Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on November 03, 2003, 03:52:16 PM
-
OCTOBER 2003
Little Rock, Ark., man saved his own life late one night when three people broke into his house. Upon seeing the intruders, Eric Penny rushed into another room to retrieve his pistol when one man fired a rifle in his direction. Unhurt, Penny returned fire, striking all three. The armed assailant was shot in the head and later died of his wounds. His two alleged accomplices, who fled the scene after being shot, were located at a nearby medical clinic. (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 06/16/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Gardnerville, Nev., home-owner shot and killed a man who broke into his home. According to police reports, Walter Francis Hetrick of Antioch, Calif., broke a window next to a door at 11:24 p.m. and then entered through the door. Charles Cryderman heard someone breaking in and called police. The homeowner, armed with a .357-cal. revolver, then shot the intruder when he entered his home. Douglas County Sheriff’s investigator Mike Biaggini said that a man protecting “his castle” against someone committing a felony such as home invasion and burglary is allowed to defend himself. “He was in fear of his life,” Biaggini explained. “His whole family was there.” (The Record-Courier, Gardnerville, NV, 08/06/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not the first time R&R Jewelers of Oklahoma City, Okla. had been robbed. When an armed man demanded money from storeowner Larry Rowell, he complied and gave the miscreant some cash. But then the robber turned to the diamond display case. In the ensuing exchange of gunfire Rowell was wounded in the chest and the robber was killed. (The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 06/18/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 76-year-old Chicago man was making his usual stop at the local gas station when things went very wrong. Charles Smith, a 27-year army veteran, was getting back into his car when he felt a gun at the back of his head. “Start the car and get out or I will kill you,” was all the teenager, later identified as Blannie Hanes, said. Smith complied, but then confronted the teen from the passenger window, showing his .380-cal. pistol. When Hanes extended his gun, Smith fired, fatally striking the carjacker in the chest. (Chicago Sun Times, Chicago, IL, 04/24/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a masked bandit tried to hold up a San Dimas, Calif., convenience store, he was shot dead by the clerk who kept a handgun behind the register. It was later revealed that the robber, who pointed what looked like a .357 revolver at the clerk, was actually holding a BB gun. During the investigation, an officer of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department said, “I think it’s apparent at this stage of the investigation that there were self-defense issues.” (Inland Valley, Ontario, CA, 06/16/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a man came to his door asking to use a phone, an elderly Beaver Valley, Ariz., resident did not expect what would happen next. The visit suddenly turned deadly when the man pulled a knife on homeowner Ray Freisen, demanded his wallet and car keys and then tied him to a chair. Freisen was able to free himself and retrieve his gun, but not before the intruder stabbed Freisen’s wife. In defense of his wife, Freisen shot the home invader several times, killing him. By the time medical personnel arrived, Annie, Freisen’s wife of 53 years, had also died from her wounds. (Payson Roundup, Payson, AZ, 07/01/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A would-be robber had the bad fortune of choosing the wrong restaurant to rob when he was shot and killed by an employee at the Oriental Express restaurant in Laurel, Md. Prince George’s County police spokeswoman Cpl. Tammy Sparkman reported that a man entered the restaurant about 9:30 p.m., drew a gun, demanded money and grabbed a restaurant worker. Upon seeing a coworker held at gunpoint, another employee, armed with a gun, ran out of the restaurant’s kitchen and fatally shot the robber. (The Washington Post, Washington, DC, 07/14/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ronald Washington, the alleged Memphis, Tenn., “cat burglar” tied to a string of residential burglaries, was killed during an altercation with a homeowner. Washington, who had crept through a window, came face to face with the resident who shot him during the ensuing struggle. The burglary spree began in early May, and despite stepped up patrols by police, they were unable to catch the criminal. Burglary Bureau Maj. Billy Garrett said, “I hate for someone to lose their life, but for all of those innocent victims out there … they don’t have to worry about this particular guy.” (The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, 06/16/03)
*Above pasted from the NRA website. They give open authorization for reposting of The Armed Citizen.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a man came to his door asking to use a phone, an elderly Beaver Valley, Ariz., resident did not expect what would happen next. The visit suddenly turned deadly when the man pulled a knife on homeowner Ray Freisen, demanded his wallet and car keys and then tied him to a chair. Freisen was able to free himself and retrieve his gun, but not before the intruder stabbed Freisen’s wife. In defense of his wife, Freisen shot the home invader several times, killing him. By the time medical personnel arrived, Annie, Freisen’s wife of 53 years, had also died from her wounds. (Payson Roundup, Payson, AZ, 07/01/03)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is very sad.
But I'm glad he killed the sumbiotch
-
I agree Mr.Black, stabbing a man is one thing, but his wife? And an elderly person? :(
-
Dago, we should post this every month.
-
Dago, we should post this every month.
I plan on it, that is why I put the Month in the header. :aok
dago
-
In 1990, 24 states had no gun-control laws.
In the 26 states with gun-control laws, there were 19.6 gun-related deaths per 100,000 persons.
In the 24 states with no gun-control laws in 1990, there were 24.4 gun related deaths per 100,000.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
In 1990, 24 states had no gun-control laws.
In the 26 states with gun-control laws, there were 19.6 gun-related deaths per 100,000 persons.
In the 24 states with no gun-control laws in 1990, there were 24.4 gun related deaths per 100,000.
Yup thats cause the good people had guns to defend themselves.
-
lol... you continually crack me up
-
Did you see the lawyer there in california ducking behind a tree while some nutt was shooting at him?
Now what solution whould you have?
It would be nice if there NO guns But that aint gonna happen.
He was lucky and lived thanks to the dude being a crappy shot
and him having a tree to hide behind.
But If the lawyer and evrybody where to carry a gun then maybe nutts would think twice about walking up to you and shooting you.
-
Jeez, someone with a BBgun shot dead... a cat burglar (I understand no violence involved) shot dead... and those are all good examples.
Boy am I glad to live in Spain.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Jeez, someone with a BBgun shot dead... a cat burglar (I understand no violence involved) shot dead... and those are all good examples.
Boy am I glad to live in Spain.
Daniel
The lesson there is don't try and rob a store with ANY kind of gun
And to keep you'r Arse out of peoples houses.
-
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.
-
MT.... what states have "no gun control laws"? I am telling you that there is no state in the union that has "no gun control laws".
lazs
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The lesson there is don't try and rob a store with ANY kind of gun
And to keep you'r Arse out of peoples houses.
Cool, so what should I use? I want to rob a store now.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Cool, so what should I use? I want to rob a store now.
Try a credit card works for me.
Till the wife finds out any way:confused:
-
and cyrano.... what is the world coming to when you can't even rob at (fake) gunpoint or break and enter a persons home? Much better to stay in spain if you are a criminal I would say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT.... what states have "no gun control laws"? I am telling you that there is no state in the union that has "no gun control laws".
lazs
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
Here is a more recent listing of gun laws by State. I don't consider concealed carry permit only "gun control" States. I don't know the criteria used by the folks who put together the stat I posted.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
-
Thank God I'm in Texas and yes I do carry a gun.
A nice kimber 45 acp classic.
-
MT... obviously neither do the people who put the stats together. They seem to have made them up out of thin air. There are no states with no gun control laws.... we have over 20,000 gun control laws and every state has it's fair share of draconian ones.
We would need to see what laws the person compiling the stats considered "gun control" and.... *I would love to see what gun control laws he sees as the cause for such drops in homicide rates (small tho they be even by his figures)...
Certainly not concealed carry laws as in the decades of concealed carry laws there have been allmost no incidences of abuse...
Is California considered a gun control state? It certainly is by me... I don't imagine it helped the average much.
lazs
-
Look there are a ton gun of laws on the books .
But as long as we have smart lawyers going true the loopholes on both sides we will have issus.
I have no trouble with making it harder for stupid people to get guns(gun shows).
But for the law abidding guy he should not have to jump true hoops just to own a gun.
We have to make the penalties much stiffer for gun crimes.
And inforce them.
HARD TIME!!! And I mean HARD TIME none of this oh please reforme me BS .
put there butts to work(cool hand luke style).
Till the day they DIE.
And If they kill someone then give em the needle fast.
None of this sitting on death row for 10 years farting around on appeals.
Get tha watermelon over with give the clown his due process and then kill him:aok
-
man.... just looked at that cnn site... they say that there is no law requiring registration of firearms in Ca... No, go try to by one and tell the dealer that you don't want it registered... the law states that you can't even transfer guns between private citizens without "registering" them through a FFL licenced dealer.
There is no mention of right to carry or transport or waiting periods or any of a myriad of other draconian measures.
The site that gives the homicide stats gives no information at all except that they are using 1990 data. Rates have fallen and states with right to carry laws hjave shown decreases in all crime.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
man.... just looked at that cnn site... they say that there is no law requiring registration of firearms in Ca... No, go try to by one and tell the dealer that you don't want it registered... the law states that you can't even transfer guns between private citizens without "registering" them through a FFL licenced dealer.
There is no mention of right to carry or transport or waiting periods or any of a myriad of other draconian measures.
The site that gives the homicide stats gives no information at all except that they are using 1990 data. Rates have fallen and states with right to carry laws hjave shown decreases in all crime.
lazs
Did you really think you would get an unbiased opinion from MT:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and cyrano.... what is the world coming to when you can't even rob at (fake) gunpoint or break and enter a persons home? Much better to stay in spain if you are a criminal I would say.
lazs
My problem is that the gun owner appoints himself as jury, judge, and executor, being death the only possible verdict.
Did the guy with the BBgun deserve death as punishment? Did the burglar?
Much better to stay in Spain, criminal or otherwise, I'll give you that.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.
And everystate has some sort of gun control law, I think, I don't see 9 year olds walking around with a holster anywhere in the US...but It's sad to think that a kindergardner can shoot and kill a classmate....even if it is by accident.:( :mad:
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Did the guy with the BBgun deserve death as punishment? Did the burglar?
YES
-
:eek:
Alllrighty...
..now...
...relax...
..and put that gun down...
Daniel
-
HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN!
-
My problem is that the gun owner appoints himself as jury, judge, and executor, being death the only possible verdict.
The gun owner also appointed himself "survivor". I think it's important to remember that in each case stated in "The Armed Citizen" and each and ever other case where a citizen used a gun to defend himself, it was the criminal who started the incident, not the gun owner! The gun owner just wanted to be left alone, but when forced to act, he choose to defend himself, he choose to survive.
The gun owner didn't choose to appoint himself jury, judge or executioner, the criminal forced those roles upon him. I am sure in 100% of those cases, the gun owner would prefer to avoid any altercation and just live his life in peace. But, because he owned a gun, he had an option beyond just waiting to see what the criminal had in mind, waiting to let the criminal decide his and his families destiny, he had the ability to defend himself. That is the choice/ability I choose rather than stand by like a lamb waiting for the slaughter. I hope and pray I never have to be forced to use a firearm against another human being, but if a criminal threatens me or my family, I am glad I might have a chance to defend us.
BTW laz, I agree with you that in 1990 every state in the Union was sure to have some gun controls, and this doesn't take into account federal gun control laws. But that statement quoted by MT is typical of the nonsense put out by the anti-gun zealots, big on emotion, big on sesastionalism, but very short on truth and proper context. Ya know, never let the facts get in the way of a scary statement.
dago
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Did you really think you would get an unbiased opinion from MT:rofl
always
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (199
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
always
Gun Death - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (199
And the people on the Titanic would have never died if they had never invented the boat.
So what is you'r point?
Guns are here that is a fact of life in America.
Can't handle it ? don't like it ?
Make change with you'r vote then.
But as long as mankind is on the planet we will find ways of killing one another.
-
My problem is that the gun owner appoints himself as jury, judge, and executor, being death the only possible verdict.
The criminal makes the appointment, the victim simply fullfills his duty.
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen....
you fail to see that the Criminal is the VICTIM in these cases. Only the CRIMINAL has the right to survive these encounters.
And MT, you're way off base. First of all, every State still has to follow Federal gun laws and there were plenty of those in '90.
Secondly, I just tossed a Federal summary of State gun laws that was given to me back around 85. I wish I hadn't tossed it because I'm pretty sure I could counter any example you wished to post. All I can say is your source must be mighty picky about what he considers a "gun law".
However, you may go here Research Library | State Gun Laws (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state)
and see what I'm talking about.
Now, does California have "gun control laws"?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1067921740.gif)
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
My problem is that the gun owner appoints himself as jury, judge, and executor, being death the only possible verdict.
Did the guy with the BBgun deserve death as punishment? Did the burglar?
Much better to stay in Spain, criminal or otherwise, I'll give you that.
Daniel
So Cyrano you think the shooter in either case should have waited? Waited to see if the burglar tried to stab him or shoot him? Waited (like the one man) for the burglar fo fatally stab his wife? Waited to see if the robber would shoot first, or ask him to say if his gun was real or not? Do you value your life (and that of your family) so little that you will risk death to let a criminal live?
Sorry if someone points a gun at me, their life is forfeit.
-
It's difficult for me to accept those terms the same as for you to see it from my point of view.
I live in a society where guns are an oddity. If I get robbed, chances of the criminal having a gun are close to 0, and so having a simple pepper spray gives you the chance to repel the occasional attack.
For me, having to take someone's life is not a something I have to deal with everytime I feel threatened because chances that the assaulter's intention is to kill me are very slim.
I understand your position, and living in the US is a whole different story.
I believe it's a case of mutual understanding. While it may be justified to carry guns in a gun society, it can definitely be harmful to introduce guns in a gun-free society.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
While it may be justified to carry guns in a gun society, it can definitely be harmful to introduce guns in a gun-free society.
you nailed it perfectly !
-
Originally posted by Toad
G
Now, does California have "gun control laws"?
(http://members.aol.com/ninnirvpj/term_sho.jpg)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I believe it's a case of mutual understanding. While it may be justified to carry guns in a gun society, it can definitely be harmful to introduce guns in a gun-free society.
Daniel, Straffo - I agree with you both. After Tony Blair's government has finished ruining Britain - which won't be very long now, I shall probably relocate to either France or Spain, where I shall feel perfectly safe. :)
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I believe it's a case of mutual understanding. While it may be justified to carry guns in a gun society, it can definitely be harmful to introduce guns in a gun-free society.
Daniel
That's becoming apparent.
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030218_guns/blackmarket.html
Ricker's Affidavit is interesting enough.
-
Cyrano got it right. In a society with few guns you don't need a gun. In a society with lots of guns and America is not unique in this you need a gun to protect yourself.
In America as I pointed out in the other gun thread, vested interests keep their profits up by keeping up the demand for guns.
The first post is horrfying in many ways, first off the number of armed robberies and the fact that the penalty for burglary is DEATH. The NRA may be proud of the 'success' stories but I wonder if they post the incidents where the robber shoots the citizen dead as he reaches for his gun. Is it worth getting into a gun battle to prevent someone stealing a car or a few hundred dollars? Does the NRA post the incidents where the robber gets away without anybody dying.
Americans pay a high price for their 'freedom' to bear arms. The rest of the world looks on and learns from America's mistake.
Edit: Then I read Torgue's link
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archiv...lackmarket.html. So much for original thought on my part.
-
I believe it is a little more complex than that. there is the matter of personal freedom and freedom from tyranny. the tyranny for some people may be from criminals... for instance... the people in england are told to hide in their rooms when a burglar comes calling. Hope he doesn't decide to hurt anyone. we take a different view about protecting ourselves and our loved ones... we take a different view on our property... in the U.S. most people are property owners. we gave up serfdom and peasanthood over 200 years ago and don't look forward to going back.
Gun control laws don't seem to stop the rate of homicides for any country... nor... do they increase it. The guns don't make people kill. Homicide rates are pretty constant... if your country has a low homicide rate without guns then it will have a low rate with them...and vice versa... The only difference that is decernable is that countries and states with lax gun control have lower overall crime.
no gun control law was ever passed because of out of control gun homicides. The excusses in every case were flimsy.
Beetle... it is funny that when england was passing some of it's more drtaconian gun laws that the opponents of such useless laws pointed to the french as an example of loss of personal freedom but you would go there to feel "safe"?
lazs
-
torques link.... LOL... well, that proves that evil people will do evil things no matter what law you pass eh? they will get the guns no matter what. There is no country in the world no matter how draconian the gun control that doesn't have homicides and suicides.... there is no country in the world that doesn't have gun violence.
There is no proof that the gun dealer did anything illegal. The people who used the guns broke lots of gun laws. They chose to ignore the gun laws.
lazs
-
The first post is horrfying in many ways, first off the number of armed robberies and the fact that the penalty for burglary is DEATH. The NRA may be proud of the 'success' stories but I wonder if they post the incidents where the robber shoots the citizen dead as he reaches for his gun. Is it worth getting into a gun battle to prevent someone stealing a car or a few hundred dollars? Does the NRA post the incidents where the robber gets away without anybody dying
There is a long history and many good reasons for Americans to be armed. The right to bear arms was written as an amendment to our Constitiution and done so with good reason. A population unable to defend itself is a population that risks oppression and subjugation. You have to look no further than WW2 to see examples of what can happen to a nations people when they lack the ability to defend themselves and their nation.
It also helps if you consider the dictatorial rule many of the early settlers of the United States were fleeing, and the freedoms saught in their desire to form a new nation.
I am not blind to the problems our nation now has with guns, and with criminals armed. There are so many problems with society in general that you cannot blame the problems just on guns. One of the biggest problems is the incredible lack of family now in the black community, the overwhelming majority of children are borne to one parent households. The economy here as elsewhere has more people out of work than normal. etc etc.
I don't want to live in an armed camp, with citizens hunkering down in their homes afraid of the dark, and I don't think I do, but I also don't want to live in a nation where my country lacks the ability to defend itself from dangers outside or inside.
Americans pay a high price for their 'freedom' to bear arms. The rest of the world looks on and learns from America's mistake.
Yes we do, and we pay the price. But, an awful lot of nations look to us for guidance, for economic support, and even more look to us to protect them. And that is a fact.
dago
-
Sorry but having a gun doesn't me feel more free. Living without the fear of someone shooting at me does.
It's a matter of perspective.
Daniel
-
@Laz :
I feel safe enought,I don't need a gun at home.
And my personnal freedom is ok ,thanks.
When will you learn a bit about my country before posting ?
@Dago :
You have to look no further than WW2 to see examples of what can happen to a nations people when they lack the ability to defend themselves and their nation.
You pretend the outcome would have been different ?
BS.
-
I have looked at the history of both spain and france and if not having guns is the reason for it then I am glad we have guns in America.
lazs
-
Sorry but having a gun doesn't me feel more free. Living without the fear of someone shooting at me does.
We have to deal with the realities of today, and in our nation, guns are here, and will never be gone. If I could live in a society without violence, guns or weapons, I would in a heartbeat. But that society doesnt exist, dont kid yourself. I don't care what country you live in, guns exist, though maybe in smaller numbers.
You pretend the outcome would have been different ?
It might have been for 6 million Jews, and about as many Chinese.
Read the book "The Rape of Nan King" lately?
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
I don't care what country you live in, guns exist, though maybe in smaller numbers.
There are also venomous spiders and snakes, and I don't carry the antidote with me.
As I said, it's perfectly ok to carry guns in a gun society, just don't pretend we need them here.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by straffo
When will you learn a bit about my country before posting ?
Lazs has a Claude Monet picture in his living room. Seriously!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have looked at the history of both spain and france and if not having guns is the reason for it then I am glad we have guns in America.
lazs
In what occurence ?
I can't figure how having gun would have helped us in history.
Originally posted by Dago
It might have been for 6 million Jews, and about as many Chinese.
Read the book "The Rape of Nan King" lately?
dago
Just picking but 1937 is not WWII (I'm not sure as it's a question of definition it won't change anything to the mass rape in Nankin)
I don't think unorganised armed individuals can be able to resist an army.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs has a Claude Monet picture in his living room. Seriously!
he got more money than I so :)
-
midnight Target: Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Sensational media reports of suburban school shootings give the impression that Main Street, USA is seething with potential violence. Yet Mike A. Males, a researcher for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has calculated that the murder rate among white American teenagers in 1995 (that is, the rate at which white youth, ages twelve to seventeen, were killed) was "virtually identical" to that of Canadian youth. By contrast, the murder rate among non-white youth in the United States was eight times higher than among Canadian youth in 1998.
Gun control advocates frequently point to Canada as a model of strict firearms regulation. Yet, even with our looser laws, white American teenagers are hardly more inclined to engage in gun violence than Canadian youth. Writing in the leftwing journal In These Times, Males points out that, in California, "where white households are the most likely to harbor guns… the gun death rate among white teens (three per 100,000) is as low as Sweden’s or Canada’s."
A similar phenomenon can be observed nationwide. Males notes that the proportion of youth murders committed with guns in Canada is much smaller than that in the United States. Yet, when Canadian youth are compared specifically with white American teenagers, the difference narrows considerably. "The U.S. white-teen [gun] murder rate is pretty close to Canada’s[/i]," notes Males. "Non-white youth are a different story: 180 murders, 147 by guns in 1998, a rate five and eight times higher than for California white or Canadian youth."
There are reasons why some states have higher murder rates. More permissive gun ownership laws are not necessarily the cause of that affliction.
miko
-
I don't think unorganised armed individuals can be able to resist an army.
Well, there was the American Revolution. How do you think that started?
I am starting to wonder if you live in an isolate little bubble? Do you choose to never read world news? Do you never hear of military or police attacking villages and the mass murder that results? It happens, still does, and will for a long time into the future. We don't expect it will happen in our civilized countries, but it is still going on. Of course, who in 1940 would have suspected that a forward progressive nation like Germany would decided to practice genocide and would kill 6 millions Jews in the next 5 years?
Yes, there are many many cases where armed unorganized citizens have opposed an army. Happening right now in Iraq by the way. I don't think it is a stretch to wonder if there have been incidents that didn't occur for concern about armed civilian response.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Well, there was the American Revolution. How do you think that started?
Dunno,I've not started reading the book Toad pointed to me about American revolution.
I am starting to wonder if you live in an isolate little bubble? Do you choose to never read world news? Do you never hear of military or police attacking villages and the mass murder that results? It happens, still does, and will for a long time into the future. We don't expect it will happen in our civilized countries, but it is still going on. Of course, who in 1940 would have suspected that a forward progressive nation like Germany would decided to practice genocide and would kill 6 millions Jews in the next 5 years?
Yes I've heard of that, in middle east ...
Does it work for the Palestinian ?
Yes, there are many many cases where armed unorganized citizens have opposed an army. Happening right now in Iraq by the way. I don't think it is a stretch to wonder if there have been incidents that didn't occur for concern about armed civilian response.
dago
And what was the outcome ?
Let speak of varsovie for exemple (both the ghetto and the uprising)
-
Haven't we covered this thread before? :D
And MT, there are more deaths in Gun control states...because Gun Control means "hitting your target" or in your case "hitting your Tahgut" ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am starting to wonder if you live in an isolate little bubble? Do you choose to never read world news? Do you never hear of military or police attacking villages and the mass murder that results? It happens, still does, and will for a long time into the future. We don't expect it will happen in our civilized countries, but it is still going on. Of course, who in 1940 would have suspected that a forward progressive nation like Germany would decided to practice genocide and would kill 6 millions Jews in the next 5 years?
I think straffo understands this perfectly, Dago. It happened in France. On 10 June 1944, by which time the Germans must have known they were going to lose WW2 following events four days earlier, the town of Oradour-sur-Glane was the target of a brutal attack conducted by an SS Panzer Division. Can you imagine such an attack being repelled by French farmers with shotguns or maybe the occasional handgun?
Read all about it at http://www.oradour.info
This part is horrific: http://www.oradour.info/ruined/chapter2.htm#BM13_30_Saturday_10_June_1944
Yes, I think straffo knows all he needs to know about this.
-
straffo: I don't think unorganised armed individuals can be able to resist an army.
Read about the Napoleon's troubles with Spain.
A place like US or Switzerland are impossibly to occupy.
Just imagine if the Iraqis were as well armed as the US citizens and as proficient - millions of high-power sniper rifles, 12.5mm (.50 caliber) scoped rifles, all kinds of battle rifles, rangefinders, radio equipment, body armor, ghillie suits, night-vision devices, ets.
Granted, we do not have RPGs here - at least that I know of - but I would take a .50 cal or even .300 Weatherby magnum or .338 with a guy who can hit a plate at 900 meters against an RPG any time.
Even the best army like the one that US currently has would have been blown to smithereens if it tried to occupy a country like US against the wishes of the population.
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.
What about Canada? They got PLENTY of guns and very few gun related deaths.
Puerto Rico on the other hand, where gun regulations are extremely tight, worse than California (fear of revolution in the early century), many more people die from gunshots than Canada. And its a smaller country.
I dont think its about gun regulations...
-
From the paper in canada today
"TORONTO -- A child watched his father die this weekend after he was shot by an apparent stray bullet fired into a car a street away.
"Call 911," was the last thing Derek Wah Yan, 40, said to his nine-year-old son just before midnight Saturday, as he collapsed and died from a chest wound. The two were watching television before the boy was to have been tucked into his bed in the family's townhouse.
The boy called 911, but his father was later pronounced dead at hospital.
Toronto detectives say they believe the bullet that killed the man was fired a block south of the victim's home. The slug is believed to have travelled between townhouses before entering the home.
The large-calibre bullet left a hole in the aluminum siding under the window, passed through drywall, a speaker and then into the man's chest before it stopped, embedded in a door.
In an unrelated incident, a 57-year-old woman was found dead in her apartment bedroom on Willowridge Road.
Police said a man phoned 911 just before 7 a.m. on Sunday, directing officers to Theresa Efimba's body. As a result of an investigation, the caller was arrested and charged with first degree murder.
Josy Balla-Mekongo, 28, of Toronto is scheduled to appear in court Monday.
"
I think anywhere that mr Balla-Mekongo lived he would find a gun and use it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.
Ah, the warping of statistics always amuses me. :lol
-
He is just confusing correlation with causality. Of course there is no "point" - at least no obvious one.
miko
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
As I said, it's perfectly ok to carry guns in a gun society, just don't pretend we need them here.
You're the one who brought Spain into the conversation, sir.
I think it's perfectly OK for Spaniards to not carry guns, just don't pretend to tell us Yanks how much or how little we should value the safety of our family and property. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You're the one who brought Spain into the conversation, sir.
I think it's perfectly OK for Spaniards to not carry guns, just don't pretend to tell us Yanks how much or how little we should value the safety of our family and property. :)
Wonder if they have Conceal and Carry Home-made bomb laws in Spain? :D
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think anywhere that mr Balla-Mekongo lived he would find a gun and use it.
Yep. And the person who killed Mr. Yan was clearly in violation of gun control laws forbidding discharge within city limits.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
midnight Target: Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide unintentional
USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
There are reasons why some states have higher murder rates. More permissive gun ownership laws are not necessarily the cause of that affliction.
miko
Many don't understand that the US is very diverse. The facts are that there is very little gun crime in most areas and only a few pockets of US society account for the vast majority of drug/gun crime. Virtually none of those guns are aquired legaly and are used to support variouos criminal actions. AS Miko said, gun crime among white America is on par with any other modern society.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
straffo: I don't think unorganised armed individuals can be able to resist an army.
Read about the Napoleon's troubles with Spain.
A place like US or Switzerland are impossibly to occupy.
Well the Spain exemple is not a very good exemple if I remember right Napoléon was a bit busy far east of Spain ...
How many troops were comitted to spain compared to Russia ?
Concerning US and Switzerland it's purely rethorical : who knows ? ( and for Switzerland who would be stupid to attack hiw own bank ? :D)
I do think the current statu-quo is right : the US live in a gun civilisation ,I don't and won't start any kind of flawed evangelism in one or the other direction.
@beetle : I've a bit too much knowledge of Oradour but this BBS is not the place to discuss such a subject I loose my temper pretty fast when speaking of Oradour.
-
I think straffo understands this perfectly, Dago. It happened in France. On 10 June 1944, by which time the Germans must have known they were going to lose WW2 following events four days earlier, the town of Oradour-sur-Glane was the target of a brutal attack conducted by an SS Panzer Division. Can you imagine such an attack being repelled by French farmers with shotguns or maybe the occasional handgun?
There was the French Resistance, who unlike so many of the rolll over and give up French actually did some damage to the Nazis.
When an armed population fights a guerilla campaign, they tie up a large number of occupying troops who are then not able to advance in their goals, and it also makes a long term occupation a lot less appealing.
Too bad that is the only instance you came up with, it wasn't a very good one.
dago
-
straffo: Well the Spain exemple is not a very good exemple if I remember right Napoléon was a bit busy far east of Spain ...
How many troops were comitted to spain compared to Russia?
It is an accepted military wisdom that you need 10 to 1 ratio in numbers to overcome the guerillas.
If Napoleon brought more troops to Spain and kept them in the same garrisons, they would have been ineffective outside of small local areas.
If he spread them around Spain at the same density, he would have just exposed them to more guerillas that would have popped up wherever french set up a camp.
On top of that he would have had to supply the much greater number of troops via the same logistical channels. In fact, they would have harder time living off the land and the supply situation would have worsened disproportionately.
Napoleon crossed the Russian border with over 600,000 troops. He came to Moscow with about 120,000 - without having any major battles. The rest were left along the way to secure the supply line in a hostile country.
Napoleon did not fail in Spain because of Russia. Or at least no more than he failed in Russia because of Spain. He was good in battles and campaigns. Holding what he gained proved to be another matter altogether.
miko
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You're the one who brought Spain into the conversation, sir.
I think it's perfectly OK for Spaniards to not carry guns, just don't pretend to tell us Yanks how much or how little we should value the safety of our family and property. :)
I didn't tell you about your safety, I told you about mine here.
As I said, I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation in the US the same as I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation here.
All I'm saying is that I don't feel any less safe not carrying a weapon here. I couldn't say the same if I were in the states.
Daniel
-
Dago, yes there was the Resistance. That was quite different from Oradour, where everything that moved was killed. And I would not have rated the chances of the French Resistance against a Panzer Division.
MrBlack, the only thing that's funny about that "official magazine of the french military" is that the captions are not in French, but in English. I guess people like you don't realise that France has its own language.
IN
I hear Skuzzy's footsteps...
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I didn't tell you about your safety, I told you about mine here.
As I said, I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation in the US the same as I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation here.
All I'm saying is that I don't feel any less safe not carrying a weapon here. I couldn't say the same if I were in the states.
Daniel
Understood.
-
CyranoAH: I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation here.
Which means you vote for it. In a demcoraticountry a vote is a tool that you have to affect other people's lives through the coercive power of the state - backed by armed violence.
If you use your power to deny the other people the right of choice regarding protecting themselves, you are an oppressor, pure and simple. It does not matter that you are willing to be a serf at the same time - some people may choose not to live according to your choices.
Damn right we have a problem with you infringing on the liberties of your countrymen. Just like you would hopefully have a problem if we kept slavery in US - even if that would have been our legislation.
Nobody makes anyone have a gun here (well, there are a couple of municipalities where such laws are on the books but they are not enforced). It's the matter of denying a law-abiding citizen rights by governmental decree that is the problem.
miko
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
All I'm saying is that I don't feel any less safe not carrying a weapon here. I couldn't say the same if I were in the states.
Daniel
Daniel, I don't know if you've ever been to the US; I'm guessing you haven't. I was there last month, and once again I didn't feel any less safe for not having a gun. The first three days were spent at Milpitas,CA - seemed safe enough. We went to San Francisco, then to Dixon to see Lazs, then down to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego. OK, we did not pass through south central LA/the Watts District! But in OK areas, we were OK. I think about it like a plane flight: Bad things can happen, and many people are afraid to fly, especially after 911.2001. But I just get on with life. The likelihood of somone pointing a gun at me is about the same as dying in a plane crash. Neither has happened yet!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Daniel, I don't know if you've ever been to the US; I'm guessing you haven't. I was there last month, and once again I didn't feel any less safe for not having a gun. The first three days were spent at Milpitas,CA - seemed safe enough. We went to San Francisco, then to Dixon to see Lazs, then down to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego. OK, we did not pass through south central LA/the Watts District! But in OK areas, we were OK. I think about it like a plane flight: Bad things can happen, and many people are afraid to fly, especially after 911.2001. But I just get on with life. The likelihood of somone pointing a gun at me is about the same as dying in a plane crash. Neither has happened yet!
Actually I have been several times to the states: Wisconsin, New York, Florida, California, Nevada, and Maryland.
Nothing happened to me either, but the first time I went to LA, a couple we met said (confirmed by the driver) that a guy pointed a gun at them because the driver yelled at him for not hitting the gas with the green light.
Also, in Maryland, there was a SUV with music real loud blocking the exit to the local mall and when I asked the friend who was driving why didn't he honk, he said it was to avoid trouble... "you never know".
Same as with everything... gun owners can be very responsible and wise... or not.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
.
Also, in Maryland, there was a SUV with music real loud blocking the exit to the local mall and when I asked the friend who was driving why didn't he honk, he said it was to avoid trouble... "you never know".
Daniel
Sad to say you are right there.
It is a shame people cannot behaive in public.
but you did the right thing.
better safe than sorry i think.
-
Daniel - excellent! Have you got an FAA Airman's permit yet? The US is a good country for private flying! :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dago, yes there was the Resistance. That was quite different from Oradour, where everything that moved was killed. And I would not have rated the chances of the French Resistance against a Panzer Division.
MrBlack, the only thing that's funny about that "official magazine of the french military" is that the captions are not in French, but in English. I guess people like you don't realise that France has its own language.
IN
I hear Skuzzy's footsteps...
Personally I'm OUT.
-
cyrano... beetle and straffo... I have no wish to change the laws in your country... I am very glad that you feel safe and do not feel the need to arm yurselves in your country... I sincerely hope you live out your lives never having to regret that decission..
lazs
-
Same for you lazs , I don't want you to change your laws.
It's just another cultural difference.
Btw do you know I was shooting addict myself ?
I loved firing with almost any kind of gun (especially black powder) but since 5 years I've neither the time nor the budget to continue ...
I guess I'll restart sooner or later :)
-
Apparently owning firearms and belonging to the NRA does not require huge amounts of intelligence...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3238513.stm
-
_Schadenfreude_: Apparently owning firearms and belonging to the NRA does not require huge amounts of intelligence...
An attempt by America's National Rifle Association (NRA) to "out" Hollywood stars who support gun control appears to have backfired.
That's an idiotic and untruthfull statement. How did it backfire? People knew that many opposed to the right to bear arms. So the opponents added themselves to the list voluntarily. How is that "backfiring"?
Does that mean that NRA members started buying more products from people on that least?
Typical liberal BS - make a completely false claim with no foundation or logic whatsoever.
If the NAACP created a list of people opposed to Affirmative Action, I would add myself to it. Would that mean that the list backfired or worked well?
miko
-
Thanks Lazs and Dago for your excellent answers to my points. I have to admit I was partially playing the the devils advocate. I can hardly disagree with your answers. It is really a question of perception. It's just from my perception a little more sensible control would help in America and a little less control here in Ireland and other countries would not do any harm.
I don't think either will happen soon.
-
That was quite different from Oradour, where everything that moved was killed. And I would not have rated the chances of the French Resistance against a Panzer Division.
So Beetle, we do differ here. If I was there living in that village, since we were all to die, I would prefer to have had a chance to take a couple with me. Take a toll on them, make it less shooting fish in a barrel.
You on the other hand would choose to die like a bug waiting to be stomped on, helpless to do anything other then bleed and die.
Fine. I would just prefer to die fighting, you would prefer to die cowering. Glad we understand each other.
dago
-
Aaah hindsight... whatever would we do without it...
-
When I moved to AZ last year, one of the first things I did was get my CCW. For a while after that I had a friend that would lecture me about it every time he came over on how "guns kill people." He's so anti gun it's not funny. Finally after a month or so of going back and forth between his "world would be a better place" and my "who's going to watch the watcher" debates, I came up with an idea.
He walks in one night, saw something on TV that set him off (I think it was when the police officer shot the lady in the pharmacy drive through) and started in. I walked to my room, got my gun, dropped the clip out of it, sat the gun on the coffee table and started staring at it. After a few minutes when he paused from ranting to take a breath he finally asked what I was doing.
I asked if he was still firm in his "guns kill people stance", to which he replied yes. I grinned and told him I was waiting for the gun to jump off the coffee table and kill me.
He doesn't debate guns with me any more :D
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
He walks in one night, saw something on TV that set him off (I think it was when the police officer shot the lady in the pharmacy drive through) and started in. I walked to my room, got my gun, dropped the clip out of it, sat the gun on the coffee table and started staring at it. After a few minutes when he paused from ranting to take a breath he finally asked what I was doing.
I asked if he was still firm in his "guns kill people stance", to which he replied yes. I grinned and told him I was waiting for the gun to jump off the coffee table and kill me.
He doesn't debate guns with me any more :D
I LIKE YOU!! A man with common sense on this board WOW.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Fine. I would just prefer to die fighting, you would prefer to die cowering. Glad we understand each other.
I wasn't there in 1944. Had the chance to visit the monument in 2000. Couldn't bring myself to go, but my brother went, and was -hmm- somewhat tearful afterwards.
-
Have a look at how gun control has prevented firearms crime in Australia, especially during the last two months.
In short it hasn't, far from it.
Maybe it would be no differant had we no gun control laws, but I for one cant see that it has reduced gun crime at all.
I still say that if gun carry was, if not mandatory, at least optional, Martin Bryant ( the tool that cut loose with an SKS at Port Arthur) would have been the second or third person to die that day.
That to me has to be a better outcome than 30 something dead, and Bryant alive and eating three a day at tax payers expense.
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
When I moved to AZ last year, one of the first things I did was get my CCW. For a while after that I had a friend that would lecture me about it every time he came over on how "guns kill people." He's so anti gun it's not funny. Finally after a month or so of going back and forth between his "world would be a better place" and my "who's going to watch the watcher" debates, I came up with an idea.
He walks in one night, saw something on TV that set him off (I think it was when the police officer shot the lady in the pharmacy drive through) and started in. I walked to my room, got my gun, dropped the clip out of it, sat the gun on the coffee table and started staring at it. After a few minutes when he paused from ranting to take a breath he finally asked what I was doing.
I asked if he was still firm in his "guns kill people stance", to which he replied yes. I grinned and told him I was waiting for the gun to jump off the coffee table and kill me.
He doesn't debate guns with me any more :D
I'll bet he doesn't debate with you anymore, not with a gun on the table :lol
For fun let's continue the story. Later after a few beers he mellows, eventually he eyes the gun and overcome with curiousity he asks to have a look at it, 'Sure' you say and show him the empty magazine which you now click home. 'It's not loaded'. He picks it up nervously, you laugh at his hesitancy. 'It won't kill you' You both laugh. You show him the safety and how to **** the hammer. 'Squeeze the trigger' you say 'It takes quite a pull. Hold it steady'. He points it at you, you frown and start to say 'Never point a gun at anyone unless.......'
There's a flash and you feel like someone punched you hard, you look down and see blood and look up to see his ashen face with a smoking gun in his hand. Then you remember you never checked the chamber....There must have been one round... in... oh sheeeit. 'How ironic' you think as you lapse into unconsciousness. 'I was right though... gun don't kill people....uurrgh'.
As they draw chalklines around your stiffening body, the cops lead your protesting friend away in handcuffs. Between sobs your wife tells them how she heard raised voices earlier before she went to the mall. 'I never thought this would happen'. She cries. 'I thought he was against guns. He deserves the death penalty' (Meanwhile she glances at the sofa and wonders vaguely how you get blood out of that material).
Implausible? Of course. Nothing like that ever happened :rofl :rofl :rofl
Edited as per Lazs correction although it could have been an old auto!:D
-
bluedog... thank you... that is the logical answer in my opinion... the guy woulda been taken out by an armed citizen.. it happens here a lot.... probly a million or so times a year... there is no telling what would happen if no one were armed to stop those million incidents here. tragedy stopped doesn't whip up the news teams.
take a look at where our worst, most high profile shootings occur.... they occur where gun control is the greatest... schools...the people doing the shooting are not so unbalanced that they don't know that they have a shoting gallery full of helpless victims... they usually shoot themselves before guns arive to counter them.
If a loved one of mine is killed in a shooting rampage by a madman.... I want more people to be armed.... I trust my fellow citizens and would blame the incident on the government that disarmed the people who coulda stopped it...
they talk of suing gun manufactureres... why not sue states and local government if you are assaulted and have no means of defending yourself because of that states draconian and unconstitutional gun control laws?
lazs
-
cpxx... most guns have magazine disconectors these days...
even so... gun accidents are WAY down... they drop further every year... and the NRA provides it but.... they are filtered out with some browser software.... gun safety is censored. NRA and other groups like the boy scouts taught gun safety in school but they are banned from teaching about gun safety in school now.
straffo... I am interested in your "interest" in guns in light of your views... I can go shooting any time I like and it costs me maybe 20 bucks... my firearms stash is modest... maybe a dozen nice guns but is not that expensive... I keep em at home and I reload ammo.... I take it that there are draconian laws governing your shooting and that it is very expensive and a huge pain in the butt to do... I take it that you can't reload ammo at home and that a lot of firearms are flat out banned. How do you justify this intrusion on your freedom? Do you actually believe that you are better off with less freedom so far as guns are concerned? do you really have so little faith in your neighbor?
to me... gun control seems more of the same liberal crap of "we love humanity but we hate people".
lazs
lazs
-
Spoilsport Lazs, we could call it artistic licence but Ok I've edited it although I doubt if jigsaw is so stupid not to check. First thing I do with a firearm every time. Call it a cautionary tale:p
-
lazs2 : even so... gun accidents are WAY down... they drop further every year...
The creative statistcs makes an impression that gun accidents are extremely frequent - by citing "children killed by guns" numbers. Most people attribute such death to accidents.
In fact most of them are 17-19 year old black/hispanic gang members killed in turf warfare of inner cities. Also 17-19 year old criminals shot by police or armed citizens. Some "children".
miko
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can go shooting any time I like and it costs me maybe 20 bucks... my firearms stash is modest... maybe a dozen nice guns but is not that expensive... I keep em at home and I reload ammo.... I take it that there are draconian laws governing your shooting and that it is very expensive and a huge pain in the butt to do... I take it that you can't reload ammo at home and that a lot of firearms are flat out banned. How do you justify this intrusion on your freedom? Do you actually believe that you are better off with less freedom so far as guns are concerned? do you really have so little faith in your neighbor?
I don't remember the exact cost but I'll be close to 200 buck :( a dozen gun it's about 12*500 $ I guess but look at http://www.fusil-calais.com you will find more accurate information than I'll be able to give you.
I never owned a gun myself ,not only because of cost but more because of the danger there is to have a gun at home (in my opinion of course).
You are wrong about reloading you can easily do it my uncle do it:).
My uncle also own a .45 ACP , a navy 18something,a 44 magnun and an abomination called "Marlin 444" (*), I have fun shooting with him from time to time (with the accuracy you can imagine :D).
Banned firearms like automatics are not a problem for me .
It's more a question of philosophie I shoot for accuracy and self-control checking not to make noise and smoke.
Our laws I've found a résumé here : http://www.fusil-calais.com/shop/legal/legal_en.asp
It's pretty restrictive compared to the US I guess but it's the law ...
And do I believe that in the environement I live I'm safer without gun, in the US I'll be likely a gun owner, it's just like eating snails I do , you don't :)
Hope this post make sense I've some friends at home it's pretty difficult to type with a almost drunk jerks screaming bawdy songs near you :D
(*) I've never ben sure of the most dangerous end of the Marlin :)
Each time I fired this think I ended humiliated :p
-
thanks straffo... I'm not sure what 1 degree and 4 degree restrictions are but it appears that anything over a double barrel shotgun or any handgun at all is severely restricted... along with high powered rifles. Are reloading componetnts or ammo restricted? for instance, there is no restriction on gunpowder so long as it doesn't exceed 20 lbs at a time for storage and powder runs about $15 a pound here... primers are about $15 per thousand.... bullets can be bought or home cast... prices between 5 and 200 bucks a thousand depending on cast, jacketed and caliber.
As for safety.... My gun safe weighs 800 lbs with a fire rating of 1200 degrees and minimal wall thickness of 1/4".... it has 9 1 1/2" hardened steel bolts... people keep money in safes half as good... It's overkill but about average to above average so far as home gun safes go these days. Heck... I end up keeping documents and such in it also.
The difference between good and bad gun laws is that with good (or better yet, nonexistant) gun laws.... everyone with even the most modest income can afford to learn the sport... they can afford to own and shoot firearms. It shouldn't cost you more than a movie and dinner to go out shooting for a day.
If you put gun ownership and shooting sports out of the financial reach of lower and middle class then you have bad laws. eventually... you lose your core of sportsmen... you end up with a nation that knows nothing of firearms except what they see on TV or movies...
Here.... we watch movies and laugh at the silly gun stuff in em cause most of us have shot the guns that are in the movies... lots of us own those same guns at home.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Animal
What about Canada? They got PLENTY of guns and very few gun related deaths.
Puerto Rico on the other hand, where gun regulations are extremely tight, worse than California (fear of revolution in the early century), many more people die from gunshots than Canada. And its a smaller country.
I dont think its about gun regulations...
You're right it's not about gun regulations...
It has more to do with daily diet and complex sugars... and genetics.
-
Check this out for silly.
in California you cant have a 50Cal rifle.
I am buying one as we speak and It is costing me $7.250.00
Now how many people are you gonna see speanding 7 grand on a rifle that weights 40lbs that you cant hide well at all.
and it cost an arm and a leg to shoot.
So why would they ban em in Kalifornia?
I just find that really odd
:rolleyes:
-
In California it's also illegal to don full body armor, equip yourself and your buddy with machine guns, then proceed to fight a gun a battle with the cops in Los Angeles.
-
I largely agree those that say that it is a difference of culture. I can understand that many Europeans and others would feel that it is strange here, the same way that I cannot imagine living somewhere where guns were heavily restricted.
I grew up in Louisiana where most of the cities are very unsafe with very high murder rates. I always carried a gun from the time I was old enough to do so, and still do when I return home. I wouldnt feel safe in any of the major cities in Lousiana without one. When I lived in Florida, the crime was somewhat less where I lived, but I still carried. Now I live in Oklahoma in a small town that has virtually no violent crime. I rarely carry my gun in my vehicle, or otherwise, mainly because I cannot take it legally onto the Air Force base where I am stationed. I do not mind so much because it is very safe here. If I drive up to Oklahoma City, or down to Dallas, I make sure I have it with me, and I always have it in my bedroom when I am at home to defend my residence against breakins.
I can understand that if you lived somewhere where the crime was lower that you might feel safe without a gun. However, crime exists in European countries too, and in many parts of Europe is on the rise. Personally, if I lived there, I would want to be armed.
I have a friend here that was stationed in England, and was unable to live on base. He lived out in the town, in rather a bad neighborhood. He said that they lived in fear at night, as there were frequent break-ins in the area. He said that he really wished he could have had a gun to protect himself and his family. His car was broken into four or five times while he was there, and although he heard the alarm go off, and rushed out, was unable to catch the culprits. They didnt steal anything of value, but did well over a thousand dollars in damage to his car in the break-ins. The last time it happened he heard the alarm go off, and rushed out to find that the thief had his arm caught in the door of the car. He ran out and started beating the thief while his wife called the police. The police arrived and instead of arresting the thief who was caught in the act, they arrested my friend instead for assault!!! This simply blows my mind. It angers me just to think of this situation. This punk criminal gets a minor beating, which he richly deserves and more, and gets off scot-free, while a law-abiding person is arrested for trying to protect his private property.
I am not saying that if my friend had a gun, that he would have been justified in running out and shooting this criminal. In this case, the criminal was obviously no longer a threat to him, and couldnt escape, so he could have waited for the police, and shooting the thief would certainly not be justified. Indeed the wise thing to do would have been to wait for the police as it was. What if the breakin had been into his apartment though? Self defense would clearly be justified in that case as you have nowhere to retreat once you are in your home.
My understanding is that even if these criminals had broken into his house that he wouldnt have been able to attack them even then, even without a weapon. What kind of nonsense is that? Someone breaks into your house and you have to just ask them to leave and hope that they comply? Is it true that in England that this is the case? Surely it cannot be. Someone that is a resident and knows the law on this subject please fill me in.
If that is the passive culture that exists in Europe where you have to hide in fear, and allow criminals to run roughshod over you, then I want no part of it. I hope that that mindset never succeeds here. I prefer to be the master of my domain, and I take responsibility for defending it. That responsiblity comes with this for gun safety is obvious, but I trust myself and have confidence in myself to be alert, ready, and capable of defending my dwelling, and my family from criminals. I have drawn a gun on several occasions to protect myself, and fortunately I have never had to fire a shot, but I can tell you that the fact that I had a weapon with me was immensely comforting in each of those dangerous situations.
I cannot understand the sympathy for criminals that seems to have taken hold in many liberal minds. For example, how can you have sympathy for the guy that robs a store with a BB gun and gets killed? Nobody made him do that. He robbed a store of his own free will, trying to take through force what other people had earned through hard work. He used a BB gun, hoping that people would think that it was a real gun, and would then acede to his demands. This obviously backfired on him, and the penalty he paid was death. It is a clear cut case of self defense on the part of the shooter though. If a gun is pointed at me, then I have to believe that the person pointing it has the will and the capability of killing me. I cannot pause to wonder if the gun is loaded, whether it is real, or whether the person really means the threat. If I have the capablity to resist in the form of a weapon, then I will certainly do so. The right of self-defense is a part of one of the most basic rights that we enjoy. It is an integral part of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-
cpxxx, that situation couldn't happen. a) I have a glock, so there's no "safety". b) I'm not married. ;)
Quoted from Nuke...
In California it's also illegal to don full body armor, equip yourself and your buddy with machine guns, then proceed to fight a gun a battle with the cops in Los Angeles.
Illegal? I thought that was the normal after school activity these days?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thanks straffo... I'm not sure what 1 degree and 4 degree restrictions are but it appears that anything over a double barrel shotgun or any handgun at all is severely restricted... along with high powered rifles. Are reloading componetnts or ammo restricted? for instance, there is no restriction on gunpowder so long as it doesn't exceed 20 lbs at a time for storage and powder runs about $15 a pound here... primers are about $15 per thousand.... bullets can be bought or home cast... prices between 5 and 200 bucks a thousand depending on cast, jacketed and caliber.
I don't know the rules for re-arming but i think it's not very different except for the cost.
As for safety.... My gun safe weighs 800 lbs with a fire rating of 1200 degrees and minimal wall thickness of 1/4".... it has 9 1 1/2" hardened steel bolts... people keep money in safes half as good... It's overkill but about average to above average so far as home gun safes go these days. Heck... I end up keeping documents and such in it also.
Not all people are smart enought to have a safe storage for their gun and ammo, and if you want to be smart it's costly.
And you're smart concerning weapon I guess it come from your education ,here even if people are supposed to know and apply the regulation their gun are not safe !
I remember a member of the club being fired by the club president because he loved pointing is gun at other people ...even if it's empty it's pretty a braindead behaviour ...
The difference between good and bad gun laws is that with good (or better yet, nonexistant) gun laws.... everyone with even the most modest income can afford to learn the sport... they can afford to own and shoot firearms. It shouldn't cost you more than a movie and dinner to go out shooting for a day.
Unfortunatly it's true for any caliber biger than .22 but and the end I of my shooting "career" I switched to archery because it was more to my taste
If you put gun ownership and shooting sports out of the financial reach of lower and middle class then you have bad laws. eventually... you lose your core of sportsmen... you end up with a nation that knows nothing of firearms except what they see on TV or movies...
Here.... we watch movies and laugh at the silly gun stuff in em cause most of us have shot the guns that are in the movies... lots of us own those same guns at home.
lazs
I love the noise of the guns in films :)
Each time an actor fire a gun it make the noise of a 5 inch gun battery :D
Btw if you love shoting for accuracy it's not extremly expensive as you can use a 4,5mm air powered gun but if you want to do the same with a 9mm you have to be rich or in Police/Military
-
thanks straffo.. that is my point. gun control laws do, and allways have, taken the right of gun ownership away from the lower classes and given it to the upper classes and their armies.
In the U.S. we don't believe that this is a good thing. I don't believe this is a good thing. Most Americans respect guns rather than fear them.... that is the real "cultural" thing... the cultural thing is generaly ignorance brought on by generations of.... well... lack of knowledge... lack of experiance.
As for Kalifornia... it is run by women and womenly men.... women with the right to vote and affirmative action run amuck... This is what becomes of having women voting much less being given positions of responsibility.... In Ca... you can't buy python skin boots... I am serious... they won't ship to Ca.. only state in the union.. Some woman in government must have a pet python or.... well it just sounds endangered or something... Yu can't buy night vision equipment either for... for gawd knows what reason... no one can tell me.. they passed that one when no one was looking just because they thought it was a good idea I guess..
would like to see finestein and boxer stumble around in the dark into a nest of pythons... That would help the bussiness climate and the people in California.
lazs
-
Originally posted by miko2d
CyranoAH: I don't have any kind of problem with the gun legislation here.
Which means you vote for it. In a demcoraticountry a vote is a tool that you have to affect other people's lives through the coercive power of the state - backed by armed violence.
If you use your power to deny the other people the right of choice regarding protecting themselves, you are an oppressor, pure and simple. It does not matter that you are willing to be a serf at the same time - some people may choose not to live according to your choices.
Damn right we have a problem with you infringing on the liberties of your countrymen. Just like you would hopefully have a problem if we kept slavery in US - even if that would have been our legislation.
Nobody makes anyone have a gun here (well, there are a couple of municipalities where such laws are on the books but they are not enforced). It's the matter of denying a law-abiding citizen rights by governmental decree that is the problem.
miko
Keep preaching I agree with you 100 percent on this, government is to big and is feeding on itself. The freedoms we have are slipping away a little at a time, due in part to people voting without considering the consequences.
"A man who gives up freedom for security has and deserves neither"
-
yep... agreed... people are voting like hysterical women... they are voting to take away their fellow mans rights. This is petty tyranny on their part. short sighted and womanly. I hope they are with fienstein and boxer when they stumble into the python pit in the dark.
lazs
-
would like to see finestein and boxer stumble around in the dark into a nest of pythons... That would help the bussiness climate and the people in California.
Now that was a funny post.
-
they are voting to take away their fellow mans rights
This reminds me of a topic that came up in my aviation law class.
When Jet Blue turned over passengers information to an outside party, some people were siding with them since they were trying to justify it as "it's for your own good."
My point being that so many bad things happen when hidden behind the "for your own good" smokescreen, it's too easy to end up losing basic freedoms.
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Durr77
I
If that is the passive culture that exists in Europe where you have to hide in fear, and allow criminals to run roughshod over you, then I want no part of it. I hope that that mindset never succeeds here. I prefer to be the master of my domain, and I take responsibility for defending it. That responsiblity comes with this for gun safety is obvious, but I trust myself and have confidence in myself to be alert, ready, and capable of defending my dwelling, and my family from criminals. I have drawn a gun on several occasions to protect myself, and fortunately I have never had to fire a shot, but I can tell you that the fact that I had a weapon with me was immensely comforting in each of those dangerous situations.
[/QUOTE]
While I can see your pont of view Durr. You really can't say that there is a passive culture in Europe per se. You don't have to hide in fear. In fact people don't unless you live in a bad area although even in bad areas no one really has a gun and if you come from a bad area you're as hard as the rest of them!. While the story of your friend's experience in England is ridiculous. It is as much characteristic of British attitudes as anything else. I had a similar car thief experience. Myself and my brother saw some guys at his car. We caught one. We called the cops and handed him over. But later when giving a statement, the cop taking it suggested that in future. 'We deal with it ourselves next time'. We took the hint. Recently it happened to my car. I ran out called the bro. He brought a big stick but he wouldn't give it to me because I was ready to use it. I don't live in fear and I also know if I chase someone they won't have guns. I heard another car story. A Father and son rushed out, beat the thief to the ground and called the police. 'We heard a noise and found this man injured outside our house' they said. The cops smirked and the thief yelled. Everyone knew what went on there. Another story of a couple from a rough area in a new house in another neighbourhood, same story only this time husband and wife rushed out with baseball bats, same result. Incidentally these are isolated incidents over many years. I don't want you think I live in a battle zone. :lol
Point is, no one needed a gun, even the uniformed police are unarmed here. I find it almost inconceivable to come across a situation where drawing a gun to protect myself would be useful, least of all several times as you have. I suspect you are most unusual or unlucky. I would not like to live with the mindset that I need a gun to protect my family from criminals.
That is the differnence in attitude in a nutshell. For us guns, as it is for most Americans, is a hobby and an interest. I will own a gun one day. I was offered a chance to buy a rifle lately but it doesn't suit me right now. I don't need it to protect myself because I have a big stick and know how to use it:aok :lol and anyway it simply isn't needed. The only criminals who have guns in this city don't use them on the likes of me (only each other) and in any case would out gun most people. So it's not an issue I worry about or fear. That's the way it is over most of Western Europe. Even where guns are widely available few people feel they need a gun for protection. It's not passivity it's reality.
Actually that's true of most of America too I suspect....in fact I know it. Places where crime is low to non existant are all over the US not just because criminals fear gun owners but because the people are affluent and law abiding.
-
Come to my door and tell me you'r homeless and you need a few bucks for a meal or hell even for a bottle of booze.
And I will dig into my wallet and give you some cash.
But break into my house and try and TAKE what is mine and IF I catch you.... say hello to martha the mossberg 12ga pump w/ OO buckshot.
Help thy fello man but don't allow you'rself to be the victum either.
-
cpxx... not everyone is as young and manly as you are... some are elderly or women or cripples or infirm... would you say to them that they had no right to defend themselves? These are exacly the people that have to live in bad areas. A lot of armed resistance in the U.S. is by the elderly or the otherwise helpless...
The mere fact that people here are armed makes burglars and theifs less bold... they are not usually armed themselves here but.... they fear even the most frail senior citizen.
You say you allmost bought a rifle? here... you just buy it.. if you don't like it... throw it in the corner and buy another. Or trade it in. Whatever... who cares.. they are pretty cheap for the most part and the regulations on rifles are allmost non existent.... as it should be.
Like I said... I want to make my own decision on how to defend myself or have fun and I want my neighbors to be armed because I don't fear them and know that them being armed is good for me.... If the psychos thought that 10% of the teachers at schools had concealed firearms.... there would be no more shootings at schools.
A big stick is just a tool.... like a gun... a burglar might have a big stick or a crowbar or knife tho too....... In fact, it is likely....Where you live or here...It is very unlikely he will have a gun... I think that you are using the wrong tool for the job. You thinking you have the right one makes me doubt your wisdom.
Again... i hope that you never live to regret your decision on tool choice.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cpxx... not everyone is as young and manly as you are... some are elderly or women or cripples or infirm... would you say to them that they had no right to defend themselves? These are exacly the people that have to live in bad areas. A lot of armed resistance in the U.S. is by the elderly or the otherwise helpless...
The elderly and infirm might not find it easy to operate firearms. Imagine a pair of old arthritic hands trying to pull back the kimber slider on a .45 - the end result is that this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/24/nmurd24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/24/ixhome.html) might happen. I've quoted this story before, but it's worth repeating.
-
lasz..
do you think that citizens in the US ought to be able to carry guns on internal flights?
cheers
Ravs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.
Yes, but as someone else pointed out, the statistic you quote could be misleading. It doesn't differentiate between desirable and undesirable gun-related deaths. Thus, it isn't necessarily a good thing.
Before you start to reply to that, allow me to remind you of the ******* that stabbed the elderly woman to death and was then shot to death by her husband. Don't waste your breath trying to convince me that's not a "desirable" gun-related death. I'm not listening, in that case :) I also argue that this isn't the only instance in which its a good thing that some ******* got shot down.
I really would be interested, OTOH, to see what the statistics are regarding gun-related deaths that end up being deemed crimes, or even simply any crimes where the perpetrators use guns in their commission. If you can show these are greater in states with no controls vs those with controls, you'd then be making a logical and convincing argument and I'd be willing to admit it.
As an aside, I'd like to stipulate that even though I'm in the "pro-gun" camp, I don't object to gun control laws per se. I support safety-training-related licensing for public concealed carry, I support safety-training-related licensing for sporting use in public, I have no problems with the current Federal registration requirements, I have no problems with requiring background checks for purchases, etc.
I'm all for regulating the public usage of guns in ways designed to ensure the common safety, so long as they aren't implemented in ways that restrict the right of a lawful citizen to be armed.
So, perhaps if you care to cite the more sensible statistics I'm suggesting, then we may move on to defining what makes sense and what doesn't in the way of "gun control" ;)
culero
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thanks straffo.. that is my point. gun control laws do, and allways have, taken the right of gun ownership away from the lower classes and given it to the upper classes and their armies.
In the U.S. we don't believe that this is a good thing. I don't believe this is a good thing.
snip
Please use that "we" carefully. While I don't necessarily disagree with with what you're saying about how things have gone in the past in most cases, I'd say that "always" is going a bit too far, and that it definitely doesn't have to be that way if things are done in a reasonable way.
Just a for instance - Texas, always considered to be a "pro-gun" state by and large, was for as long as I lived a state where carrying a handgun was illegal except in very regulated circumstances...until George W. became governor and got our current concealed carry law passed.
I'd argue with you that this law doesn't take rights away from "lower class" folks. (I assume by that description you mean folks without a lot of money.) It simply doesn't cost a lot of money to be permitted here.
You have to pay a state licensed instructor to teach you a state-approved curriculum that includes safety training, proficiency training, and instruction in when and how it is legal to use your weapon. I think this is simply prudent!
And, since the training is private sector, its pricing is competitive. Last time I checked, courses were available for $75.
"Gun control" doesn't necessarily have to be The Boogy Man. We control the use of motor vehicles without unduly restricting the right to their use by all. We can also do the same for guns if we're all willing to be reasonable.
culero (a definitely "pro-gun" guy, I assure you)
-
ravell... I have no problem with a concealed carry permit holder having a gun on an internal flight. At one time this was the case and I can't recall ever hearing of any problems with it. I would add that in order for a police or concealed carry permit holder to carry on plane or nuclear reactor or whatever.... he should be trained... they way that would work would be... the airline would say that only people with such and such permits were allowed to carry their guns loaded and on their person on the flight.
culero... no... Allways is accurate in this case. any restriction hurts somebody... the degree is of course less with what you describe but... say the bedridden.... How do they get to the classes? How do the illiterate fill out the forms? There is allways a fee where government is concerned and..... It ALLWAYS goes up eventually. I agree that "allways" is a strong word... like "never" but in the case of government.... accurate.
I like the idea that clases are available... that is great.. The NRA had the best clases in the world availabel for children at schools and boy scouts and any group that requested them... they have been chased out of the schools tho... ignorance is the best safety measure I guess.
lazs
-
Thanks Lasz,
I was just wondering whether you believed that the government should not have any say about gun ownership whatsoever. I used to be very keen on shooting in school (we got to fire a bren gun as a treat - what a beautiful gun it was) but would never see use for a weapon other than on the target range or for farmers to kill vermin or by law enforcement authorities and the forces. But as has already been discussed, guns are relatively uncommon here and most people want to keep it that way - different culture and I respect that.
My doubts about gun ownership (and I have found this thread very instructive about why US voters havn't voted for stronger gun control laws) rest in making the decision about who is or is not responsible enough to carry a gun.
As Mr Black said, guns should not be possessed by stupid people but should be possessed by law abiding people. Question is, what if the owner is stupid and law abiding? And who decides who is stupid? I have never met Mr Black, but one of his postings (liberals rejoicing over the death of allied soldiers in Iraq) has been....extremely er...stupid. Does that qualify him to possess a firearm even under his own criteria?
I was parking the car today and after waiting five minutes for a spot (I was in a rush), someone nicked my space. I told him I was waiting for the spot and he apologised. I asked him if he was going to move and he said 'nope'. My only response was to call him a f**kwit - but with my apolgies. I cannot tell you how angry I was at the time - of course ten minutes later I was laughing about it. Made me wonder whether normally stable people with guns might be just put into a position where they momentarily snap and then use a weapon which leads them to regret their actions for the rest of their lives.
Lol! I was so mad about the incident at the time I forgot to pay for the parking and came back to the car to find a traffic warden writing out a ticket....I can tell you that REALLY made my day
take care
Ravs
-
rav... there are millions of people in the states that carry guns legally and are provate citizens... the rate at which they commit crimes with these guns is..... zero. yep... zero. They are more lawfull then the rest of the country. The only known case of a shooting because of a traffic accident was when the concealed carry permit holder shot a UPS driver who was beating him to death.... the uPS driver had allready broken the mans jaw and was continueing his attack.... no charges were filed.. The UPS driver would probly have been charged if he had survived... I think that this is the way it should be.
The only restrictions I would put on gun ownership are.... age.. and sanity. If you are sane and over a certain age then you should be able to have any firearm you wish. As for the bren or any machine gun... no problem... I like my government to know it's citizens are armed with modern weapons.... keeps em honest.. or, relatively so.
I would be interested tho in how you would restrict firearms and what your reasons for your restrictions would be. It is proven that firearms save more lives than they take and that they stop crime so who would you allow to have firearms and why? what firearms do you think that I should be allowed to own and why?
lazs
-
im an american liberal ( from texas) i hate violence but feel pistols are a nessisary evil. whereas rifles are a constitutional nessesity.
our country is different. not killin violent criminals outright is just wrong to me. invading another mans home or property to steal is insane here. never had anything stolen at all in 28 years, nothing.
10 dogs on one block you cant walk at night without setting off one dog alarm after another. you are lucky if the cops get you here if you are a felon.
now health care for the wounded criminal should be top notch :) and affordable.
-
top notch circa 1346 or so ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
snip
culero... no... Allways is accurate in this case. any restriction hurts somebody... the degree is of course less with what you describe but... say the bedridden.... How do they get to the classes? How do the illiterate fill out the forms?
This doesn't apply to the bedridden, because no permit is required (nor should it be) concerning guns on one's own premises. The permitting only applies in public.
Illiterate persons may have assistance in filling out forms. Tests may be taken orally.
There really is a middle ground. (But don't misunderstand, I share your concern that there are those who seek to strip us of our rights, and abhor them equally as you do.)
culero
-
Let me preface this email by saying that I'm more than a little bit drunk (as I have just come home from one of my best friend's wedding) so I reserve the right to withdraw anything I've said here in the morning :) Also, I've heard something quite mind blowing from a bloke I was sat next to, who is in a NATO think tank, but I will post that tomorrow when I am more sober. - warning! ramble ahead.
In the matter of gun control:
We obviously can't rely on statistics...you can make them mean what you want them to mean, so let's call that one a 'draw'. I saw one posting about gun crime which said something like 'white on white gun deaths in such and such an area are on a par with ...' WTF does 'white' gun death mean? says more about the person who posted that than I could imagine - he probably calls himself a 'white' american.
So... (bearing in mind that I think that if America wanted to have better gun control, they would just elect people who would legislate it) why this American conservative fascination with guns?
To protect ourselves if we are attacked by someone
A very good liberal (in the american party political sense) friend of mine, who is a professor of a redbrick university in America put it this way: My family live on a farm in Iowa, it would take the police hours to get there, farms in our area have been hit. That's why I sleep with a gun under my pillow. This guy is as 'euro-sophisticated' as they come' but he believes that people in isolated areas where there is a long term response to a 999 sorry 911 phone call means that a person has to be able to defend himself/herself (oops what a liberal distinction!) then and there. He is not prepared to take the chance that some mad violent person will come into his house and they will be defenseless. I can see his point. I don't fancy being somewhere miles from anywhere in that situation.
Nevertheless he is in despair about the amount of shootings in certain urban areas in America.
What are you Americans going to do about it? The fact that you have so many urban guns floating about in your country makes you more in common with some bannana dictatorship than any other country in the world than other western democracies. What is your solution? it's your country.
We have a constitutional right to bear arms and the right to defend ourselves against 'internal governmental threats'
Wot a load of bollocks. Balance the amount of people who are killed by gunfire against the chance....the very remote chance that your government is suddenly going to turn into some dictatorship where elections are not allowed anymore. - grow up.
Your constitutional right to bear arms relates to a bygone age which is no longer relevant.
We may be invaded so we need these various weapons to defend ourselves [/d]
Another total load of bollocks. By whom? You have the strongest military on earth! If Britian managed to survive invasion for more than 800 years because of the Channel, you've got a better chance: the bloody Atlantic and Pacific.
---------
If the people who want guns in your country need a justification for it, then at least be honest. - It's rather nice to have a power projection weapon in your hand - isn't it? Makes you feel like a real man, doesn't it? I don't blame you - your media has made you think this way.
womanly men in california
This is someone's tag-line, I think lasz's. Pathetic. If you want a man to man fight, leave your gun at home and go fisticuffs to a knock out. Don't snipe at women and children in petrol stations. If you think you're such a hard ba*tard, go to your local bar and challenge some man with big muscles to an arm wrestle and ask him outside for a fist fight. That is a time honoured way of settling disputes. Go to California and do this with a few people bigger than you and see how 'womanly' they are. This tag line is from someone with more verbal testorone than actual courage. You think you're tough? Take 'em on!'
-
Reply to Lasz.
----------
The only known case of a shooting because of a traffic accident was when the concealed carry permit holder shot a UPS driver who was beating him to death.... the uPS driver had allready broken the mans jaw and was continueing his attack.... no charges were filed.. The UPS driver would probly have been charged if he had survived... I think that this is the way it should be.
-----------
I simply do not believe you. We have more gun related road rage deaths in the Uk and we have a fraction of firearms than in the US and we have far fewer guns.
-------
The only restrictions I would put on gun ownership are.... age.. and sanity.
-------
also a previous criminal record of gun crime (I'm sure you meant to say that but forgot - so cut me slack if I make obvious errors)
Lasz I could reel off lots of situations where your criteria are insufficient:
a. Someone who may not be insane but has a 'bad temper' ie he 'loses it' occasionally.
b. Some racist white man who finds out his daughter is about to have a child by a black man.
c. Some racist black man who finds out his daughter is about to have a child by a white man.
e. Children who can get hold of these weapons because although their parents are sane and over 18, they are just bloody careless
If you want more, I can provide.
----------------
I would be interested tho in how you would restrict firearms and what your reasons for your restrictions would be. It is proven that firearms save more lives than they take and that they stop crime so who would you allow to have firearms and why? what firearms do you think that I should be allowed to own and why
----------------
I would restrict firearms by controlling where they are available and to have a good justification to have them.
So...Armed forces.... of course, but only on active duty or exercises.
Police...depending on the level of potential response they should/should not be armed. Most of our police don't carry guns, but if they get into a 'gun situation' they can call on trained units. Yes, some of the them get shot before they can, but it's very, very few. We don't want to escalate, we respond. Having said that gun crime in the UK is growing and it's quite worrying. Most right thinking people are still horrified by it, though.
Farmers...about the only people who have an excuse to own a gun in civilian society as far as I'm concerned. Sure, you'll get the odd nutter who will use it on a person rather than vermin but in terms of human death ratios, I think it's an acceptable risk.
Hunting....wonderful. Just eat what you kill. People who kill for pleasure alone do not deserve to be called human.
There was another category, but I'm pissed and I forget!
-----------
I don't believe that anyone can prove that possession of firearms stops more crime. It's just more statistical B.S.
---------------
As to what firearms you ought to be allowed to own and why...here is my take on firearm ownership:
I do not believe that firearm ownership should be only a matter of filling in a form which gets processed in some far off place by someone who doesn't know you.
Here are my controls:
a. You can show good cause to own one by way of application to the government...no previous criminal record etc..
b. You can get at least n respectable people who live in your local community who actually know your character to say you need one and that beyond a reasonable doubt you will keep it locked up at home out of the reach of minors.
c. The people who give you references are parents.
Then you ought to be able to own a firearm and keep it in your house. Owning one should not be a right, it should be a privelidge.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
To protect ourselves if we are attacked by someone
A very good liberal (in the american party political sense) friend of mine, who is a professor of a redbrick university in America put it this way: My family live on a farm in Iowa, it would take the police hours to get there, farms in our area have been hit. That's why I sleep with a gun under my pillow. This guy is as 'euro-sophisticated' as they come' but he believes that people in isolated areas where there is a long term response to a 999 sorry 911 phone call means that a person has to be able to defend himself/herself (oops what a liberal distinction!) then and there. He is not prepared to take the chance that some mad violent person will come into his house and they will be defenseless. I can see his point. I don't fancy being somewhere miles from anywhere in that situation.
Nevertheless he is in despair about the amount of shootings in certain urban areas in America.
does your friend teach at a University, and drive hours to get home to his islolated farm?
If he has a right/need to have a gun, so does someone in an urban area, which is more dangerous than a farm statistically. Anyway, the police are not going to save you in the city...... they may get to you in 10 minutes, but that's too long for me if someone is stabbing me or otherwise trying to injur me.
By the way, another typical liberal trait is to deny to other people what you will not be denied yourself. In other words, it's okay for me to have a gun, but I don't like people in the city having them.
Same with Hollywood liberals: it's wrong to drive SUV's because of the gas , yet let me drive around in a limmo, fly around on private jets and buy huge mansions which suck energy.... damn liberal hypocrites... hehe
Anyway, hope you had a good time at the wedding ravells :)
-
NUKE!
If you saw the amount of posh English birds who had their tits on display in low cut dresses, you would have loved it. Ummm being married I could just look and admire...but no touching!
Thanks...it was great.
Right...gloves off again
There is a case to be made for people to have rights in particular circumstances. Extreme example: if some people are allowed to use nuclear weapons it doesn't mean that everybody is allowed to use nuclear weapons.
It's a case of limitation within safety limits.
take care
Ravs
-
I consider myself a liberal....actually in the dictionary definition term and perhaps not the demorcratic party politics term....I'm more left wing/green than that (if you hand't have noticed!)
Hollywood stars who do not practice what they preach are just trying to further their careers by jumping on the liberal bandwaggon.
Having said that....I'd prefer someone who was hypocritical and did something for the disadvantaged rather than someone who was honest and did nothing for the disadvantaged at all.
there you go! liberal! and proud!
cheers
Ravs
-
Rav:
From the definitions of liberal you posted in another thread.
noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress
adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
Laissez-faire and self-regulating markets?
protection of civil liberties (Pesumably this includes 2nd amendment rights)?
not bound by authoritarianism?
I'll give you progress and reform, since everybody's definition of "progress" can be completely different.
But your principles seem pretty far apart from the dictionary definition on the other points. The common usage meaning of liberal in the US (Authoritarian, anti-Laissez-faire and very selective about civil liberties) seems much more accurate in describing your beliefs, or at least those beliefs I have seen you express on the BBS. Miko2d is a classical liberal, and you don't seem to be agreeing with him.
Hooligan
-
the very remote chance that your government is suddenly going to turn into some dictatorship where elections are not allowed anymore
Na...they just reshuffle the votes until they get the one in office that they wanted. It's already a dictatorship.
Seriously though, one of the big problems in the US is people not understanding how the election process works.
-
Interesting, Ravells!
I decided to gain a better understanding of the guns issue in the US. I didn't do a Michael Moore, but I was interested to know more about the weapons that are being discussed, and how owners look after them.
So I went to Lazs's house! And we went shooting near where Lazs works. It was an interesting day. ;):D
Given that Lazs's gun ownership is all legal, I'd have to say that he's a conscientious and safety minded owner. He has a big green safe downstairs in which all his guns are kept locked away. That's because guns do actually get up and walk away if they're not locked down, in much the same was as pens get up and walk away from office desks...
We fired off three of Lazs's guns. I liked the .22 - well suited to my dainty sewing hands. The .45 was like a more powerful version of that, with more recoil. And the .44 Magnum is best described as a hand held cannon.
Now the worrying thing is not that Lazs has weapons like this, but that anyone by virtue of citizens' rights can go and buy gear like this. The result of the constitutional policy of arming anyone who wants to be armed is that there are some 200 million privately owned guns floating around in the US, many of which get into the wrong hands, hence at least 5,000 gun related deaths each year - sometimes more than 13,000 (in 1992).
I came away convinced that Lazs's interest in guns is entirely genuine, but also that his feelings about any sort of gun control centred around how it would affect him personally, rather than the wider issue of looking at ways to reduce gun crimes and homicides nationwide.
I do think there's a sort of Guns-R-Us mentality at work though - Guns as toys. I don't think a weapons amnesty would work in the US - too many guns already in circulation, and only the law abiding would surrender to an amnesty.
So the only answer to America's huge annual tally of gun related homicides is for severe penalties such as 15 years for carrying a gun when committing a crime, and Life if the gun is actually fired.
BTW, Ravells, be sure to check out Channel 4 this week. They're showing the Oscar award winning documentary, "Bowling for Columbine". I think the promotion slot said it was going to be on every night of the week! It's an interesting film, quite funny in parts...
-
Here in germany only 3rd world refugee criminals and neo-nazis are armed, what a spiffy place to live.
-
get yourself one.
want me to mail you a spare?
we got plenty in texas :)
-
ravell... no.. the restrictions I stated are the ones I would like to see. If a guy commits a murder with a gun... when he serves his time they should give him his gun back. If he sprays 50 kids with an AK 47 then.... in 6 or 7 years when he gets out they should give him his gun back. if he can't be trusted with a gun then he shouldn't be out.... prove he is insane and you can take it away.... same for "temper" temper? what the hell is that? who decides that? in england that is exactly how they disarmed you... they let police chiefs decide who had a good reason to own a gun or not. Yu seem to like having people with power over you decide what your rights are... they took a right and made it a privilage.
so far as I know the UPS incident is the only concealed carry permit holder traffic incident.
There is no more white middle class gun homicides in the U.S than in say Canada.
In england the right to defend yourself against criminals and tyranny was allways just that.... a right... you have turned it into a privilage and a very exclusive one at that... you don't even see what you have lost or that you have given it away for nothing... you have lost a right and gained nothing but a rising crime rate. I hope that you never learn to personaly regret your mistake.
lazs
-
The thing that people have to understand is this... The government hates and fears it's citizens... you give them the right to decide who can defend themselves and the only people who will be armed will be your masters..
beetle allways goes on about how it is ok if lazs has guns but not all those other guys... lazs is safe and sane.... rav says that the government needs to regulate guns... beetle sees no problem with my gun selection but rav would be in a stupor if he seen em some of the real womanly tyoes on here would wet themselves... but...
beetle... if, like england, I had to depend on the govenment deciding if and what type of guns I could have I wouldn't have any.... My background is terrible... plenty of excuse for disarming me.
I don't want to go begging to my government for my rights... that's fine for you guys... you are all pretty beat down and don't know any better.
lazs
-
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur."
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur."
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
And how many crimes are prevented or halted by the criminal fearing or seeing that his victim is armed? If the criminal runs away, chooses not to commit a crime that night, or is injured, it doesn't leave any sensational statistics for you to quote.
-
Hi Beetle,
Yes, I have seen 'Bowling for Columbine' - bought the DVD. I've also read 'Stupid White Men' and 'Downsize this!'.
Lol! I'm going to probably get flamed for this but...I really admire Michael Moore. His interview with Alice Cooper on BFC was classic.
Were you at the UK con this year? Your nick is awfully familiar. I'm in Kew, so if ever you're up this way, drop in for a pint and a natter!
-------
Hi Lasz,
WOW! if someone murders someone with a gun you think they should be allowed to own a gun again after they leave prison!! You really don't trust your government! But if that's the case why don't you vote for a different one?
The difference in perception is really interesting. Doubtless you heard about the farmer here who was put into prison after he shot two burglars (who had burgled his house numerous times). There was a public outcry over here about that...but I do not think that it made people all want to race out and buy a gun.
I am totally relaxed about letting police chiefs here decide who does and does not get a gun...and don't get me wrong, gun crime in the UK is rising.
Couple of other things...you mentioned that the UPS incident is the only 'concealed carry permit holder traffic incident' - I'm amazed at this and if this is right I am very comforted that my perception may be worse than the reality. Is the word 'concealed' significant, in the sense that do permits exist where people are allowed to carry weapons in open sight? If so, how many traffic gun death incidents are there in this category? Road Rage seems to be the one thing in the UK that makes ordinarily sensible people seem to lose their marbles. Stress of city living, I guess.
You also mentioned 'white middle class gun homicides' in the US being the same as Canada...what about other races?
I was in Paris last December with my then wife-to-be for a romantic weekend. We walked out of a cafe and saw this man and woman fighting. Everyone was standing around watching. When he knocked her to the ground and started to kick her I waded in, jumped on his back and tried to restrain him. It was an automatic reaction - if I see a man hitting a woman I just go on autopilot. The moment I got involved then two other blokes helped. I am not a naturally violent person, and only come across it very frequently. I had the shakes really badly afterwards which had to be cured by three large brandies. Didn't impress my wife much - she said - Ravs, you looked like a monkey on that man's back! (Thanks wifey). The irony was that it turned out the woman had left a cafe without paying and the man was an employee trying to apprehend her.
The point of the story is that I shall be in New York this Winter and if the same thing happens again, I hope to hell I don't get involved in case I get shot.
Finally, I need some help from anyone here who lives in NYC. Can you give me tips of good military history museums to visit? My wife is begining to book up time with shopping trip after shopping trip - which is really begining to terrify me! I'll be there for 3 days between Christmas and New Year, so any help gratefully appreciated!
Cheers
Ravs
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
get yourself one.
want me to mail you a spare?
we got plenty in texas :)
lol I got my Makarov, K98, and Mossburg 12ga at home in Arizona. Same with my K-bar :(
-
rav... you prove my point... if we allow our masters to decide who has the RIGHT to defend themselves and who doesn't.... it is no longer a right but a privilage... we would end up exactly like you in england and..... no one would be allowed to have firearms... least not like me and my neighbors have them now... I trust my fellow man.. if he steps over the line he needs to be punished... not before.
as for criminals having guns... if you let him out of prison then obviously he is ready to be excepted back into society... he should have all his rights restored... if you are uncomfortable with that then maybe too many crimals are being released too early? if he can't be trusted with a firearm then he is probly insane... the insane should not be allowed to have a firearm.
How would you suggest the old and infirm protect themselves? should only the young and strong rule by brute force? or... is it more civilized to use a tool to create equality?
Is england more civilized because it's homicides don't involve firearms (yet) but brutish men break into your home while you are cowering in your locked bedroom... smash and grab... beware pickpockets and thugs... or... is it more civilized for an ARMED 80 year old man to cause fear in the mind of the brute who avoids breaking into his home?
At one time you brits felt that it was an inalienable right of every FREE man to be able to arm himself and defend himself or others with whatever weapon he chose.... I say you went the wrong direction from there.... I say that as time goes on... I will be proven right.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
And how many crimes are prevented or halted by the criminal fearing or seeing that his victim is armed?
I don't know, tell me.
-
Lazs,
My perception is that I am all for ceding certain powers of the individual to government. That is why I vote. For me, that is a function of government. If the US ended up like England and very few people were allowed to have firearms, then it may be the case that there would be fewer firearm deaths (although I recognise that we can argue the statistics about this until the cows come home).
In the UK, and I suspect it is the same as the US, the majority of criminals who are released reoffend. Our jails are full to bursting and as a result sentences are being shortened simply so that there is room for incoming inmates. We are running out of space and money to build more jails. I simply cannot agree with you that somebody who misuses firearms must be insane.
The old and infirm ought to be able to rely in others to protect them. I do not think that giving the old and infirm guns will solve the problem.
I don't think that England is any more or less civilised than the US - just different. It depends on what you mean by 'civilised'. Again, it's a lifestyle choice, but I would prefer to run the risk of my house being burgled by theives who were less likely to be armed with guns than to live in a place where burglary still existed and everybody had guns.
The 'Englishman's home is his castle' was an expression that people here used to justify defending his property and people from intruders. Perhaps it should be the 'American's home is his castle'.
It may be that one day it will be legal for more and more people here will choose to carry guns (although I doubt it). The problem as I see it is that once all the guns are out there, the genie is out of the bottle and it is very difficult to put it back. When we have a 'gun incident' here (for example schoolchildren getting shot) the overwhelming feeling is that guns should be harder to get hold of, not easier.
Ravs
-
rav.. I did not say that criminals who use guns are insane. I said that if a criminal uses a gun in a crime then when he gets out of prison he should have all his rights restored including given his firearm back.. I have no problem with tacking on heavier sentances for gun crimes... I do not believe in letting violent criminals out of prison because of cost. We have a "3 strikes law" in many states that works very well. If they are in prison they can't breed. If they are executed they can't hurt anyone else ever again.
who do you suggest protect the old and infirm from criminals breaking into their home? Maybe arm em with cell phones? I do not wish the british version of your home is your castle where it is your castle until someone breaks into it and then you have the right to run away and leave it to them.
In the case of schools... more guns would be the answer... more guns in the right hands would prevent the cowards from from even thinking of the act... it is a fad that would fade away. I believe you and I might agree tho that those school shooters are insane?
our burglars are rarely armed... but.. what is armed? would you rather be beat to death or stabbed or bludgeoned? I would rather meet force with equal or greater force... just as our police advise. Do you feel that the law should be... "he who is most physicaly fit deserves to win" ? Is it even legal to beat a burglar in your country? I would think that if you harmed him you would be sued... perhaps a lot of bad things could be prevented if everyone were required to put their valuables out on the porch every night before they went to bed? Don't forget to leave the porch light on... if the burglar stumbles and falls you could be liable.
thrawn... in the U.S. between 3/4 and 3 million crimes per year are prevented by armed citizens. most do not involve actual shooting.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn... in the U.S. between 3/4 and 3 million crimes per year are prevented by armed citizens. most do not involve actual shooting.
Thanks lazs.
-
also.... rav... I don't get it... you say that you can't afford prisons but how can that be? your taxes are twice what ours are... you should be swimming in money. You government is benighn and effiecient... heck... the money they save on not providing decent dental care alone should be enough to built thousands of luxury prisons. If you are trading bad teeth for good prisons then maybe you guys do have the answer after all.
lazs
-
Hi Lasz,
I think that there are many more instances where burglars have successfully sued homeowners in the US than in the UK.
I'm still trying to understand why you think people who have used guns in crime ought to have the right to own a gun the moment they are released from prison on the basis that all their rights ought to be restored...do you think that convicted child molesters ought to be able to work with children on release from prison?
You mentioned:
-----
In the case of schools... more guns would be the answer... more guns in the right hands
----
The more hands you put guns into, the greater the chance some of those hands will be the wrong ones. You only need to get it wrong once and you end up with a lot of deaths.
If insanity means not understanding the consequences of your actions - then I don't necessarily believe that many of the people who shoot children are insane - they know exactly what they are doing.
you said:
-----------
our burglars are rarely armed
----------
That's a relief, but why do you live under this seige mentality?
You asked about the law on using force in the UK. In the UK the rule is that you are entitled to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your property. What is reasonable depends on the level of threat you are faced with and your perception of them.
you said:
---------
the money they save on not providing decent dental care alone should be enough to built thousands of luxury prisons
--------
Don't understand you...what has dental care got to do with prisons?
Cheers
Ravs
-
rav... yes... I do believe that if a child molester is allowed to live then he must be ok to work in schools or with kids... otherwise.... why let him out? personally... I believe that child molesters are incurable and that the only humane thing to do is to put em out of their misery.... to pretend that the government will protect our children from them once they are out is luudicrous.
As I said... I vbelieve that using a weapon... any weapon... in a crime should add to the sentance but once the person is out his rights should be restored. I am not for having a society where some have more rights than others.
as for schools.... you trust the rteacher to cover your childs body with theirs when the shooting starts but don't trust em with a gun? seems pretty silly to me. I don't know how that teachers gun could gert in the wrong hands.
The reason that our burglars are rarely armed is the increased penalties involved... the reason that they don't burglarize and terrorize (like in your country) when people are home is because of the chance of confronting an armed homeowner. If we werent armed then the burglars (like in your country) would feel free to attack.... As I told thrawn..... I think that I could beat you to death with a baseball bat and take all your stuff... it matters not if this is true.... only that I (and enough criminals) believe it... on the other hand... I don't believe my bat is a tgood match for your gun.
lazs
-
Convicted Child molesters: To allow them to work again with children is ludicrous...but I see your point of view.
You said:
-----
I am not for having a society where some have more rights than others
Sadly we already do - the wealthy have more rights than the poor.
-------
I don't know how that teachers gun could gert in the wrong hands
All it takes is a moment of carelessness.
---------
Burglary: The incidence of burglary in the UK whilst people are at home is very small (where do you get your information?)
As you know from basic military tactics the element of surprise is everything. What I don't like about guns in a civilian environment is the level of efficiency they have in killing lots of people very quickly. That is far less likely with a more inefficient weapon like a baseball bat where the possibility of overpowering the assailant is better.
----
You still havn't answered my question about dental surgery and prisons.
Cheers
Ravs
-
rav... the rich do not have any more "rights" than the poor... not here anyway... in your country you have taken some rights and turned them into privilages such as gun ownership (for example) it is you who are giving the rich more "rights" by making it so only the rich have guns.
england has twice the "hot" (while the owner is home) burglaries as the U.S. The stat is in "more guns less crime" by John lott. A very good read by the way. His stats are so far unrefuted.
as for the teacher? his gun getting in the wrontg hands? I will admit the possibility but it is in the realm of being hit by a meteorite... I can think of not one single instance where a concealed carry permit owner allowed someone to get his gun can you find one? Police have lost their guns (with tragic results) in scuffles but that is a job risk... teachers shouldn't be scuffling with students. least not enough to lose control of a concealed weapon... even cops don't lose control of concealed weapons. Chances of a kid bringing a gun to school to cause problems far outweigh any concern over concealed carry.
surprise? firearms? you are not very savy about guns and criminals right?
oh... the dental thing.. since your country collects so much money in taxes and spends so little of it on things like roads and dental care.... they should have lots of excess cash to build prisons.
lazs
lazs
-
HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN!!!!
-
perhaps not true happiness.... but a decent substitute.
lazs
-
Lazs...I work in the law...believe me, the rich do have more rights. It's just a fact of life.
I shall see if I can get hold of Lott's book - but I do get suspicious about statistics.
The armed teacher: Very simple. One kid takes a gun to school and waits until teacher has his back to the blackboard. Kills him and gives his equally mad mate the teacher's gun. One of the kids holds the class hostage whilst the other goes to another class and tells the teacher there's been an emergency ... teacher comes to first class and gets a bullet in the head. Viola! Three guns.
Surprise and firearms...I'm not very savvy about guns and criminals...can you please tell me why the theory of surprise is wrong in this case?
The dental thing: - And there I was thinking that you were trying to recycle that old American joke about the English having bad teeth. Looks like I was wrong ;)
Ravs
-
rav... the thing about concealed carry is just that... concealed. the reason that crime drops in states that have enlightened concealed carry laws is that the criminal doesn't know who is armed and who isn't. It would work the same in schools. The kid may shoot a teacher but chances are that it would be either the wrong one or not all of em. What realy would happen is that it would simply make the whole thing about being the big bad goth warrior shooting all the sheep..... well.... a bad idea. It would simply stop the whole fad.
criminals don't open up on groups of people.... crazies do. They do it untill someone stops em... allmost allways with a firearm... the sooner that happens the better for all concerned.
lazs
-
rav... the thing about concealed carry is just that... concealed. the reason that crime drops in states that have enlightened concealed carry laws is that the criminal doesn't know who is armed and who isn't. It would work the same in schools. The kid may shoot a teacher but chances are that it would be either the wrong one or not all of em. What realy would happen is that it would simply make the whole thing about being the big bad goth warrior shooting all the sheep..... well.... a bad idea. It would simply stop the whole fad.
criminals don't open up on groups of people.... crazies do. They do it untill someone stops em... allmost allways with a firearm... the sooner that happens the better for all concerned.
if you work in the law then you know that the rich do not have more rights than the poor.... only privilages... if rights were strengthened and privilages lessened it would be even better but.... whenever you pass "control" laws you are taking rights and turning them into privilages thus giving the rich the advantage.
lazs