my gun and ontop of that I had to pay a $25 dollar fee for a background check.

Would have been a lot easier if I drove up to South Central and picked up an M-16 at a similar price and without any of the red tape. C'est le vie.

[Daniel]

You and I at least share one thing in common when it comes to gun ownership, there should be a limit. I've never understood the reason for a civilian owning an automatic weapon. What's the purpose? Sure, they're fun to shoot, but they're not necessary unless you're in a war..

Couldn't agree more.

[Jag_Warrior]

if the guns were kept for example in local police stations where people go and get them when they go hunting or shooting and bring them back afterwards.

People have no constitutional right to hunt or target shoot. We could legally outlaw hunting tomorrow and there's not much that could be done about it. Some people may not like it or agree with it, but mandated government/state control of privately owned firearms would defeat the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment.


I don't like the idea of people having lethal firearms at home where kids and drunken, angry or mentaly unstable family members have access to them.

I don't like the idea of gang and organized crime members, career criminals and mentally unstable people having access to guns. But here is another fact: there are roughly 200 million (known) firearms in the U.S. today. Other than wishing them away, or creating a law that duplicates the language and intent of existing laws, what is it (specifically, please) that gun control advocates want to do??? Let's say that you are able to pass a law. OK, what does the law say? And most importantly, how do you propose enforcing your new law?

As Starter accurately pointed out, cocaine is a banned substance in the United States. Now, I don't hang with a crowd that does coke. But I can almost guarantee you that if I asked around and flashed a wad of cash, I could secure some in less than 24 hours. Scoring some meth would be even easier than gettng the coke. But it's a banned substance too! How could this be? We have laws!!! ;)

Let's forget about whether this gun grab would be effective or not. My question is, how would you accomplish the goal of rounding up these 200 million weapons?

[Jag_Warrior]

You and I at least share one thing in common when it comes to gun ownership, there should be a limit. I've never understood the reason for a civilian owning an automatic weapon. What's the purpose? Sure, they're fun to shoot, but they're not necessary unless you're in a war.

Are legally owned, privately held, fully automatic or select fire weapons a problem? When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weapon?

Considering how much they cost and how difficult full autos and select fire weapons are to obtain and own, I'd be more concerned with the number of exotic sports cars on the road that can exceed 180 mph. If you want the BATF and your local police agency to know when you eat and when you take a dump, take $20,000 or so to a Class 3 dealer and buy a full auto or a select fire weapon.

[Jag_Warrior]

The gun naysayers believe we don't need protection because in our wonderful civilized society we don't need personal protection. If only were true.

When Eki, or anyone else, can prove to me that they have eliminated all of the people in this world who would do harm to me and mine, then I'll see about giving up my guns. Robbers, rapists, kidnappers, thrill killers and kids with no sense of any moral direction or purpose are all too prevalent throughout society. I don't see Eki et al making any attempt whatsoever to eliminate those hazards. That might actually involve hard work and commitment, with no sure success, instead of taking a feel good stance and pontificating on moral superiority. Not to mention trying to control what other people do.

In the meantime, I'll keep my guns. When someone tries to take them away I'll also use them.

I wanted to talk about your idea to legalize (or decriminalize) drugs. I am generally in favor of decriminalizing most drugs, up to certain amounts. But I gotta run now. Damn, I wish I could retire! :D

Let's stop doing things that don't work just because it makes us feel good to do it.

[gloomyDAY]

Are legally owned, privately held, fully automatic or select fire weapons a problem? When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weaponYes, they're a problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

This is why California became so restrictive with their gun policies.
I feel the legislature went too far, but they did ban F/A guns in California.

[Easy Drifter]

I do not think many of us are advocating fully automatic weapons or assault rifles in private hands.
Handguns and assault type guns are pretty well banned in Canada. It is hard to obtain a permit for a handgun and even harder to get a carry permit. If you have a permit to have one there are severe rules on even taking it to a range.
The idea of guns being kept at a police station is not practical here. In the north people can live well over a 100 miles from the nearest cop shop. Often in remote areas there is no one in the station at night. Quite a few detachments are one or two person posts in the north. Great time to break in and steal several guns.
Further farmers are really going to be happy when a predator is killing their animals and their gun is locked up miles away. Even fairly large detachments are closed at night to the public. Orillia OPP office is closed at night. There are cops there and there is an Emergency Phone at the entrance but no general access. They serve an area with a population of about 50,000.
We still have lots of coyotes, wolves, fox, cougars and bears plus critters like wolverines who just kill.
For those who say Europeans do not have guns in their homes they are fogetting the Swiss where the majority of homes do have guns as most men are in the military reserve and keep their weapons at home.
The gangbangers have no problem getting handguns and even assault guns.
Even when I was a teenager in Toronto in the 50's I knew how to obtain an illegal handgun. I didn't.
I have shot handguns and many types of guns, even a light machine gun that walks away from you. However the only guns I have owned have been normal rifles and shotguns.
I grew up handling guns from age 8 and have a huge amount of respect for them. I treat every gun I have ever handled as loaded until I have personally checked it out, despite what I might be told.

[BDunnell]

The gun naysayers believe we don't need protection because in our wonderful civilized society we don't need personal protection. If only were true.

When Eki, or anyone else, can prove to me that they have eliminated all of the people in this world who would do harm to me and mine, then I'll see about giving up my guns. Robbers, rapists, kidnappers, thrill killers and kids with no sense of any moral direction or purpose are all too prevalent throughout society. I don't see Eki et al making any attempt whatsoever to eliminate those hazards. That might actually involve hard work and commitment, with no sure success, instead of taking a feel good stance and pontificating on moral superiority. Not to mention trying to control what other people do.

That sounds like a sense of paranoia to me. I don't go around with such concerns, and I certainly don't feel that I need a weapon of any sort to help me. Nor do I consider myself to be overly naive when it comes to personal security. I simply see no need to take any further measures aimed at protecting myself.

[Eki]

Robbers, rapists, kidnappers, thrill killers and kids with no sense of any moral direction or purpose are all too prevalent throughout society. I don't see Eki et al making any attempt whatsoever to eliminate those hazards.

That's why we here in Finland have police and if things really get tough, the military. Why would we pay taxes to have them if we didn't trust them?

Bad tempered and drunken people or people with mental problems having a gun are more common and a more potential risk than robbers, rapists, kidnappers or thrill killers. And of those, robbers and rapists and maybe even kidnappers don't usually kill if they can avoid it and things go their way.

[gloomyDAY]

That's why we here in Finland have police and if things really get tough, the military.Those very same police and military can turn on you on a dime.

[chuck34]

That sounds like a sense of paranoia to me. I don't go around with such concerns, and I certainly don't feel that I need a weapon of any sort to help me. Nor do I consider myself to be overly naive when it comes to personal security. I simply see no need to take any further measures aimed at protecting myself.

So you don't consider yourself naive, and those with guns don't consider themselves paranoid. Sounds like there can be reasonable spread between the opinions of reasonable people, right?

So why must you take away one's gun? As long as they are using it in a safe and responsible manner there are NO problems. If I or anyone else has been cleared (mentally, criminally, etc) to own a gun, and said person enjoys them for sport or as a collector or whatever, what gives you the right to take their gun away?

[chuck34]

Those very same police and military can turn on you on a dime.

Or even more simply, they aren't there while you are being robbed, rapped, kidnapped, etc.

[BDunnell]

So you don't consider yourself naive, and those with guns don't consider themselves paranoid. Sounds like there can be reasonable spread between the opinions of reasonable people, right?

So why must you take away one's gun? As long as they are using it in a safe and responsible manner there are NO problems. If I or anyone else has been cleared (mentally, criminally, etc) to own a gun, and said person enjoys them for sport or as a collector or whatever, what gives you the right to take their gun away?

I have no problems with gun ownership per se, and am firmly of the opinion that one can never legislate against the individual lunatic. But I do feel that giving people an inalienable right to possess a gun and enshrining that in law brings with it certain particular risks in relation to the abuse of that right, given the more general nature of possession. I am also firmly of the view that possession of any weapon, whether knife, gun or whatever, is unnecessary as a means of personal protection. The vast majority of us get by just fine without such things, and the fear of crime is always greater than the reality.

[BDunnell]

It's pretty simple if you think about it. There are two issues with drugs. They are really two different things. The first is the addiction problem. The second, and very much separate issue, is the crime and violence associated with the import, distribution and sale of a desired but illegal commodity. Because it is illegal, it is very, very profitable. Our own experience with prohibition is an exact duplicate of the "war on drugs".

And what about the crime and violence that go hand-in-hand with the possession, legal or otherwise, of guns, not to mention the trade in them?

[Eki]

Or even more simply, they aren't there while you are being robbed, rapped, kidnapped, etc.
Maybe your gun isn't there either, unless you keep it in your hand all the time and never sleep. Or maybe it's just your gun that gets you killed in case of a robbery, rape or kidnapping when you otherwise could survive them.

Imagine this: Someone is robbing you with a gun and you try to reach your concealed weapon. What do you think the robber will do? A) Drop his gun and raise his hands B) Shoot you while your hand is still inside your jacket or a drawer?

[Eki]

Those very same police and military can turn on you on a dime.
Where do you live? In Latin America or some place else where military coup is business as usual?

[chuck34]

I have no problems with gun ownership per se, and am firmly of the opinion that one can never legislate against the individual lunatic.

Exaclty, no amount of legislation will rid the world of the lunatic.


But I do feel that giving people an inalienable right to possess a gun and enshrining that in law brings with it certain particular risks in relation to the abuse of that right, given the more general nature of possession.

It is now, always has been, and probably always will be an inalienable right to own a gun in the US. I don't know what else to say. It's part of our culture.

But you are right it does bring with it risks. Risks are part of life. Many here keep wanting to bring up that guns are responsible for accidental shootings and what-not. Well there are millions of injuries, and probably some deaths, caused every year by having stairs in one's home. Should we also outlaw stairs? Part of living with freedom is accepting the risks involved, and accepting responsibility for your own actions.

Government could legislate away all risks in life. But it would be a very boring life to live. I fear that is the direction we are taking in many different aspects of our society these days.



I am also firmly of the view that possession of any weapon, whether knife, gun or whatever, is unnecessary as a means of personal protection. The vast majority of us get by just fine without such things, and the fear of crime is always greater than the reality.

So you have no knives, bats, golf clubs, etc. in your house? Anyway, you and many others, seem to have a picture of gun owners sitting in their house with their guns aimed at the front door waiting for someone to come in. That's not the case (at least for most sane people). Mostly gun owners own guns so that they can hunt, take some target practice, display, whatever with them. The protection issue is more of a nice secondary use for them.

[chuck34]

Maybe your gun isn't there either, unless you keep it in your hand all the time and never sleep. Or maybe it's just your gun that gets you killed in case of a robbery, rape or kidnapping when you otherwise could survive them.

I'm sure that happens, but it's pretty rare. I'm not paranoid about it.


Imagine this: Someone is robbing you with a gun and you try to reach your concealed weapon. What do you think the robber will do? A) Drop his gun and raise his hands B) Shoot you while your hand is still inside your jacket or a drawer?

There are plenty of examples of robberies being foiled because the victim has a gun. And I'm sure there are others where the victim is killed reaching for his gun. But do you really think that if a robber comes into your house they will just leave you alone if you play nice? Oh yeah I forgot you live in Utopia, where human nature doesn't apply.

Sorry Eki, I'll take my chances trying to protect myself and my family.

[BDunnell]

Exaclty, no amount of legislation will rid the world of the lunatic.

If only the sort of anti-terrorist legislation we have seen imposed since '9/11' recognised this.



But you are right it does bring with it risks. Risks are part of life. Many here keep wanting to bring up that guns are responsible for accidental shootings and what-not. Well there are millions of injuries, and probably some deaths, caused every year by having stairs in one's home. Should we also outlaw stairs? Part of living with freedom is accepting the risks involved, and accepting responsibility for your own actions.

Government could legislate away all risks in life. But it would be a very boring life to live. I fear that is the direction we are taking in many different aspects of our society these days.

I agree with your views on risk, but there are limits, and for me the gun laws in your country cross the line of acceptability.



So you have no knives, bats, golf clubs, etc. in your house? Anyway, you and many others, seem to have a picture of gun owners sitting in their house with their guns aimed at the front door waiting for someone to come in. That's not the case (at least for most sane people). Mostly gun owners own guns so that they can hunt, take some target practice, display, whatever with them. The protection issue is more of a nice secondary use for them.

The knives in my house are purely for cooking. I do not possess any bats, golf clubs, or so on, and I certainly never carry anything with me that could be used as an offensive weapon. The thought would never cross my mind.

[chuck34]

I agree with your views on risk, but there are limits, and for me the gun laws in your country cross the line of acceptability.

Why? The vast, and I mean VAST majority of the guns in this country have never been fired in anger. You have an awefully low acceptable risk level. I'll have to do some digging, but I'd be willing to bet that stairs and ladders have caused more accidental injuries and deaths than guns ever have. I'll ask again, should we outlaw thoses as well?


The knives in my house are purely for cooking. I do not possess any bats, golf clubs, or so on, and I certainly never carry anything with me that could be used as an offensive weapon. The thought would never cross my mind.

So let me play the role of Eki for a minute. What if a robber broke into your house and stole one of your cooking knives, went into your bedroom, and slit your throat? What would you do then? Better outlaw cooking knives.

I'm sure that using a gun as an OFFENSIVE weapon has never crossed the mind of about 99.9% of all gun owners.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I'm sure that using a gun as an OFFENSIVE weapon has never crossed the mind of about 99.9% of all gun owners.

You keep saying that, yet both you and Starter have made comments about using guns to protect yourselves and your families.

[chuck34]

I'll have to do some digging, but I'd be willing to bet that stairs and ladders have caused more accidental injuries and deaths than guns ever have. I'll ask again, should we outlaw thoses as well?


http://www.safety-engineer.com/ladder.htm
"The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that more than 90,000 people receive emergency room treatment for ladder accidents each year.(4) Elevated fall accidents accounted for 661 deaths on the job in 1994. That is fourteen percent of total occupational death that year. In all, 111,300 persons were injured in elevated falls in 1994"

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=540&content_item_id=1131
"In 2001, 72 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Children ages 10 to 14 accounted for 54 percent of these deaths.

In 2002, more than 800 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional firearm-related injuries; 35 percent of these injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization."


So while tragic, accidental deaths from guns are way below that of ladders. Shouldn't we be talking about outlawing ladders then?

Oh and Eki, here's one for you.
"In 2002, nearly 8,500 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional non-powder gun-related injuries (e.g., BB guns, pellet guns)."

Looks like your "safe" BB guns are actually 10x more likely to cause an injury than those "deadly" hand guns (at least for kids). Something to think about.

[chuck34]

You keep saying that, yet both you and Starter have made comments about using guns to protect yourselves and your families.

What is confusing you about the difference between offensive and deffensive?

[BDunnell]

Why? The vast, and I mean VAST majority of the guns in this country have never been fired in anger. You have an awefully low acceptable risk level. I'll have to do some digging, but I'd be willing to bet that stairs and ladders have caused more accidental injuries and deaths than guns ever have. I'll ask again, should we outlaw thoses as well?

My reasoning is simply based on my view that there is no need for any country to enshrine gun ownership in law as an inalienable right.


What if a robber broke into your house and stole one of your cooking knives, went into your bedroom, and slit your throat? What would you do then? Better outlaw cooking knives.

Yes, what if that were to happen? The chances are so remote as to not bother thinking about. And again I consider the comparison irrelevant. Knives are virtually essential in everyday life. Guns are not.



I'm sure that using a gun as an OFFENSIVE weapon has never crossed the mind of about 99.9% of all gun owners.

I think they are unnecessary as a defensive weapon too, unless one is unnecessarily paranoid about security.

[GridGirl]

I know this is going slightly off topic but do you guys in the States not have house alarms? I go to bed and I alarm the ground floor of my house as well as my garage. Anyone attempting to steal from my home would set it off. Power cuts also set it off so I have no need to fear potential thieves cutting it's power like in some Hollywood film. This renders some arguments for having a gun for security reasons somewhat irrelevant to me anyway.

[BeansBeansBeans]

What is confusing you about the difference between offensive and deffensive?

I believe there is no need to own a gun for either purpose.

[BDunnell]

I believe there is no need to own a gun for either purpose.

The logic I find utterly impossible to comprehend is the notion that some people, largely Americans, would consider that I would somehow be taking an unnecessary risk were the option of owning a gun for defensive purposes open to me and I didn't take it.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The logic I find utterly impossible to comprehend is the notion that some people, largely Americans, would consider that I would somehow be taking an unnecessary risk were the option of owning a gun for defensive purposes open to me and I didn't take it.

Indeed. Particularly as a family man, the suggestion that I might own a gun to protect 'me & mine' is a bit odd. I feel I'd put my children at more risk by instilling in them such an irrational fear of other human beings.

[Eki]

So let me play the role of Eki for a minute. What if a robber broke into your house and stole one of your cooking knives, went into your bedroom, and slit your throat? What would you do then? Better outlaw cooking knives.


Cooking knives have other functions than killing, just like cars, guns don't have. I use a cooking knife just about every day, but I have never used or needed a weapon using gun powder outside military.

[BDunnell]

You obviously are pulling my leg. As you well know, much of the gun violence in the US is directly related to the illegal drug trade. You might look at Mexico in the same vein also.

Not pulling your leg at all. The arms trade in all its forms is hardly squeaky-clean.

[BDunnell]

Political winds come and political winds go. Once you've given up any of your rights, they are gone forever.

Well, it used to be the personal right of individuals to own slaves until it was outlawed.

It simply astonishes me that the right to possess a gun is still considered inalienable, when it is by no means essential in the same way as freedom of speech, the right to vote and so on. This is a strange set of priorities, especially seeing as the right to bear arms is based entirely on insecurity.

[chuck34]

My reasoning is simply based on my view that there is no need for any country to enshrine gun ownership in law as an inalienable right.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Gun ownership is an inalienable right, and it won't change in my view, and hopefully not in the US Constitution any time soon.


Yes, what if that were to happen? The chances are so remote as to not bother thinking about. And again I consider the comparison irrelevant. Knives are virtually essential in everyday life. Guns are not.

I'd said to possibility of one getting their gun stolen and used against them is just as remote. Ask Easy Drifter, and millions more like him, if guns are not essential to everyday life.


I think they are unnecessary as a defensive weapon too, unless one is unnecessarily paranoid about security.

Caution an paranoia are two different things. I think that having a gun around is a prudent thing to do in some cases, you think that's paranoia. You think that everyone's guns are going to get stolen and used in a crime, I call that paranoia.

[chuck34]

I know this is going slightly off topic but do you guys in the States not have house alarms? I go to bed and I alarm the ground floor of my house as well as my garage. Anyone attempting to steal from my home would set it off. Power cuts also set it off so I have no need to fear potential thieves cutting it's power like in some Hollywood film. This renders some arguments for having a gun for security reasons somewhat irrelevant to me anyway.

Alarms are fine, but expensive. Some see guns as a cheaper alternative.

[chuck34]

The logic I find utterly impossible to comprehend is the notion that some people, largely Americans, would consider that I would somehow be taking an unnecessary risk were the option of owning a gun for defensive purposes open to me and I didn't take it.

I've never said you were taking an unnecessary risk in not having one. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to own a gun. But you are trying to force people to give up their guns.

[gloomyDAY]

Where do you live? In Latin America or some place else where military coup is business as usual?I think you should read my location before you knock where I live.

Since you went there, let's take a look at Mexico. Are civilians allowed to own guns in Mexico? Simple answer, no (http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/). Do the baddies still manage to get their hands on guns? Yes! Imagine if civilians had a way to defend themselves, and yes, in a country like Mexico the threat of crime is live & real everyday. Empower civilians to stand up to criminals and to corrupt officials instead of letting them get dumped on by some thugs (http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f166/28219d1228779892-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing.flv).

Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-monterrey7-2008dec07,0,2059505,full.story) is the story by The Los Angeles Times behind that last link. All of the victims were innocent, no prior records or ties to gangs/drugs, and were still ambushed. The thugs didn't take anything from the victims or the jewelry store that they shot-up. Not even the security guard could do a thing because Mexican gun laws are so restrictive that he couldn't possess a gun.

[chuck34]

Cooking knives have other functions than killing, just like cars, guns don't have. I use a cooking knife just about every day, but I have never used or needed a weapon using gun powder outside military.

Did you see my earlier stat, or are you just ignoring it? BB guns injure more than 10 times as many kids as gun powder weapons.

[Rollo]

This is a strange set of priorities, especially seeing as the right to bear arms is based entirely on insecurity.

I think that an actual reading of the Amendment itself gives you the answer:
"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."

From the fledgling nation's point of view without a standing army, having the people armed in order to quickly form militias to defend that nation is entirely sensible.
However, I have never heard anyone who defends the continuance of the Second Amendment ever suggest that the second part of the statement in any way relates to the first. It's almost as though it's read in isolation.

[chuck34]

Well, it used to be the personal right of individuals to own slaves until it was outlawed.

It simply astonishes me that the right to possess a gun is still considered inalienable, when it is by no means essential in the same way as freedom of speech, the right to vote and so on. This is a strange set of priorities, especially seeing as the right to bear arms is based entirely on insecurity.

So we are all safe and secure now? Why, because you said so? You keep living in your dream world, and I'll live in the real world. I'm not any more paranoid than you are delusional about the real world. Not that I'm saying you're delusional.

The point is that if I choose to own a gun, and do it in a resonsible manner, what is the harm? I'm not forcing you to have one. So if you are so paranoid and insecure about your abilities to own one ... well you don't have to. Why must you take other's guns away? Are you that paranoid and insecure?

[BDunnell]

I've never said you were taking an unnecessary risk in not having one. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to own a gun. But you are trying to force people to give up their guns.

Yes, I believe that having one for defensive or offensive purposes is unnecessary, and should not be considered an inalienable right in the same way as such rights as freedom of speech and the right to vote, which are far more fundamental tenets of existence.

[chuck34]

Yes, I believe that having one for defensive or offensive purposes is unnecessary, and should not be considered an inalienable right in the same way as such rights as freedom of speech and the right to vote, which are far more fundamental tenets of existence.

I still don't understand what you have against people owning a gun for defensive purposes. How is it unnecessary? Are the police in every home there? Sorry, but many would prefer to have a bit more control over their immediate situation than waiting on the police to show up.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. That's the beauty of freedom.

And besides, there are many other reasons to own a gun than only protection.

[Easy Drifter]

Grid Girl. Alarms are nice but in many parts of Canada it would take the police hours to get to your place.
As I have pointed out many people in Canada hunt to put food on the table. Otherwise they would starve!
Farmers and Ranchers own guns to deal with an injured animal that can't survive as well as to deal with predators.
What happens in Europe is different from Canada. In some northern communities the police can only get there by plane. If the weather is bad it can be days. Again people in those type of communities own long guns for hunting but is someone goes crazy they can defend themselves.
Parts of Alasaka are the same.

[BDunnell]

So we are all safe and secure now? Why, because you said so? You keep living in your dream world, and I'll live in the real world. I'm not any more paranoid than you are delusional about the real world. Not that I'm saying you're delusional.

If I am delusional about the real world because I do not consider myself unduly threatened, I fear for the world you live in, or think you live in. Were gun laws in the UK the same as those in the US, would you consider that I was being cavalier with my own safety by not having one?



The point is that if I choose to own a gun, and do it in a resonsible manner, what is the harm? I'm not forcing you to have one. So if you are so paranoid and insecure about your abilities to own one ... well you don't have to. Why must you take other's guns away? Are you that paranoid and insecure?

If you had bothered to remember what I said earlier, my objection is not with gun ownership per se, but the notion that gun ownership is necessary for practical purposes relating to defending oneself. It isn't.

[chuck34]

If I am delusional about the real world because I do not consider myself unduly threatened, I fear for the world you live in, or think you live in. Were gun laws in the UK the same as those in the US, would you consider that I was being cavalier with my own safety by not having one?

Where have I said that I consider myself unduly threatened? I just think that having a bit of extra protection isn't all bad. I'm not up nights worried about it or anything. I've also never said that you are being cavalier with your safety by not owning a gun. It's not a 100% deal that owning one makes you safe. I've alse said many times now that no one is forcing you to own a gun. If you don't want one don't get one. I don't care one way or another.


If you had bothered to remember what I said earlier, my objection is not with gun ownership per se, but the notion that gun ownership is necessary for practical purposes relating to defending oneself. It isn't.

That's fine. I can agree with that. But why do we have to outlaw guns then?

[Rollo]

If I am delusional about the real world because I do not consider myself unduly threatened, I fear for the world you live in, or think you live in. Were gun laws in the UK the same as those in the US, would you consider that I was being cavalier with my own safety by not having one?

If you had bothered to remember what I said earlier, my objection is not with gun ownership per se, but the notion that gun ownership is necessary for practical purposes relating to defending oneself. It isn't.

Gun ownership is utterly necessary for practical purposes relating to defending oneself if the other person is also in possession of a gun; that's what's so hideously wrong. If neither party had one the place would be safer.

[BDunnell]

Where have I said that I consider myself unduly threatened? I just think that having a bit of extra protection isn't all bad. I'm not up nights worried about it or anything. I've also never said that you are being cavalier with your safety by not owning a gun. It's not a 100% deal that owning one makes you safe. I've alse said many times now that no one is forcing you to own a gun. If you don't want one don't get one. I don't care one way or another.

Statements such as: 'So we are all safe and secure now? Why, because you said so? You keep living in your dream world, and I'll live in the real world. I'm not any more paranoid than you are delusional about the real world' make me think that you feel unduly threatened by something. I am in no sense living in a dream world, just a realistic one where yes, certain threats do exist, but I don't feel at any undue risk, and certainly not to an extent where being armed would be beneficial.



That's fine. I can agree with that. But why do we have to outlaw guns then?

I am not suggesting that all guns be outlawed, but that a universal right to their possession is unnecessary.

[Rollo]

Of course not, and no attempt will ever be made to change that despite 11,000 people dead a year... (still want to snort, snicker and guffaw about that?)

[BDunnell]

And you, or anyone else can make that happen? Sure.
(snort, snicker, guffaw)

Despite what you may read about rising gun crime, the situation you consider too idealistic to be taken seriously is basically that which obtains in most west European countries, where there may be certain problems with gun crime (the fear of which is always more significant than reality) but where there is no underlying tendency in favour of general gun ownership, and no tradition of same.

[Malbec]

Yes, I believe that having one for defensive or offensive purposes is unnecessary, and should not be considered an inalienable right in the same way as such rights as freedom of speech and the right to vote, which are far more fundamental tenets of existence.

Whilst I agree with the first part of your sentence, the second half merely displays the difference in viewpoints of those using the US constitution and history as their frame of reference and those using most other nations beliefs on the matter. One side isn't inherently right or wrong.

The people who are definitely wrong are those who claim that guns provide security against criminals, the type of people who are arguing such on this forum such as chuck or starter are the very people who are least likely to be involved in crime, whether as a victim or instigator. For them, statistically having a gun will not affect their 'survival' much.

[Jag_Warrior]

Are legally owned, privately held, fully automatic or select fire weapons a problem? When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weapon?

Considering how much they cost and how difficult full autos and select fire weapons are to obtain and own, I'd be more concerned with the number of exotic sports cars on the road that can exceed 180 mph. If you want the BATF and your local police agency to know when you eat and when you take a dump, take $20,000 or so to a Class 3 dealer and buy a full auto or a select fire weapon.


Yes, they're a problem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

This is why California became so restrictive with their gun policies.
I feel the legislature went too far, but they did ban F/A guns in California.

Why are you offering a link about two convicted felons who were in possession of illegally modified weapons? I asked: Are legally owned, privately held, fully automatic or select fire weapons a problem? When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weapon?

Did the state of California actually "ban" fully automatic (Class 3) weapons? Honest question, as I don't follow the laws out there. This page could be out of date. But it does not show that these weapons have been banned. It shows that they are very hard to acquire, over and above the existing Federal law that's existed for nearly 25 years.
http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=06

What California apparently has a ban on is "assault weapons". A term which means basically nothing, or whatever one wants it to mean.
California bans "assault weapons", .50BMG caliber firearms, some .50 caliber ammunition and "unsafe handguns."
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/states/california/

I'm not lecturing you... or maybe I kinda am. ;) But as a responsible gun owner, you are obliged to know these laws, and understand the difference between a legally obtained, transferable weapon, and an illegally modified weapon, in the hands of a violent convicted felon, who does not have the right to own or possess so much as a single shot .22 rifle - anywhere in the United States. And that's under long existing Federal laws... which have nothing to do with California state law. State laws may be MORE restrictive, but not less restrictive, than Federal laws.

[gloomyDAY]

^^^

http://im.videosearch.rediff.com/thumbImage/videoImages/videoImages1/youtube/rdhash762/uvJxP16v0Jg.gif

[Jag_Warrior]

This might be a subject for a different thread.

It's pretty simple if you think about it. There are two issues with drugs. They are really two different things. The first is the addiction problem. The second, and very much separate issue, is the crime and violence associated with the import, distribution and sale of a desired but illegal commodity. Because it is illegal, it is very, very profitable. Our own experience with prohibition is an exact duplicate of the "war on drugs".

Yeah, maybe we should go for another thread. This will just get lost here... I sense this one will be going on for awhile. :D

But just from a libertarian standpoint, I basically believe in letting people do what people want to do... unless and until they begin harming others. Someone in the Obama administration mentionted something about rolling back the (make believe) war on drugs today. I haven't had time to look up the story to see what the deal is though.

The Evangelicals will probably be all over that like maggots on a corpse, depending on what was said. But anyone with at least a couple of libertarian bones in his body should be willing to listen.

The kingpins and major traffickers, sure... light 'em up or lock 'em up. Seize their accounts, lock up their bankers... and seize their sh## too. But the nickel and dime shrubs that make the local funny papers, so sheriffs and police chiefs can get re-elected? What a waste! Locking up potheads and losers just to make the crime stats look better. :rolleyes:

[Jag_Warrior]

^^^

http://im.videosearch.rediff.com/thumbImage/videoImages/videoImages1/youtube/rdhash762/uvJxP16v0Jg.gif

Dude, what? :confused: I'm not trying to beat you down. I certainly didn't intend for my post to come off that way. Sorry that you took offense. Really. But you're a gun owner, or soon will be. You need to know the laws that affect you. That's all.

If you thought that full autos and select fires were freely available in your state before the North Hollywood shootout, you fell into what the Brady Campaign and Di Feinstein want people to believe: (legally owned) machine guns are on every street corner in America. They want you to believe that an AK47 (semi-auto) variant with a threaded barrel is an "assault weapon" (and Satan himself made it). But cap the threads and put a cheap full length stock on it, and it's a "sporter"... and it's perfectly OK. It's the same f###ing gun!!! :dozey:

But Di, Chuckie Schumer and Babs Boxer are from the government and they're here to help us. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying, look up the informatiom and prove (or disprove) it for yourself.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yeah, maybe we should go for another thread. This will just get lost here... I sense this one will be going on for awhile. :D

But just from a libertarian standpoint, I basically believe in letting people do what people want to do... unless and until they begin harming others. Someone in the Obama administration mentionted something about rolling back the (make believe) war on drugs today. I haven't had time to look up the story to see what the deal is though.

The Evangelicals will probably be all over that like maggots on a corpse, depending on what was said. But anyone with at least a couple of libertarian bones in his body should be willing to listen.

The kingpins and major traffickers, sure... light 'em up or lock 'em up. Seize their accounts, lock up their bankers... and seize their sh## too. But the nickel and dime shrubs that make the local funny papers, so sheriffs and police chiefs can get re-elected? What a waste! Locking up potheads and losers just to make the crime stats look better. :rolleyes:

I swear I heard this on Bloomberg as I was walking out the door earlier. :confused:

But I can't find anything about it anywhere. Maybe I was high. :p

[gloomyDAY]

What California apparently has a ban on is "assault weapons". A term which means basically nothing, or whatever one wants it to mean.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/states/california/

I'm not lecturing you... or maybe I kinda am. ;) But as a responsible gun owner, you are obliged to know these laws, and understand the difference between a legally obtained, transferable weapon, and an illegally modified weapon, in the hands of a violent convicted felon, who does not have the right to own or possess so much as a single shot .22 rifle - anywhere in the United States. And that's under long existing Federal laws... which have nothing to do with California state law. State laws may be MORE restrictive, but not less restrictive, than Federal laws.Disregard what I posted earlier, sorry. Good read. :up:

[Rollo]

When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weapon?


2 days ago.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11291046

[Eki]

Did you see my earlier stat, or are you just ignoring it? BB guns injure more than 10 times as many kids as gun powder weapons.
Yes, so do skateboards, but do BB guns KILL more kids than gun powder weapons, that's the question. Or are you suggesting that kids should have gun powder weapons instead of BB guns because they are safer? Here fireworks injure more kids every year than handgrenades, but I still don't want easier access for kids to handgrenades.

BTW, is there a minimum age for buying a BB gun in the US? Here it's 18 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, so do skateboards, but do BB guns KILL more kids than gun powder weapons, that's the question. Or are you suggesting that kids should have gun powder weapons instead of BB guns because they are safer? Here fireworks injure more kids every year than handgrenades, but I still don't want easier access for kids to handgrenades.

BTW, is there a minimum age for buying a BB gun in the US? Here it's 18 years.

Eki, the ability to own a gun in the US isn't the reason people die due to gun misuse, the problem is people who get guns who have no respect for the law. You outlaw the ownership of pistols and personal weapons, you really think the criminal element is going to give them up? You cannot erase 230 years of legal gun ownership in the US and expect people to just go along. Especially when the ownership of the private weapon is one of the benchmarks of the US Constitution. It is a symbolic measure that tells the government it rules at the public's pleasure...

[chuck34]

Statements such as: 'So we are all safe and secure now? Why, because you said so? You keep living in your dream world, and I'll live in the real world. I'm not any more paranoid than you are delusional about the real world' make me think that you feel unduly threatened by something. I am in no sense living in a dream world, just a realistic one where yes, certain threats do exist, but I don't feel at any undue risk, and certainly not to an extent where being armed would be beneficial.

Look, I don't see personal protection as the main reason for owning a gun. It's a nice secondary effect. You keep trying to paint me, and gun owners, as a paranoid lot who sit in their houses worried about some sort of boogie man. Most are not by anymean paranoid. Yet there are many out there, many on this board, who wish to outlaw gun ownership because they are affraid about what might happen to them, how they might be used in a crime, how they might be stolen and used agaist their owner, how they might be accidentally used on an innocent child, etc.

Seriously, who's paranoid here?


I am not suggesting that all guns be outlawed, but that a universal right to their possession is unnecessary.

Define "universal" then. I agree that people covicted of a past crime, those with mental disorders, and so on should not own guns. So I'm not for "universal" ownership either.

[BDunnell]

Look, I don't see personal protection as the main reason for owning a gun. It's a nice secondary effect. You keep trying to paint me, and gun owners, as a paranoid lot who sit in their houses worried about some sort of boogie man. Most are not by anymean paranoid. Yet there are many out there, many on this board, who wish to outlaw gun ownership because they are affraid about what might happen to them, how they might be used in a crime, how they might be stolen and used agaist their owner, how they might be accidentally used on an innocent child, etc.

Seriously, who's paranoid here?

You are the one who made the remarks about me somehow being delusional for considering myself as safe as I do. I've made myself quite clear - gun ownership is unnecessary for defensive purposes. In my view, those who think it is must feel unnecessarily insecure. Fear of crime is a very different thing to the actual likelihood of crime.

[chuck34]

Whilst I agree with the first part of your sentence, the second half merely displays the difference in viewpoints of those using the US constitution and history as their frame of reference and those using most other nations beliefs on the matter. One side isn't inherently right or wrong.

The people who are definitely wrong are those who claim that guns provide security against criminals, the type of people who are arguing such on this forum such as chuck or starter are the very people who are least likely to be involved in crime, whether as a victim or instigator. For them, statistically having a gun will not affect their 'survival' much.

Guns can and do provide security against criminals. The degree to which that happens is admitadly low. But that's not the point what so ever. The odds of being in a plane crash are very low as well, but you wear a seat belt when you fly. A small amount of protection is never a bad thing.

And for non gun owners, having people who own guns legally will not affect their 'survival' much either. So I guess I just miss the whole point of the debate.

[chuck34]

You are the one who made the remarks about me somehow being delusional for considering myself as safe as I do. I've made myself quite clear - gun ownership is unnecessary for defensive purposes. In my view, those who think it is must feel unnecessarily insecure. Fear of crime is a very different thing to the actual likelihood of crime.

I think you misunderstood my delusional remark, or I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to suggest that if you don't have a gun, you're gonna be killed, or anything like that. If that's how it came accross, sorry.

I don't think owning a gun is a MUST to feel secure. There may be people like that out there, but I wouldn't necessarily call them paranoid, just prudent in their situation. There are all kinds of stories out there about people fighting off criminals with their guns, maybe the same amount that are used in accidents and such. So call that a toss up.

You say "Fear of crime is a very different thing to the actual likelihood of crime." I agree with that statement whole heartidly. So why outlaw guns on the FEAR said gun will be used in a crime? I know you may not personally agree with that, but there are many people who DO want guns outlawed for that very fear.

[BDunnell]

Guns can and do provide security against criminals. The degree to which that happens is admitadly low. But that's not the point what so ever. The odds of being in a plane crash are very low as well, but you wear a seat belt when you fly. A small amount of protection is never a bad thing.

I cannot believe that you can seriously equate possession of a gun to wearing a seatbelt on an aircraft. It is quite a leap to compare one with the other.

[BDunnell]

I don't think owning a gun is a MUST to feel secure. There may be people like that out there, but I wouldn't necessarily call them paranoid, just prudent in their situation. There are all kinds of stories out there about people fighting off criminals with their guns, maybe the same amount that are used in accidents and such. So call that a toss up.

I think even 'prudent' is going to far.

[Eki]

Eki, the ability to own a gun in the US isn't the reason people die due to gun misuse, the problem is people who get guns who have no respect for the law. You outlaw the ownership of pistols and personal weapons, you really think the criminal element is going to give them up?
No, but the non-criminal (bad tempered, violent, alcohol abusing, careless, jumpy, paranoid, depressed, etc.) people may not go through the trouble of getting a gun from the black market. There are a lot of people out there I wouldn't trust a gun, even if they aren't criminals as such.

[chuck34]

I cannot believe that you can seriously equate possession of a gun to wearing a seatbelt on an aircraft. It is quite a leap to compare one with the other.

Why? Odds are about the same. Consequences are just as deadly.

[chuck34]

I think even 'prudent' is going to far.

Why? Like I said I can pull up any number of stories about people defending their property with guns. Not too long ago there was an old lady (70-80 if I remember right) who held a would be robber at bay for about half an hour with her hand gun, until the cops finally showed up. Sounds like it was prudent for her to have a gun.

Like I said, there are any number of reasons to own a gun. I don't consider protection to be #1 on the list, but it sure isn't a negative.

[BDunnell]

Why? Like I said I can pull up any number of stories about people defending their property with guns. Not too long ago there was an old lady (70-80 if I remember right) who held a would be robber at bay for about half an hour with her hand gun, until the cops finally showed up. Sounds like it was prudent for her to have a gun.

By contrast, from my own experience in the UK and Europe, I cannot think of a single example. Such is the cultural difference.

[chuck34]

By contrast, from my own experience in the UK and Europe, I cannot think of a single example. Such is the cultural difference.

So at least now you can see that there is a difference. Embrace the difference, let those in the US/Canada have their guns, and we promise not to force them on you. Deal?

[GridGirl]

What would be the consequence of using your gun against someone attempting to steal from your home in the States? I ask only because there is a case in the UK where a farmer defending his home shot dead some kid aged about 17 and got sent to prison. I don't have time to find a link but it is a well publicized case.

Gun are cheaper than alarms. I love that quote and it shows how different we are on Europe compared to America.

[Eki]

Why? Odds are about the same. Consequences are just as deadly.
Yes, but guns are designed to kill. Airplanes are designed to transport and seat belts are designed to safe lives. The difference is quite big.

[BDunnell]

So at least now you can see that there is a difference. Embrace the difference, let those in the US/Canada have their guns, and we promise not to force them on you. Deal?

There is no question of you trying to force them on us, though, so that's entirely irrelevant. I still disagree vehemently with the North American gun laws and think they should be altered.

[chuck34]

There is no question of you trying to force them on us, though, so that's entirely irrelevant. I still disagree vehemently with the North American gun laws and think they should be altered.

So how should they be altered?

[BDunnell]

So how should they be altered?

The UK's gun laws strike me as being fine.

[chuck34]

The UK's gun laws strike me as being fine.

That might be ok for you and those in the UK, but they are too restrictive for most in the US.

When Olympic shooters need to leave the country to train, I think the law has gone too far.

And they don't apear to be "fool proof" either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html#

[ShiftingGears]

I find gun laws in Australia fine. But if other countries like it their way, well, that is their choice.

[Alexamateo]

What would be the consequence of using your gun against someone attempting to steal from your home in the States? I ask only because there is a case in the UK where a farmer defending his home shot dead some kid aged about 17 and got sent to prison. I don't have time to find a link but it is a well publicized case.



In Tennessee, where I live we have "castle doctrine" in which you can stand your ground anywhere in your house or car. Any use of a firearm, with a few exceptions is justifiable. There is no duty to retreat first as some other states might have. Here that farmer shooting the 17 year old kid would be ruled a justifiable homicide on the basis of the kid breaking in unlawfully. It does not matter if the kid was armed or not.

I live in Memphis, Tennessee, and it is a high crime city, but truthfully as others have said. It's really confined to certain areas and certain socio-economic groups. I have never felt threatened by any crime at all in my neighborhood, or anywhere I go for that matter. That said, every six months or so it comes out in the news that some thug from a bad neighborhood tries to check out the wares from a house in a nice neighborhood and is blown away by the homeowner. It has to act as some sort of a deterrent, or at least give someone pause as to the risks.

I am very much an American when it comes to gun rights even though I don't own a gun myself. I'm married to a hot-blooded Latina, and while that certainly has its advantages, a hot-blooded Latina sometimes turns into a hot-headed Latina, and I know that any gun would more likely be used on me than any potential criminal :p : ;)

[BeansBeansBeans]

In Tennessee, where I live we have "castle doctrine" in which you can stand your ground anywhere in your house or car. Any use of a firearm, with a few exceptions is justifiable. There is no duty to retreat first as some other states might have. Here that farmer shooting the 17 year old kid would be ruled a justifiable homicide on the basis of the kid breaking in unlawfully. It does not matter if the kid was armed or not.

One of the key points in the Tony Martin case (which is what GG was referring to) is that the burglar in question (Fred Barras) was running away from the property and Mr Martin shot him in the back. The verdict may well have been more lenient had this not been the case. It is an interesting case though. I'm not unsympathic to Tony Martin. He lived a reclusive lifestyle and found his remote farmhouse to be something of a magnet for burglars.

[BDunnell]

That might be ok for you and those in the UK, but they are too restrictive for most in the US.

But why? Surely the need to have firearms to protect oneself is the same in the US as it is in the UK - i.e. negligible.



When Olympic shooters need to leave the country to train, I think the law has gone too far.

I agree, that is stupid, but it's a very minor side-effect that really isn't worth bothering about.



And they don't apear to be "fool proof" either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html#

No law is foolproof.

[Daniel]

In Tennessee, where I live we have "castle doctrine" in which you can stand your ground anywhere in your house or car. Any use of a firearm, with a few exceptions is justifiable. There is no duty to retreat first as some other states might have. Here that farmer shooting the 17 year old kid would be ruled a justifiable homicide on the basis of the kid breaking in unlawfully. It does not matter if the kid was armed or not.

I live in Memphis, Tennessee, and it is a high crime city, but truthfully as others have said. It's really confined to certain areas and certain socio-economic groups. I have never felt threatened by any crime at all in my neighborhood, or anywhere I go for that matter. That said, every six months or so it comes out in the news that some thug from a bad neighborhood tries to check out the wares from a house in a nice neighborhood and is blown away by the homeowner. It has to act as some sort of a deterrent, or at least give someone pause as to the risks.

I am very much an American when it comes to gun rights even though I don't own a gun myself. I'm married to a hot-blooded Latina, and while that certainly has its advantages, a hot-blooded Latina sometimes turns into a hot-headed Latina, and I know that any gun would more likely be used on me than any potential criminal :p : ;)


LOL :)

I think you're a very sensible person. No one wants to deny farmers guns because they genuinely need them but your situation is a good illustration of why most people probably shouldn't have a gun. Who knows what most of us would do if we found out our partner was cheating on us or had a big argument.

[BDunnell]

One of the key points in the Tony Martin case (which is what GG was referring to) is that the burglar in question (Fred Barras) was running away from the property and Mr Martin shot him in the back. The verdict may well have been more lenient had this not been the case. It is an interesting case though. I'm not unsympathic to Tony Martin. He lived a reclusive lifestyle and found his remote farmhouse to be something of a magnet for burglars.

I have no sympathy for him at all. He was and remains a thick, trigger-happy madman. This is not to say that he deserved to be burgled - no-one does - but there are limits as far as the response is concerned.

[Daniel]

I have no sympathy for him at all. He was and remains a thick, trigger-happy madman. This is not to say that he deserved to be burgled - no-one does - but there are limits as far as the response is concerned.

I think the problem is revenge. In the US there does seem to be a culture with some people of revenge and an eye for an eye. Some Americans think the idea of allowing a robber once in your house to have them take your stuff and let insurance deal with it as a sign of weakness. But at the end of it all higher rates of gun ownership just means that when people do commit crime they're more likely to be carrying a gun or be more violent. Someone actually committing a home invasion in Australia or the UK and shooting someone is extremely rare. At the end of it all it's traumatic either way, just let the insurance deal with the stuff that gets stolen and better secure your house in the future.

[Alexamateo]

Oh, another thing. If Gran Torino had taken place in Memphis, the gang members would have not been arrested for shooting Clint Eastwood, or if they had been arrested, they would have gotten off. A known hothead making a threatening gesture (finger like a gun) on the gang members own property. They could have convinced the judge they felt a reasonable threat of bodily harm when he started to reach inside his jacket.

[chuck34]

But why? Surely the need to have firearms to protect oneself is the same in the US as it is in the UK - i.e. negligible.

As I keep saying, protection is not the main reason to own a gun for most people. And it certainly isn't the main reason behind the 2nd Amendment. Hunting, sport, personal protection, and protection from the government all play a role in it.


I agree, that is stupid, but it's a very minor side-effect that really isn't worth bothering about.

But it does point out how illogical such laws are.


No law is foolproof.

On that we can agree.

[Jag_Warrior]

What would be the consequence of using your gun against someone attempting to steal from your home in the States? I ask only because there is a case in the UK where a farmer defending his home shot dead some kid aged about 17 and got sent to prison. I don't have time to find a link but it is a well publicized case.

Gun are cheaper than alarms. I love that quote and it shows how different we are on Europe compared to America.

There is no Federal law dealing with this. So the laws vary (greatly) state to state and locality to locality. In my state, in my area, if there is an intruder and you feel that you are in danger or under threat of attack, you can fire on that person INSIDE your home. If there is any gun play outside the home, things get very fuzzy. I'm not a legal expert, so I won't attempt that. But as a policeman friend explained to me about 20 years ago, if an intruder crosses your threshold, he is basically at your mercy.

I've read just a (very) little bit about the case that you cited. Even in most states here, that one might have been a problem. But I can't say for sure. I believe Texas still has a law that relates back to the 1800's. If someone is stealing your horse, you can shoot him off the horse. That same law has been used to apply to automobiles in the past few years. But I don't know where it stands now.

Here is a case of a home invasion where the homeowners had no chance, and are now dead. This happened just a few months ago. A couple with 16 kids. :(
http://www.wkrg.com/florida/article/double-homicide-near-pensacola/175032/Jul-10-2009_2-53-pm/

This one happened in my state. The homeowner was prepared. The intruder is now dead. I don't think that anyone could listen to this horrible, chilling tape and believe that these poor people were blood thirsty monsters, just looking for a kill. This is very, very sad. These innocent people will probably never be the same again. They were not just fortunate, but 100% in the right.
5xeDfsRxGnw

[BDunnell]

But it does point out how illogical such laws are.

No it doesn't! It is a very, very minor side-effect. Most laws have them.

[Jag_Warrior]

My question:

Why are you offering a link about two convicted felons who were in possession of illegally modified weapons? I asked: Are legally owned, privately held, fully automatic or select fire weapons a problem? When is the last time a crime was commited by someone using a legally owned, privately held F/A or select fire weapon?


2 days ago.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11291046

Folks, I'm really not trying to be a smart ass. Believe me. This is a great discussion. Maybe we can all learn something. But I am becoming frustrated when I ask a question specifically about legally owned, select fire or fully automatic weapons, and people keep referring me to stories about nothing of the sort: the North Hollywood shootout does not apply, and neither does the above link. For all I know, the guns in that story are M1 rifles from WWII - hardly select fire weapons (but one could call them "assault weapons", if one so chooses). I think this confusion is because of a misunderstanding over terminology. The term "assault weapon" can refer to any rifle, carbine or even pistol with military styling. When speaking about the U.S., it is most often a semi-automatic, as full auto and select fire weapons (allowing semi auto, 3-5 shot burst or fully automatic fire with one pull of the trigger) are extremely rare and HEAVILY regulated in the U.S. There are no full auto or select fire weapons legally in the hands of civilians in the U.S. that were made/registered after 1986. Any weapon not registered by 1986 is not transferable, and cannot be legally owned by a civilian.

But now, there are select fire and fully automatic weapons in existence in the U.S. which were made after 1986 (not in the hands of the military or police). But they're not registered and are highly illegal. They are not registered, because they cannot be. They are either illegally modified semi-automatics (rather easily done by anyone with basic machine shop skills and a basic knowledge of firearms), or they have been smuggled into the U.S. I believe the fine for illegal possession is something like a $25,000 fine and 5 or 10 years in jail - don't quote me, as I'm not sure. But it is a Federal crime.

The last case I can think of involved a crooked Federal agent (not really privately owned) who shot a drug dealer with whom he had a dispute over a drug deal. I believe this was back in the go/go, cocaine fueled 80's. If you search, you may find another case. But to legally secure a Title II/Class 3 weapon costs a LOT of money, involves a lot of red tape and the weapon itself is usually old and has a (real world) value of maybe $2,000. But because they are SO rare, they typically sell north of $20,000.

But as I have stated numerous times now, these (legal) weapons are NOT A PROBLEM HERE! There have been more people killed by lightning in ONE year than have been killed in FORTY years by legally owned, transferable, Class 3 select fire/fully automatic weapons in the United States.

[chuck34]

A few quotes from the Founding Fathers to give a bit of perspective.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. ... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't like the idea of gang and organized crime members, career criminals and mentally unstable people having access to guns. But here is another fact: there are roughly 200 million (known) firearms in the U.S. today. Other than wishing them away, or creating a law that duplicates the language and intent of existing laws, what is it (specifically, please) that gun control advocates want to do??? Let's say that you are able to pass a law. OK, what does the law say? And most importantly, how do you propose enforcing your new law?

As Starter accurately pointed out, cocaine is a banned substance in the United States. Now, I don't hang with a crowd that does coke. But I can almost guarantee you that if I asked around and flashed a wad of cash, I could secure some in less than 24 hours. Scoring some meth would be even easier than getting the coke. But it's a banned substance too! How could this be? We have laws!!! ;)

Let's forget about whether this gun grab would be effective or not. My question is, how would you accomplish the goal of rounding up these 200 million weapons?

Since this thread started out with a discussion about crime and guns, would someone with an opposing view please address the above questions?

I can point out that poverty and hunger are problems in Africa. But if all I can say is, the Africans need more food and money, that's hardly a solution, is it? If you believe that guns are a problem here (and they are... in the wrong hands ;) ), what is your solution??? And if all you can say is, you Americans need another law, maybe the U.N. should just pass a law prohibiting hunger and poverty? :confused: Come on now. Something real. We already have bunches and bunches of laws. How would you enforce your law? How would you make your plan work???

[Eki]

A few quotes from the Founding Fathers to give a bit of perspective.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. ... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

I don't understand why some insist sticking to something someone said over 200 years ago. Times change. Or do you think the US in 2009 is the same as the US in 1776 and nothing has changed? We got a new constitution in 1994, the old one was from the 1920s. Don't you think you could get a new constitution too, one that reflects the present day and doesn't live in the past?

[chuck34]

I don't understand why some insist sticking to something someone said over 200 years ago. Times change. Or do you think the US in 2009 is the same as the US in 1776 and nothing has changed? We got a new constitution in 1994, the old one was from the 1920s. Don't you think you could get a new constitution too, one that reflects the present day and doesn't live in the past?

Don't get me wrong, the US Constitution has it's flaws. But overall it has served this country VERY, VERY well. And it would do even better for us if we, as Americans, took the time to really read it, understand it, and see how the words actually have meaning that is still valid today. The more I study the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, and other documents written by our Founders, the more I realize just how much what they said 200 years ago was amazingly forward looking.

If you just go and change your Constitution every couple of decades just "because it's old", what's the point? What's un-Constitutional today may not be tomorrow, so why worry about it? Laws need to have at least some "permanance" to them, otherwise they are meaningless.

[Eki]

What's un-Constitutional today may not be tomorrow, so why worry about it?
Because you don't know beforehand if it will be, and you're not a fortune teller.

[Easy Drifter]

Someone earlier said said Canada's and US guns laws are the same or words to that effect.
They are not.
Canada's gun laws are far more restrictive than those in the US in most cases.
In the US the individual states all have laws on the books relating to gun ownership. Some states are fairly lax.
There are also federal laws relating to ownership of certain types of weapons.
In Canada our gun laws are a federal matter.
The Provinces can and do pass laws on the type of gun and ammunition that may be used for hunting and the hunting seasons but only the feds can pass laws relating to ownership of guns.

[chuck34]

Because you don't know beforehand if it will be, and you're not a fortune teller.

Exactly. But if your Constitution has permanence you do know what is and what is not Constitutional. Keep changing your Constitution around and no one will ever know before hand.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. But if your Constitution has permanence you do know what is and what is not Constitutional. Keep changing your Constitution around and no one will ever know before hand.

Equally, leave it unaltered and certain aspects of your laws will remain stuck in the past, which did not have a monopoly on wise thought.

[AAReagles]

From the Oxford English dictionary:

civilize:

(verb)

1. bring to an advanced stage of social development.
2. (civilized) polite and good-mannered.


Citizens requiring weapons to defend themselves hardly falls into the above definition.
Nor does mankind in itself. As history has shown.






I just worry for humanity. Do we need to be fearful of each other and protective of ourselves? Can we change?

Good luck. As a species we've made some good improvements, or so they appear to be. But that's about it.





I have no problems with gun ownership per se, and am firmly of the opinion that one can never legislate against the individual lunatic. But I do feel that giving people an inalienable right to possess a gun and enshrining that in law brings with it certain particular risks in relation to the abuse of that right, given the more general nature of possession. I am also firmly of the view that possession of any weapon, whether knife, gun or whatever, is unnecessary as a means of personal protection. The vast majority of us get by just fine without such things, and the fear of crime is always greater than the reality.
I agree with most of that, with exception to the latter, as quite obviously that depends entirely upon where you live.





Equally, leave it unaltered and certain aspects of your laws will remain stuck in the past, which did not have a monopoly on wise thought.

As if any civilization ever did ?

[Rollo]

Exactly. But if your Constitution has permanence you do know what is and what is not Constitutional. Keep changing your Constitution around and no one will ever know before hand.

The British Parliament has no written constitution. The rules which govern it largely depend on common law, common sense and convention, has produced remarkably stable government for 320 years, something which could not be said for the US Constitution.

[AAReagles]

I think you should read my location before you knock where I live.

Since you went there, let's take a look at Mexico. Are civilians allowed to own guns in Mexico? Simple answer, no (http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/). Do the baddies still manage to get their hands on guns? Yes! Imagine if civilians had a way to defend themselves, and yes, in a country like Mexico the threat of crime is live & real everyday. Empower civilians to stand up to criminals and to corrupt officials instead of letting them get dumped on by some thugs (http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f166/28219d1228779892-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing.flv).

Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-monterrey7-2008dec07,0,2059505,full.story) is the story by The Los Angeles Times behind that last link. All of the victims were innocent, no prior records or ties to gangs/drugs, and were still ambushed. The thugs didn't take anything from the victims or the jewelry store that they shot-up. Not even the security guard could do a thing because Mexican gun laws are so restrictive that he couldn't possess a gun.

Excellent point. One of which is casually ignored by those willing to provide statements of convenience, based on their own experiences only.

[BDunnell]

I agree with most of that, with exception to the latter, as quite obviously that depends entirely upon where you live.

In my opinion, the situation is largely the same across most civilised Western democracies, whether in North America or Europe, in that possession of a gun for self-defence is not necessary. This even includes most people living in dodgy areas of big cities.

[AAReagles]

In my opinion, the situation is largely the same across most civilised Western democracies, whether in North America or Europe, in that possession of a gun for self-defence is not necessary. This even includes most people living in dodgy areas of big cities.
Your ideal notions are admirable, but not realistic I'm afraid. You obviously don't live in South Central, Compton (Los Angeles), Concord, Oakland (N. Cal Bay area) or even da' West Side of Fresno.

Opinions change with experience.

[chuck34]

The British Parliament has no written constitution. The rules which govern it largely depend on common law, common sense and convention, has produced remarkably stable government for 320 years, something which could not be said for the US Constitution.

So stable that their colonies all broke away with varying levels of violence for much of that last 320 years?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't understand why some insist sticking to something someone said over 200 years ago. Times change. Or do you think the US in 2009 is the same as the US in 1776 and nothing has changed? We got a new constitution in 1994, the old one was from the 1920s. Don't you think you could get a new constitution too, one that reflects the present day and doesn't live in the past?


So when laws are inconvenient, just toss them aside, they are not relevent? This is a fine thing to say, but then fine, pass amendments to modernize the document. It aint easy. It isn't meant to be easy. It is to stop people from just changing laws they don't like because of whims. The US Consititution was the first document in the modern era that espoused the idea of power coming from the people, as opposed to from a gift of rights from some larger power of royalty or self appointed head of state.

You can argue all you like about the idea of bearing arms, but for the most part, America's greatest problems have little to do with the fact people are legally entitled to carry handguns. Millions in the US carry no permits. Maybe catch a few more of them eh?

[chuck34]

In my opinion, the situation is largely the same across most civilised Western democracies, whether in North America or Europe, in that possession of a gun for self-defence is not necessary. This even includes most people living in dodgy areas of big cities.

Why do you keep asserting that a gun for self-defence is not necessary? Many feel very strongly that it is. Why do you discount their opinions? As has been said many times before, the police are not around at the moment that something is happening to you. Sometimes they are hours away. Can't you see that many at least feel as if they are safer having a gun around? Why is that so wrong in your opinion?

[Mark in Oshawa]

So stable that their colonies all broke away with varying levels of violence for much of that last 320 years?

With the exception of India, most of them didn't have any violent revolt. Oh yes..and you Yanks.

Canada, NZ, Australia, Kenya, South Africa are all promenient ex British Colonies that became nations peacefully. Toss in Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, Fiji, the British Virgin Islands, and most of the Commonwealth all left the Brits peacefully. Most of modern law in the US is based on the British model of juriorsprudence, despite the US Revolution. The concept of innocent til proven Guilty among other ideals is a common thread in US law and British law.

In short, criticize the Brits but the DNA of modern Britain has a lot in common with the US.

[Daniel]

couldn't agree more Mark.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So stable that their colonies all broke away with varying levels of violence for much of that last 320 years?

With the exception of India, most of them didn't have any violent revolt. Oh yes..and you Yanks.

Canada, NZ, Australia, Kenya, South Africa are all promenient ex British Colonies that became nations peacefully. Toss in Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, Fiji, the British Virgin Islands, and most of the Commonwealth all left the Brits peacefully. Most of modern law in the US is based on the British model of juriorsprudence, despite the US Revolution. The concept of innocent til proven Guilty among other ideals is a common thread in US law and British law.

In short, criticize the Brits but the DNA of modern Britain has a lot in common with the US.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In my opinion, the situation is largely the same across most civilised Western democracies, whether in North America or Europe, in that possession of a gun for self-defence is not necessary. This even includes most people living in dodgy areas of big cities.


That's your opinion, and you and I are in the agreement that you shouldn't need to carry a weapon. The sad reality tho is if we were ever IN danger, we wouldn't have one. Chuck or Reagles there just might have one on them and defuse a bad situation.

The reality is Ben in the last 4 years, I have been in the US for 4 out of 7 days on average, and never once has anyone mentioned to me they are packing a gun, much less brought it up. Millions of Americans have right to carry licences, and for the most part, life is not much different than it is in the UK or Canada. Is this an irrational need? You and I may think so, but then again, maybe not. Like Insurance, until you need it, you think you can get by maybe with out it. The idea of a personal gun is an insurance policy, and lets be serious. People who own guns in the US have a responsibility to society to use them or carry them without infringing on the rights of others. Considering how many people own guns in the US, that actually is the reality. People do own guns responsibily for the most part.

[chuck34]

With the exception of India, most of them didn't have any violent revolt. Oh yes..and you Yanks.

Canada, NZ, Australia, Kenya, South Africa are all promenient ex British Colonies that became nations peacefully. Toss in Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, Fiji, the British Virgin Islands, and most of the Commonwealth all left the Brits peacefully. Most of modern law in the US is based on the British model of juriorsprudence, despite the US Revolution. The concept of innocent til proven Guilty among other ideals is a common thread in US law and British law.

In short, criticize the Brits but the DNA of modern Britain has a lot in common with the US.

I thought there were some other uprisings in other places as well. But honestly I'm not too "up" on my history in that area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the Brits in any way. I understand that their common law is the basis for most of our law. And I'm fine with that.

What I took exception to was the assertion that everything's been hunky-dory with that system for 320 years. Well the US broke off 230ish years ago, depending on if you take the start of the Revolution or the end. And the Indians only gained independence 62 years ago.

On the other hand, the US had our last "major" issue about 144 years ago with the Civil War. Unless you want to count the Civil Rights Struggle, which maybe you could. But then what about Northern Ireland? We could go back and forth all day with this.

Bottom line, the 320 years thing is a bit of a stretch.

[chuck34]

That's your opinion, and you and I are in the agreement that you shouldn't need to carry a weapon. The sad reality tho is if we were ever IN danger, we wouldn't have one. Chuck or Reagles there just might have one on them and defuse a bad situation.

The reality is Ben in the last 4 years, I have been in the US for 4 out of 7 days on average, and never once has anyone mentioned to me they are packing a gun, much less brought it up. Millions of Americans have right to carry licences, and for the most part, life is not much different than it is in the UK or Canada. Is this an irrational need? You and I may think so, but then again, maybe not. Like Insurance, until you need it, you think you can get by maybe with out it. The idea of a personal gun is an insurance policy, and lets be serious. People who own guns in the US have a responsibility to society to use them or carry them without infringing on the rights of others. Considering how many people own guns in the US, that actually is the reality. People do own guns responsibily for the most part.

Well said.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well said.

Don't love me too much Chuck. I understand why you guys like the idea of keeping guns as part of your ethos, but I am not always 100% sold on the need for THAT much personal protection. That said, The fact personal attacks in Florida since the concealed carry permits were made legal has dropped says to me the idea works.

[chuck34]

Don't love me too much Chuck. I understand why you guys like the idea of keeping guns as part of your ethos, but I am not always 100% sold on the need for THAT much personal protection. That said, The fact personal attacks in Florida since the concealed carry permits were made legal has dropped says to me the idea works.

No one is asking you, or anyone to agree 100%. But you expressed what I, and others, have been saying very well.

[BDunnell]

That's your opinion, and you and I are in the agreement that you shouldn't need to carry a weapon. The sad reality tho is if we were ever IN danger, we wouldn't have one. Chuck or Reagles there just might have one on them and defuse a bad situation.

The chances of being in a situation in which having a gun may be of some 'benefit' are negligible. I do not want to have to take precautions for every potential event that might occur. There's no need.



The reality is Ben in the last 4 years, I have been in the US for 4 out of 7 days on average, and never once has anyone mentioned to me they are packing a gun, much less brought it up. Millions of Americans have right to carry licences, and for the most part, life is not much different than it is in the UK or Canada. Is this an irrational need? You and I may think so, but then again, maybe not. Like Insurance, until you need it, you think you can get by maybe with out it. The idea of a personal gun is an insurance policy, and lets be serious. People who own guns in the US have a responsibility to society to use them or carry them without infringing on the rights of others. Considering how many people own guns in the US, that actually is the reality. People do own guns responsibily for the most part.

All very well put. But they are still unnecessary as a means of personal defence. I do not feel any less safe as a result of being 'unarmed'. The risk is not worthy of such a response.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The chances of being in a situation in which having a gun may be of some 'benefit' are negligible. I do not want to have to take precautions for every potential event that might occur. There's no need.



All very well put. But they are still unnecessary as a means of personal defence. I do not feel any less safe as a result of being 'unarmed'. The risk is not worthy of such a response.

Ben...that's you. and yes that is me...but in the US, you have the option. They object from people taking away their options on the whim of some guy in an ivory tower saying "you don't deserve that choice" America is all about choices.

[chuck34]

Ben...that's you. and yes that is me...but in the US, you have the option. They object from people taking away their options on the whim of some guy in an ivory tower saying "you don't deserve that choice" America is all about choices.

Some might call that freedom. And yes freedom comes with responsibility as well. Such as, you have the right/freedom to own a gun or not, but if you do you also have the responsibility to use it and store it in a responsible way. If you don't live up to your responsibilities there will be consequences.

[AAReagles]

In short, criticize the Brits but the DNA of modern Britain has a lot in common with the US.
Which is why I don't mind being regarded as a rogue cousin. :D


Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the Brits in any way. I understand that their common law is the basis for most of our law. And I'm fine with that.

What I took exception to was the assertion that everything's been hunky-dory with that system for 320 years... Bottom line, the 320 years thing is a bit of a stretch.

My thoughts as well. It's not as if everything is perfect over in Europe in general, since there had been some incidents in recent years, such as two school shootings in both Germany and Finland. Not to mention other nutter episodes; the 2003 British GP and the bloke who attempted a suicide mission with his car to take out members of the Dutch royal family ealier this year.

[airshifter]

I cannot believe that you can seriously equate possession of a gun to wearing a seatbelt on an aircraft. It is quite a leap to compare one with the other.

You're right. Statistics will show that a person is much more likely to be involved in a violent crime than they are to be involved in a plane accident. :)

[Eki]

Since it looks obvious that we can't reduce the number of firearms, maybe we could go the other way. Would bears be more safe, if they had guns? If yes, then I'm all for it.

http://www.teepatrol.com/images/designs/misc/arm_bears.jpg

[AAReagles]

Post #130 - 13 Oct 2009

... Other than wishing them away, or creating a law that duplicates the language and intent of existing laws, what is it (specifically, please) that gun control advocates want to do??? Let's say that you are able to pass a law. OK, what does the law say? And most importantly, how do you propose enforcing your new law?


Let's forget about whether this gun grab would be effective or not. My question is, how would you accomplish the goal of rounding up these 200 million weapons?



Post #221 - 14 Oct 2009

Since this thread started out with a discussion about crime and guns, would someone with an opposing view please address the above questions?

… Come on now. Something real. We already have bunches and bunches of laws. How would you enforce your law? How would you make your plan work???


Well… there’s your answer.

By this time I was wondering if anyone bothered to take on the task with your question. Everyone has no problem of dispensing an agenda, but when it comes to a solid solution it gets quiet (listening to the cyber crickets). Life isn’t about packing firearms everywhere you go of course, but it’s not about drinking pink gins with feet up on the ottoman making statements of convenience either.

Notice how this discussion took a sudden left turn towards the Constitution… and I do mean Left. Questioning the freedoms of this country. This thread was just another set-up from the gitgo. Attempting to sell wolf tickets to another cyber fight.


One statement that sums it up well…

... a straw man argument if ever there was one.

[Rollo]

By this time I was wondering if anyone bothered to take on the task with your question. Everyone has no problem of dispensing an agenda, but when it comes to a solid solution it gets quiet (listening to the cyber crickets).

I already addressed this:

In the case of the United States, the answer is a very very strongly world "no". The price of 11,000+ deaths a year because of firearms is acceptable or else someone would have changed the legislation, but due to the fierce defence of the second amendment, this will never happen.

Though to specifically address the question:

My question is, how would you accomplish the goal of rounding up these 200 million weapons?

No one would ever be prepared politically or otherwise even think about solving the problem, because it's so ingrained in the national psyche, that it would never happen. Can you imagine the uproar if it was attempted? Americans have bought 7 billion bullets this year because of the fear that their "freedom" will be taken away, not that there's even been a shred of evidence to support this either.

[AAReagles]

I already addressed this... Though to specifically address the question:

No one would ever be prepared politically or otherwise even think about solving the problem, because it's so ingrained in the national psyche, that it would never happen. Can you imagine the uproar if it was attempted? Americans have bought 7 billion bullets this year because of the fear that their "freedom" will be taken away, not that there's even been a shred of evidence to support this either.

It's not only about a national psyche or "freedom", of course, but also the fact that many guns being unregistered - legal & illegal, would be difficult to locate. Subsequently a lawabiding public well aware of this would hardly embrace any further restrictions through legislation when it's apparent criminals would always be armed: with weapons and a weak justice system (to the point witness-protection programs have to be implemented).

There is a much bigger scope of this issue than some people who debate this are willing to realize: due to convenience (or agendas for that matter).

Rather odd how some with egalitarian concepts dismiss their vicarious inclinations when it comes to legal gun ownership. Well, those who actually believe in equality and freedoms.

[Eki]

Evening the odds is always a good thing. :D
The point some of have been making all along of course. ;)
True, but don't you think the hunters would try wearing bullet proof vests and more powerful weapons and trying to come up with some early bear warning systems before giving up?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Some might call that freedom. And yes freedom comes with responsibility as well. Such as, you have the right/freedom to own a gun or not, but if you do you also have the responsibility to use it and store it in a responsible way. If you don't live up to your responsibilities there will be consequences.

It is..and it is why I don't protest gun ownership while not owning a gun. However, when my father passes away, I am going to become the owner of about 10 of them, all rifles and shotguns. The prize in the collection is a Mauser with a homemade stock my dad made in the 60's complete with a Bushnell scope for deer hunting. A beautiful bolt action rifle that was a German Army issue once upon a time. Dad didn't like the stock so he made his own....

[Easy Drifter]

Going off on a bit of a tangent here.
I also realize many (most?) people on here will be extremely reluctant to answer this.
Has anyone on this forum actually shot another human being or even shot at one?
I expect some military veterans may have. Even admitting to it will be difficult.

[Jag_Warrior]

I've only drawn down on one person in my life. But no, Easy... I've never shot anyone. And I'm very happy about that. I hope that no one ever puts me in a position that I'm forced to fire on them.

[Jag_Warrior]

No one would ever be prepared politically or otherwise even think about solving the problem, because it's so ingrained in the national psyche, that it would never happen. Can you imagine the uproar if it was attempted? Americans have bought 7 billion bullets this year because of the fear that their "freedom" will be taken away, not that there's even been a shred of evidence to support this either.

Well, let's take it down a notch then. What about the weapons in the hands of violent felons, gang bangers and mobsters? I mean, those people are violating existing gun control laws that most of us agree with. Any ideas offered to deal with those fine folks, I believe would be welcome. I know the NRA, and probably even the GOA, would be with you on that.

[Rollo]

Part of that has already been addressed in this thread.


In Australia after an event in which 35 people were killed, the Federal Government and all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns.
There was a subsequent Government buy-back during an amnesty period, and the import of firearms heavily controlled.

According to the ABS Book of the Year for 2008 we had 39 deaths due to firearms in Australia, which means that the rates are still falling.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws,"

A possible answer should be similar, no?
- A buyback scheme to remove such weapons from suspicious persons.
- If they don't voluntarily turn them in, then order a summary search and seize of effects of weapons from those who are suspicious.

[Valve Bounce]

OK, here's a thought. Hand guns are illegal in Hong Kong, where the population is well in excess of 13 million. I just wonder whether there has been an overall lower number of murders by shooting there than in the US percentage wise.

Does anyone have any data on this?

[Alexamateo]

- If they don't voluntarily turn them in, then order a summary search and seize of effects of weapons from those who are suspicious.

Well of course that would violate the fourth amendment. Perhaps you'd like to just come and re-write our entire constitution.

[Captain VXR]

On the other hand, the US had our last "major" issue about 144 years ago with the Civil War. Unless you want to count the Civil Rights Struggle, which maybe you could. But then what about Northern Ireland? We could go back and forth all day with this.

Bottom line, the 320 years thing is a bit of a stretch.
Have you heard of the Indian wars that happened soon after the Civil War?
Northern Ireland was split from the Republic of Ireland to avoid civil war

[chuck34]

Have you heard of the Indian wars that happened soon after the Civil War?
Northern Ireland was split from the Republic of Ireland to avoid civil war

Yes, I've heard of the Indian Wars. Like I said we could go back and fourth on this all day.

So what about "The Troubles" then if Northern Ireland being split off was a cure?

[Rollo]

Well of course that would violate the fourth amendment. Perhaps you'd like to just come and re-write our entire constitution.

Really? So you honestly think that it would be impossible or more to the point unreasonable to obtain a warrant in the following circumstances?


Well, let's take it down a notch then. What about he weapons in the hands of violent felons, gang bangers and mobsters? I mean, those people are violating existing gun control laws that most of us agree with.

The text of the fourth amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is perfectly reasonable to search the premises of suspicious persons; especially if what you're looking for is illegal. The fourth amendment is not a wall to hide behind if you want immunity from the law. In fact Carroll vs United States (1925) tells us that in the event of obtaining a warrant:
"it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false"
Suspicion is merely enough, even at statute law; furthermore the supreme court confirmed it.

[Jag_Warrior]

Part of that has already been addressed in this thread.



A possible answer should be similar, no?
- A buyback scheme to remove such weapons from suspicious persons.
- If they don't voluntarily turn them in, then order a summary search and seize of effects of weapons from those who are suspicious.

Possibly. The buyback scheme might work if the price per weapon was high enough. Since we're talking about people who can't legally buy any firearm, the price offered in the scheme would have to exceed its value to them, before they'd likely turn it in. In the case of a fully automatic weapon, I'm not sure how you'd convince them to turn those in. If you gave them $20,000 per Uzi (or whatever they're worth on the street), they'd probably use the money to buy another one... from the same gangster they got the first one from (smuggled in).

But really, this would be like trying to convince a carpenter to sell his hammer and saw. To gangsters and mobsters, these are the tools of their trade. What would a Hells Angel, Pagan, Crip, Blood, Mexican Mafia, Latin King, Bulldog or Aryan Brotherhood member be without his piece?

I think we need to move away from the belief that the hardcore criminal element would voluntarily do anything if it weakened their position in their world. The Fresno Bulldogs were so violent that their parent gang let them break away. They shot a cop off his motorcycle several years ago. They took two girls to a party, raped one of them and then shot both of them execution style when one was going to report the rape. And they're not unique. We have a whole generation of kids in many inner city areas who have more in common with wild animals than they do human beings. But unlike wild animals, these people have no purpose in life... other than to kill, steal, rape & pillage, sell drugs and create havoc for the rest of us (relatively) decent people.

And the problem with a search & seizure involving "suspicious" people... Alex has already addressed that. If you have enough evidence to gain individual warrants, the problem is already just shy of being dealt with already. But the volume of illegal weapons and organized criminals is immense: it's estimated that there are approximately 250,000 gang members in California alone. Placing a great deal more investigators on the street and gathering that evidence should help though. Doing to them what was done to the insurgents in Iraq might help: offer them money to sell out their "brothers & sisters". Real money... not chump change. These people are not like La Cosa Nostra. They have no code of honor, or really any hard rules that they follow. But one thing about turning them against each other: they tend to go wild when they get scared. Drive-by's, at least in the short term, might soar. Lots of innocent people might die.

My question was quite sincere. I really don't know what can be done, without getting the ACLU filing 100 lawsuits/day, that would really address this very serious issue.

But I see these people as akin to domestic terrorists. I personally would have no problem with extraordinary means being used against them. Obama would actually be the ideal President to push that idea - the affected communities would probably accept it better from him, IMO. But the ACLU would still fight it. And given their admitted Taliban nature, the radical right would probably fight it too - just because it would be a way to take on Obama. If Obama is for sunshine, the radical right/birthers are against sunshine... just because.

I don't know. I really don't know how this is going to turn out. I've felt that way for awhile. That's why I bought this land and live where I live. :dozey:

[Easy Drifter]

Unfortunately it is the same in the big cities in Canada.
We have far stricter gun laws than most parts of the US but that doesn't matter.
Some police forces have tried gun amnesty programs with incentives. One was a free camera and lessons. Most guns turned in were long guns and antiques.
In the major cities the gang bangers can rent guns for a day or two. Price depends on quality and type of weapon. Ammunition is also rented for a fee and if used then an extra charge applies.
As an aside in Ontario the Conservation Officers have more search powers than the police. They do not need a warrant to enter any house or place of business if they think there might be Fish and Game Act laws being broken.
Although not done much on land is quite common on our lakes for a Conservation Officer to be on a Police boat. He can board another vessel and seach it supposedly for illegal catches. If he turns up something else then the cops step in.
As far as I know this has not being challenged in a higher court. The first time they nail somebody with enough money it probably will be.

[Alexamateo]

Really? So you honestly think that it would be impossible or more to the point unreasonable to obtain a warrant in the following circumstances?



The text of the fourth amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is perfectly reasonable to search the premises of suspicious persons; especially if what you're looking for is illegal. The fourth amendment is not a wall to hide behind if you want immunity from the law. In fact Carroll vs United States (1925) tells us that in the event of obtaining a warrant:
"it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false"
Suspicion is merely enough, even at statute law; furthermore the supreme court confirmed it.

Rollo, You earlier posted this:



Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns.
There was a subsequent Government buy-back during an amnesty period, and the import of firearms heavily controlled...........

.............................


..................A possible answer should be similar, no?
- A buyback scheme to remove such weapons from suspicious persons.
- If they don't voluntarily turn them in, then order a summary search and seize of effects of weapons from those who are suspicious.


I don't own any guns now, but I do stand to inherit some someday including a Browning 16 gauge automatic that was my grandfathers. It's a special gun to me and holds a lot of memories. I killed a rabbit the very first time I ever shot the thing, and it brings back memories of hunting with my grandfather and running dogs etc. Now, since it's a self-loading shotgun and included in your ban, I suppose they'll be coming after me when I don't turn it in to be unceremoniously destroyed. What's the definition of tyranny again?

[Rollo]

So what about "The Troubles" then if Northern Ireland being split off was a cure?

It really depends of which portion of history you're talking about at the time. But if you happen to be specifically mentioning the period from about 1969 onwards, then it was largely a case of terrorism.
And to be perfectly blunt, a great deal of the funding for that terrorism came from US citizens either directly or through NORAID.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946419,00.html?promoid=googlep

"I'd like to thank America for it's help in the war on terror, because if you hadn't funded the IRA for 30 years, we wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists would we? You've played the long game on that one. Good thinking."
- Al Murray, Pub Landlord