Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on November 09, 2005, 08:10:43 AM
-
Just some of the notable measures on the nation's ballots I found interesting
TEXAS:-Approved: Amend state constitution to ban gay marriage.
WASHINGTON:-Approved: Expand ban on indoor smoking to include bars, restaurants, non-tribal casinos.
OGUNQUIT, Maine:-Approved: Ban chain restaurants.
SAN FRANCISCO:-Approved: Prohibit sale of guns and ammunition, and ban residents, except for police, security guards or military personnel, from possessing handguns
WHITE SETTLEMENT, Texas:-Rejected: Change town's name to West Settlement.
-
wanna bet which ones the 9th circuit court and ACLU finds perfectly acceptable and which one they get all upset about?
lazs
-
Kurt, a gay family friend, and businessman(hey, when you live near Seattle, its inevitable), said it best:
"The intrusion onto the sanctity of marriage and the movement to prevent its legality is not about rights, not about equal opportunities, being against it is not homophobia.... its strictly political."
I'd have to agree with his assessment 100%.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kurt, a gay family friend, and businessman(hey, when you live near Seattle, its inevitable), said it best:
"The intrusion onto the sanctity of marriage and the movement to prevent its legality is not about rights, not about equal opportunities, being against it is not homophobia.... its strictly political."
I'd have to agree with his assessment 100%.
From what breif reports I saw on the Texas measure the vote wasnt anywhere near close.
Think I saw it was something like 75% voted in favor of the ammendment
Thats a pretty resounding defeat of Gay marriage by the people of Texas.
With those kind of numbers (provided that number is anywhere near accurate) and would have to include a large number of liberals.
Its hard to say political. Its what the people of that state want.
-
I don't believe its about homophobia either, it is fear that gay marriage will have negative social consequences.
FWIW, the left will say it was defeated because of the campaign money poored into it. Its another way to point the finger at someone else rather than face facts that most do not want it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
From what breif reports I saw on the Texas measure the vote wasnt anywhere near close.
Think I saw it was something like 75% voted in favor of the ammendment
Thats a pretty resounding defeat of Gay marriage by the people of Texas.
With those kind of numbers (provided that number is anywhere near accurate) and would have to include a large number of liberals.
Its hard to say political. Its what the people of that state want.
Pink Tony Lama`s just look so out of place at a "wedding". :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
FWIW, the left will say it was defeated because of the campaign money poored into it. Its another way to point the finger at someone else rather than face facts that most do not want it.
I didn't see a single sign, commercial, or speech about this ammendment, for or against. I didn't even know it was up for vote until the day before actually.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kurt, a gay family friend, and businessman(hey, when you live near Seattle, its inevitable), said it best:
"The intrusion onto the sanctity of marriage and the movement to prevent its legality is not about rights, not about equal opportunities, being against it is not homophobia.... its strictly political."
I'd have to agree with his assessment 100%.
for many it is not political at all, it is religious.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
SAN FRANCISCO:-Approved: Prohibit sale of guns and ammunition, and ban residents, except for police, security guards or military personnel, from possessing handguns
This is nothing but politics. The SC will strike this down, and I believe that they should.
-
WTF? OGUNQUIT, Maine:-Approved: Ban chain restaurants.
What the hell does that mean?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I don't believe its about homophobia either, it is fear that gay marriage will have negative social consequences.
FWIW, the left will say it was defeated because of the campaign money poored into it. Its another way to point the finger at someone else rather than face facts that most do not want it.
Actual vote was 76% vs 24% spending reported at 500k vs 350k. But fingers will point no matter what.
-
Hmm... I wonder if the rate of crimes in SF involving Hand Guns doesn't go down after April the local politicians will apologize for violating their citizen's constitutional right and return their weapons?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
WTF? OGUNQUIT, Maine:-Approved: Ban chain restaurants.
What the hell does that mean?
Sounds like they just evicted Chili's, Bennigans, and maybe even McDonalds. Sounds like local politics. If that's what the people really wanted, they simply wouldn't go to the chain restaraunts and drive them out of business.
-
Originally posted by Eden
Hmm... I wonder if the rate of crimes in SF involving Hand Guns doesn't go down after April the local politicians will apologize for violating their citizen's constitutional right and return their weapons?
No they will declare it a gun ban victory and try and ban rifles and shotguns too.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Sounds like they just evicted Chili's, Bennigans, and maybe even McDonalds. Sounds like local politics. If that's what the people really wanted, they simply wouldn't go to the chain restaraunts and drive them out of business.
Most of these are votes on TASTE
It is wrong to legislate taste.
Montpelier Vermont is the only state capital in the U.S. without a McDonalds..... They take pride in that. But they never made a law like that that I know about.
=================================
On Gay marrige.... you might wish things were simple with such a thing, but they aren't.
The term 'MALE' and the Term 'FEMALE' are labels, they help us generally communicate traits, about a person. This is the essence of human lanugage, DO NOT let it confuse you from reality.
In this place called reality there are no clearly defined sexes.
Most of you try so hard to make things so simple.
Here's some info on ONE disorder I found with a simple search,
http://mirror.applefanatic.com/anniesrichards/ais.htm
"Jamie Lee Curtis is alleged to suffer from AIS."
Pulizter prize winning author Jefrey Eugenides DOES have AIS. (wrote The Virgin Suicides) see the book Middlesex for more information.
I know some of you wish so called gay marrige was as black and white as the words you use, but your black and white words Do Not refelect reality.
-
SAN FRANCISCO:-Approved: Prohibit sale of guns and ammunition, and ban residents, except for police, security guards or military personnel, from possessing handguns
This will not hold up in court.
9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.
-
I'm just waiting for the first person who refuses to turn in his guns and gets arrested. The fur is going to fly.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
This will not hold up in court.
9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.
San Franciscans weren't thinking it through. What the really should do if this is the direction they want to go is simply ban the sale of ammunition. ;)
-
I reload.
lazs
-
Hi Mighty1,
Originally posted by Mighty1
This will not hold up in court.
9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.
Not necessarily, there are already longstanding defacto bans on handgun sales and ownership in D.C. and NYC, and none of these laws have ever been overturned by the SCOTUS.
I'm guessing the SF ban will probably prove surprisingly resilient as well.
I'm personally glad that SF will be joining NYC and D.C. as places where crimes committed with handguns will soon be over. If only all US cities were as enlightened murder would be a thing of the past. :rolleyes:
- SEAGOON
-
How does making it illegal for honest, law abiding citizens to purchase handguns decrease the murder rate when most crimes involving handguns are committed with illegal weapons?
This is another law which instantly turns honest citizens into criminals (see NJ Assault Gun Ban).
-
Hi Eden,
Originally posted by Eden
How does making it illegal for honest, law abiding citizens to purchase handguns decrease the murder rate when most crimes involving handguns are committed with illegal weapons?
This is another law which instantly turns honest citizens into criminals (see NJ Assault Gun Ban).
Because then we will be able to say truthfully that only criminals own guns and prove that the only people who need to own a gun are people who want to commit a crime (like a owning a gun for a starters). See its true, guns are so evil they can turn a normally law abiding citizen into a felon. What more reason do we need to ban them?
Stick with the circular logic, it'll make sense someday.
Criminally Yours,
SEAGANGSTA
-
Hey now... Seagoon made a sarcasm. :aok
-
I think you meant CHICAGO and DC Seagoon? AFAIK, in NYC it is still legal (although very difficult) to own a handgun.
And while those bans in Chicago and DC have stood so far, I dont think they have been seriously challenged, and I also believe they grandfathered in anyone who already lived in the city limits and legally owned a registered handgun. You just couldnt bring in any more. If someone could correct me if I'm wrong there?
SF is saying if you are a legal, registered handgun owner, you have until April (I think) to turn them in. That wont fly. You cannot force someone who legally owns and registers a handgun to turn it over to the govt. when you pass a law after the fact. If they had grandfathered all existing owners, there wouldnt be a legal leg to stand on (well, other than the 2nd amendment, but thats already been trampled) to prevent new handgun sales or registrations. They cant just declare guns already legally registered as suddenly illegal. Even California law precedent is against them.
-
So... I agree that only criminals will have guns..if they are banned that is (circular logic indeed) but my point is that owning a gun does not indicate the intent to use it for unlawful harm (lawful harm does exist - try and come into my house univited at night with the intent of hurting my familiy).
The view you have is distorted if you think that the ownership of a material object identifies you as evil. If, by your logic, a person owns any item that has the potential to take a life (kitchen knife, baseball bat, car) they should be considered potential criminals (do you have a car? do you have alcohol? - together they are a danger to life - you do not put them together do you? To do so would mean you have little regard for human life. I do not believe that most have so little regard for others. You should not have so much fear of others). It is silly to live in fear thinking that everyone is "out to get me".
Banning guns does not reduce violence...violence exists in the heart of the person commiting the act. Do not blame the implement..blame the person. We cannot sacrifice our liberties because of the acts of the criminal.
-
Star of Africa
Sadly the government can make you a criminal. NJ did this with their ban on assault guns (several years ago). Suddenly if you owned a WW2 M-1 carbine you were either to turn it in (with no compensation) or be a criminal.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hey now... Seagoon made a sarcasm. :aok
Glad someone noticed.
:lol
PS: SOA, It is possible in law to declare that a previously legal commodity is now illegal and require owners to turn them in without compensation or face criminal penalties. The easiest historical examples would be drugs like Marijuana.
- SEAGOON
-
"SF is saying if you are a legal, registered handgun owner, you have until April (I think) to turn them in. That wont fly. You cannot force someone who legally owns and registers a handgun to turn it over to the govt. when you pass a law after the fact. If they had grandfathered all existing owners, there wouldnt be a legal leg to stand on "
They will, however, succeed in providing ammunition to the anti-registration crowd who suspects that the government is just keeping track of them to better confiscate the weapons.
J_A_B
-
Wow, that didnt take long.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13124470.htm
The NRA has already filed suit against SF. And it looks like they'll probably win. I didnt realize the California state laws on this. SF is in conflict with state law as well as the Constitution. Even the nuts are conceding (except the city attorney) that the law will most likely be overturned.
Also, a look at what the SFPD has to say on it.
http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653
-
Originally posted by Eden
Star of Africa
Sadly the government can make you a criminal. NJ did this with their ban on assault guns (several years ago). Suddenly if you owned a WW2 M-1 carbine you were either to turn it in (with no compensation) or be a criminal.
Would a WWII Bolt action Japaneese infantry rifle also be considerded one of these?
Although to put it mildly its not in the worlds greatest shape having been stored on a shelf in a garage for the last 60 years.
I'm about to aquire one For the cost of one painted kitchen ceiling.
-
The NJ Assault GUn Ban is a cosmetic law which means it outlaws guns that have certain physical charactiersitics (proof that anti-gun folks have no real clue of what guns even are). An assault gun (per the ban) is a semi-automatice gun that has any two of the three following characteristics
1) Bayonet Lug
2) Magazine Capacity (original design) more than 10 rounds
3) Pistol Grip.
By this definition an M-1 Carbine is illegal in that it has a bayonet lug and a 15 round magazine
Ironically an M-1 Garand is not (bayonet lug but only 8 rounds)
Even more ironcally an MAS-49 or an SKS rifle is also not banned (magazines of 10 rounds - original configuration)
Silly isn't it.
Bolt action rifles are (for the most part) ok.
Many who owned an M-1 carbine had to dump it cheaply (to PA Residents - which was the greatest insult) or be criminals.
-
Well, if I had the money I'd buy an M1 Carbine from you guys for true value (I'm in PA).
But the problem is I don't have the money...
-
Good on you Washington State... Yea!!!!
Seagoon way to set the hook :)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
From what breif reports I saw on the Texas measure the vote wasnt anywhere near close.
Think I saw it was something like 75% voted in favor of the ammendment
Thats a pretty resounding defeat of Gay marriage by the people of Texas.
With those kind of numbers (provided that number is anywhere near accurate) and would have to include a large number of liberals.
Its hard to say political. Its what the people of that state want.
Liberals ?? In Texas?:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Liberals ?? In Texas?:)
im sure there must be some Nixon leftovers there in Texas.
Nixon by todays republican standards was liberal.:)
-
You know what's wrong with Texas?
It's full of Texans!
-
nice,
harpoon the new guy
Well I'll be going now to pull Seagoon's arrow of sarcasm out of the soft fleshy area just behind my left ear (made even more difficult becasue I pounded it in deeper with my own stupidity)
Just for that I'm going to Colorado and getting some Pot.
-
Thanks Laser but unfortunately the law required federal proof of sale which mean you could only sell to FFL holders (gun dealers)
I did not get heavily hit by this law as compared to some friends (I am interested in WW2 and older military rifles so most were bolt actions)
Here's an overveiw of prices some things were sold for (horror stories of final cash in hand after all the paperwork and transfer fees etc)
AK47 - $25
AR-15 - $25 to $50
M-1 Carbine - $10
:cry
-
Here are some reasons why NJ gun owners are so sensitive
http://www.montclairtimes.com/page.php?page=10729
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/tedlang/qtr4/1028a.htm
http://www.ceasefirenj.org/
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
President Bill Clinton at press conference in Piscataway NJ 3/1/93, Boston Globe 3/2/93 & USA Today 3/11/93
-
eden... we weren't ambushing you.. Your arguements are very good and make good common sense and speak to human rights and justice..... It's unfortunate that the law seldom does.
Another good point is that this will give the "regestration is the first step in confiscation" guys a pretty good case study to point to. (not that any sensible person would dissagree)...
The NRA was poised to attack this law. They will do so.
Another good point is SOF's link to the police site... the police are no friends of the gun grabbers despite what the commies tell you... The police chiefs ass. is a different matter... they are worthless commie politicos just like their masters. The rank and file cop still has a little testosterone and some common sense.
SF is a microcosm of the gun debate. I don't know why NJ wasn't but I suspect that when you have liberal lefties in the highest seats of our government you had to have expected that you would get screwed..
lastly.... this is an extremely good time to have some more constitutionalists on the Supreme court and some republican placed judges in all courts..
It's all working out OK so far as I can see... The NRA is allmost gloating.
lazs
-
LOL! yet another gun thread! :lol
But I can't be arsed with this one. They all end up the same way, but... Originally posted by Eden
How does making it illegal for honest, law abiding citizens to purchase handguns decrease the murder rate when most crimes involving handguns are committed with illegal weapons?
In the US, it probably couldn't. The time to have acted would be long ago, before your country systematically armed all its criminals. Apparently our legislators here in Britain could see how it would all end up, if we did as the US has done in response to the problem of firearms in the hands of criminals, - ie NOTHING.
Here in Britain, concern was growing with regard to the increasing number of weapons finding their way into criminal hands, and the Firearms Act was passed a couple of years after this report was published.
Blackwell Report of 1918 (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1-blackw.htm) It will be seen, therefore, that prior to the war there was strong reason for amending the law, and this was recognised by the Government in 1911 when the Bill to which we shall presently refer in detail was drafted under the instructions of the Home Secretary. Strong, however, as the case was in 1911, it is immensely stronger now. We have to face the situation that the war will have added enormously to the world's stock of rifles and pistols, that large numbers of pistols, and possibly other weapons, will have come into the possession of private persons, notably discharged soldiers and their relatives, and that the number of men skilled in the use of firearms will have greatly increased. It must also be borne in mind that we can hardly hope to escape on demobilisation an increase in crime. Large numbers of the criminal classes have entered the Army, both voluntarily and under the Military Service Acts; and however effective may be the measures taken to facilitate the return of discharged soldiers to civil life and peaceful occupations, it would be unreasonable to expect that all these men will be ready to settle down at once to agricultural or industrial employment. There would be additional ground for apprehension if men of this class, and indeed discharged soldiers in general, were permitted to retain any revolvers which have come into their possession during their army service, or to procure them under the easy conditions allowed by the existing law.
Most people here are content with the status quo, although I readily concede that the laws are not 100% perfect, as they would have to be in order for some of the posters in this thread to feel that the law is worthwhile.
The way it works here is that with legislation targetting supply, it is much more difficult for the criminals to get weapons. Not impossible mind you, but difficult. Some will say "bah, criminals can always get guns". No, but admittedly, they sometimes can.
Well, what killjoys those US lawmakers are! Can't you just tell them that guns are inanimate objects blah blah blah and are therefore "not the problem"?
:rofl
-
we will tell em beet... you watch.
lazs
-
Beetle,
Thanks for the link and information.
I am new to this forum and so I know I am repeating what has been said in the past.
My points:
I am not so much in favor of guns but of Freedom.
1) The idea of Freedom in America is founded on a balance of power between the government and its citizens. Part of this balance is based on a voluntarily armed populous. This is a fundemental right.
2) In every civilized society there are going to be dissidents who attempt to use the benefits of freedom against the society for their own personal gain. We cannot sacrifice the freedoms of the lawful due to the actions of the dissidents. You can't afford to sacrifice freedoms due to the potential for misuse (ther is always risk that crimes will be committed when people are given choices... need to have faith that people will do the right thing - at least most of the time...this is where the idea of freedom comes from). Criminals may get guns when guns are available. It is only one risk of many that exist in a society based on personal liberty. (on a side note: the US has significantly changed its policy on soldiers keeping "war trophies" - it is no longer legal and is a significant crime...soldiers in the US army do not keep any military weapons that they get)
3) Gun owners (in certain parts of the US) are labeled as criminals simply due to their desire to own these "evil" implements. It is a label and perception that has somehow become an accepted "truth". It is hard to convince the less enlightened that owning a gun does not imply the desire to use it for illegal and evil acts. Even criminals caught in the act are still labeled as "innocent until proven guilty" ... this does not seem to apply to gun ownership. It is a form of discrimination and a violation of civil rights. Furthermore, this ideology is skewing the issue and dumbing the whole discussion down to a level where the wrong questions are being asked (what is a "Smart Gun anyway" and where can I get a handgun with nano-technology?).
Lazs,
Oh, I know..not feeling picked on. Just concerned that yet again the focus of government is on the wrong thing. Instead of personal accountability for actions ... other people or "things" are blamed for criminal actions. The whole idea of guns as evil stems from the idea that "its not the criminal's fault that the crime was committed...it lies somewhere else". Must be the gun. Too bad politicians don't really care about civil liberties and their only desire is to stay in power.
I can tell by this forum that this discussion has gone on many times before and there is a general air of frustration (not this again!). Just saw things change so rapidly in NJ and wanted to put up the red flag and make sure folks know what can happen (because it has happened).
Case Example:
A former neighbor and WW2 vet given the option of purchasing his M-1 carbine after leaving the military in 1951. Buys it. 40+ years later he becomes a criminal when a law is passed outlawing "assault weapons". A law based on the way a weapon looks. He is unaware of the law (in his 70s when it is passed) and when he learns about it and turns the weapon in during an amnesty turn in.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
President Bill Clinton at press conference in Piscataway NJ 3/1/93, Boston Globe 3/2/93 & USA Today 3/11/93
-
eden... your arguement is well laid out and to the heart of the matter...
beet in the past has had a tizzie fit when I claimed that 5,000 or 9,000 homicides involving firearms was nothing to me. it did not change my opinion on personal freedom... just like 1,000 of drowning deaths a year do not change my mind on allowing people the right to swim..
In the case of firearms tho... the death rate can't be proven to go up or down based on the amount of firearms... homicide rates stay constant... england is a good example... their homicide rate has allways been less than ours and... it never changed no matter what gun bans/laws were passed... you may say that there are less firearms homicides in england now but you are gullible in the extreme to believe that you are any safer from being murdered... your chances are the same... you just have less chance to defend yourself from it and... you let your govenment have even more power over you. More potential for tyranny...
lazs
-
I am a little familiar with the restriction on war trophies. Tried to get this back home but had a little problem getting it in my duffel bag:
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2341/11jc.jpg)
Oh cr*p I just realized that I indicated that I might live in NJ and I might own a gun. What was that? Who's at my door? Got to hide now.
:noid
-
Another good point is that this will give the "regestration is the first step in confiscation" guys a pretty good case study to point to. (not that any sensible person would dissagree)...
First thing that crossed my mind.
Charon
-
I like how 58% of the vote became an "overwhelming majority" of the voters.
-
Hello Eden, and welcome to this board! This is just the latest in a long line of gun threads.
Just to bring you up to date, I have never said that the citizens of the US should be made to give up their guns. Never. And I challenge anyone to find a thread where I did. (We'll leave that to OneWordAnswer, aka Ripsnort)
I don't make the mistake of taking the UK thesis (see the Blackwell quote above) and trying to apply it to the US model. I leave that sort of mistake to guys like Lazs, who do the converse - taking the US thesis and trying to apply it to the UK model.
After all these threads, I'm aware of your gun rights, 2nd amendment and all that. So be it. Buy a gun, buy all the guns you want.
To understand the situation in Britain, you need to consider that Britain is a much older country than the US, and many of the battles/wars that naturally unfold when the territorial lines are being drawn took place at a time before guns were invented. For example, in Roman times, it was swords and pikes - no guns. Your country was settled in an entirely different way, and at a time when guns were already plentiful. There was a time when you had to have a gun to defend your property, and ownership was a right written into your constitution. Once that had been done, it was clearly going to be very difficult to tell the public "OK guys, the days of the wild west are over now. Hand in all your guns, please". So the gun ownership rights continue to exist to this day.
As for Freedom, I feel that gun ownership is only one of many parameters. I have in the past mentioned the troubled times in present day South Africa, where gun ownership is legal. Do the people of South Africa feel that the status quo offers them "freedom"? The fact of the matter is that thousands of South Africans give up their gun rights to emigrate to Britain - they are pouring in these days. How many people are going the other way? Not too many. So much for gun "freedom".
The interesting thing about the US is... WHY are your legislators trying to ban guns, as they once banned assault weapons? Why does Washington DC deny the right to defend your property with a gun? Could it be that there is concern that many people (including a small army on this board) don't feel safe to go out unless they're armed, and feel the need for fearsome looking weapons for "home defence"? Does that status quo represent Utopia? I think not.
As Lazs has now pointed out, the US homicide rate is huge compared with other, unarmed societies - more than 13,000 in 1992 alone, most of whom were killed with handguns. He is also fond of stating this somewhat misleading fact: the death rate can't be proven to go up or down based on the amount of firearms... homicide rates stay constant... england is a good example... their homicide rate has allways been less than ours and... it never changed no matter what gun bans/laws were passed...
What guys like Lazs just don't get is that our firearms laws were passed preemptively - that is to say that laws were passed BEFORE the situation got out of hand, as it has in the US. Prevention is better than cure, as the US is now finding out, about 90 years too late.
If you would refer to the text I quoted from the Blackwell report, you will see that in 1908-1912 there were 47 incidents in which 92 police officers were shot and 6 of them killed. This was before any real gun control existed. Now compare that with the present day, in which the UK population is much larger than it was in 1912, and with the added problems of drugs, ethnic unrest and more violent crime. Despite these unwelcome factors, only TWO police officers have been shot and killed since the beginning of 1984. And one of those was killed by a gun whose possession was legal by virtue of diplomatic immunity, and the other was killed by a former US Marine, a fugitive of Florida justice.
Two of Lazs's other favourite sources are Joyce Lee Malcolm, and John Lott - he'll be making quotes from them any minute now. I have read the JLM book, but found it to be biased. Other UK guys on this board have analysed it better than I have.
The facts are that because of the availabilty of guns, the US has a 5-figure annual homicide tally. In Britain, we've never had any calendar year in which the gun homicide tally has been more than a two digit value. Now the smartarses of this board will be quick to point out that our murderers use other methods - sharp instruments, for example. This is true, but it must be remmembered that alternative homicide instruments are much less versatile than guns. I never heard of a drive-by strangulation, or a drive-by pushing out of a window, or a drive-by poisoning - but I've heard of plenty of drive-by shootings. The fact that guns are so much more effective than other instruments of assassination is borne out by the fact that the world's militia and police forces favour guns as opposed to knives and swords.
Also, don't let your fellow countrymen con you into believing that the 1997 gun legislation passed in Britain was a gun "ban". As you can see from the text I've posted above, the gun situation was a source of great concern way back in 1918, and consideration was first given to it in 1911. The Blackwell report was followed by the Firearms Act, 1920. Even as long ago as 1903 the was the "Pistols Act". I've lived here most of my life, and I can never remember seeing gun shops that sold handguns. You had to have a police permit to own a gun of that sort, and for that you needed a damned good reason - a better reason than the fact that you simply wanted one, or because guns are "cool".
Well, that's enough for now. I like your handle! Reminds me of the plane I used to fly...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/geden.jpg)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I like how 58% of the vote became an "overwhelming majority" of the voters.
On which subject are you speaking of?
-
Beetle, homicide rates are going up worldwide. It has nothing to do with having guns or not having them. It has everything to do with growing pains. The technology and information available to even the poorest people around the world, the changing job and social orders, the changing of basic family structures, are causing anxiety issues that are exacerbating exisiting issues of basic survival in uncertain times. Add to that some people who are naturally a bit on the unstable side to start with, and you have more and more folks resorting to violence in response to problems they dont understand. Human nature hasnt changed in thousands of years, and probably wont for thousands more. We can agree to disagree on our different countries' approaches to dealing with the problem, but you have the same issue as many of our politicians and activists. You focus on the tool, not the underlying cause. You think that by removing the tool, you make the problem smaller, or more manageable. You dont.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Wow, that didnt take long.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13124470.htm
The NRA has already filed suit against SF. And it looks like they'll probably win. I didnt realize the California state laws on this. SF is in conflict with state law as well as the Constitution. Even the nuts are conceding (except the city attorney) that the law will most likely be overturned.
Also, a look at what the SFPD has to say on it.
http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653
"... the POA does not support the proposed ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes."
-
well... before beet gets too carried away on the paradise that is his little island...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
While it is true that the uk has a lower murder rate by at least 3 times (per capita)
total crime victims are..
Uk... 26.4% of the population.... U.S. 21.1%... australia, NZ, netherlands, sweden, italy, canada, denmark and france all have higher rates than the U,S.
assualt is...
Uk... 2.8% U.S. 1.2% of poulation
Burglaries is..
Uk.. 13.8 per/1000 population U.S. 7.1% per 1000
Car theft is...
Uk.. 5.6 per 1000 population U.S. 3.9 per 1000
property crime victims is...
Uk... 12.2% of population U.S. 10%
Rape victims is...
Uk... 0.9% of population U.S. 0.4% of population
Robbery victims is...
Uk... 1.2% of population.... U.S. 0.6% of population...
And.... while our homicde rate has been going down for decades even tho, or more likely because of, more people with concealed carry permits and just more gun owners in general in the U.S. and... a lower crime rate...
The Uk murder rate has stayed about constant no matter what gun laws are passed and... their crime rate rises.
I don't really care but in either place... if I am about to have someone attempt to victimize me.... I want to have a firearm. I also want the bad guys to know that my government has not disarmed me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You focus on the tool, not the underlying cause. You think that by removing the tool, you make the problem smaller, or more manageable. You dont.
We have.
-
Not by the facts you havent. What you HAVE done is hijacked another thread.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Not by the facts you havent.
Ahem - the FACTS are that the total number of gun homicides in the UK have never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to mention. That compares with a 5-digit value (13000+ in 1992) for the US, every year.
-
I didnt say anything about gun homicides, I was talking about violent crime. You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita. Your criminals just got more inventive (or primitive, as the situation warrants). I hardly call that an improvement. And you STILL have violent gun crime, even with a almost total ban on handgun ownership. Sounds pleasant. And of course you still want to focus on the smallest part of the issue, the tools used and not the motivations. I think the popular term for what you do is called "smoke screen". There's another term too, but I cant say it on the BBS.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita.
I doubt that. A homicide is a violent crime however it's committed. We have about 750 homicides a year. You have more than 10 times that, but your population is only about 4 times greater than ours. Can you explain what you meant, please. And you STILL have violent gun crime, even with a almost total ban on handgun ownership.
This is true, but don't do a Ripsnort by saying that our gun laws "don't work" because they're only 98% effective instead of 100%. NO law is 100% effective, either here or in the US.
And remember, a huge proportion of "gun" crime in Britain is committed with replica/imitation weapons. I think Nashwan said it was about 48%. It still counts as gun crime. The 5 year penalty still applies. So ask yourself - why would a criminal use a replica when the penalty is the same as if the real thing had been carried? Answer: criminals still find it difficult (but not impossible) to obtain real guns. There are no gun shops to break into selling handguns, and there are none to steal from houses.
There ARE still homicides, this is true. But more than 90% of these are committed by much less efficient methods. There would be many more if handguns were freely available and legal.
But you're right, and the situation has gone downhill in the Tony Blair years. We have a smoke and mirrors government, which likes to massage figures and change definitions to make it look as if their actions have worked.
Is it OK with you if we keep this thread civil? We have a new member on board, and I'm sure HTC would appreciate it.
-
The right to own and use a gun for defense in certain circumstances has helped a lot in some problem areas.
Take for instance, it used to be that a female was at the mercy of the male. In some cases women were beat and abused, tortured, etc, etc.
Now we are seeing that women are using the Samuel Colt theory and evening up the odds when things reach a certain point of abuse and beating.
That would probably be a big concern for some.
-
Eden, I do not support the gun ban and am not trying to prove it right. I do want to clarify how I interpret their thinking however.
I don’t think that all pro ban folks see guns as evil; they just think that banning guns will prevent murders.
Banners think that banning guns will reduce gun crimes. To a certain point, they may be right. Many criminals are very lazy and don’t think things through. We’ve all read lot’s of stories about stupid criminals who fail to make the simplest basic plans. Many of these criminals would be less effective if they didn’t have such easy access to guns.
The pro ban folks have blinders on however, because that’s all that they can see. Clearly any criminal who plans at all will still be able to easily get a gun. Pro ban folks also fail to recognize that many crimes are prevented or stopped cold by law abiding gun owners defending themselves with their guns. If I were an armed burglar or robber in Britain I would feel pretty safe about not getting shot by an armed homeowner. In the US, however, you never know who you are up against or how heavily they are armed. Who knows how many crimes are prevented simply because many would be criminals are wise enough to realize that they could die in a robbery attempt?
The real question should be: In modern America: for every crime (or murder) that is prevented by a gun ban, how many crimes (or murders) will be caused by a lack of unarmed defensive citizens? Has their ever been a good unbiased study that answers this question?
The NRA would have us believe its 1:5; the pro ban folks would have us believe its 5:1.
eskimo
-
I didnt say anything about gun homicides, I was talking about violent crime. You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita.
No.
The rate of murder and manslaughter (ie being killed in a violent assault) is much higher in the US, 5.5 per 100,000 compared to 1.7 per 100,000 (and the rate for England and Wales of 1.7 per 100,000 includes negligent manslaughter, the US rate doesn't)
The police in England and Wales break violence down into more serious and less serious. More serious includes "homicide, threats or conspiracy to murder, serious wounding and other acts endangering life."
The FBI records "aggravated assault", which they define as: "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm."
More serious wounding England and Wales: 88 per 100,000
Aggravated assault, US: 291 per 100,000
Laz's figures are, well, suspect.
total crime victims are..
Uk... 26.4% of the population.... U.S. 21.1%... australia, NZ, netherlands, sweden, italy, canada, denmark and france all have higher rates than the U,S.
So the rest of the world is more violent, but the US has far more murders?
assualt is...
Uk... 2.8% U.S. 1.2% of poulation
Hmm. Odd figures.
The US DOJ crime survey says 8% of Americans were victims of violent assault last year. The British Crime Survey says 4.7% of people in England and Wales were.
The police in England and Wales recorded just over 1 million violent assaults, which works out to about 2% of the population, but that includes all assault, even those with no injury. The FBI records only more serious aggravated assault.
Burglaries is..
Uk.. 13.8 per/1000 population U.S. 7.1% per 1000
Those are quite close for police recorded burglaries.
The UK rate last year was 11 per 1,000 (it's falling fast, so those could be accurate figures for 2003 or 2002), the FBI recorded rate was 7.3 per 1,000.
However, a far higher proportion of burglaries in the US are domestic, with a rate of 4.7 per 1000. In the UK most burglaries are commercial, and the domestic burglary rate is much closer to the US rate, at 6.2%
(burglary is falling fast in the UK, down 20% last year alone)
Car theft is...
Uk.. 5.6 per 1000 population U.S. 3.9 per 1000
The England Wales and Scotland figure for 2003 is 4.9 per 100,000, the US figure for 2003 was 4.4. (both countries are falling, the US saw a drop of 2.9% last year, the UK a drop of just over 10% 2002 - 2003)
property crime victims is...
Uk... 12.2% of population U.S. 10%
Police recorded crime is of no use here, as the FBI only record a small percentage of property crimes.
The US DOJ figures say 16% of Americans were victims of property crime last year. The British Crime Survey gives the same rate, 16%.
Rape victims is...
Uk... 0.9% of population U.S. 0.4% of population
Yet another odd figure.
The police recorded figures:
US 29.5 per 100,000
England and Wales: 23.2 per 100,000
Robbery victims is...
Uk... 1.2% of population.... U.S. 0.6% of population...
Police recorded figures:
US: 136.7 per 100,000
England and Wales: 167.3 per 100,000
And.... while our homicde rate has been going down for decades
It's actually been going down for one year, having fallen in 2004, but risen in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Prior to that, it rose sharply up to 1990, fell in 1991, rose in 1992, then fell sharply from 1993 - 2000. Since 2000 it rose, then fell last year, and is at the same rate as 2000.
The Uk murder rate has stayed about constant no matter what gun laws are passed and... their crime rate rises
No, the UK also saw a rise in murder rate throughout the 20th century, the same as the US. Our rise was much smaller, though, and over the century it went up by about 1.7 times. The US started the century with a similar homicide rate, but increased it tenfold, and now stands about 5.5 times higher than it was at the begining of the 20th Century.
-
eskimo... that is well thought out... the question is irrelevent however...
A right is not something that can be taken away by the majority... and.... all the stats in the world go out the window when it is you and your family that is being attacked and you want that gun to defend them... just like 1.5-3 million Americans do every year..
Still... your point is... if something is so dangerous... might not the rights of less than half or even the majority be taken away in order to stop the slaughter? Nooo... a right is a right.. it is important enough to be rated #2 in the bill of rights hit parade. A democracy does not apply to inalienable rights... formost of which is the right to defend yourself.
but.. once all the smoke and mirrors are taken away... it is pretty evident that a society is what it is.. regardless of firearms... a society with a high murder rate is still that way even if you add or take away firearms from the mix... englands homicide rate has never really varried much no matter what the laws... same for ours.
What is known tho is this... in an armed society... the more guns the good guys have.. the less crime and... stats show a slight decrease in murder as well... probly as you say.. armed citizens defuse some intent to murder..
reasonable solutions? Well..assuming that punishing the victims (gun control) is a poor solution and that it appears that is the case here... gun bans here lead to more crime in those areas... then..
The reverse is also true... more punishment for those who would use a firearm to tyranize the innocent... stronger laws for criminals and longer sentances... these things do indeed work.
With the former you have increased crime and a tyranized populace ripe for government or criminal acts of tyranny...
With the latter you have the best of both worlds... the innocent able to protect themselves, their loved ones and fellow citizens and the crooks and government either too firiegntened to victimize or.... when caught... taken out of society.
lazs
-
Ok nashwan... the site I showed was for the UN... it is laughable that the UN is right on everything else but this... you use the individual countries stats that do not communicate with each other... you claim they use no common standard...
Even so... england is crime ridden by your estimate.. I would rather take the chance of a meteor hitting me like murder rate per capita than to be victimized by crime with no defense...
you seem to feel that society will protect you if you dissarm yourselves.. that you will somehow be safer... we here (including our police) know that the only protection we will get in allmost every case is by ourselves or another citizen.
when guns enter or leave the mix.... homicide rates stay fairly constant but crime rates rise when citizens are disarmed and lower when more citizens are armed.
I have not seen one reason that you present that would say that taking away guns has any effect other than to make people commit murders in other ways.
Laws against using firearms in a crime seem much more logical wouldn't you agree nashwan?
lazs
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Who knows how many crimes are prevented simply because many would be criminals are wise enough to realize that they could die in a robbery attempt?
And who knows how many crimes are prevented because the would-be perpetrator is unable to obtain a gun to carry it out?
-
I can't imagine that anyone anywhere in the world would be prevented from commiting a crime because they couldn't get a gun..
I bet I could get a gun in england if I were only there a week... Know I could make one in that time. Why don't they?
It's not that they are impossible to get... even on a tiny little island surrounded by ocean.... nope.. it is because....
ta da!!!! the penalties are so high for possesing one and for using one...
It is never the law that tyrannizes people to kneel to their government.... it is the penalty..
Now... say that in the U.S. it was an automatic death penalty for using a gun in a crime... one trial... no appeal...How many gun crimes would we have?
say in england... the penalty for owning a gun was a one euro fine... or a warning... a stern talking to and then you were put on your honor to go have the gun destroyed... How many guns would england have?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
say in england... the penalty for owning a gun was a one euro fine...
lazs
"one euro" like "one person who lives in Europe" or "one European money"?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
"one euro" like "one person who lives in Europe" or "one European money"?
eskimo
I think he meant 1 Euro in money, having overlooked the fact that the UK was one of the three countries that did not adopt the Euro as its currency. (Denmark & Sweden were the other two)
-
I figured if I made some general statements Nashwan would chime in. I never dispute his figures. His sources at times, but never the figures. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Is it OK with you if we keep this thread civil? We have a new member on board, and I'm sure HTC would appreciate it.
Beetle.............when have I ever been uncivil to you?
Well, other than the one time where I made a comment about your mother dressing you for too long, but ........... well never mind. :) I dont think I'm the one you need to worry about when it comes to civility though. You have such an ardent fan club.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And who knows how many crimes are prevented because the would-be perpetrator is unable to obtain a gun to carry it out?
Most anyone with any type of common sense would know.
If he`s professional and he wants a gun, he will have one.
Don`t matter where it is.
If it is a mostly unarmed, (read as no firearms), then a Louisville slugger will achieve the same goal.
When you take away the iright of the everyday person to protect themselves, then the rest is a cake walk for the professional.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I think he meant 1 Euro in money, having overlooked the fact that the UK was one of the three countries that did not adopt the Euro as its currency. (Denmark & Sweden were the other two)
That was a joke beet1e. How can a fine be a person?
eskimo
-
Ok... let's just say it isn't the law that makes men kneel before the government....it is the penalty for breaking the law. The rich are of course exempt from the law and it's penalties so they are all for more and more "law" for the peasants.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ahem - the FACTS are that the total number of gun homicides in the UK have never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to mention. That compares with a 5-digit value (13000+ in 1992) for the US, every year.
From the Telegraph....
Violent crime rising in Britain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/21/ncrime21.xml)
Revealed: how the Home Office hides the true level of crime (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/17/ncrime17.xml)
My regards,
Widewing
-
thanks wide.... but... did anyone believe the assertions by beet and nashwan that the government was "over reported" in order to... to what? make themselves look like they were doing a bad job? Yeah... that's what governments do...
"low level thuggery" or.... the strong preying on the unarmed. You may have a 2 in 100,000 less chance of getting murdered in limeyland but... you will spend that time hiding from the strong thugs.
lazs
-
Thanks widewing - I readily concede that the Blair government (for which I have never voted on the three occasions when it has been elected) is a goverment of lies and spin. There IS a great deal of spin, and as I said earlier, Blair likes to redefine criteria as a means of misleading the electorate into believing that his government's policies have worked.
But... that has nothing to do with the Home Office homicide stats for this country, and the FACT is that our gun homicide tally has never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to name.
-
Including before your latest gun ban. Congrats on disarming the weak and innocent... Better to live in fear on your knees than to take that 2 in 100,000 chance that you may get shot instead of beat to death eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Including before your latest gun ban. Congrats on disarming the weak and innocent... Better to live in fear on your knees than to take that 2 in 100,000 chance that you may get shot instead of beat to death eh?
lazs
It seems that gun crime in Britain has doubled over the past 6 years, despite a gun ban. Again, I think this points to something besides the availability of guns to the amount of crime. It's that "something" that most governments refuse to address, like a culture that increasingly believes violence is acceptable behavior. Which is why having law-abiding citizens
unarmed only further enables this violence.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/07/21/ncrime21big.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
-
ah but wide... the socialists will chime in with..."but gun crimes are now counted even when a replica or pellet gun is used"
That's something to look forward too eh? go to jail for a replica? What a socialists (or socipaths) paradise that little island is!
If you are strong or rich you will probly be ok tho.... as it should be eh what old bean?
lazs
-
WASHINGTON:-Approved: Expand ban on indoor smoking to include bars, restaurants, non-tribal casinos.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned this one.
I can almost understand Resaurants. and maybe casinos. But Bars?
And what ever happpened to running your buisness your way?
Why not requireing a no smoking area instead?
Or giving the owner the choice?
Some resaurants here already on their own accord run "no Smoking allowed" establishments
That being said. There is one politition here in Jersey trying not only to ban smoking in Bars and restaurants. But also in your cars.
-
"The revelations on the "counting rules" put into stark relief the Government's claim that it has recently broadened the criteria by which crimes are logged, resulting in a rise in recorded incidents. In fact, under a sub-clause in the counting rules, the police are allowed to record only "one crime per person". In an incident where several crimes are committed by the same person against the same victim, only the most serious single crime is recorded.
An example given is that "a house is entered [burglary], the female occupant is raped [rape] and her car is stolen from the driveway [vehicle theft]". The statistics must overlook the burglary and car theft, the Government has ordered. The record should read only: "One crime of rape."
In another get-out, police are also told to log multiple offences as only one crime if they are all reported at the same time."
not at all what nashwan and co are trying to sell us about the paradise that is unarmed citizens living in socialism eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It seems that gun crime in Britain has doubled over the past 6 years, despite a gun ban.
WW - Two things. - By "gun ban", if you mean the 1997 legislation, that wasn't a "ban". It was a codicil to pre-existing legislation making the already very tight control of firearms even tighter still.
- Lazs beat me to it - "gun" crime also includes replica weapons. It's a crime merely to carry such an article, whether or not it's used to commit a secondary crime, so try to keep a sense of proportion: Many of those "gun crimes" could be where some kid has obtained a replica gun to wear on his belt as a "fashion accessory"! You laugh - but it happens.
Drediock! Our nanny government is also trying to ban smoking in public places. It would suit me personally - it's nice to go into a restaurant or bar that is smoke free, such as in California where smoking is banned in every restaurant and bar in the state. (Though I found some naughty bars that turned a blind eye!)
Personally, I don't think the government needs to ban smoking. That just means another law on the statute books, and another government inspectorate to enforce it, and more tax to pay for this extra appendage of government. The pubs/restaurants themselves are adjusting their smoking policy to suit their clientele - they don't need to be told how to do that by government. Just last weekend, we passed a pub in Gloucestershire, not far from where Swoop lives - the Air Balloon at Birdlip. It is a smoke free pub whose sign bears the slogan "a pub with atmosphere, not smoke"! Other restaurants and pubs are doing the same thing. Business is brisker in the ones that have banned smoking, causing the trend to accelerate.
-
The SF gun ban will be overturned on CA State Law which preempts cities enforcinf gun legislation of this sort. SF tried a similar law in 82 and it was overturned on similar grounds.
Hecke even this bans big supporters Diane Fienstein nad SF mayor Gavin Newsome have openely said that this will be overturned and even that is was a symbolic measure and an opinion poll..
Personally I hope the ban stays in effect, I think the bastartds in SF need to be taught a lesson as thir handun gun crime and murder rate jumps dramatically - but I'n cynical that way. In any case I can bring my handgun to SF any time I want, so can any non resident...
:rofl
-
Sorry, only time for a brief reply at the moment.
"The revelations on the "counting rules" put into stark relief the Government's claim that it has recently broadened the criteria by which crimes are logged, resulting in a rise in recorded incidents. In fact, under a sub-clause in the counting rules, the police are allowed to record only "one crime per person". In an incident where several crimes are committed by the same person against the same victim, only the most serious single crime is recorded.
An example given is that "a house is entered [burglary], the female occupant is raped [rape] and her car is stolen from the driveway [vehicle theft]". The statistics must overlook the burglary and car theft, the Government has ordered. The record should read only: "One crime of rape."
In another get-out, police are also told to log multiple offences as only one crime if they are all reported at the same time."
not at all what nashwan and co are trying to sell us about the paradise that is unarmed citizens living in socialism eh?
You are aware the US police follow exactly the same procedure in reporting crimes to the FBI, aren't you? In the case given above, the FBI would also record only 1 crime, the rape.
-
no... I was not. can you give me the link?
Still... what do you think that banning guns has accomplished in england nashwan? What do you think it would accomplish here?
lazs
-
FBI UCR handbook: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf
To quote from it:
As a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses occurring and determining which of them are Part I crimes. The Hierarchy Rule requires that when more than one Part I offense is classified, the law enforcement agency must locate the offense that is highest on the hierarchy list and score that offense involved and not the other offense(s) in the multiple-offense situation.
The following scenarios illustrate the proper application of the Hierarchy Rule in reporting a multiple-offense incident.
Two women broke into a new car dealership after closing hours. They took the cash from the dealership’s office safe and two new automobiles from the garage.
Applying the Hierarchy Rule to crime reporting: A Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), Larceny-theft (6), and a Motor Vehicle Theft (7a) were committed. Following the Hierarchy Rule, only the Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), the highest of the offenses on the list of Part I offenses, must be scored.
A burglar broke into a home, stole several items, and placed them in a car belonging to the owner of the home. The homeowner returned and surprised the thief, who in turn knocked the owner unconscious by hitting him over the head with a chair. The burglar drove away in the homeowner’s car.
Applying the Hierarchy Rule to crime reporting: A Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), Larceny-theft (6), Robbery—Other Dangerous Weapon (3c), Aggravated Assault—Other Dangerous Weapon (4d), and Motor Vehicle Theft—Auto (7a) occurred in this situation. After classifying the offenses, the reporting agency must score only one offense—Robbery— Other Dangerous Weapon (3c)—the crime appearing first in the list of Part I offenses.
Still... what do you think that banning guns has accomplished in england nashwan?
Guns haven't been banned. Laws have been tightened further. That hasn't made much difference in the case of rifles and shotguns, but handguns have been moved to class V, which is the same restriction as machine guns, which means they are not commonly available, unlike shotguns and rifles.
The tightening of the law has accomplished little, the previous laws were already adequate. The tightening may make spree killings harder, but not by much.
The already tight laws were very effective at preventing legally aquirred guns entering the criminal market, due to licencing (which means anyone with a serious criminal record could not legally buy a gun (and those with criminal intent tend to shy away from applying for licences and dealing with the police), registration (which meant legally aquirred guns could not be sold on to the criminal market) and safe storage (which meant criminals could not easily steal guns).
What do you think it would accomplish here?
Depends what you mean by "banning guns".
Registration would prevent legally aquirred guns being sold to criminals, licencing would deter criminals from buying guns legally, safe storage would make it harder for criminals to buy guns.
Criminals in the US aquirre guns that have passed through the legal supply chain to begin with, so tightening the laws would restrict criminal access to guns.
As to the effect of that, handguns are tools for killing people. Armies equip their soldiers with guns, not window frames or knives.
Ok nashwan... the site I showed was for the UN. it is laughable that the UN is right on everything else but this
You think the UN is right on everything? I'd have put you down as one of those people who thought the UN was wrong on everything.
Personally, I'd rather chose the FBI and Home Office, as they are the people that compile the stats.
Even so... england is crime ridden by your estimate.. I would rather take the chance of a meteor hitting me like murder rate per capita than to be victimized by crime with no defense...
And I would rather take my chances with petty crime than be victimised by a criminal with a gun.
If I hear my car alarm go off, I can run out of my house without fear I am going to get shot at. If I hear someone trying to force open one of my windows, I can shout "oi" without having to fear they are going to fire a bullet through the window.
I think I can defend myself pretty well against criminals, because we're both armed to the same level. And I know it's easier to defend against an unarmed man than an armed one, and impossible to defend against a gun without some pretty good body armour. Because the man with the gun might shoot first, and your chance of stopping his bullet with your handgun is not good.
you seem to feel that society will protect you if you dissarm yourselves..
No, I feel that criminals can't attack as well if they are not armed.
that you will somehow be safer
I'll be safer because I'm not likely to get shot. The statistics bear that out, with the US having a much higher murder rate.
we here (including our police) know that the only protection we will get in allmost every case is by ourselves or another citizen.
I know the same here. I just know that having a gun is not a magical defence, and that I am safer if neither of has one than if both of us do.
US policemen are armed. It doesn't stop them being murdered at far higher rates than unarmed British policemen.
Strangely, despite the guns, US police cannot "defend" themselves as well as the unarmed British police. And by a large margin. 57 police officers were murdered in the US last year. 1 was murdered in the UK. In 2003 the figures were 52 and 2, in 2002 56 and 2, in 2001 it was 70 and 1, in 2000 51 and 0. The US has about 5 times the population.
If our police officers are better able to defend themselves without guns than yours with guns, then I think I am better able to defend myselft without guns than you with guns.
I figured if I made some general statements Nashwan would chime in. I never dispute his figures. His sources at times, but never the figures.
The sources are the FBI, the US department of justice and the British Home Office. ie the relevant government bodies that compile the statistics.
thanks wide.... but... did anyone believe the assertions by beet and nashwan that the government was "over reported" in order to... to what? make themselves look like they were doing a bad job? Yeah... that's what governments do...
No. Left wing, authoritarian goverments want to know everything because it's only by knowing everything they can control everything. They can't stand the idea that a pub fight can be dealt with by the participants without the law intervening. The whole point of politicians, and it applies even more to those who believe in big government, is that people are incapable of dealing with things themselves, and government needs to deal with it for them.
From "National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS): an analysis of the impact on recorded crime" explaining the changed crime recording standards:
Statistics have become increasingly important to all areas of public policy. They both serve to highlight and describe the
nature of social problems and also to monitor and inform the policies and practices designed to remedy them.
You only have to live under the rapidly expanding Blair government to understand it seeks to control everything. They have introduced hundreds of new crime definitions and forced the police to record the most petty incidents that went unreported years ago.
There has another benefit as far as government and the press are concerned. It enables them to frighten people more, which sells newspapers and allows the government to increase laws and control. And if you think that only happens in the UK, look at the feaar being engendered in the US by terrorism (which has, after all, killed as many people in the US in the last 4 years as US criminals kill every 3 months). That's resulted in the patriot act, detention without trial, and a huge increase in government monitoring of the public.
That, sadly, is the nature of government.
-
nashwan.. the data as you say is there.. they do have exceptions... While it is sensible to make breaking and entering and then theft one offense for reporting they give an example of a one offense where there is a robbery and theft of a car but... they also say that car theft is the exception to be reported as a seperate crime. as is arson and a few others.. there are lots of exceptions.
even so.. we seem to agree that murder is higher in the states and allmost all other crime is higher in england... it is also extremely unlikely that you will be murdered in either country correct?
Guns not banned in england??? I thionk that what passes for restrictions to ownnership there would be considered by any U.S. gun owner as a ban...Guns have been effectively banned in england. A citizen has little chance of buying and keeping one in his home or on his person for self defense. you claim that criminals can't get guns tho now since even citizens can't realisticaly get them... perhaps... but... what has that accomplished? is your murder rate higher? lower? the same as it allways was? Has crime in general gone up or down now that your citizens are effectively disarmed?
you claim that regestration would keep guns out of the hands of criminals as would "safe storage" What is safe storage to you... the police station? This of course is only what you feel would happen.. We have 200 million or more firearms floating around.
Do you feel that we would be better off tho if we simply increased the penalty for firearms crimes? It would seem that we have less crime when we have more guns here in the hands of citizens... more armed citizens and a corresponding drop in crime... all crime is dropping here including homicides... how do you reconcile that?
Conversely...What would happen with the 1.5-3 million crimes that are prevented with firearms today (also an FBI stat)... would not an unarmed Amercia be at the mercy of those thugs who were previously stopped by armed citizens... wouldn't we slip into even more crime than crime ridden england?
the UN.. yep.. I don't trust em... do you think they did a poor job in compiling the stats? probly. They did get it right tho that england is much more crime ridden.
and... you claim that you would rather not defend yourself on the one or two in 100,000 chance that...you might get shot... you would give up your rights and live at the mercy of the strong on such a minor insignificant chance? this is laughable... your chances of being a crime victim of the tough and strong is on the order of 30% in your life and yet... of being murdered with a gun.... like being hit with a meteorite... insignificant. you gave up your chance to defend yourself or others for nothing..
our police... again...50-60 police shot? in a country of allmost 300 million... statistically insignificant... more police died from indigestion or chokeing on food or slipping in their tubs at home...
And... how do the police (not political police chiefs) feel about it? The rank and file cop overwhelmingly supports the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.
To sum it up... U.S. citizens do not worry about that 3 in 100,000 chance that they may be murdered... they do worry that they will be tyranized by someone stronger than them..In fact... if there is any chance I might be murdered.. I want to have a gun.
1.5 to 3 million of our citizens a year think you are full of it and exercised their right to defend themselves or others with firearm last year... they will do it again next year if they have to.. you feel that it is better to live on your knees than... than what? you have not proved that you are any less likely to be murdered in england no matter what the gun laws... You do know that the most effective tool for defense has been taken from you tho. you can only submit and hope for the best..
we aren't built like that.
lazs
-
conversly... you haven't brought your homicide rate down due to disarming the victims and your crime rate is rising.. We are arming more citizens every year and both our crime rate and homicide rate are falling..
but.... so that you won't be toooo frieghtened by the guns in our hands when you come here....
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Blacks commit over 50% (52%)of our homicides which would bring it very close to what you have over their... and.... since allmost all homicides stay withing racial boundries... 94% of blacks murders are by blacks and 86% of white are white on white(whites commit 46% of homicides)...
If you just stay away from the colored folk... you should have about as little chance of being murdered here as you do in limeyland... and.... you will stand far less chance of being a victim of a crime.
seriously man... you are on your knees for nothing... you are probly gonna make things worse every year..... much worse...
lazs
-
I would simply like to comment on 2 points in Nashwan's post. Just as an opposing point of view.
The tightening of the law has accomplished little, the previous laws were already adequate. The tightening may make spree killings harder, but not by much.
The already tight laws were very effective at preventing legally aquirred guns entering the criminal market, due to licencing (which means anyone with a serious criminal record could not legally buy a gun (and those with criminal intent tend to shy away from applying for licences and dealing with the police), registration (which meant legally aquirred guns could not be sold on to the criminal market) and safe storage (which meant criminals could not easily steal guns).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think it would accomplish here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what you mean by "banning guns".
Registration would prevent legally aquirred guns being sold to criminals, licencing would deter criminals from buying guns legally, safe storage would make it harder for criminals to buy guns.
Criminals in the US aquirre guns that have passed through the legal supply chain to begin with, so tightening the laws would restrict criminal access to guns.
As to the effect of that, handguns are tools for killing people. Armies equip their soldiers with guns, not window frames or knives.
All states in the US require a federal level background check before purchase (unless buying from an individual), and our laws already in place are quite adequate for charging and prosecuting those with a criminal record who apply to purchase a firearm. MANY states also require registration of firearms purchased, and require that if you sell a one you register that fact. Firearms shipped in between states require they pass through the hands (and record books) of Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs) before being passed on to their purchaser. In essence, unless you live in a state where you can buy a firearm from an individual without the purchaser having to register it or the seller having to register the fact (and a few still exist, thank God), it is VERY difficult for a criminal or those with criminal records to buy a firearm legally. Impossible? No. But highly unlikely. Besides, even in those states that do not require registration of firearms bought from individuals, the guns are registered to SOMEONE. There is a trail. If the firearm is used in a crime, it will trace back to the last owner that registered it, and they can provide information on who it was sold to, etc. Common sense says you at least keep a bill of sale, even if it's handwritten. Therefore, the ONLY firearms it is safe for criminals to use in the commission of a crime are those that have been stolen, and sold illegally with no records. Period. I tried to find the stats for you on the number of legally registered firearms used to commit crimes in the US, but couldnt find any. I'll dig harder, I remember the figures being used in a debate not long ago. I believe it was something like .8% of all firearm related crimes were committed with legally registered units. The other 99.2% of those crimes used illegal firearms.
Second issue.
US policemen are armed. It doesn't stop them being murdered at far higher rates than unarmed British policemen.
Strangely, despite the guns, US police cannot "defend" themselves as well as the unarmed British police. And by a large margin. 57 police officers were murdered in the US last year. 1 was murdered in the UK. In 2003 the figures were 52 and 2, in 2002 56 and 2, in 2001 it was 70 and 1, in 2000 51 and 0. The US has about 5 times the population.
If our police officers are better able to defend themselves without guns than yours with guns, then I think I am better able to defend myselft without guns than you with guns.
Despite what you may think of the average US citizen, we dont all own firearms privately. Even people who are required to carry one every day in the course of their work, like police, armed security, etc. oftentimes do not own any firearms but the ones they use at work. Also, unlike sportsmen or competitors, they do not shoot on a regular basis. Therefore they are not nearly as familiar with the firearms they carry as they should be. It's a sad fact that many police in many cities couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a gun if they were standing inside the barn and threw the gun at the wall. Ok, exaggeration. They are good enough with it to "qualify" at the range. Which despite Hollywood's assertations, is not very difficult. So you have people who arent very good shots, probably have never been in a situation where they have to actually use a gun, who are up against desperate individuals armed with illegal weapons that cant be tied to them if they can dispose of it and get away, and are willing to kill to avoid capture. I have the utmost respect for most police officers. Most of them chose their profession out of a desire to help others. Not to be involved in shootouts. But our police are armed because there will always be armed criminals. Our citizens are armed for the same reasons.
If this were a perfect world, and violence were not a part of the basic human makeup, and criminals were never armed with guns, then I might not care if only the police and soldiers had guns. But thats not the case. Look around you. Every country, every continent is recording rising numbers of violent incidents. Our world is changing. In some ways for the better, in some ways for the worse. But change it will. Throughout history, one thing has remained constant. The only way to remain free from the threat of violence is to be ready to meet it on its own terms, anytime and anyplace. To fight fire with fire. Show me one country today that has survived by refusing to do so.
I, like Lazs, consider it my duty as a conscientious citizen, to be prepared for any eventuality. To be ready to be part of the militia, in the truest sense of the word. It happened in New Orleans, where good, decent people came out of the muck and the wreckage of their homes, and they banded together to defend themselves from roving bands of looters and murderers. Becuse sometimes, even in this modern age, everything can fail you. No police. No firemen. No ambulances. No soldiers. Its just you. Every scrap of food, every bottle or source of fresh water becomes precious and worth killing for. The rule of law that keeps those who live on the edge of lawfullness is gone, and they can (and will) do as they please. You might consider yourself well able to deal with an unarmed assailant. What about a pack of them? A pack armed with 2x4's, baseball bats, kitchen knives, whatever they can get their hands on. They want your wife, they want your food, anything you have they can eat or trade for somethign to eat. Would you still be glad you didnt have a gun? I dont just keep guns because I enjoy shooting sports. I keep guns because they are the ultimate equalizer, and because it is my duty as an American citizen to be prepared to defend my life and my home, and those of my neighbors.
-
i am never going to step foot in san fransico.
-
star... well said... did you also know that police commit suicide at a rate 8 times their homicide rate? I have shot with police and sadly, you are correct.. most don't really like guns... or anything mechanical for that matter...
My theory is....the likeing of guns and things mechanical fosters a kind of individuality that is not condusive to being a police officer... I think in the past that was not true at all... It is not entirely true now but... it is getting worse. I would not expect modern police officers to be able to make decisions as an individual.
also.. nashwan is incorrect on the purpose of firearms in the military and in the public... they are not to kill but to stop. Kill is fine (it is a stop) but stop works better (in the military, wounded are more trouble than dead)... what use stabbing someone if they still beat you to death before they die 3 days later?
interestingly... allmost 80% of all people shot with a handgun survive but... about 80% or better of em are stopped (cease hostility) instantly by one shot from a handgun.
This makes it pretty good for the old and infirm who would wish to not be the victim of someone who is much younger, bigger and stronger and wishing to do them harm.
star... you are also correct that systems break down.. in big ways and little ones... a hurricane or riot with thousands of looters is spectacular but... a camping trip with a couple of drunk thugs in the area is just as spectacular and out of control to the intended victims.. What "law" or "system" could nashwan name to help such people?
handguns are allmost the perfect tool to use against the lawless... and.. even less of the lawless use guns in crimes with new tougher penalties... less criminals confront citizens since more citizens have become armed... I can see no reason why we would go to nashwans antique island mentality here. It makes no sense in a country as big and diverse as this.
lazs
-
StarofAfrica -
Two words: Fool's Paradise. That's what you're living in if you think that by keeping guns, your society as a whole will be safer.
What I find funny about the pro-gun argument is that the guys making it always assume that it will be the good guy who wins, should he face a situation which calls for an armed response. As Nashwan has quite correctly pointed out, this is not the case. Armed v. Armed results in far more good guy deaths than Unarmed v. Unarmed - you only have to look at the fatalities amongst the UK and US police forces (as Nashwan has quoted) for the proof.
But let's take it a step further. Africa asks how would an unarmed society cope with an assortment of roving thugs? We only have to look back to the very recent past, and the problems in France. Riots took place in dozens of cities all over the country, and yet - I read of only one death in these disturbances - that of a 61 year old man who had gone outside to try to stop a fire from being set. I even read reports about the police being "shot at" - and yet none was killed. Why? Because the perpetrators of this violence did not have access to more lethal weapons perhaps? Now compare that to the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992. These took place in a much smaller area and in one city alone! And yet there were many shootings and ~40 people were killed. - I rest my case.
Now let's look at other societies where guns can be owned legally. In South Africa, the white middle classes typically live in apartments or houses built in a compound surrounded by an 8ft wall. There will be electric gates to get in and out of the compound, and there has to be an armed guard. It's not safe to be on the streets. Is that freedom? Is that what South Africans want? The answer lies in the fact that thousands of them are giving up their gun rights and migrating to Britain to seek refuge. Not many go the other way.
And in Zimbabwe - the white farmers have been run off their properties in Robert Mugabe's land grab. Many of them were armed. It wouldn't have made a ha'peth of difference against a Mugabe land grab possé...
SoA - I would be very interested to see links to any incidents of civil unrest in unarmed societies loosely equivalent to post-Katrina New Orleans, where the outcome would have been better had the country in which it took place had been an armed society.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Two words: Fool's Paradise. That's what you're living in if you think that by keeping guns, your society as a whole will be safer.
It`s a "Fool`s Paradise" to be perfectly comfortable to willingly give up your personal rights, especialy when it comes to your last stand line of personal and family defense.
No doubt about it, our society was, has and will be safer due to the right to bear arms. Without it our society would come down to much like some others. That being, at the total mercy of an over zealous government allowed to go unreigned and having no personal or family defense allowed to our citizens. It`s basicaly such things that made our society from the ground up and will continue to keep it in tact. You can trust someone else to decide what freedoms and rights you have if you want, but for me I prefer being able to make my own choices and retain my rights for personal and family defense if and when the time comes.
What I find funny about the pro-gun argument is that the guys making it always assume that it will be the good guy who wins, should he face a situation which calls for an armed response. As Nashwan has quite correctly pointed out, this is not the case. Armed v. Armed results in far more good guy deaths than Unarmed v. Unarmed - you only have to look at the fatalities amongst the UK and US police forces (as Nashwan has quoted) for the proof.
At some time or other "facts" have a way of being stated that actualy bears no resemblence to the actual truth.
Number one...... police officers are exposed to shoot/don`t shoot situations, as a whole, more than the average citizen so that "fact" carries no weight with the average Joe.
Number two...... A lot of PDs and law enforcement agencies in our country have such strict shoot/don`t shoot restrictions as to make it against policy to fire unless fired upon.
Number three....this has explained many, many times before as has been in this very thread. You just overlook the facts as usual. A lot of law enforcement/PDs, etc do not have near enough shooting and training requirements as they should, so a great many officers get lax in their shooting and response skills.
I worked high risk security for a company for 5 to 6 years in a very unsavorable location. Crack houses were many in the area. Illegal gambling, prostitution and just about any illegal and known operations were in the area. It was well known that most that frequented the area were armed. I stayed on my toes as much as possible because I sort of like living. :) It paid off more than once I can assure you. Response time from the local PD was on the equivilent of frozen molasses. I was my own backup, so to speak, when it came down to it. I held seven one night for an hour and a half before the local PD finaly showed up.
The local PD officers ,as a whole, were lazy and unskilled. I shot three to four times a week because of this. At the time I would have gladly shot against the majority of the officers, for cash, at any time and I would have won.
Complacency , lack of proper training and practice gets more officers killed than anything else.
Most avid gun owners are not only good shots, they also practice reaction and response times if they are serious about personal and family defense should the time come. That`s what makes the difference. A little common sense goes a long way when it comes to interupting "facts".
-
Two words: Fool's Paradise. That's what you're living in if you think that by keeping guns, your society as a whole will be safer.
What I find funny about the pro-gun argument is that the guys making it always assume that it will be the good guy who wins, should he face a situation which calls for an armed response. As Nashwan has quite correctly pointed out, this is not the case. Armed v. Armed results in far more good guy deaths than Unarmed v. Unarmed - you only have to look at the fatalities amongst the UK and US police forces (as Nashwan has quoted) for the proof.
Proof of what? What stat are you using to state that the good guys lose more often than win in armed vs armed situations? That is patently untrue. City police officers in nearly every major city will have at least 1 encounter with an armed criminal each day. I very seldom hear of one being injured or killed, although it does happen. The statistics Nashwan quoted show a very small percentage of police are being killed in the line of duty by armed criminals. Nice try, but a bit too big to swallow.
Your definition of "Fools Paradise" is that we fool ourselves into thinking our weapons make us safe. I see yours the same way, only opposite. You fool yourselves into thinking that if you disarm everyone, criminals will stop assulting you and you will be safe.
Your examples only further illustrate my point. People leave Africa for England not to give up their gun rights. Most of the ones fleeing the country never had guns to begin with. And they had no rights, not legal ones anyway.
You give France as an example, where only one death occurred during the rioting. One man who was brave enough to stand up to the thugs that had taken over the streets. One 61 year old man. Killed. I suppose you would rather let them run free and burn what they like then? If that 61 year old man had had a gun, perhaps without firing a shot he could have scared off the thugs who killed him, and he wouldnt have died. Also, he would have prevented another fire from being set. Two crimes that could have been prevented, had that old man had a gun. Instead, he's dead and they burned what they wanted anyway. I still salute him for having the courage to stand up to the mob and say "this isnt right!"
Beetle, luckily such disasters are few. Very seldom is a situation so bad that govornment forces or police or relief workers are unable to get to a disaster zone. I know there were a few instances in LA of armed homeowners that put a stop to beatings or lootings, and their interventions saved lives. New Orleans was a sad wakeup call for our emergency response services, and a glimpse into the even sadder state of affairs in the NOPD. It was the sheer amount of devestation that prevented the response that WAS organized from being effective at first. It was an absolute cluster-f**k on the part of the govt. that kept it from being effective for a much longer time. I cant give you any specific examples off the top of my head. However, can you give me specific examples of such an instance where things would have been better had guns been REMOVED from the situation? The emotions and feelings that drive a man to kill, to rage, to fear, to whatever it is that makes him do what he does in such situations...............thos e things will drive him to kill whether he has a gun or not. It is the one about to be killed, the victim, that needs the chance to equalize the situation. The 61 year old man about to be killed by a raging mob of arsonists. The woman and her children, left alone and cut off from help, about to be raped and her children killed, their home raided. If you can honestly tell me you think those people would be better off without guns, then you and I have nothing further to say to each other Beetle. We simply see the world too differently.
-
I'll say this for him... beet is allways good for a laugh...
FBI stats show that armed citizens stop criminals 1.5-3 million times a year... hardly "coming out on the short end".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It seems that gun crime in Britain has doubled over the past 6 years, despite a gun ban. Again, I think this points to something besides the availability of guns to the amount of crime. It's that "something" that most governments refuse to address, like a culture that increasingly believes violence is acceptable behavior. Which is why having law-abiding citizens
unarmed only further enables this violence.
Widewing
Umm, some interesting stuff to point out in these statistics, gun crimes include crimes committed with fake... even toy guns. A study was done in NZ by the Police themselves on gun crime statistics. Basically what it revealed was the stats were misleading, true gun crime had in fact fell. But the way statistics were recorded had changed things as any crime vaguely related to guns got the "firearms related" box ticked. Even in those stats you posted notice the massive leap from 2000 to 2001 - I'm betting thats a changing of the classification process.
Likewise another factor has been crimes reported, the study revealed that people were reporting lesser crimes where they felt the police would not help. For example, a car broken into and some items stolen, if only one window was broken it might not be worth making an insurance claim, or police report. Because people have less faith in the police's ability to resolve or help in these cases they can't be arsed reporting them. Thus the statistics start to weight heavily towards the reported crimes, which tend to be violent stuff. (this study was done because some reports were saying crime was dropping, when in fact reports of crime were dropping but crime was on the rise.
I think its very hard for people to understand the respective views from each country unless they live in that country. My view is very honest, I think the USA has gone so far down the gun path there is no backing out - anyone who thinks you can de-gun the US is nuts. However countries like NZ, Aussie and Britain don't have the same problems.
-
Jackal - your entire post is totally US-centric, and bears no relation to the wider world. As such, I have nothing to say about it.
Africa - "Proof of what? What stat are you using to state that the good guys lose more often than win in armed vs armed situations? That is patently untrue. City police officers in nearly every major city will have at least 1 encounter with an armed criminal each day. I very seldom hear of one being injured or killed, although it does happen. The statistics Nashwan quoted show a very small percentage of police are being killed in the line of duty by armed criminals. Nice try, but a bit too big to swallow. "
I'm saying, as Nashwan has already said, that the number of police officers killed annually in the US in the execution of their duty is about 50 times as many as are killed in the UK, despite the fact that your population is only about 4-5 times bigger than ours. Like I said - and as Nashwan said before me - the stats attest to the fact that the police have a better chance of survival when Unarmed versus Unarmed rather than Armed versus Armed. The stats bear out what we say - these are the FACTS. You give France as an example, where only one death occurred during the rioting. One man who was brave enough to stand up to the thugs that had taken over the streets. One 61 year old man. Killed. I suppose you would rather let them run free and burn what they like then? If that 61 year old man had had a gun, perhaps without firing a shot he could have scared off the thugs who killed him, and he wouldnt have died. Also, he would have prevented another fire from being set. Two crimes that could have been prevented, had that old man had a gun.
Do you ever think about what you're typing? Let's look more closely at what you said. You're saying that if the 61 yo guy had had a gun, a crime could have been prevented. But have you stopped to consider the scenario that would need to exist for that guy to have been able to have a gun in the first place? No, you haven't, have you? OK, I'll tell you. He would have to have been able to walk into a store to buy a gun. But hey! Guess what? If that 61 yo guy was able to buy a gun, then so would all the rampaging schmucks. And then we would have seen dozens of shooting deaths - just like Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots of 1992.
Going back to the topic of this thread: It's funny that there are anti-gun Americans calling for a reduction of firearms in the US, but... not too many people in the rest of the (unarmed) world lobbying their government to make guns available at stores on every street corner. Funny that...
:aok
-
Really? You think they'd make it that easy for "rampaging schmucks" to buy guns? Its not here. The US has had its share of riots over the last 40 years or so. I dont recall very many gun related deaths in those. Most of the deaths were tramplings, beatings, stabbings.........
Yes I think about what I type. I'm not always right, but I do put thought into it.
-
I love how these threads always turn into "beetle vs. the United States."
I'm happy with how our country is run. I don't feel the need to explain it to someone who has a differing opinion. In cases like this, I'd be better off attempting to get the plate in front of me to agree.
-
The pro-gun stance is that "10,000 gun deaths a year is a pittance, and a price worth paying for the right to bear arms", but then... "if only that ONE 61yo Frenchman had had a gun, he MIGHT have stood a 50-50 chance of survival" - overlooking the fact that there would then have been dozens of other shootings and deaths - just as there were in Los Angeles in 1992 - because all the perpetrators of the violence would be armed too.
If ever there was a testimonial for an "unarmed" society, France 2005 must be near the top of the list. But Vulcan is right - it will never happen in the US. Really? You think they'd make it that easy for "rampaging schmucks" to buy guns? Its not here. The US has had its share of riots over the last 40 years or so. I dont recall very many gun related deaths in those. Most of the deaths were tramplings, beatings, stabbings.........- Africa
Oh yeah? Well it didn't take me long to find this - and I wasn't really looking that hard.
THREE DAYS OF HELL IN LOS ANGELES (http://www.emergency.com/la-riots.htm) - Los Angeles, CA - Following a jury verdict which acquitted four L.A.P.D. officers of charges resulting from the video- taped beating of motorist Rodney King, Southcentral Los Angeles erupted in a violent and deadly outburst of arson and shooting.
- Los Angeles Mayor Thomas Bradley has been following the rsie of violence and has repeatedly called for calm among the city's black citizens. Observers report, however, that many of those participating in looting and arson are not black, but rather, youths of hispanic and caucasian origin. Reports were also received that numerous reputed "street gang" members were seen to be participating in the violence and shooting.
- Fire Chief Donald Manning appealed to L.A. citizens to discontinue the practice of assaulting and shooting at firefighters who were attempting to fight the conflagrations.
- Los Angeles, CA - The latest reported deaths in Los Angeles bring to thirty-eight the total that have been killed as the result of the fires, riots, and shooting that has plagued this second largest American city. The death toll has risen following another night of violence and mayhem that is said, by some, to be the consequences for the acquittal of four L.A.P.D. officers in Simi Valley, CA on Wednesday.
- As the senseless violence reached it's peak in Los Angeles on Thursday night, reports began to be received that it had spread to other cities and states across the country. In Northern California, 1,400 people were arrested in San Francisco as rioting engulfed the city's downtown area. A State of Emergency was declared there and a curfew established. In Los Vegas, a mob of two-hundred (200) people went on a rampage, setting fires, and engaged in sniper fire and drive-by shootings. Local law enforcement officials admitted that they were overwhelmed and requested the activation of the Nevada National Guard.
- One Los Angeles firefighter is reported in stable, but serious, condition at an area hospital following his being shot in the face while fighting a blaze.
- According to a police spokesman at least five (5) people have been shot by police and one was killed in a gun-battle in the city's Inglewood area.
- At least four (4) police officers and three (3) firefighters have been shot and hundreds of other injuried as they attempted to control the fires and lawlessness of the past three days.
- One firefighter was quoted as saying yesterday; "I'd feel a lot more secure if they gave me a rifle". He was responding to the fact that at least three firefighters have been reportedly shot while in the performance of their duties, and that often police officers were not available to accompany and protect fire units while they performed their already dangerous duties.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Eden
TEven more ironcally an MAS-49 or an SKS rifle is also not banned (magazines of 10 rounds - original configuration)
Are you sure for the MAT ?
misread you wrote MAS not MAT.
-
MAS 49.
(http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1478/mas491yl.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Not a bad shooter but the ammo is getting hard to find (7.5mm). I like the clip on the side of the magazine holding it into the weapon. It is a sturdy weapon with a nice sighting systep. Looks are a matter of personality.
I actually have quite a few French rifles that I shoot on occasion
Lebel - Berthier (WW1 - 5 round mannlicher style clip)
Lebel Carbine (Tube fed military rifle - cut down in the 1930s for use by the cavalry - holds 3 round in its tube)
Mas 36 (last bolt action rifle developed by a modern nation to take the 7.5mm cartridge developed from the 8mm mauser round)
Mas 49 (early semi-automatic rifle)
I hear that there is a MAS-49/56 in .308.
-
You own a Lebel R 35 ?
Pretty rare gun I must say.
-
LOL.. beet is allways good for a laugh... "10,000 gun deaths a year" but wait... 52% of em were committed by blacks against blacks... that being the case... take out that portion of our homicides (all homicides) and... we match lilly white nannied to death england pretty closely in homicides (all homicides )per capita... beet has his subjects live in high crime on their knees for nothing...
a couple of cops a year coming out on the wrong end of a gunfight in a country of 300 million a reason to disasarm all the victims of crime? Is he serious?
vulcan... I see all this crime reporting between the two countries criticized.. Fact is... it never looks good for the gun grabbers no matter who does the counting and what method they use... it is like gore recounting over and over hoping to win.... Gun grabbers and socialists never get the results they want in the stats from disarming the victims. One thing is certain... the crime allways goes up... the other thing is that is certain is that the gun grabbers won't admit it and will allways try to explain away the rise in crime... All of a sudden... their governments want to be known as increasing crime so they "Twist the stats" for example to make themselves look worse... or... something in the water makes everyone go crazy and report crimes... or.. a hacker got into the computer... whatever. Lame lame lame.
Beet gives a perfect socialist example of the evils of firearms... He states that in the french riots... everyone just allowed their property to be destroyed and that only one man... unarmed... tried to stop the criminals and he was murdered... if he had just hid under the bed like all the other good little poor and middle class and weak socialists... or went on an extended vacation to a country not in riot like a good little rich socialist like beet... he would have been fine..
Everyone being tyranizes and terrorized and having their property destroyed while the hide or run away is good quality of life? better than having the tools to stop it and maybe taking that 1 in 100,000 chance or better that it won't work out better than hiding?
Criminals commiting crime is a good reason to disarm the victims? this makes sense somehow in a socialists mind?
Protect me from myself or my neighbors by making me helpless?
no friggin thanks sissy government hack. Come and get em. Don't expect me to be civil with you in the arguement tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by straffo
You own a Lebel R 35 ?
Pretty rare gun I must say.
Thanks,
I knew you would recognize. I got lucky in finding this one. I take it out and shoot it every once in a while (still have some ammo for it). Makes quite a stir at the range when I do. Kicks like a mule and not very accurate but interesing weapon none the less. Luckily I read up on it before shooting it and learned that the original ammo had a rounded nose. THe stuff I got was for the Berthier (came on clips) and has pointed tips. Since it is a tube fed weapon I had to clip the tips of the ammo to prevent discharge in the tube (Tip of one round striking the primer of the next). :eek:
-
the french have never let proven design get in the way of them making oddball weapons.
lazs
-
It is pretty odd but it was designed and released in 1886 to compete with the 11mm Mauser Mdle 1871/84. Early weapon designers thought that tube fed weapons were the eay to go (it made them longer and ungainly but with a long spike bayonet on the end it turned them into a giant spear usefull against horses.) Turned out that the Berthier rifle (with the internal 3 and/or 5 round clip) was better.
It was cut down in the 1930s (due to a concern over the activities in Germany) and was intended to be issued to second line troops. I've seen one with german markings on it (captured and re-used during the war).
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9774/r352va.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Long and interesting history.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The pro-gun stance is that "10,000 gun deaths a year is a pittance, and a price worth paying for the right to bear arms", but then... "if only that ONE 61yo Frenchman had had a gun, he MIGHT have stood a 50-50 chance of survival" - overlooking the fact that there would then have been dozens of other shootings and deaths - just as there were in Los Angeles in 1992 - because all the perpetrators of the violence would be armed too.
If ever there was a testimonial for an "unarmed" society, France 2005 must be near the top of the list. But Vulcan is right - it will never happen in the US. Oh yeah? Well it didn't take me long to find this - and I wasn't really looking that hard.
THREE DAYS OF HELL IN LOS ANGELES (http://www.emergency.com/la-riots.htm)
France 2005 has already happened in the US, several times, as evidenced by your link. However, your quote shows the word "shooting" used several times, only one death is listed there. Searching I can only find references to 2 deaths caused by shooting from the entire thing, and one of those was a motorist who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and didnt show his hands fast enough, and was shot by a national guard soldier. All the rest of the 50-60 deaths during the riots seem to have been caused by beating, burning, etc. There were INJURIES caused by gunfire, most of which came as a result of gang members (again, holding ILLEGAL weapons) shooting at police and rescue workers, or in a gun battle with the Vietnamese shop owners in South Central LA (most of whom were veterans and well armed enough to hold off their attackers).
-
Searching I can only find references to 2 deaths caused by shooting from the entire thing, and one of those was a motorist who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and didnt show his hands fast enough, and was shot by a national guard soldier. All the rest of the 50-60 deaths during the riots seem to have been caused by beating, burning, etc.
35 people were shot dead during the riots
17 were shot by looters or in drive by shootings
3 were shot whilst looting (2 by shopkeepers, 1 probably by other looters)
2 were people defending their shops accidentally shot by other people defending their shops. 1 was a Korean, with a group of Korean shopkeepers, who got in a battle with other Korean shopkeepers, both sides thought the others were looters. The other was a security guard, shot in the back of the head by other shopkeepers who owned shops in the mall he was guarding, as they battled looters.
8 were people shot by the police or soldiers whilst engaged in crime.
2 were bystanders accidentally shot by the police or national guard during incidents where the police were shooting at third parties.
1 was shot during a drug deal
2 were shot in unknown circumstances
In the tally of shopkeepers vs rioters
2 "shopkeepers" were shot dead by other shopkeepers by mistake
1 shopworker was shot and killed whilst making deliveries
1 neighbour was shot trying to stop the looting of a shop
2 rioters were shot by shopkeepers defending their shops.
Over $1 billion in damage was caused, over 600 buildings completely destroyed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. beet is allways good for a laugh... "10,000 gun deaths a year" but wait... 52% of em were committed by blacks against blacks... that being the case... take out that portion of our homicides (all homicides) and... we match lilly white nannied to death england pretty closely in homicides (all homicides )per capita... beet has his subjects live in high crime on their knees for nothing...
Apples and oranges again, Lazs. If you would refer to this gun thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133048) from last year, you'll see a British newspaper article bearing details of gun victims. You visited that thread, and your response was that the article was a "racist ad". It wasn't; it's just that here as in America, a significant proportion of gun crime is committed by non-whites against other non-whites. If you want a level playing field comparison instead of your own biased and skewed suggestion above ^ we'd have to remove all British gun crime involving non-whites as well. Your gun homicide rate is much higher than ours, whichever way you cut it.
I tried to make sense of the rest of your post, but failed.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Over $1 billion in damage was caused, over 600 buildings completely destroyed.
More guns, less crime! :aok :rofl
-
The last thing a criminal wants is to get shot. If he even thinks you have a gun, he will not mess with you. Common sense.
Les
-
this is really funny... now beet seems to be claiming that 52% of all homicides commited in the U.S. being done by blacks on blacks is the same as in england? that your 2% black population commits 52% of your homicides? nope... take away all the black on black homicides for both countries and the homicide rate for both is about the same. Apples to apples.. and I don't recall saying that the add was a "racist add" not unless I was making an obvious joke.
nashwan... so you would rather see maybe 100 dead shopkeppers? it is a fact that most of the korean shopkeepers openly defended their shops and were never even bothered.. How would they have fared without firearms openly displayed? Still... it matters not... they should have the right to defend themselves no matter how it comes out. Are you suggesting that they would have all been better off if none of the law abiding was armed?
and... the 17 killed by drivebys may have been a higher number... many gang members used the riot as cover to take revenge on other gang members... I had read where allmost all the dead had long police records.
The "drivebys" weren't against people walking on the sidewalk out for a stroll in the riot. They weren't home invasions of armed citizens... they were gang warfare.
Most Americans would rather die in a gunfight than to live through the beating that truck driver got and was filmed... he has to live with that for the rest of his life. Most would rather not be beaten by a gang while their wife or child is being raped...
But... I know that you will never understand that... that is why we threw you guys out allmost 250 years ago... you didn't get it then and you don't get it now. You believe that the more the stupid and dangerous humans around you are restricted... the better it will be for everyone... we believe the more free you are to make your own choices and the less government you have the better off you will be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Leslie
The last thing a criminal wants is to get shot. If he even thinks you have a gun, he will not mess with you. Common sense.
Tell that to the bereaved families of the ~50 US police officers killed annually in the line of duty.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
The last thing a criminal wants is to get shot. If he even thinks you have a gun, he will not mess with you. Common sense.
Les
Except if they have a gun and think they will got you first.
-
That's kinda hitting below the belt, don't you think Beet1e? All fights are fights to the death, and if you don't think so, you have much to learn. Are you trying to apply gentleman rules to self defence situations?
I'm not gonna try to tell anyone anything. You seem to know more about it than I do. The police know it can happen. Their families live with it. You tell em.
Les
-
that your 2% black population
Made up number.
nope... take away all the black on black homicides for both countries and the homicide rate for both is about the same.
No. Take away all homicides committed by black people in the US and the US still has a rate of about 2.7 per 100,000. The figure for England and Wales, including the Black and urban population, is about 1.7 per 100,000. Excluding London, but including the highest crime area in Britain, greater Manchester, the rate is 1.4 per 100,000
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, lazs, it still isn't true.
nashwan... so you would rather see maybe 100 dead shopkeppers?
No, I'd rather none, like in the French riots, or the various British riots.
it is a fact that most of the korean shopkeepers openly defended their shops and were never even bothered.
That's not what the Koreans say. Damage to Korean property was immense, 350 shops burnt out, another 1,700 looted or otherwise damaged. A third of Korean buisnesses were so badly damaged they never reopened.
(http://www.fragmentsweb.org/photos/5-92D_17.jpeg)
How would they have fared without firearms openly displayed?
Lazs, if a gun gives a citizen the power to defend themselves against a criminal, what do you think a gun does for a criminal? The same way that you feel safe because you've got a gun, the criminal also feels safe that he's got one. It gives him the courage to commit crimes.
Whilst you feel invinvible, and can't comprehend a situation in which the criminal might actually shoot you, he feels the same, and can't comprehend the situation in which his victim might shoot him.
He actually has more reason to feel confident, as he will have the initiative in any encounter, because he's the one who instigates it.
Are you suggesting that they would have all been better off if none of the law abiding was armed?
I'm suggesting they'd have been better off if the rioters weren't armed.
and... the 17 killed by drivebys may have been a higher number... many gang members used the riot as cover to take revenge on other gang members... I had read where allmost all the dead had long police records.
Of course you had. If someone gets shot, blame the victim.
The "drivebys" weren't against people walking on the sidewalk out for a stroll in the riot.
Again, blame the victim.
In Lazs world, if someone gets shot, they must be a criminal, because the good guys never get shot.
Most Americans would rather die in a gunfight than to live through the beating that truck driver got and was filmed... he has to live with that for the rest of his life.
Perhaps it would be better to be like Matthew Haines, pulled off his motorbike, beaten, then shot dead?
Denny survived, and made a pretty full recovery.
If you think having a handgun on you will save you from a mob, I suggest you look at the film of the attack on Derek Wood and David Howes, two British army corprals in Northern Ireland, who took a wrong turn int heir car, were set upon by a mob, pulled from their car and murdered. Both had pistols.
But... I know that you will never understand that... that is why we threw you guys out allmost 250 years ago... you didn't get it then and you don't get it now. You believe that the more the stupid and dangerous humans around you are restricted... the better it will be for everyone... we believe the more free you are to make your own choices and the less government you have the better off you will be.
Not at all. I wouldn't put up with many of the restrictions you put up with. I wouldn't accept my government's right to detain me indefinately without trial, as you do.
I just recognise that letting everyone have free access to tools designed to kill people is a bit silly.
Your government does too, which is why they ban the more effective tools designed to kill people, like chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.