Tough Gun Laws

[beet1e]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What ever wife beater.

She's not my wife - just a small detail, banana. But please, don't let the FACTS get in your way. I realise that FACT is not your strong suit.

Greencloud/BGB - seems you too have some catching up to do.

ENGLISH WOMEN DIES A VICTIM

A 105-Year-Old British woman, terrorized by burglars breaking into her home four times in an 18-month period, has died a perpetual victim,


Proving again..the FAILURE of Englands gun ban to protect law-abiding citizens

You need to take a balanced view - not the one-side view you currently hold. Just as you point to a woman being burgled 4 times, and suggesting that if she had a gun it would have been all right, I can counter that with THIS story - of a woman who DID have a gun, whose home was broken into, whereupon she was killed with her own gun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/24/nmurd24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/24/ixhome.html

A burglar who terrorised elderly residents in a village will be jailed for life today after shooting one of them dead with a gun she kept to protect her property.
   

Stephen Burgess, 20, broke into 81-year-old Mildred Hope-Baldwin's home and shot her with a Second World War pistol she owned as he searched for money to feed his heroin addiction.

Miss Hope-Baldwin was terrified of being burgled and had built up an array of weapons to protect herself and her property, but when she confronted Burgess with a Webley revolver, he snatched it after a struggle and shot her from close range.

Yesterday Mr Justice Gage adjourned sentence until today but warned Burgess: "There will be only one sentence I can pass."

Nottingham Crown Court was told how Burgess, a serial burglar, went to Miss Hope-Baldwin's cottage, known as the Wendy House, in Kegworth, Leics, last February.

At the beginning of the trial he admitted six charges of burglary and one of robbery as a result of other burglaries in the village.

He had first come across Miss Hope-Baldwin when, as a 15-year-old odd-job boy, he would walk her dog to earn himself a few pounds. But five years later he identified her as a soft target who could help feed his £150-a-day drug habit.

Timothy Spencer QC, prosecuting, said: "The death of Mildred Hope-Baldwin was the culmination of a campaign by Burgess against elderly women living in Kegworth. He was in search of money and was prepared to use violence to get it."

After Miss Hope-Baldwin produced the gun Burgess overpowered her, wrestled the weapon from her and shot her in the chest. Badly wounded, she managed to crawl across her floor to a phone and dial 999, but she died shortly after being taken to hospital.

Burgess, who was found guilty of murder, told the jury he fired in the belief the revolver was only a cap gun.

Miss Hope-Baldwin, an artist whose work was often used in children's books and greeting cards, had lived at her cottage for 16 years. Over the years she became more fearful of crime, stories of violence against the elderly having an effect on her.

Eventually she became terrified that she would herself become a target and equipped her home with a complicated CCTV system. She also built up an arsenal of weapons including knives, an air-rifle, a crossbow, an axe, a cosh and a machete.

Just posting that because I KNOW how you LOVE to keep abreast of the FACTS!

[GtoRA2]

Like facts ever got in your way.

Your a avacado and always will be. Back to ignore you go.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2


I just don't get you guys rerasoning... what is the point of locking someone up to pay their debt to society if when they are "released" they are not given their rights back?   If you don't trust em then why release em?

Rather than figure out who or who doesn't have  the potential for violence...  why not just make severe penalties for those who do commit unwaranted violence.

Is taking away a woman beaters  right to "legaly" own a firearm more of a deterent than say a mandatory 20 year jail sentance?

and raider... it is probly true that women beaters have a higher incidence of murdering women but... they will do it with or without a gun... would you rather be streangled stabbed or beat to death?   Seems jail is better for the rest of us.

lazs

1) I don't know, explain to me why felons lose the right to vote or be drafted into the military? There are lots of things that I don't understand. We don't trust em to vote or be in the military why trust em to own fire-arms?

2)Because what you are talking about only fixes it so that the victim is already shot,murdered,robbed or whatever and it does nothing for prevention only to prevent a recurance.(sp?)

3)Are you promoting 20 year jail terms for Domestic Violence?

4)Maybe so Laz, but at least without a gun they have a chance to run, flee, fight back.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider179
 A law abidng citizen loses his gun rights every time some ******* liberal politician puts a gun ban law in place like the Cali bull**** "unsafe guns" Ban. Or the .50 cal rifle ban or the assault weapon ban.

You like 50. cal's and assault weapons? Why not join the military? You can still own those guns. Go get you a proper license, I think its called the collectors license or something and presto own whatever you want.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider,
 I do not have a problem with convicted wife beater or stalkers ETC not having the right, but you can get a restraining order without any kind of conviction to go with it.

Agreed that is why there should be a hearing for restraining orders or for the gun owner. Maybe even a RO without a charge against the other person should not result in a loss of their firearm.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I know a guy whos wife came home late at night drunk and snagged their kid.  She came back and my buddy held her by the wrist to keep from leaving drunk with their child.  She subsequently got a bruise on her wrist and called the cops.  My friend was arrested for assault/domestic violence.  He repeatedly told the cops to check his wife's BAC and they refused saying it was irrelevent.

The irony of the whole situation was they put the handcuffs on so tight he had bloody/bruised wrists for a week.

Now if convicted my buddy who did nothing wrong but keep his wife from leaving with their kid drunk, wont be eligible for firearm owndership.

Not all Domestic dispute charges are fair.

I know this sucks to say but I am gonna have to.

You are not allowed to put your hands on another person if they don't want you to. She probably coulda pressed a kidnapping charge on him if she wanted. For not letting her leave. Sucks I know but if the only way you can control a woman is by force you already lost.

[beet1e]

Oh no! I've been dumped by the bull-neck brute from Fremont! Say it isn't so. My life won't be the same! He never did forgive me when I jokingly implied that he couldn't add up 1 + 1 and make 2. Geez, it was only a joke - I guess some people just don't have a sense of humour.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Raider179
You like 50. cal's and assault weapons? Why not join the military? You can still own those guns. Go get you a proper license, I think its called the collectors license or something and presto own whatever you want.

I wouldnt want to own a .50 they are to much money, I think the cheapest being 3500 bucks

I have owned assault rifles and they are fun.


Why should I have to, I have never broken any kind of law other then speeding.  I should be able to buy what I want withen reason.

You do know that so called assault rifles that now are being sold again nationaly were never full auto right?

And by cali banning them they took my rights away, THAT was what you asked.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Raider179
Agreed that is why there should be a hearing for restraining orders or for the gun owner. Maybe even a RO without a charge against the other person should not result in a loss of their firearm.

I would be ok with that, I am not sure how they do it now. I do not know if you can apeal it.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
curval... there really is none except for the most tenuous.   It is simply busybody feel good stuff compounded by an ignorance of firearms.

The premise being that any kind of violence (especialy against the weaker sex) makes you more prone to shooting people.

lazs

In 2002, the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, firearms were the most common weapon used by males to murder females (928 of 1,733 or 54 percent). Of these, 73 percent (679 of 928) were committed with handguns. Alaska ranks first in the nation in the rate of women killed by men. Ranked behind Alaska are: Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina, Tennessee, Delaware, North Carolina, and Alabama. Nationally the rate was 1.37 per 100,000.

more stats

 
•  Women are most likely to be victimized by people they know. Having a gun in the home increases the risk of being a murder victim by three times, and by 20 times if there has been a previous domestic violence incident in the home.
Source: Kellermann AL, et al. Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329. 1084-1091.
 
 
•  For every woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 97 women were killed by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.
Source: 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center.  
 
 
•  In 1998, for every woman who used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 women were killed in a handgun homicide.
Source: 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Ratio calculated by the Violence Policy Center.
 
 
•  Having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of a domestic homicide.
Source: Bailey, J. Risk factors for violence death of women in the home. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(7): 777-782.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2


Why should I have to, I have never broken any kind of law other then speeding.  I should be able to buy what I want withen reason.

 

Simple answer is because there are BAD people out there who would just love to be able to walk in a store and buy whatever gun they wanted to. This stops them but doesnt stop you. You just have to fill out some paperwork.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I would be ok with that, I am not sure how they do it now. I do not know if you can apeal it.

There probably should be a hearing for anything that involves removal of someone's rights.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
And by cali banning them they took my rights away, THAT was what you asked.

:lol

Quick, someone get him a towel from the ladies' washroom.

[GtoRA2]

I have to fill out a bunch of paperwork now and wait ten days while the FBI does checks.


Thats not enough?



Can you walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun same day anywere now? I know the background check is national.


Crimanals are not shelling out 500$ or more in a gun store for a gun. They buy them ilegaly.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have to fill out a bunch of paperwork now and wait ten days while the FBI does checks.


Thats not enough?



Can you walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun same day anywere now? I know the background check is national.

Crimanals are not shelling out 500$ or more in a gun store for a gun. They buy them ilegaly.

1)Paperwork is nothing new these days. Everything involves paperwork.

2) 10 days? man you need that gun awful bad huh? Whats the rush?Next time plan ahead. That law is specifically created so people without guns won't get pissed off and go buy one and go shoot someone. Isn't it sometimes called "cooling off period" or something.

3)Really? I have seen some criminals with some weapons that were top of the line. But, I also tend to believe most fire-arms used in crimes come from gunshows and those kind of dealers but havent seen evidence of it anywhere. So I partially concede the point.