Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: storch on April 06, 2005, 04:36:15 PM
-
Governor Bush will sign a new law allowing concealed permit holders to shoot assailants if the victim feels threatened.
This is why I love my Florida so much.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-45forcewithforce,0,2447178.story
-
I'm glad we have Florida. It gives the rest of the country something to laugh about.
-
(http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/HollywoodCowboys/leading%20men/JOHN%20WAYNE.jpg)
"If I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat. That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Qoute from the sponsor of the bill....
Sometimes I really wonder if some Republican think they live in a sterotyipcal western where people regulary shoot each other on the streets. Heck I was surpised the article used the word "bar" instead of "saloon."
-
Great,!
Now I can move to florida and shoot storch dead...he skurrrin' me :aok
-
Governor says he will sign 'meet force with force' bill
Associated Press
Posted April 5 2005, 1:18 PM EDT
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened on the street, in a bar, at a ball game -- or just about anywhere -- to ``meet force with force'' to defend themselves without fear of being prosecuted.
LOL best to read the fine print on this one.
allow people who feel threatened on the street, in a bar, at a ball game -- or just about anywhere -- to ``meet force with force''
The key word being force on force.
In other words If a guy punches you you may punch him back.
You cant just shoot him LOL.
Also if anyone is packing heat in a bar LOL well you in deep watermelon anyways.
This law although it might sound good does look to be covered in Grey areas.
It leaves to much up to the individual to make up his mind.
Picture this two dudes get in a fight and one is unarmed but he is kicking the other dudes butt.
Now the other dude gets tired of having his butt kicked so he shoots the dude.
is he justified?
Now same scenario the first dude pulls out a knife !
Well now i believe dude two has the right to shoot him.
It looks good on paper but lets see how it works in real life.
Before we all start trying to be Wyatt Earp.
-
nice thing about the USA is you don't have to live there, you don't have to live in florida either, if you feel threatened by lawabiding people having guns you can move to kaliforina or canada or the UK.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nice thing about the USA is you don't have to live there, you don't have to live in florida either, if you feel threatened by lawabiding people having guns you can move to kaliforina or canada or the UK.
LOL another kneejerk reaction.
Son I live in Texas and I have a cwp so I am not against it at all
I am just saying that if you leave too much up to the individual
then he might go into system over load and there is always the chance of mi use.
-
well "son" i live in florida and if you feel afraid stay in texas "son"
-
whats so horrible about that? That when the cops can't help you..you now can help yourself? People that bother to get PERMITS are not the type to be going around shooting people randomly...Hell if they had a permit in the first place..they probrably were going to use it for self defense anyway...now it's just legal.
-
Where's Gun totin Lazs on this one!?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
(http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/HollywoodCowboys/leading%20men/JOHN%20WAYNE.jpg)
"If I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat. That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Qoute from the sponsor of the bill....
Sometimes I really wonder if some Republican think they live in a sterotyipcal western where people regulary shoot each other on the streets. Heck I was surpised the article used the word "bar" instead of "saloon."
I take it you've never been robbed by crack fiends with guns have you? You'd feel a bit different I'm thinking, if you'd had two wackos with guns talking about whether or not to shoot you anyway after you hand over your wallet. Just for the fun of it.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Where's Gun totin Lazs on this one!?
Don`t be stalkin Lazs Zulu. He is a straight guy. Besides you allready have a boy friend. You even posted a picture of him.
-
Originally posted by john9001
well "son" i live in florida and if you feel afraid stay in texas "son"
From your posts I doubt that mom and dad will let you have a gun LOL.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Governor says he will sign 'meet force with force' bill
Associated Press
Posted April 5 2005, 1:18 PM EDT
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened on the street, in a bar, at a ball game -- or just about anywhere -- to ``meet force with force'' to defend themselves without fear of being prosecuted.
LOL best to read the fine print on this one.
allow people who feel threatened on the street, in a bar, at a ball game -- or just about anywhere -- to ``meet force with force''
The key word being force on force.
In other words If a guy punches you you may punch him back.
You cant just shoot him LOL.
Also if anyone is packing heat in a bar LOL well you in deep watermelon anyways.
This law although it might sound good does look to be covered in Grey areas.
It leaves to much up to the individual to make up his mind.
Picture this two dudes get in a fight and one is unarmed but he is kicking the other dudes butt.
Now the other dude gets tired of having his butt kicked so he shoots the dude.
is he justified?
Now same scenario the first dude pulls out a knife !
Well now i believe dude two has the right to shoot him.
It looks good on paper but lets see how it works in real life.
Before we all start trying to be Wyatt Earp.
Good. I'm a Designated Driver, amongst friends when hanging out. I am looking to get my CCW here in Michigan this year. I'm usually sucking down Sprites for free at bars, because of the DD thing. Funny thing is, 99% of the LAW ABIDING citizens won't be a problem. You're always gonna have the 1% who are the prettythang*oles, that is life.
Karaya
-
you can actually shoot someone who is beating you with bare fists... it has happened and the concealled carry holder had his jaw broken and was struck multiple times before he finaly ended the beating with a well placed shot to the attacker.
The bill is nothing except the affirmation of the right to defend yourself with the best tools available from unprovolked attack. The kind of attack that CC people would shoot ove in any case.. Now they won't get into the whole liberal lawyer zoo over it is all.
Some areas and some people in the states are very dangerous... much like rabid dogs. It is prudent to protect against them in a personal way.
lazs
-
I think it is also taking into account the multiple assailant scenario.
-
my beloved Florida has always been reasonably sensible regarding self defense issues. we were the first state to implement shall isue permits for the common law abiding non mentally incapacitated citizen. this new legislation is a step in the right direction affirming the basic human right of self preservation. not that this legislation is really needed here in my beloved Florida. some of us were discussing this new legislation issue earlier today at a local building department and an eaves dropper claiming to be Arizonan commented that in his former state they allowed open carry. I was tempted to call BS except that I haven't been to Arizona since 1998 so I was unsure. would any Arizonans confirm this for me? thanks.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think it is also taking into account the multiple assailant scenario.
I think the significant change is that now if you are robbed you can shoot the assailant as he tries to flee. I'm not sure if this is true because I haven't seen the bill but a few people have made this comment.
-
Okee then, I want to kill somebody... I just piss him off, let him advance towards me, I shoot him. No witnesses.
Is it so hard to envision such a scenario where wrongdoers actually exploit this bill?
Daniel
-
an eaves dropper claiming to be Arizonan commented that in his former state they allowed open carry. I was tempted to call BS except that I haven't been to Arizona since 1998 so I was unsure. would any Arizonans confirm this for me? thanks.
Yes Storch it's true. I lived in Arizona and they do have an open carry. There's nothing like strolling into a McDonalds and see a few holsters with firearms. I think it deters alot of crime.
Mac
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why do you have "crack fiends with guns" running around?
Crack should be banned. You know, as in made illegal so people can't buy it. Come to think of it, the same rule might work for guns!
-
Originally posted by VOR
Crack should be banned. You know, as in made illegal so people can't buy it. Come to think of it, the same rule might work for guns!
I cant believe someone who lives in TN would make a statement like that. Hang on while we trace the IP address wouldya? :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why do you have "crack fiends with guns" running around?
Not here, thank God. And there's no reason for people to go around armed here either (yet). Altho Hawaii does have a Concealed Carry law, they never issue them. Havent seen a reason yet to think thats a bad thing either.
However, St. Louis was a very different thing, and I'm glad to see they wised up and passed Concealed Carry in MO. I'll do some digging on the Post Dispatch website and see if I can find the story, but back in about 96/97 we had a pizza driver stopped by two druggies and he gave them all his money without argument. They decided to shoot him anyway just because they thought it would be fun. Thats when he pulled out his concealed 9mm and killed the first one, wounded the other one. Yes it was illegal. No he didnt get arrested for it. Although they did take his gun. City cops in St Louis tend to understand reality.
-
sof... it really doesn't matter where you live or what the history is... It should be up to the individual to decide if he should carry concealled or not.
oh... I did a job in East ST Louis... One of the guys on the crew was on his second shooting. He had killed his second burglar. Interesting stories.. 2 of his friends on the crew had shot at and wounded people on their propety. None of them had spent even an hour in jail.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yes Storch it's true. I lived in Arizona and they do have an open carry. There's nothing like strolling into a McDonalds and see a few holsters with firearms. I think it deters alot of crime.
Mac
now there's a reasonable place to live. kudos Arizona. Thanks Mac
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sof... it really doesn't matter where you live or what the history is... It should be up to the individual to decide if he should carry concealled or not.
lazs
Point taken
-
Originally posted by storch
my beloved Florida has always been reasonably sensible regarding self defense issues. we were the first state to implement shall isue permits for the common law abiding non mentally incapacitated citizen. this new legislation is a step in the right direction affirming the basic human right of self preservation. not that this legislation is really needed here in my beloved Florida. some of us were discussing this new legislation issue earlier today at a local building department and an eaves dropper claiming to be Arizonan commented that in his former state they allowed open carry. I was tempted to call BS except that I haven't been to Arizona since 1998 so I was unsure. would any Arizonans confirm this for me? thanks.
I have always wondered where the line that Florida was first with a "shall issue" law came from. IMO, that's an urban myth. I had a "shall issue" permit in Indiana in 1979, YEARS before Florida set up their system. The Indiana law stated that they MUST issue a permit to any person who could pass the criminal check for reasons of self defense.
Later, some time after I moved away, they changed the law to make it almost mandatory to have a CCW if you own a handgun, yet kept it sensibly simple to go through the process. A very enlightened state, that Indiana.
In most states, the criteria for use of deadly force of any kind is the perception by a "reasonable individual" that they (or a person near them) are in danger of grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, you can't use deadly force on a thief for stealing your stuff, unless you feel threatened. Most states do not have a requirement for a retreat, as Florida apparently did prior to this legislation. NO place requires that you be on your own property, or that the assailant be inside your house, or any of the other BS you typically hear.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Good. I'm a Designated Driver, amongst friends when hanging out. I am looking to get my CCW here in Michigan this year. I'm usually sucking down Sprites for free at bars, because of the DD thing. Funny thing is, 99% of the LAW ABIDING citizens won't be a problem. You're always gonna have the 1% who are the prettythang*oles, that is life.
Karaya
Better check before carrying into a bar. Most states prohibit carrying a concealed weapon into a place where alcohol consumption is the primary business. I am not sure about the Michigan law about this.
-
in florida it's a felony to bring a gun into a bar , unless you have a CWP , then it's a misdemeanor.
fla defines a "bar" as a business or the part of a business that makes over half it's income from alcohol sales, so you will have to contact the owner and their bookkeeper before entering a "bar & grill"
a restaurant is ok but not the "bar" part of the restaurant, way too much gray there.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I have always wondered where the line that Florida was first with a "shall issue" law came from. IMO, that's an urban myth. I had a "shall issue" permit in Indiana in 1979, YEARS before Florida set up their system. The Indiana law stated that they MUST issue a permit to any person who could pass the criminal check for reasons of self defense.
Later, some time after I moved away, they changed the law to make it almost mandatory to have a CCW if you own a handgun, yet kept it sensibly simple to go through the process. A very enlightened state, that Indiana.
In most states, the criteria for use of deadly force of any kind is the perception by a "reasonable individual" that they (or a person near them) are in danger of grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, you can't use deadly force on a thief for stealing your stuff, unless you feel threatened. Most states do not have a requirement for a retreat, as Florida apparently did prior to this legislation. NO place requires that you be on your own property, or that the assailant be inside your house, or any of the other BS you typically hear.
prior to the "shall issue" law it was ok to carry in your vehicle or to and from your vehicle to anywhere you were going. most everyone I've ever known has had a pistol or shotgun in their cars and trucks. as far as I know my beloved Florida was the first state in the nation to say it was legally and socially acceptable to go about your business armed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you can actually shoot someone who is beating you with bare fists... it has happened and the concealled carry holder had his jaw broken and was struck multiple times before he finaly ended the beating with a well placed shot to the attacker.
lazs
What if the guy who has the gun and got his jaw broken is the guy who started the fight? Then he feels threatened and has the right to shoot the guy? There seems to be ways to abuse this law.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Good. I'm a Designated Driver, amongst friends when hanging out. I am looking to get my CCW here in Michigan this year. I'm usually sucking down Sprites for free at bars, because of the DD thing. Funny thing is, 99% of the LAW ABIDING citizens won't be a problem. You're always gonna have the 1% who are the prettythang*oles, that is life.
Karaya
Bad news Karaya, ya cant carry in a bar in Michigan unless your law enforcement or a PI.
shamus
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I have always wondered where the line that Florida was first with a "shall issue" law came from. IMO, that's an urban myth. I had a "shall issue" permit in Indiana in 1979, YEARS before Florida set up their system. The Indiana law stated that they MUST issue a permit to any person who could pass the criminal check for reasons of self defense.
Later, some time after I moved away, they changed the law to make it almost mandatory to have a CCW if you own a handgun, yet kept it sensibly simple to go through the process. A very enlightened state, that Indiana.
In most states, the criteria for use of deadly force of any kind is the perception by a "reasonable individual" that they (or a person near them) are in danger of grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, you can't use deadly force on a thief for stealing your stuff, unless you feel threatened. Most states do not have a requirement for a retreat, as Florida apparently did prior to this legislation. NO place requires that you be on your own property, or that the assailant be inside your house, or any of the other BS you typically hear.
Just to be clear..the Federal definition as learned by all Naval Security personnel is:
That force which a person uses who knows or should know would create a substancial risk of causing death or seriuos bodily harm. Deadly force is only to be used AS A LAST RESORT when all other lesser means have failed OR CANNOT BE REASONABLY EMPLOYED.
-
sixpense... it is pretty hard to abuse... all CC holders are well aware of the problems they will face in any shooting no matter how legit. in the case of the driver I mentioned the guy had rolled up his windows and did not threaten the assailant at all... the bullet magnet had to break in his windows to beat him half to death and was dragging him out (in front of witnesses) through the window.
There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... it is pretty hard to abuse... all CC holders are well aware of the problems they will face in any shooting no matter how legit. in the case of the driver I mentioned the guy had rolled up his windows and did not threaten the assailant at all... the bullet magnet had to break in his windows to beat him half to death and was dragging him out (in front of witnesses) through the window.
There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.
lazs
I haven't verified this, but I've been told by my friend while he was renewing his CHL & I was getting mine, that they no longer keep your qualifying scores on file because a man was prosecuted when he shot a guy in the head. His perfect qualifying score was used against him by the prosecutor to show that he intentionally killed the man, instead of "shooting to disable".
-
I have heard a lot of scary rumors about the whole thing... I think they originate because everyone is so paranoid about being involved in a shooting and the media and courts and all.... it is a good thing that we be cautious... I have heard every rumor in around from people being prosecuted because of the ammo they use to even what type of handgun.
The point to shooting someone is to stop them. the best way to do so would be a head shot if you could relaibly hit it or with enough gun. The Florida law seems to be a step in the right direction in that.... I don't thing anyone will be quite as concerned about where the bad guys get shot or with what.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Seems to me that instead of turning a blind eye to people using lethal force to defend themselves they should be picking up these "crack fiends" and removing them from society. Whether or not you want to carry a firearm is beside the point ... you shouldn't have to just to feel safe.
First of all, nobody turns a "blind eye" to shootings, no matter how justified- there's still investigations and every DA I know is more than happy to charge a felony for unjustified shootings. In fact where I live it takes a gun safety course to be issued a CWP, and there's restrictions on when and where you can carry a firearm.
Second of all, we can't just simply "pick up" these "crack fiends" because we have something called Due Process of Law- people have to be charged with a crime within a set amount of time or freed. It would be nice if we could "pick up" all our miscriants- just one time- cause America needs an enema, no doubt.
Thirdly, why are you even commenting on this? Your statements here show you know absolutely nothing about America...you might be better served talking about subjects you are familiar with, if there are any, rather than use a thread like this one to take a cheap shot at the USA. Believe it or not, this isn't the land of crack abuse and drive by shootings.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I was referring to this statement:
"Yes it was illegal. No he didnt get arrested for it. Although they did take his gun. City cops in St Louis tend to understand reality."
If you had cared to read the quote in my previous post you would have noticed.
I was under the impression that crack-cocaine was an illegal substance in the US. Due Process of Law seems to be lacking.
At least I know something about reading and presenting an argument. Something your statements here show you know absolutely nothing about.
Filing a report and taking his gun is considered to be an "investigation"....hardly "turning a blind eye" towards.
Due Process of Law isn't just rounding people up. (I'd remind you of our overflowing prisons but then you'd bash the USA for incarcerating so many of our citizens.;) )
And you don't know nearly as much as you think you know about the USA and its citizens....you take every opportunity to twist every topic into a slam or a put down of the USA and then, when someone calls you on it, you backtrack or resort to namecalling.
"Great debator?" Sheeesh man, you post your ignore list. LOL here for the debate, my eye.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you can just round up people if you have probable cause to think they have drugs on them or are in the process of committing other crimes.
Well, unless they have drugs on them at the time (assuming they didn't toss or eat them) they really won't get hit with anything. Maybe public intoxication at the most. They'd be back on the street very, very quickly. If they did do a crackdown, there would be several problems..
1) You'd have a large number of crackheads all detoxing at the same time, with the potential & motivation to very quickly turn violent.
2) Every civil lawyer in the country would come flocking down to sue the city for "racial profiling". The actual demographics are really irrelevant. It's all about money.
3) There'd be a surge of crime when they got out as they all raced around robbing and stealing to get money for some more rocks.
4) Our PD here in Houston was sued when it cracked down on punk kids street racing on the busiest nightlife stretch in one of the largest cities in the country. It cost the city alot in lawsuits, and several officers lost their jobs over it. The press had a field day making them look bad. That was just stupid kids... so it goes back to line 2 when you start clearing out ghettos.
We have entirely too much that should, but won't be, corrected before we could ever just "go and round up the crackheads!"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.
In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas.
On July 6, 2001, an unnamed man fatally shot 17-year-old Jacob W. Walton during a road rage altercation in Spokane, WA. Walton was a passenger in a car that got into an altercation with the shooter. According to police, the shooter had a concealed-weapons permit
"Road rage shooter had gun permit," Associated Press report appearing in the Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2001
During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years
On June 11, 2000, Jamie Cokes, 26, of Pittsburgh, PA, shot and killed 30-year-old Leon Blair. In 1998, Cokes had been shot in the face by a robber while driving his cab. He later told a local paper that he had a permit to carry a gun and would shoot the man who had shot him. Cokes and Blair knew each other, and, according to the victim's brother, Cokes "was always talking about shooting people." Cokes later admitted to police that Blair was not the man who shot him in 1998
On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show
On January 27, 2000, Louis Mockewich, 34, of Philadelphia, PA, shot and killed a neighbor who was shoveling snow behind his rowhouse. The two neighbors had been arguing over where the victim was placing the snow, and Mockewich's solution was to pull out his gun, for which he had a CCW permit, and kill the 31-year-old man. The victim, too had a CCW permit
On December 14, 1999, Adam Sousa, 25 of Naples, FL, pulled a .357 from a holster before leaving the dog track, and shot two men. Sousa, said to have been angry over an argument at the poker table, was asked to leave the game. As he headed toward the door, Sousa pulled the gun and pointed it, threatening to kill the track parking attendant. Sousa then shot two others. Sousa, a CCW permit holder, was intoxicated at the time of the shooting
There are a lot...These are just the ones I found before I got tired of looking. Plenty of killings by CCW holders. Although I gotta say I also saw a lot of "incidents" of CCW holders where the gun went off accidently and shot someone. I would like to see a comparison of the number of justified shootings by CCW holders versus unjustified/accidental.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you do have a lot of problems, but you have to start somehere.
...And who better than you to point out all the ills in American society, right?
:rolleyes:
-
raider... you do realize that the violence policy center (formerly handgun control inc.) is a anti gun nut group whose sole purpose is to ban firearms in the U.S.? They have been caught in some of the biggest lies ever told like a child is murdered with a firearm every 55 minutes in the U.S.
Dan rather is more honest than they are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you do realize that the violence policy center (formerly handgun control inc.) is a anti gun nut group whose sole purpose is to ban firearms in the U.S.? They have been caught in some of the biggest lies ever told like a child is murdered with a firearm every 55 minutes in the U.S.
Dan rather is more honest than they are.
lazs
You do realize that only that only the first quote is from them.
Here are some of the sources
"Packing Heat," ABC News 20/20 Downtown, July 16, 2001.
Man Held in Killing Claims Self-Defense," Tribune-Review, July 7, 2000.
Collier man accused of shooting 2 workers at Bonita dog track jailed on $250,000 bond," Naples Daily News, December 16, 1999
The guns of Dale Cramm," Daily Herald, August 14, 2000.
Deadly clash in the snow," Philadelphia Daily News, January 27, 2000.
Oh and your right about children being murdered by firearms. Its not every 55 minutes. Its every 8 hours. At least by the latest statistics I can find which is 1997 so probably not too reliable but still should be around the same. 2100 juveniles murdered in 1997 56% killed with a firearm.= 3/day
http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/chapter2.pdf
-
Originally posted by GScholz
........ whether you should have the right to carry firearms is another discussion, however you shouldn't have to carry a firearm to feel safe.
I agree. I wish it was as simple as some people try to make it sound, that we carry guns because we are paranoid or have some kind of gun fetish. But its not that simple.
There really are boogeymen, there really are monsters, and they just happen to look something like us. Thank God we live in a country that recognizes (for the most part) that the individual has the right to defend himself. The police are not our bodyguards. They investigate crimes, and catch those who commit them. Hopefully, proper prosecution of criminals and a visible police presence will deter crimes, but they cannot arrest people who have done nothing wrong to prevent things from happening. The average person is EXPECTED, or was when they wrote our Constitution, to be able to defend themselves and their family. To be able to take part in the Militia in times of need (which may or may not be an anachronism now, I dont believe it is), and to generally help, by their general attitudes as law-abiding citizens and willingness to defend themselves, help to make society a place where criminals will not thrive. It may be hard for someone who has not grown up here to completely understand the POV of an American.
-
"The police are not our bodyguards. "
(http://www.lynchkentucky.org/policecar1.jpg)
Why does iot say "Protect" on the side of their cars then?:confused:
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
"The police are not our bodyguards. "
(http://www.lynchkentucky.org/policecar1.jpg)
Why does iot say "Protect" on the side of their cars then?:confused:
I sense a real joke in the name on that police car, but I'm going to refrain.
-
Good isn't it!
glad you copped the joke!;) :lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Of course you're too blided by your hate and stupidity...
Ah yeah, THERE'S the GSholz we all know and love, degenerating a discussion into a name calling contest.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Raider179
In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas.
On July 6, 2001, an unnamed man fatally shot 17-year-old Jacob W. Walton during a road rage altercation in Spokane, WA. Walton was a passenger in a car that got into an altercation with the shooter. According to police, the shooter had a concealed-weapons permit
"Road rage shooter had gun permit," Associated Press report appearing in the Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2001
During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years
On June 11, 2000, Jamie Cokes, 26, of Pittsburgh, PA, shot and killed 30-year-old Leon Blair. In 1998, Cokes had been shot in the face by a robber while driving his cab. He later told a local paper that he had a permit to carry a gun and would shoot the man who had shot him. Cokes and Blair knew each other, and, according to the victim's brother, Cokes "was always talking about shooting people." Cokes later admitted to police that Blair was not the man who shot him in 1998
On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show
On January 27, 2000, Louis Mockewich, 34, of Philadelphia, PA, shot and killed a neighbor who was shoveling snow behind his rowhouse. The two neighbors had been arguing over where the victim was placing the snow, and Mockewich's solution was to pull out his gun, for which he had a CCW permit, and kill the 31-year-old man. The victim, too had a CCW permit
On December 14, 1999, Adam Sousa, 25 of Naples, FL, pulled a .357 from a holster before leaving the dog track, and shot two men. Sousa, said to have been angry over an argument at the poker table, was asked to leave the game. As he headed toward the door, Sousa pulled the gun and pointed it, threatening to kill the track parking attendant. Sousa then shot two others. Sousa, a CCW permit holder, was intoxicated at the time of the shooting
There are a lot...These are just the ones I found before I got tired of looking. Plenty of killings by CCW holders. Although I gotta say I also saw a lot of "incidents" of CCW holders where the gun went off accidently and shot someone. I would like to see a comparison of the number of justified shootings by CCW holders versus unjustified/accidental.
There are plenty of statements of "he did this or that" here, but no records of any convictions? I tried searching for the Austin taxi driver, I got one newspaper article that required registering to read it, and the same internet report you quoted. Other newspaper sources from the area had nothing. Surely in 5 years they have decided that case? I have serious doubts about CCW holders being arrested 66% more often than anyone else, I'd like to see the data they used for that comparison.
I'm not sure what the requirements are for getting a concealed carry permit in Texas, from what I hear its not difficult. I still would have a hard time believing anyone would go to the trouble to GET one, and then do something stupid enough to cost him not only his carry permit but the right to ever own a gun again. Period. Not to mention giving up their freedom for a cell and a new boyfriend named Bubba. In my experience, people who DO carry guns are far more responsible than the average joe when it comes to guns. Maybe I've just been lucky. I would like to see how many of the stories you quoted actually resulted in a conviction against the CCW permit holder.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
"The police are not our bodyguards. "
Why does it say "Protect" on the side of their cars then?:confused:
they protect and serve "the public".
an individual, by rulings of the courts, is not "the public".
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Yes Storch it's true. I lived in Arizona and they do have an open carry. There's nothing like strolling into a McDonalds and see a few holsters with firearms. I think it deters alot of crime.
Mac
I live in AZ and it reminds me of the time I was standing in line at the local Wal-Mart. A few people in front of me was a big, biker looking dude, with a .45 on his hip for all the world to see. The blue-haired granny next to me leans over to whisper "what's with these nuts that think they have to bring guns when they go shopping?" I just kinda smiled and nodded......didn't think she'd take it so well if I lifted my shirt and showed her the Glock I was carrying. (Yes, I have a CCW.) Even though open carry is allowed in AZ, I prefer not to advertise that I'm armed - let that be a big surprise to the bad guy!
-
Originally posted by DieAz
they protect and serve "the public".
an individual, by rulings of the courts, is not "the public".
one night several years ago I saw a guy with a lonnnng barrelled automatic shotgun running down W 20th Ave which parallels the Palmetto expressway in Hialeah. I thought to myself how odd. I drove on. at the next light I saw a cop on the side of the road enjoying a smoke and writing reports in his cruiser. I appraised him of the situation and he replied that he would take it under advisement and went back to his report. It was almost surreal. The police will take care of themselves first, each other after that and the public when they get a chance. you had better be able to respond to your own needs and let the cops eat their donuts, write their reports and annoy you in general. don't count on them for much because they aren't worth much.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
There are plenty of statements of "he did this or that" here, but no records of any convictions? I tried searching for the Austin taxi driver, I got one newspaper article that required registering to read it, and the same internet report you quoted. Other newspaper sources from the area had nothing. Surely in 5 years they have decided that case? I have serious doubts about CCW holders being arrested 66% more often than anyone else, I'd like to see the data they used for that comparison.
I'm not sure what the requirements are for getting a concealed carry permit in Texas, from what I hear its not difficult. I still would have a hard time believing anyone would go to the trouble to GET one, and then do something stupid enough to cost him not only his carry permit but the right to ever own a gun again. Period. Not to mention giving up their freedom for a cell and a new boyfriend named Bubba. In my experience, people who DO carry guns are far more responsible than the average joe when it comes to guns. Maybe I've just been lucky. I would like to see how many of the stories you quoted actually resulted in a conviction against the CCW permit holder.
well aparently its easy to get a CCW in texas so that would probably up the number of people that commit crimes that Have a CCW.
So basically because you cant disprove it so its wrong huh? People who carry guns are far more responsible? your joking right? I can't even name the number of times I have seen some ******* showing off his pistol or rifle...And thats just personal experience. Its not just who I know either, gun lovers are exactly that they love guns and love to show them off, recklessly at times too.
You would like to see a conviction? I think several of those stories said conviction so disprove it or accept it....
final note I have nothing against responsible people owning firearms. I just think regulation needs tightening. After all your not doing anything illegal with them right?
-
Originally posted by SKJohn
I just kinda smiled and nodded......didn't think she'd take it so well if I lifted my shirt and showed her the Glock I was carrying. (Yes, I have a CCW.) Even though open carry is allowed in AZ, I prefer not to advertise that I'm armed - let that be a big surprise to the bad guy!
kinda proves my point.
Another billy bad bellybutton with a gun that cant wait to use it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nope, just stating facts. Well known facts on this BBS actually.
Actually the best known fact on this Board is that you have such an anti-American bias you no longer have any credibility.
It's a shame because I agree with you politically on some issues, but the difference is I disagree with the policy, not the people assigned to carry out that policy. Take our soldiers, for example. I see scared kids fighting against a nameless and faceless enemy doing a dirty job and you see sociopathic killers indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians for fun.
You take every opportunity to jump into any thread where you can cast an anti-American slant on an issue, then, when someone questions your obvious bias, you resort to name calling and insults.
Hey, I'm just calling em like I see em- maybe you could do what Skydancer does and reinvent yourself every couple of weeks, but given your rudeness and hatred of America it'd be pretty easy to "out" your new ID within a post or two....
Otherwise keep posting your anti-American drivel, never apologize when facts prove your statements to be wrong, and keep on with the name calling and insults in the true Euro style of civility- I think it speaks more about you than it does about us.
-
raider... I think you will find that CC holders are indeed the most law abiding of all groups of citizens. The articles you cite I have never heard of nor have I seen the results or even the trials of these individuals.
You claim to think that firearms ownership is ok if... if what? If they tighten up the regulation? exactly what would that be? give me some examples of tightened rgulations that would allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves and still satisfy your need for... for what?
then... name one gun control law in the last 30 years that has saved lives or prevented crime.
and skyprancer/zulu... the police are there to take the report after the crime... if they happen to see it they will stop it tho.
lazs
-
Uh... Quote you? OK, how bout your last post?
"I thought our immigration policies were dangerously naive, but yours seem like pure folly."
That took less than a minute. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... I think you will find that CC holders are indeed the most law abiding of all groups of citizens. The articles you cite I have never heard of nor have I seen the results or even the trials of these individuals.
You claim to think that firearms ownership is ok if... if what? If they tighten up the regulation? exactly what would that be? give me some examples of tightened rgulations that would allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves and still satisfy your need for... for what?
then... name one gun control law in the last 30 years that has saved lives or prevented crime.
and skyprancer/zulu... the police are there to take the report after the crime... if they happen to see it they will stop it tho.
lazs
1) Every firearm should be shot before selling and ballistics done so if it is used in a crime it can be identified.
2)Gun shows need a lot of regulating.
3)I don't like the CCW law. I would prefer to see fire-arms being carried in a holster. Prevents a lot of those accidental shootings.
I also think people with guns on their hip would be a bigger deterrent to crime than someone with one in his pocket.
4)CCW permit holders are probably a more well behaved group but they are by no means perfect or will not commit a crime with a weapon just becaue they have a CCW.
5)Instead of one that saved lives how bout you name one that caused deaths...Oh right can't because its such an open-ended statedment.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) Every firearm should be shot before selling and ballistics done so if it is used in a crime it can be identified
the pattern on the bullet is not like a fingerprint,every time a bullet go's down the barrel the pattern changes a little, more so with FMJ bullets.
the only way this works is if the police get the gun right AFTER the crime and can match it to the bullet used at the crime.(if not deformed too bad)
another liberal feel good law.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the pattern on the bullet is not like a fingerprint,every time a bullet go's down the barrel the pattern changes a little, more so with FMJ bullets.
the only way this works is if the police get the gun right AFTER the crime and can match it to the bullet used at the crime.(if not deformed too bad)
another liberal feel good law.
really?
Studies have shown that no two firearms, even those of the same make and model, will produce the same unique marks on fired bullets and cartridge cases. Manufacturing processes, use, and abuse leave surface characteristics within the firearm that cannot be exactly reproduced in other firearms.
Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first.
It should be noted that not all firearms leave consistent reproducible marks. But overall it has been my experience that around eighty percent of the firearms that I examine produce what is sometimes called a "mechanical fingerprint" on the bullets and cartridge cases that pass through them.
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm
-
""Manufacturing processes, use, and abuse leave surface characteristics within the firearm that cannot be exactly reproduced in other firearms. ""
""Firearms do not normally change much over time.""
make up your mind, use changes the markings or they don't change.
-
Ballistic fingerprinting is a joke.
New York is spending $4 million per year on ballistic fingerprinting. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million. Both Maryland and New York have said that in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime.
Wow. Impressive. No results from nearly $20 million invested. Wonder how many cops you can hire for $20 million?
Further... it's probably NEVER going to work.
A recent study by the State of California points to further practical difficulties with ballistic fingerprinting. The study tested 790 pistols firing a total of 2,000 rounds.
When the cartridges used with a particular gun came from the same manufacturer, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time.
When the cartridges came from different manufacturers, the failure rate rose to 62 percent. And this study does not even begin to address problems caused by wear, so the real-world failure rate can be expected to be much higher.
Hmm.. switch brands of ammo and get a 62% chance they can't match it.
Give it up Raider. It was another idea that simply didn't work.
Here's one that has always worked. Jail the criminals that use firearms in their crimes. Jail them for 20 years, no parole. Pretty much guarantees you that person won't use firearms in a crime for 20 years. Additionally, the others with an IQ higher than 80 will probably figure out they're better off without the guns.
Precedent? Yep. Operation Ceasefire, Operation Disarm.. cooperative efforts between the locals and the Feds to get felony firearms users in prison for a long time. It works.
Ballistic fingerprinting? Nice try; doesn't work.
-
Yeah you guys are right our gun laws are just so tough.
http://161.203.16.4/d20t9/143619.pdf
What GAO Found:
During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records. Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors.
Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah you guys are right our gun laws are just so tough.
http://161.203.16.4/d20t9/143619.pdf
What GAO Found:
During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records. Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors.
Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.
I had my credit run recently and found a bunch of errors on it. it turns out someone with a similar name's entries had been reported on my tab. you aren't really this stupid are you? tell me you are a troll. :D
-
Yes Storch it's true. I lived in Arizona and they do have an open carry. There's nothing like strolling into a McDonalds and see a few holsters with firearms. I think it deters alot of crime.
According to the FBI, Arizona has a much higher murder rate than the US average (7.9 per 100,000 compared to 5.7 for the US as a whole)
The rates of violent crime, rape, and burglary are all above average too, with the robbery rate marginally below average.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.
Do you think another "assault weapons ban" would help? :rofl
I think the point is really that there is no gun law that can't be circumvented.
Nashwan, what would those rates be without concealed carry? Would they go up or down? That would be my question.
Further, when one takes CC states as a group and compares them to non-CC states, where would the groups sit with respect to the average?
There are always going to be states that are higher than the average and states that are lower than the average. That's what "average" is all about.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do you think another "assault weapons ban" would help? :rofl
I think the point is really that there is no gun law that can't be circumvented.
No but I think not letting people we suspect of being terrorists buy guns would be a good idea.
Your right about that circumvention.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
kinda proves my point.
Another billy bad bellybutton with a gun that cant wait to use it.
You're defintely wrong on that one Raider. I hope and pray that I never have to use it! But, having been on the wrong end of an armed robbery/assault before, I have decided that IF there is a next time, I'll be able to defend myself and loved ones if need be. Have you ever been in a situation where whether you lived or died was totally up to some idiot with a knife or other weapon while you stood there defenseless waiting to see what he decided to do? I have, and I've made the decision that if it happens again, I'll be able to have some say in the matter.
I'd bet that 99% of CCW holders feel the same as I do: it's like a fire extinguisher. Hope you never need it, but if you do, you'll need it badly and right away. No time to wait for the police to get there AFTER you've been assaulted. All they do is take a report and make sure you get to the hospital.
-
Ok, let's look at this GAO report. As you know, there is a background check law.
During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records.
EXCELLENT! The system we have in place ID'd 44 potential purchasers as being on the terrorist watch list.
You have to be happy with that, eh Raider?
Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors
What???? 35 transactions allowed to proceed because the potential purchasers WERE NOT GUILTY of any of the things THE LAW SAYS WOULD PREVENT A PURCHASE.
Apparently, being "on the terrorist watch list" is not a disqualifier for purchase.
So, where is the problem? Is it all that difficult to rememdy?
I think the problem is probably that the terrorist watch list is a newer thing that was not included when the law passed.
It is easily remedied by Congress.
The problem, of course, is WITH THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. There are more than enough examples of that. You don't know how you get on the list, you may not be on the list but someone with the same name as you have is on the list and "they" can't tell you apart.
The problem, Raider, is that the terrorist watch list is a faulty thing in and of itself.
Fix that, add it to the list of prohibiting things and the problem goes away.
First, you have to fix the terrorist watch list. That's where the real problem lies.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the FBI, Arizona has a much higher murder rate than the US average (7.9 per 100,000 compared to 5.7 for the US as a whole)
The rates of violent crime, rape, and burglary are all above average too, with the robbery rate marginally below average.
arizona+"undocumented people"=high crime....or am i being a bigot?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ok, let's look at this GAO report. As you know, there is a background check law.
EXCELLENT! The system we have in place ID'd 44 potential purchasers as being on the terrorist watch list.
You have to be happy with that, eh Raider?
What???? 35 transactions allowed to proceed because the potential purchasers WERE NOT GUILTY of any of the things THE LAW SAYS WOULD PREVENT A PURCHASE.
Apparently, being "on the terrorist watch list" is not a disqualifier for purchase.
So, where is the problem? Is it all that difficult to rememdy?
I think the problem is probably that the terrorist watch list is a newer thing that was not included when the law passed.
It is easily remedied by Congress.
The problem, of course, is WITH THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. There are more than enough examples of that. You don't know how you get on the list, you may not be on the list but someone with the same name as you have is on the list and "they" can't tell you apart.
The problem, Raider, is that the terrorist watch list is a faulty thing in and of itself.
Fix that, add it to the list of prohibiting things and the problem goes away.
First, you have to fix the terrorist watch list. That's where the real problem lies.
We won't let them fly on planes but they can go buy guns? Like I said earlier this is a law that needs to be changed.
-
You miss the point.
You want to use the current terrorist watch list?
OK, you, Jack Raider, want to fly from LA to DC. Unfortunately for you, you have been banned from flying because "Jack Raider" is on the terrorist watch list.
Now, you don't know that YOU are the "Jack Raider" in question. The authorities don't either. They just know you have the same name.
They cannot tell you if YOU are the "Jack Raider" they are interested in because they themselves don't know.
They will not/cannot tell you how you got on the list.
They cannot tell you how to get off the list.
Sound fair to you? No more flying for you, no appeal.
And you want to use this same list for other things?
Really?
You seem like a guy sympathetic to the ACLU. Know what they say about the terrorist watch list?
Internal documents obtained by the ACLU through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal much confusion and lack of leadership in the management of watch lists.
In one e-mail, an FBI agent, apparently reacting to a TSA official’s rationale for the lists, wrote that “Unfortunately, eggheaded thinking like this muddies the waters to the point where the no-fly list and selectee lists become virtually worthless (garbage in, garbage out).”
But you're OK with that right?
-
BTW, Raider... on that GAO report, do they happen to mention if the guys that got the guns actually WERE the persons on the watch list?
Does it definitively state that "Jack Raider" was positively identified as a person deliberately put on the terrorist watch list but still got a gun?
Or could it be that a Jack Raider got a gun but he wasn't the "Jack Raider" they named as a terrorist ?
In other words, could there possibly have been a case of mistaken identity due to same names?
I bet they don't discuss that at all, do they? Yet we know it has happened probably THOUSANDS of times at airports using that same list.
-
point taken and agreed!
-
Thanks!
-
ok raider... here is what you said...
"1) Every firearm should be shot before selling and ballistics done so if it is used in a crime it can be identified.
2)Gun shows need a lot of regulating.
3)I don't like the CCW law. I would prefer to see fire-arms being carried in a holster. Prevents a lot of those accidental shootings.
I also think people with guns on their hip would be a bigger deterrent to crime than someone with one in his pocket.
4)CCW permit holders are probably a more well behaved group but they are by no means perfect or will not commit a crime with a weapon just becaue they have a CCW.
5)Instead of one that saved lives how bout you name one that caused deaths...Oh right can't because its such an open-ended statedment."
(!)ballistic fingerprinting... an expensive and useless joke... I think we can ll agree.. everyone who tries it ends up dropping it. like the old having to sign for ammo.
(2) gun shows need regulating? I don't know... to me they should follow the same laws as the rest of the area they are in. I have no problem with that.
(3) I believe you are wrong on this one. I think that it would call too much attention to the citizen and make him a target... Why don't skt marshalls carry openly or FBI? I also think that it promotes too much emotional garbage in people to see only a small percentage of people openly armed that aren't police... CC makes it difficult for criminals to know who is armed or not... a very good thing.
(4) not sure I understand this one. If they wanted to commit a crime with a weapon what difference would it make if they had a permit or not?
(5) Luby Texas is a good example. The recently passed law against carrying in a resteraunt caused the deaths of a dozen people. The gunman crashed through the front of the establishment with a truck and pulled out his gun (apparently he hadn't heard of the new law) and started killing the people who were trapped and huddling under tables waiting to die. At least 3 of the patrons had guns in their cars that they had left behind because of the law. People who have had guns taken away from them have been victims of crime every day. The highest murder rates are in the cities with the most gun control.
I read your whole thing and still don't see how we differ other than the CC thing. I belive you are just not looking at that one from more than one side. Even so... you don't name any regulations that would have prevented any shootings in this thread or any other... in fact... you would make sure that any criminal with a gun went unopposed since he would know exactly who was and wasn't armed.
If I am not armed I would like to know that it was possible that someone besides a criminal in the crowd was.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok raider... here is what you said...
"1) Every firearm should be shot before selling and ballistics done so if it is used in a crime it can be identified.
2)Gun shows need a lot of regulating.
3)I don't like the CCW law. I would prefer to see fire-arms being carried in a holster. Prevents a lot of those accidental shootings.
I also think people with guns on their hip would be a bigger deterrent to crime than someone with one in his pocket.
4)CCW permit holders are probably a more well behaved group but they are by no means perfect or will not commit a crime with a weapon just becaue they have a CCW.
5)Instead of one that saved lives how bout you name one that caused deaths...Oh right can't because its such an open-ended statedment."
(!)ballistic fingerprinting... an expensive and useless joke... I think we can ll agree.. everyone who tries it ends up dropping it. like the old having to sign for ammo.
(2) gun shows need regulating? I don't know... to me they should follow the same laws as the rest of the area they are in. I have no problem with that.
(3) I believe you are wrong on this one. I think that it would call too much attention to the citizen and make him a target... Why don't skt marshalls carry openly or FBI? I also think that it promotes too much emotional garbage in people to see only a small percentage of people openly armed that aren't police... CC makes it difficult for criminals to know who is armed or not... a very good thing.
(4) not sure I understand this one. If they wanted to commit a crime with a weapon what difference would it make if they had a permit or not?
(5) Luby Texas is a good example. The recently passed law against carrying in a resteraunt caused the deaths of a dozen people. The gunman crashed through the front of the establishment with a truck and pulled out his gun (apparently he hadn't heard of the new law) and started killing the people who were trapped and huddling under tables waiting to die. At least 3 of the patrons had guns in their cars that they had left behind because of the law. People who have had guns taken away from them have been victims of crime every day. The highest murder rates are in the cities with the most gun control.
I read your whole thing and still don't see how we differ other than the CC thing. I belive you are just not looking at that one from more than one side. Even so... you don't name any regulations that would have prevented any shootings in this thread or any other... in fact... you would make sure that any criminal with a gun went unopposed since he would know exactly who was and wasn't armed.
If I am not armed I would like to know that it was possible that someone besides a criminal in the crowd was.
lazs
1) actually ATF uses a database (similar to what we are talking about) to match bullets. They also say if the maryland Matching program (the one you said wont catch anyone) would have been used for rifles as well as handguns, They would have caught the beltway sniper. So I guess that also gives an answer to your question about what law would say lives to.
2) no one has dropped the program that I know of. I thought they were still doing it.
3) Please I have been to guns shows. There is more shadiness there than in an apple orchard.
4)That was a response to your opinion about CCW holders never committing crimes with their weapons.
5)Hmmm maybe if guns were illegal that wouldn't have happened. But we will never know. Guns are never leaving America that is one thing I am sure of.
By the way are you aware you are 5-7 times more likely to accidently shoot yourself or someone else to death than to your use firearm in a justifiable homicide? Looked at the stats the other day. Think it was around 300 justified something like 1500-1700 accidental shootings. They were on DOJ or ATF or somewhere like that but I havent went back looking.
I guess the point of that is that CCW by no means you or others around you are safer. You are more likely to kill yourself or someone else accidentaly than to use your weapon to kill an attacker.