Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on December 06, 2002, 11:31:43 AM
-
Lots of press in canada about our national gun registry. The program was supposed to cost 500 million and bring in 499 million in fees...It has cost a net 1billion and the are asking for another 72 million. After an uproar in the house of commons the goverment withdrew its request for further money.
In talking about this topic at work and with friends..I am amazed at how many people view gun control in canada. Certainly my support of the concept is not typical of the people I have talked to. Most of them think the concept is silly as the criminals will just ignore it. And if carried through it will make a class of criminals out of other wise law abiding citizens. They think gun proliferation is bad..but the current registration is percieved as silly.
An opinion no doubt shared by many people on this board.
A very close friend of mine was particularly elequent on the issue.
"When was the last time that a new law made our lives better or achieved its pronounced goal" she said.
"Drunk driving has worked I think" I replied...
"Drunk driving works because the police pull you over arbitratly and and you have to prove you are not drunk,
Are we willing to have road blocks that arbitrarily search for firearms..or arbitrary search of homes where you must prove you have no firearms?"
I had no answer for that...and I am still thinking about it.
-
Gun laws like Canada's don't make much sense to me (as well as many in the US). By definition isn't a criminal already someone who is ignoring or breaking the law? So why would they hesitate to do so again?
Are we willing to have road blocks that arbitrarily search for firearms..or arbitrary search of homes where you must prove you have no firearms?"
hehehe they try that in the US, and there's gonna be some serious firefights ! ;)
In the part of the country where I live, if the Feds didn't come in with armor and attack choppers, the locals would most likely send them packing with their tails between their legs (and even then it might get dicey). And if you think I'm kidding, do some research on the Coal field wars, and some of the other things that have went on during Strikes or Fueds in the Appalachians. People around here are very serious about their guns.
-
2 questions:
- is it $500 million a year, or is that just the startup cost?
- what is gun registration expected to accomplish?
With the rate of gun crime in Canada already so low, why mess with a good thing?
I know, none of my Yankee business.
ra
-
Our government is bellybutton and full of ultra melons.
Anyone that voted Liberal in the last election has my sincerest .
-
- is it $500 million a year, or is that just the startup cost?
Start up.
- what is gun registration expected to accomplish?
Who diddlying knows.
- With the rate of gun crime in Canada already so low, why mess with a good thing?
Who diddlying knows.
- I know, none of my Yankee business.
Sure it is. NRA can have a field day with this.
-
man that bites.
The one thing you can count on is criminals ignoring the law(s).
-
lets see 1 billion for gun registry and 1.7 Billion over 3 years for the defense budget.
nice priorities :)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
lets see 1 billion for gun registry and 1.7 Billion over 3 years for the defense budget.
nice priorities :)
It is an embarassment we are 17th outta 18 NATO nations for defense spending per capita.
It wasn't so long ago when we were at the leading edge of defense development.But the federal Conservative party chopped the Avro Arrow and thus began the steady decline in spending,pride and dependace on our southern friends.
-
thrawn you live in ottowa your in a perfect position to DO something about it...or one of your visiting yankee freinds
;)
-
'INEXCUSABLE FAILURE'
In her report, the A-G lambasted the Liberal regime for its "inexcusable failure" to provide complete information on the gun registry and other spending messes.
This is the same A-G who blasted the Chretienites for not spending enough on the armed forces to replace its deteriorating and obsolete equipment. And she blew the whistle on questionable spending on Liberal-connected promotion programs in Quebec.
Her audits have revealed such government idiocies as sending heating rebate cheques to 7,500 dead people, 1,600 convicts and to 4,000 people who didn't even live in Canada.
Of course, the Canadian Alliance and other opposition parties can scream all they want about such incompetence and horrible waste of taxpayers' dollars.
As in the days of Henderson, Liberal MPs have been grumbling about Fraser's findings - suggesting she isn't impartial. And perhaps they'll try to get her dumped - the same kind of tactic they tried against Henderson.
Hopefully, they will fail. Canadians need her services badly, even if the arrogant Liberals keep on ignoring her findings - the bitter, costly truth.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by vorticon
thrawn you live in ottowa your in a perfect position to DO something about it...or one of your visiting yankee freinds
;)
Good point, someone send me a pie.
Heheh.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It is an embarassment we are 17th outta 18 NATO nations for defense spending per capita.
.... thus began the steady decline in spending,pride and dependace on our southern friends.
What's one more? Don't worry, we'll cover for you guys too. ;)
-
It was originally supposed to cost TWO million dollars, with any additional costs covered by fees.
Are we willing to have road blocks that arbitrarily search for firearms..or arbitrary search of homes where you must prove you have no firearms?"
Pongo my pal, this exists already, part of C68 says that if the police merely SUSPECT that there is firearms in a residence, they DO NOT need a warrant in order to search your home specifically for those firearms. You probably think I'm joking, but check out the MP who is the whip for the Firearms act's website.
My personal favorite, 132% error rate, which is accurate IMO as many of my cop pals who own firearms OWN files are in error with the Canadian Firearms Center. Hell, I sold a USP over 16 months ago to an RCMP member, and the CFC still is adamant that I should have it at my place, even though I have their paperwork saying it is transfered. Crazyness.
A local radio talk show host here who is VERY anti gun had a great show the other day. His home province Ontario had 3900 accidental deaths last year. 199 were with firearms. 87% of those were suicides. 11% were Homocides, and 80% of those were with smuggled non registered pistols from the USA. A whole FOUR people died from accidents. What a crock of toejam to spend a billion dollars on. Here is the best part: If the Liberals main motivation is "safety" and "gun violence prevention", why in the diddly did the 650+ people caught AT the border smuggling INTENTIONALLY handguns into this country NOT get ONE DAY of jail time. WTF?!?! Ya, that just solidifies the argument that confiscation lists is what this is all about. Lloyd Axworthy, one time Foreign affairs minister, at a UN summit on gun control, stood up in front of the world and said Canada would take the lead in the west in "disarming citizens", since only the "police and military should be armed at all". These were his exact words. Well, it is out in the wash now.
The Mini-14 Marc Lepine used exactly 13 years ago today to murder 13 women at Polytechnique, the event that spawned this law, can still be purchased in 5 minutes from any store in this country. Marc Lepine's own rifle was bought legally with the register system (FAC at every gun shop) in 1989. This law does not do the women who died any justice whatsoever, IMO the anit gun movement dishounors them by continuing to support this abortion. If they got tougher on crime, and acutally enforced the laws, instead of saying "oh poor Hamir is a refugee and just made a mistake, so we won't charge his handsomehunk, and take his handgun and send him on his way", we'd have a lot more success and a lot less violence. But when people are bent on mass homicide, like Lepine was, a gun will always be gotten a hold of, laws or not.
Handguns have been registered since 1934. Fat good it has done us. Obviously this is about confiscation and disarmament, as the facts are staring everyone right in the face as to how the '34 law has helped us.
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/guncontrol.htm
Read that from the bottom to the top if you want to see the REAL waste, it's ridiculous.
-
gman... I think you can see why we in the U.S. are so suspicious of "gun regestration" and fear confiscation and loss of liberty as a result. In the U.S. the anti gun crowd comes up with some new way to make owning firearms more complex and expensive every day. They know they can't take peoples guns away legaly so they try to make it to much trouble to own one.
We see england and Canada and australia gun laws and we don't want any part of that crap.
lazs
-
Our government is bellybutton and full of ultra melons.
LOL Thrawn!
You just became human in my eyes.
;)
-
From Gman's link:
"One man is murdered with a firearm every 3 days. One woman is murdered with a firearm every 9 days.
One man is murdered with a knife every 5 days. One woman is murdered with a knife every 10 days."
The Canadians seem to have that "sharp instrument" thing under control. Not like the Brits with 3X the "sharp instrument" homicide when compared to their firearm homicide.
You'd think the Brits would really be working on that "sharp instrument" homicide rate but they seem oblivious to it.
-
Mr. Toad is right. Our sharp instrument homicide rate is far in excess of the homicide rate by firearms. I will write to Home Secretary, David Blunkett, recommending that more guns be allowed into circulation amongst the general public in the hope that firearms related homicides will exceed 300 annually. (5% of the US tally) That way, the sharp instrument homicide rate will be on a par with firearms homicides. :rolleyes:
-
I find it ironic that the British "need" sharp instruments for food preperation when everyone knows that British cuisine has killed more people than knives and guns combined.
BTW Pongo... excellent post. I bet that wasn't easy.
AKDejaVu
-
Gee, Beetle. I thought from your posts you were one of those "if only ONE life is saved, all this inconvenience and restriction is worth it."
Yet now you want to put more guns into circulation rather than REDUCE the number of "sharp instruments" that are involved in some many homicides in your country? (yes, I saw the rolleyes)
Come, come, come. Let's be consistent here. Aren't you the one saying you must reduce guns in circulation to reduce firearms homicides?
Would this not also be true of "sharp instruments?" Wouldn't you need to reduce the number of those in circulation to reduce "sharp instrument" homicide?
Because if you can eventually reduce all dangerous objects to zero... make a "nerf" society if you will..... then criminals will stop killing people altogether, right? They wouldn't slug their fellow man over the head with a rock like Cain did to Abel, would they?
Oh... wait....... that was the rock's fault, of course.
-
Thats just National Rock Association retoric.
-
Like it or not, it takes a human losing control of his anger, losing control of his soul even, to kill another human being in a homicide situation.
The implement used is a distant second to that failure.
-
Mr. Toad - OK, so why is your very own president Dubya going to so much trouble to ensure that Iraq does not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? After all, people kill people. It's not the fault of sarin/tabun/VX gases. :rolleyes: << another rolleyes.
Indeed, to use Lazs's logic, the world should be a safer place if every nation is armed to the teeth. So why doesn't Dubya furnish Iraq with nuclear weapons? More nukes = less wars? Or, how about "More Nukes, Fewer Wars. Genocide: Understanding Genocide and Nuke/WMD Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" :rolleyes: <
-
LOL, I edited that post immediately just for you. Right after I posted it I thought "I better add 'in a homicide situation' for Beetle. Otherwise he'll make some silly association between Jack the Ripper killing a hooker with a sharp instrument and a nation attacking another nation in an attempt to make them look like the same thing."
Tell me, if Hussein uses his chemical scuds against another sovereign nation, would it count in the "homicides per 100,000" stats for Iraq? :p
-
gee beetle... I think ya gotta admit that the world was a safer place when it wasn't just the bad guys who had nukes? If yu look at the present situation... we are treating nukes kinda the same now... they are in the hands of the good guys but we are taking em away from the bad guys...
still... you seem to be evading toads question... wouldn't some sensible knife control prevent the needless slaughter in limeyland? I mean... do it for the children... you could simply ban em and allow em only at "home office" approved eateries... knife collecting preverts could have "knife clubs" where the pervs could go to fondle their knives. Surely you are not oppossed to some sensible legislation?
I bet that somebody with a knife would think twice about attacking a concealed carry permit owner... they do here. That is our form of "knife control". that and not being able to take even a nail file on an airplane.
lazs
-
ROFL! Mr. Toad. :)
Lazs - Our Home Office has stats on US homicides. Does your Bureau of Justice have stats on Britain's knife homicides? -would love to see, because you sound like you're talking out of your arse. :D
-
Mr. Toad! Quite a few people are fond of citing a "sharp objects" homicide crisis in Britain, including yourself. Just to set the record straight, I revisited that Bureau of Justice website which gives details of homicides by method used. In the years 1976-2000, the US experienced at least 2,000 homicides a year by knives, and sometimes almost 5,000. I think you and Lazs would agree with me that a knife is a "sharp instrument". Seems like your sharp instrument problem over there is worse than ours! LOL! Just setting the record straight. :D To paraphrase the bible (Matthew Ch.7) (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bg?passage=Matthew+7) you should first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you may be able to see well enough to remove the speck of sawdust from mine. :D:D
Indeed, it seems like you have a "blunt object" crisis, as the number of US homicides with a "blunt instrument" exceeds the total number of UK homicides by any method for most years. :eek:
Bureau of Justice URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Well, must dash. I've been promised a nice roast beef dinner tonight. It will be good. I wish you could be here to join us.
Toodle-Pip! :D:D
-
you could simply ban em and allow em only at "home office" approved eateries
It sounds silly, but that's because it is silly.
If you can't come up with a sensible way of banning sharp objects, it's because no-one can.
Unlike guns, they are absolutley necessary.
Humans have been using sharp objects for the past million years or so.
As I said before, everybody here owns and uses sharp objects on a daily basis. Most do not own or use guns regulary.
Guns are also far more lethal than knives. In America, where guns are (almost) freely available, guns are used for several times as many murders as knives are, despite the fact there are many times as many knives in use.
Many countries have banned or severly restricted guns, non have banned knives. That's because it isn't practical, and your joke suggestion remains just that, a joke.
Like it or not, it takes a human losing control of his anger, losing control of his soul even, to kill another human being in a homicide situation.
The implement used is a distant second to that failure.
Lose control of your anger with you fists and you are likely to hurt someone. Lose control of your anger with a gun and you are likely to kill them.
The number of people murdered during an argument or act of revenge in England and Wales was 254. In the US it was just over 4000, a rate 2.5 times that of the UK.
Take out the guns from the US figure, and the rate is almost exactly the same as the UK.
Are you seriously saying you wouldn't be more concerned if you got in to an argument and the man pulled a gun on you, rather than simply put up his fists?
If you want to defend yourself and your family, why do you need a gun, as according to your theory a knife or rock is just as effective a weapon?
-
Didn't intend to have a total hijack of Pongo's thread, which seems to me is more about total government incompetence and the results of attempting "gun control" in that case.
I was actually just mirroring a anti's behavior.
Look for replies in another thread.
Apologies, Pongo.
-
So you are telling me that Canada is spending 1 billion a year to register and keep track of guns in the hands of law-abiding (by default) citizens while they only spend 1.7 billion over three years on national defense. What on earth are you people thinking? I bet those few snipers in Afghanistan were the whole Canadian army. And didnt the Canadian government reject a US request to award some combat performance and bravery medals to that unit because it could be seen as "militarism" in sensitive Canadian minds?
-
beetle... our government doesn't track stats in england because... well.... we just don't care what you do.. we don't have the same envy problem that you do. You also seem to freely mix total homicides and homicides per capita figures.. kinda hard to follow. maybe you could do the math for me and compare our allmost 300,000,000 people with your less thatn 50,000,000? Also... you might compare ease of getting away with crime... seems that for being on a little tiny island that you can't even get off of without permission... your criminals are acting rather brazenly... here... serial killers can live in a car and travel freely within an area that would stagger a brit.
but yeah... I shouldn't have taken the bait but beetle hijacks every thread with a his busybody "home office" nanny post.
lazs
-
Lazs -
beetle... our government doesn't track stats in england because... well.... we just don't care what you do..
Erm, I doubt that. But assuming that for one moment it is true, what is your source of data on the UK? You seem to like quoting stats, so if what you say in the quote above is true, your comments are without foundation and you really are, as I suspected, talking out of your arse.
Mr. Toad! hehe, you've chosen an opportune moment to depart from this thread. ;) But I agree - we have hijacked pongo's thread. Sorry Pongo - this is my last post here.
-
I feel certain you'll find the "continuation" thread. :cool:
-
beetle... what stats are you saying that I have quoted without documentation? I either give the documentation or make it clear that it is my opinion.
I noticed that you have conviently not stuck to the content of this thread tho. What do you think of Canada's plane.... please don't tell me that you are not interested in voicing your opinions about another countries policies even tho you have absolutely no info other than the (LOL) "home office".
lazs
-
"...The program was supposed to cost 500 million.....It has cost a net 1billion and the are asking for another 72 million...".
Actually it was supposed to cost 2 million in startup costs and it ended up costing 500 times that...1 billion. Then they had the nerve to ask for more money since they now have no money left in the budget to operate the program.
You can argue the merits of a gun registry all you want, but what has upset most people is the mismanagement of money.
bowser
-
You can argue the merits of a gun registry all you want, but what has upset most people is the mismanagement of money.
That's even sadder.
-
Originally posted by ra
That's even sadder.
It's called debate. I don't see how that's a bad way to discusses the merits and flaws of an idea. Usually better to debate an idea then to blindly follow some idea just because someone thinks it's a good idea.
Bowser, I heard the startup cost was supposed to be $500 million, which was supposed to be offset by $499 million in fees.
-
It's called debate.
Enlighten me, what's the debate? Individual rights vs the cost of eliminating them?
-
Originally posted by ra
Enlighten me, what's the debate? Individual rights vs the cost of eliminating them?
Go look it up and then come back a pretend you know what the hell you are talking about.
-
From what I've read, the feds figured they would collect about 140 million in registration fees which would cover all of the startup costs except for 2 million. However, that was based on a $60 registration fee which has been discounted and waived in many cases to encourage compliance. And of course a lot fewer people have registered then anticipated. So they didn't get much of that $140 million. As well, a $227 million computer system which is already out of date added to the cost. Not sure where the other $600 or so million went. Maybe office supplies? What the annual operating costs will be is "unclear" at this point. Yikes.
bowser
-
Hell, they spent 37 million on just the TV adds, not the airtime, of those 2 goofs in the bar saying "it's time to get a license and register guns, blah blah blah". BTW that was another insider scandal that got swept under the rug, look it up.
Alan Rock promised me to my face in Calgary, and several other people including police officers that the costs to the taxpayer would be 2 million or less, with 120 million being a stratosphere figure that was to be made up by fees. He also promised he'd scrap the law, then resign if it ever topped 120 million.
The money is what gets joe public angry, but to me, it's just the uselessness of the law. If anyone can tell me just once where this law we have saved anyone's life, I'd love to hear it.
All they've been doing is building a confiscation list. Come back to this thread in a year or two, maybe less, when every gun in this country hits the prohibited list.
BTW, the new FRT ident disk we got today had a "slip up" in it, where the Feds reclassified a bunch of target pistols and rifles typically considered non-restriced or restricted to prohbited, so in reality it has already begun. This is precisely what happened to everyone in the UK and Australia.
This + Kyoto will be a sore spot with Western Canada that will likely be beyond repair.
All you pro-liberal guys should have a look at the figures very closely here, and consider what we're getting into with other similar deals, such as Kyoto and other high risk ventures. I'm not wanting to debate whether Kyoto for example is good or bad, but we are talking about numbers will a decimal place added to them in relation to the gun-law debocle. That would be enough to bring a Nation down IMO, if it was equally mismanaged.
This government has got to go, how unfortunate there is nobody else capable here of doing the job either. Makes you want to take a long walk off a short bridge when you think about it to long.
-
Go look it up and then come back a pretend you know what the hell you are talking about.
The people who sold you this brilliant scheme surely knew what they were talking about.
-
I believe that regestration is simply the first step in the real agenda.... confiscation. maybe not this year but soon.. I hope that I am wrong but I don't trust any government that has the means to round up all the weapons it citizens may use against it. In short... I don't trust any government that doesn't trust me with firearms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gman
All you pro-liberal guys should have a look at the figures very closely here, and consider what we're getting into with other similar deals, such as Kyoto and other high risk ventures. I'm not wanting to debate whether Kyoto for example is good or bad, but we are talking about numbers will a decimal place added to them in relation to the gun-law debocle. That would be enough to bring a Nation down IMO, if it was equally mismanaged.
This government has got to go, how unfortunate there is nobody else capable here of doing the job either. Makes you want to take a long walk off a short bridge when you think about it to long.
an interesting north of the border read (http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id={9DE04D2A-E2AF-4DDC-BADF-000D2BA34114})
seems your not the only thinking this way
-
I think LAZ an BEETLE are in LOVE:eek:
-
"But of course it is not a real Parliament run by real people: Ottawa is a surreal place, in which a billion dollars hardly matters, accountability by elected officials is a joke and cynical spin doctors make their living by counselling the government and the media about the stupidity of the voters."
Change Parliament to Congress and Ottawa to Washington, and you have the US. Pretty scary, huh?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are telling me that Canada is spending 1 billion a year to register and keep track of guns in the hands of law-abiding (by default) citizens while they only spend 1.7 billion over three years on national defense. What on earth are you people thinking? I bet those few snipers in Afghanistan were the whole Canadian army. And didnt the Canadian government reject a US request to award some combat performance and bravery medals to that unit because it could be seen as "militarism" in sensitive Canadian minds?
No its only 1 billion total. But that is in an economy 1/10th the size of the US. It would be 10 billion there.
In the same time frame we probably spent 5 billion on defence. But that is still a pathetic amount.
-
The only interest i have on this issue is one of wasteful and down right senseless spending by our Government. Another handsomehunked program in a seemingly endless string of handsomehunked programs.
The actual legislation doesnt really affect anything more than the bottom line on my paycheck. But of course if the Liberal government didnt spend this billion dollars on gun registration, they would surely find something even more idiotic to spend it on.
I dont own a gun, though I have. I dont hunt or shoot on a range, though I have. When the Canadian gub'ment decided to come out with this and previous gun registration, I got rid of all my firearms. It just wasnt worth the hassle or money.
This is a reflection of my view on firearms. Unlike lazs and others who hold the opinon that gun ownership = freedom (and they are entitle to this opinion,) I dont feel "oppressed" by my government restricting my access to firearms.
The real problem is that all this money is spent with no measureable benefit. In fact, like so many others like myself, people have given up hunting and sporting with firearms because of gun registration. That hurts so many sectors of the economy that 1 billion dollars seems like chump change.
Besides that, I GUARANTEE, that if i wanted to purchase any firearm (within reason) I could have it within 48 hours. Note: I have no intention of doing so. When you weigh the cost of the program with the benefits, this program just doesnt make sense.
p.s: Some of the most fun i had at the con was with ab8aac at the range.
p.p.s: Thrawn, i spoil my ballot every time I vote :)
-
^^
The above is probably where a lot of gun owning and non-gun owning Canadians stand.
Regardless of how you feel about using guns, and peoples ability/rights to do so, the waste of money on something 100% useless, and in fact dangerous, is inexcusable.
-
Originally posted by loser
p.p.s: Thrawn, i spoil my ballot every time I vote :)
Good for you, I certain hold more respect for the person that actually goes out and spoils there ballot then for the one that just doesn't bother to vote.
-
loser... I think you rove my point. The government doesn't have to ban anything to get rid of it. In fact... banning creates backlash... no.. all they have to do is make it so expensive and so much trouble that the casual and new user will throw up their hands and voluntarily surrender their rights. If that doesn't make you feel like your government is oppressing you then you differ so much from the average American that we could never agree. We don't trust our government here. No big deal but... It is allways best to question authority. Why set in motion a huge, wasteful program that could not possibly achieve it's STATED goals?
Are they that incompetent? that stupid? I mean.. It is fun to say so but really... Could they have missjudged by that large of an amount? I say no. I say that they had a pretty good handle on what the resul and the cost would be before they even started... Or at least... I believe my government would have and does.
simply not caring personaly about hunting or target shooting is no excuse to take away the freedom of fellow citizens and the future generation.
lazs
-
I work for the Canadian Gov. We leave the CFC out of budget benchmarks because it's so f@#$ed up.
-
171 firearms homicides of all kinds in canada in 2001.
Almost such a small number that you wonder what problem they are trying to solve with this billion dollar program.
-
...you wonder what problem they are trying to solve with this billion dollar program.
Obviously Canadian taxpayers had a billion dollars burning a hole in their pocket. The politicians were nice enough to put that fire out fast.
-
if solving gun crimes or preventing you from hurting yourselves is the reason then they are spending a lot of money for very little return... i can't imagine anything more wasteful... Being an American and naturally suspicious of big brother... i would conclude that their stated objective and their real one were two different things.
I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with firearms.
one time in Canada visiting my brother who is a citizen... I forgot about the Ruger speed six (four inch barell 6 shot in 38 special)in the van as I went across the border.. When I realized that i was in canada with an illegal firearm I was with a friend of my brothers.. He was facinated by the gun...Before I knwe it I had a dozen guys out at my brothers farm all looking at the "pistol"... I had one box of rounds plus 6 in the gun.. everyone wanted to shoot a "pistol" Only one of the dozen had ever shot a pistol and all believed that the gun would not hit a person from more than across the room. I set a 5 gallon can out about 75 yards and put 6 into it. I let them all take turns shooting a few rounds and everyone had a really great time.... Seeing these guys shoot a handgun for the first timne and knowing it was probly their last..It was enough to make you weep.
lazs
-
Lazs - my eyes are welling up with tears. May I borrow your shoulder? Oh, the emotion - I can't stand it...:(
-
didn't think you would get it beetle... any nannying is good nannying to you. never met a "home office" proclomation you didn't like. They wouldn't do it it if wasn't for your own good... you are to stupid to know what's good for you. they are saving you from yourself.
lazs
-
You don't get it lazs, you flaming hypocritic.
For the most part we like the way things are here just fine, and don't need you coming here with your illegal weapons and actually breaking our laws. Cripes, at least all beet1e has done is talk.
-
You don't get it thrawn you flaming hypocrite... we don't need you coming here and trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights.
i brought the gun in by accident. I wouldn't take the risk other wise. It was your citizens that were only too happy to "break the law" they did not seem all that happy with the status quo...they seemed very worried that we might get caught by the nannies tho. Every one of them is going around now with the memory of a good time shared that involved a handgun... every time your nanny tells em how evil a gun is from now on they will recall the truth and lose a little more respect for the busybodies.
lazs
-
Lazs..You need to see "Bowling For Columbine"'.
:D
-
sirloin... I will make you a deal... I will hunt out and watch the moore movie if.... you will read John Lotts "more guns less crime"
I will even buy you a copy if you wish.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You don't get it thrawn you flaming hypocrite... we don't need you coming here and trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights.
I have never gone to the US and tried to take away your second amendment rights.
You have come to my country and broken our laws.
It was your citizens that were only too happy to "break the law"
I'm sorry lazs, what law did they break exactly?
they did not seem all that happy with the status quo...
Nice thing about living in democracy. The type of nation that majority of the people want to live in is generally what the law of the land reflects.
they seemed very worried that we might get caught by the nannies tho.
If they were breaking the law then they better worry about the police. Do you refer to police officers upholding the law of the land in the US "nannies", as well?
I think your being hypocritical, because although I might disagree with some of the laws in the US, I certainly don't go there and and break them. Where as you, disagree with people tell you how your country should be run, and then go to a foreign nation and actually break it's laws.
-
171 firearms related homicides in a year..for a population of 30 million..weap about that lazs
-
Every one of them is going around now with the memory of a good time shared that involved a handgun
Geez, Lazs - I hope you didn't run out of KY jelly, and I hope you wiped off the barrel between "usages".
-
"Every one of them is going around now with the memory of a good time shared that involved a handgun"
I'm sure some people have fond memories of doing crack, doesn't make it legal.
-
Beetle please, dont be a tard.
Now laz, I have a couple questions that i hope you will answer.
1. Why do you "need" a handgun or any other firearm. Is it for personal and family protection? So if a burglar comes into your house with a gun, you can shoot him? Do you realize that more family members or innocent people are killed in "accidental discharge situations" than criminals?
Besides that, if you hear your window smashed at 4 am, you arent gonna shoot worth chit. You will end up hitting a family member who is panicking worse that you are (if that is possible.)
2. How does not owning a gun make you "un-American"
I know im reading into your posts. But i dont think it is a stretch. It seems that you pride yourself on owning a gun and you go so far as to define yourself by that same fact. "there is no laz if said laz isnt holding a gun."
Call me on that if you will, but that is the message that you send.
Most Americans do not own or use firearms of any sort. My experience with over-excited gun owners such as yourself is always the same. But the sad truth : YOU ARE NOT A COWBOY AND YOU ARE NOT JOHN WAYNE!!!!
So laz, and other. One last question....
Have you ever shot at someone and killed them with your handgun?
No? yeah that is what i thought...
So you get all in a huff for owning a gun for absolutely no reason.
-
The "safest" thing to do if someone enters your home,is NOT to confront the intruder...Call police if you can..collect family,lock/barracade room door and bail out the window if possible...DO NOT go looking!!!
-
pffffffffffffft
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Lazs..You need to see "Bowling For Columbine"'.
:D
Saw it.
While he pursued mutlitple lines of thought, I didn't really feel he brought any of them to a convincing conclusion.
It's almost "who didn't he blame"? No real suggestion on how to solve the problem either. The recurring theme seemed to me to be "how come the Canadians can have all those guns and not have the high homicide rate?" He didn't convincingly answer that one either.
It poses some good questions.. that's about it.
-
Loser - you do realise that you're opening the floodgates, don't you? If Lazs or anyone else of the same mindset answers your questions, this is going to go on and on. If you missed the earlier threads, I can supply the URLs.
Mr. Toad! I'm trying to get hold of Bowling for Columbine. Is it out on DVD yet? I want to see it while it's still topical, and would be delighted if someone would send me the DVD in the mail for full reimbursement. I realise that the recording format in the US is different, but I have a friend with a multi-region player.
-
loser... that was pretty funny... yeah.. yu may be reading just a "little" into the things I have never said.
No.... more people are not killed as family members and "accidental discharges" than criminals.. the stats are squewed to include wives shooting abusive husbands... neighbors breaking and entering... it is also true that most people "know" their murderer.. nothing to do with guns.
not having a gun doesn't make you un American... being a canadian makes not an American tho if that is what you mean... I have never said different. How does lieing about what I have said help your case? whatever it is..
What have I said that infers that I am any less or more depending on weather I have a firearm or not. I do feel that one should allways use the proper tool for the proper job and that bringing a gun to a knife fight is a pretty good idea.
I have not claimed to be John Wayne I believe that you may have made that up... Again... How does lieing about what I say help your case? And... what exactly is your case except that you have notions about me that you are upset with?
And... I have used handguns in 3 situations that I can recall where I believe that the handgun made the situation come out better... Everyone stayed very polite because of the gun...even if it didn't... there are 3,000,000 crimes a year stopped by firearms.. No... I haven't killed anyone. What does that have to do with it? It proves you don't know what you speak of... no accidentally shooting family members... no "gun accidents" resulting in injury or death. As for me not being able to shoot for toejam at 4 am... I really wouldn't count on that. and besides.. The reason we don't have "hot" burglaries here is because the burglars don't want to face a gun.
Now I gotta ask you.... as a canadian..... what do you care? I also gotta ask.... In view of all the overwhelming evidence that guns are a good thing in America.... How do you justify your hysterical and unreasonable fear of them? do you suffer from some neurosis? Perhaps it is just a personal thing? you dislike me so you make yourself look foolish to lash out? Don't be offended... I'm just trying to get at the truth in the same manner as you. Keeping up the dispasionate debate so to speak.
lazs
-
thrawn... crack? LOL... Target shooting with a handgun likened to crack addiction?
sirloin... the facts don't bear you out. In America... resisting with a firearm you are four times less likely to be injured if you are a woman than if you don't resist at all. If you are a man the number is 1.4 times.
lazs
-
From ReasonOnline (http://reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.shtml)
Cold Comfort
Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.
Interviewed by Jacob Sullum and Michael W. Lynch
Until recently, when he bought a 9-mm Ruger after his own research impressed upon him the value of gun ownership, John Lott had no personal experience with firearms, aside from one day of riflery in summer camp when he was 12. That fact did not stop a reviewer of Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press), from labeling him a "gun nut." Writing in The American Prospect, Edward Cohn also identified Lott as "a leading loon of the Chicago School of economics, known for its ultra-market ideology." But that was gentle--a backhanded compliment, even--compared to the attacks from anti-gun activists, who accused Lott of producing his landmark study at the behest of the gun industry.
Lott, now a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, used to be the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago. That position, like similar ones at other major universities, was endowed by a foundation based on the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin, former chairman of the Olin Corporation. Among many other things, the Olin Corporation makes Winchester ammunition. These facts led Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center to conclude that "Lott's work was, in essence, funded by the firearms industry"--a charge that was echoed by other gun control ad-vocates, including Charles Schumer, then a Democratic representative from New York and now a senator.
Never mind that assuming the Olin Foundation takes orders from "the firearms industry" is like assuming the Ford Foundation does the bidding of automakers. Never mind that Olin fellows are chosen by faculty committees, not by the foundation (with which Lott never had any contact). Proponents of gun control were desperate to discredit Lott, because his findings contradicted their dark predictions about what would happen if states allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.
Analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when states switch from discretionary permit policies, which give local officials the authority to determine who may carry a gun, to "shall issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require that permits be granted to everyone who meets certain objective criteria. That conclusion, first set forth in a 1997 paper that Lott co-authored with David Mustard, now an economist at the University of Georgia, heartened defenders of gun ownership and dismayed their opponents. Arguing that "shall issue" laws are beneficial, while other gun laws are ineffective at best, Lott quickly became one of the most widely cited--and reviled--scholars in the gun control debate.
Though it was the gun issue that brought Lott notoriety, it hasn't been the focus of his career. The 41-year-old economist, who earned his Ph.D. at UCLA, has published papers on a wide variety of topics, including professional licensing, criminal punishment, campaign finance, and public education. Last summer he published Are Predatory Commitments Credible? (University of Chicago Press), a skeptical look at theories of predatory pricing, and he is working on a book about the reputational penalties faced by criminals, a longstanding interest. In addition to his positions at Yale and the University of Chicago, Lott has served as chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and taught at UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania, among other schools. He lives in Swarth-more, Pennsylvania, with his wife and four children. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum and Washington Editor Michael Lynch talked to Lott at his Yale Law School office in mid-October.
Reason: How did you become interested in guns?
John R. Lott Jr.: About six years ago, I was teaching a class dealing with crime issues at the University of Pennsylvania, and it dawned on me that my students would be interested in some papers on gun control. It forced me to look at the literature systematically to decide what papers to assign to the class. I was shocked by how poorly done the existing research on guns and crime was.
You had very small samples. By far the largest previous study on guns and crime had looked at just 170 cities within a single year, 1980. Most of the rest looked at, say, 24 counties or 24 cities within a single year. No one had tried to account for things like arrest rates or conviction rates or prison sentence lengths. And the studies were all very limited in the sense that they were purely cross-sectional, where you look at the crime rates across jurisdictions in one year, or [purely longitudinal], where you pick one city or one county and look at it over time.
It was basically because of that class that I saw the benefit to going out and trying to do it right. So I put together what I think is by far the largest study that's ever been done on crime. The book has data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period. And simply having that large a data set allows you to account for hundreds of factors, thousands of factors, that you couldn't have accounted for in those smaller data sets.
Reason: What has been the most gratifying response to the book? Do you know of any criminologists whose views have been changed by your research?
Lott: Some well-known people like [University of Pennsylvania criminologist] John DiIulio and [UCLA political scientist] James Q. Wilson have said very nice things about the study. I think it's caused DiIulio to look at these issues differently, and there are other criminologists I know of who have been amazed by how strong the data are. I've done lots of empirical studies, and the regularities that you see here, in terms of the drops in violent crimes right after these laws go into effect, are very dramatic.
The intensity of the issue on both sides is something I wouldn't have expected before I got into it. I've been involved in a lot of debates, and people tell me, "You should have anticipated this before you did the study." But I've written about 80 academic articles, and the interest in this has been so outside the range of experiences I've had before. With the vast majority of articles, you're happy if you can get 10 people to read it.
Reason: The thrust of your argument in More Guns, Less Crime is easy enough to understand. But the details of the evidence you cite are hard to follow for anyone who is not trained in econometrics. Does it bother you that people who support the right to keep and bear arms are apt to accept your conclusions at face value, while those who are inclined to support gun control will tend to reject your findings, even though few people in either group are equipped to evaluate the evidence?
-
Lott: My guess is that [my critics] assume that the vast majority of people who hear their claims are not going to even look at the book. So they say, "Lott didn't account for poverty." Or they say, "Lott didn't account for other types of gun laws." Those are things that are easy to evaluate: Either I did, or I didn't. But I think they feel that they can get away with making those claims, because it'll be only a tiny fraction of 1 percent who will go and buy the book or get it from the library. I've never been involved in a debate like this, because in your normal academic debate, where there are 10 people involved and they've all read the paper, if somebody says, "Professor X didn't account for other gun laws," everybody else in the room would laugh, because they would know it was an absurd claim.
I don't think that most of the comments [the critics] are making are really that difficult to understand. One of the claims, for instance, is that I'm assuming that when these laws are passed there will be a one-time drop in violent crime rates, and it should be the same across all places that adopt these laws. That's absurd. I don't know how much time I spend in the book saying that the level of deterrence is related, according to the data, to the probability that people are going to be able to defend themselves, and the rate at which people get permits changes over time. When you pass these laws, not everybody who eventually is going to get a permit does it the first day. Fifteen years after these laws go into effect, you're still seeing an increasing percentage of the population getting these permits and a decreasing rate of violent crime because of the additional deterrence.
I spend lots of time in the book talking about why you don't expect the drop in crime to be the same in all places....In more urban areas [of states with discretionary permit laws], public officials were especially reluctant to issue permits. So when you change to a nondiscretionary rule, the biggest increases in permits tended to be in these urban areas, and that is where you observe the biggest drops in violent crime.
Reason: Your analysis shows that liberal carry permit policies are associated with lower crime rates even after controlling for a variety of factors that might also have an impact on crime. In the book you concede that some other variable that you did not consider could be responsible for this association. Yet at the end of the book, you write, "Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." Do statements like that go too far?
Lott: I don't think so. That's one of the last sentences in the book, and at that point the evidence is pretty overwhelming. There are different types of information, and they're all pointing in the same direction.
After these laws are adopted, you see a drop in violent crime, and it continues over time as the percentage of the population with permits increases. If I look at neighboring counties on either side of a state border, when one state passes its right-to-carry law, I see a drop in violent crime in that county, but the other county, right across the state border, in a state without a right-to-carry law, sees an increase in its violent crime rate. You try to control for differences in the legal system, arrest and conviction rates, different types of laws, demographics, poverty, drug prices --all sorts of things. You look at something like that, and I think it's pretty hard to come up with some other explanation. I think you're seeing some criminals move [across the state line].
You find the types of people who benefit the most from these laws. The biggest drops in crime are among women and the elderly, who are physically weaker, and in the high-crime, relatively poor areas where people are most vulnerable.
There are five or six things that one could point to that confirm different parts of the theory. I haven't heard anybody come up with a story that explains all these different pieces of evidence....Since you have all these states changing their laws at different times, it becomes harder and harder to think of some left-out factor that just happened to be changing in all these different states at the same time the right-to-carry law got changed.
Reason: A review of your book in The American Prospect claims that "his results are skewed by the inclusion of data from tiny counties with trivial rates of violent crime. In fact, when you consider only large counties and exclude Florida from the sample, his case completely falls apart." How do you respond?
Lott: When you drop out counties with fewer than 100,000 people, if anything it actually increases the size of the effect. What [the reviewer is] saying is that if you not only drop out counties with fewer than 100,000 people--which is 86 percent of the counties in the sample, so it's not just a few small counties that we're talking about--but also drop out Florida, then the changes in two of the violent crime categories, when you're just looking at the simple before-and-after averages, aren't statistically significant. But the results still imply a drop, and for robberies and aggravated assaults you still get a drop that's statistically significant.
Now, I think it's somewhat misleading to look only at the simple before-and-after averages. Take the case where violent crime rates are rising right up to the point when the law goes into effect and falling afterward, and let's say it was a perfectly symmetrical inverted V. If I were to take the average crime rate before the law goes into effect and the average afterward, where the point of the V is when the law changed, they're going to be the same. Does that mean the law had no impact? When you drop Florida from the sample, [the results] look more like this inverted V than they do when Florida is in there. So I would argue that it strengthens the results, if what you care about is the change in direction.
In any case, the bottom line to me is this: I wanted all the data that were available....I didn't pick and choose, and when somebody drops out 86 percent of the counties along with Florida, you know they must have tried all sorts of combinations. This wasn't the first obvious combination that sprang to mind. And it's the only combination they report....If, after doing all these gymnastics, and recording only one type of specification, dealing with before-and-after averages that are biased against finding a benefit, they still find only benefits, and no cost, to me that strengthens the results.
Reason: Do you still hear the argument that you're in the pay of the gun industry, or has that been discredited?
Lott: I think the gun control people are going to continue to bring it up. I've been in debates this year with people from Handgun Control Inc. and other gun control groups in which they asserted flat-out that I've been paid by gun makers to do this study.
Reason: When they raise this charge, how successful are you in making the point that people should be able to assess evidence and arguments on their merits and that your motives don't matter?
Lott: Well, most people aren't going to look at the data. They're not going to have the data in front of them. The credibility of the data and the message depends on whether or not they believe that the person who's telling them about the data is credible. And I think the gun control groups feel that it's a win to the extent that they even divert three minutes of a show to talking about this issue. Even if it doesn't stick in people's minds, it's still three minutes that I couldn't talk about something else.
Reason: In a working paper you wrote with University of Chicago law professor William Landes [available at papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637], you conclude that "shall issue" laws are especially effective at preventing mass public shootings. Given that the people who commit these crimes seem to be pretty unbalanced, if not suicidal, how does the deterrent work?
Lott: Most of these attacks do end in the death of the attackers themselves, frequently from suicide, but also because they're killed by others. But part of what's motivating them is the desire to harm other people, and to the extent that you can take that away from them, I think you reduce their incentive to engage in these attacks. Whether they do it just because they intrinsically value killing people or whether they do it because of the publicity, the fact that there might be a citizen there who can stop them well before the police are able to arrive takes away, in their warped minds, some of the gain from the crime, and stops a lot of them from doing it.
-
Reason: You often say, based on surveys, that Americans use guns to fend off criminals more than 2 million times a year. But in the book, you note that people who report incidents of armed self-defense could be mistaken or lying. How big a problem is that, and how confident can we be that the true number is more than 2 million?
Lott: Well, 2 million is the average of the various surveys. Different problems may plague different surveys, and the problems can go in both directions. You may have questions that weed out people who shouldn't be weeded out.
Reason: Like "Do you own a gun?"
Lott: Or it could be you ask them "Has a crime been committed against you?" before you ask them whether they've used a gun defensively.
Reason: And they might not consider it a crime if it wasn't completed?
Lott: Right. And so, we have errors that can exist on both sides....But that's the only type of evidence that we have on this....The most striking thing to me is the comparison between the results from these surveys and [survey data on] the number of violent crimes that are committed with guns each year. You see many more crimes that are averted by people who defend themselves with guns. I think that difference--even though both sets of numbers can be tainted for all the same reasons--is what's striking.
Reason: You say that resistance with a gun is the safest option when confronted by a criminal. What's the basis for that conclusion?
Lott: You hear claims from time to time that people should behave passively when they're confronted by a criminal. And if you push people on that, they'll refer to something called the National Crime Victimization Survey, a government project that surveys about 50,000 households each year. If you compare passive behavior to all forms of active resistance lumped together, passive behavior is indeed slightly safer than active resistance. But that's very misleading, because under the heading of active resistance you're lumping together things like using your fist, yelling and screaming, running away, using Mace, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun. Some of those actions are indeed much more dangerous than passive behavior. But some are much safer.
For a woman, for example, by far the most dangerous course of action to take when she's confronted by a criminal is to use her fists. The reason is pretty simple: You're almost always talking about a male criminal doing the attacking, so in the case of a female victim there's a large strength differential. And for a woman to use her fists is very likely to result in a physical response from the attacker and a high probability of serious injury or death to the woman. For women, by far the safest course of action is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun.
Reason: Why does the mainstream press seem to downplay the value of armed self-defense?
Lott: One question is, Why don't they report people using guns defensively? If I have two stories, one where there's a dead body on the ground vs. another where, say, a woman has brandished a gun and a would-be rapist or murderer has run away, with no shots fired and no dead body on the ground, it's pretty obvious to me which one of those is going to be considered more newsworthy. It doesn't require any conspiracy. Now if we care about policy, if we care about what types of actions are going to save the most lives, or prevent the most crimes, we want to look at both of those cases: not only the newsworthy bad events but the bad events that never become newsworthy because they don't occur.
But I don't think that explains everything. One example is gun deaths involving children. My guess is that if you go out and ask people, how many gun deaths involve children under age 5, or under age 10, in the United States, they're going to say thousands. When you tell them that in 1996 there were 17 gun deaths for children under age 5 in the United States and 44 for children under age 10, they're just astounded. There's a reason why they believe these deaths occur much more frequently: If you have a gun death in the home involving a child under age 5, you're going to get national news coverage. Five times more children drown in bathtubs; more than twice as many drown in five-gallon water buckets around the home. But those deaths do not get national news coverage.
This type of news coverage has consequences, because it affects people's perceptions of the benefits and costs of having guns around. Concentrating on gun deaths in the home, exaggerating the risks of that, creates a false impression. People are going to die because of that false impression. They're not going to have guns in the home, even though that's by far the safest course of action for them to take when they're confronted by a criminal. You may prevent some of the accidental deaths, but you're going to create other types of deaths because people won't be able to defend themselves.
I think the debate would be so different now if, even once in a while, some of the life-saving uses of guns got some attention in the news. A couple of the public school shootings were stopped by citizens armed with guns well before the police were able to arrive. Or take the case of the day trader shooting in Atlanta, which got huge attention. Within 10 days after that, there were three separate attacks in the Atlanta area that were stopped by citizens with guns, in two cases permitted concealed handguns. They got no attention outside of the local media market.
-
Hmmm, a guy named LOTT interviewed by a guy named LYNCH. Yet another crack in the racist right wing facade!
ra
-
worse... Lott was considered to be a liberal professor before his paper was published.. He has fallen from favor with liberals because he dared to do an honest study.
lazs
-
The "safest" thing to do if someone enters your home,is NOT to confront the intruder...Call police if you can..collect family,lock/barracade room door and bail out the window if possible...DO NOT go looking!!!
This is actually true, even in CCW courses in the USA, you always HAVE to (legally) retreat if the option presents itself.
I will say I enjoy also having the option to defend myself, as Canadian storage laws aren't applicaple if you are at home (they need not be locked up if you are not away from firearms). I only have 2 entrances to my house which are both on the ground floor, and jumping 40 feet from my window at my size is probably going to be fatal, not to mention I'd never talk the wife into that.
If I ever get home invaded (someone 6 houses down got hit a couple years ago, stupid Asian kids thought they could find a drug grow there, when it was actually the house behind them), I'll just lock the bedroom door and call the cops. However, should someone try to force that door, I will unload on them if they break through. I don't even think or worry about this, as the odds are very slim here in Canada, but the 15000 or so people who get hurt in robberies/invasions probably wished they had some way to stop the person attacking them, and that's why I do.
PS. Don't start crying about how some kid can get at a loaded and hurt themselves, I keep mine in the same finger key coded quick open/action safe that all the cops here in town do, and I'm the only one who can get into it without a cutting torch.
Having moved out of downtown, I've yet to be accosted by anyone on the street, where it was a weekly occurance before.
-
Originally posted by Gman
This is actually true, even in CCW courses in the USA, you always HAVE to (legally) retreat if the option presents itself.
Actually, this is not true. In several states there is NO legal duty that you even make an attempt to retreat.
For instance, in Arizona, here are the two statutes dealing with Justification of Self Defense of Yourself or a Third Person: 13-404, 13-405 and 13-406:
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:
1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
and here is the important part, 13-411(B)
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. (FYI, this is serious physical injury and use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument)
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
PS - For those who don't know, I am a prosecutor in AZ.
-
Well, the state I took CCW in (Idaho, and one in Neveda, can't remember which) it is the law that you retreat if YOU are the one being threatened. If another party is involved and you are coming to aid, you do not. At least, that is how the instructor expalined it, and here in Canada, bet every dollar you have that retreat is your ONLY option if you want to avoid any legal BS.
Of course it stands to figure that AZ has laws that make sense in this regard, on being a prosecutor, god's work IMO, the only really decent lawyers around.
-
Oh, I agree, some states do have a "reasonable attempt to retreat" policy. Just not all.
-
Dune,
How does one find out which states have ""reasonable attempt to retreat" policies?
ra
-
Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn... crack? LOL... Target shooting with a handgun likened to crack addiction?
Yes, you see, it's called an analogy. If shooting hand gun is illegal and smoking crack is illegal, then it doesn't matter if you had fun doing it, they are both sill illegal.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad! I'm trying to get hold of Bowling for Columbine. Is it out on DVD yet?
I saw it in a theater, so I don't think it's in DVD/VHS yet. You could search the Blockbuster website. They'd have news of that first, I think.
It really wasn't that good a documentary no matter which side of the issue you favor.
It seemed like Moore filming his own unanswered questions begin asked to others that have no answers.
My .02
-
http://www.packing.org for state to state CCW regs etc, for the person who asked which states require retreat, etc.
-
In my state, WV, justification for use of lethal force comes down to "fear of serious bodily injury". At least thats what I was taught by a police chief who taught the CCW class.
How many of you have been in situations where you seriously thought you could be killed by an intruder? I'll clue you in. Once it happens to you, you'll become a gun loving right wing nut in an instance.
When I was 12, my parents had just divorced. And since my mother hated guns, she made my father take all them from the house. So one afternoon just home from school, me and my 8 year old brother hears someone pounding on our front door (we're alone, latch key kids).
Its broad daylight, 4:00PM. And realize that this is a very nice neighborhood in an expensive subdivision.
This pounding turns into some guy kicking in the front door, breaking the windows to the house and all the time, yelling and screaming how he's going to "rip your hearts out", and "drink your blood". It turns out he was pissed at someone, very drunk and on cocaine, and attacked the wrong house. He didn't care. He was in a berserker rage, and anyone who got in his way, was going to get hurt.
Now realize that at the time, there was a State Police Station less than 3 miles from my house. We called 911. So do you think the police showed up and saved us? Its the Number 1 fallacy of the "we dont' need guns, because the police will protect us crowd". The cops took 45 minutes to show up, even with two children screaming into the phone with 911 operators to "come save us".
So at 12 years old, scared so bad that I'll remember that exact moment for the rest of my days. Me a very small skinny 12 at that, I'm standing there with a baseball bat, determined to save my brother and myself. From a large burly redneck construction worker who was coked up out of his mind and looking to hurt someone. I don't think I could forget how he was looking thru the windows telling me how he was gonna kill me.
Well.... Thank God (literally), God was with me and my brother that day. Because the Cops and "Society" sure wasn't. If that guy would have gotten his hands on us, we would have been dead. And thats straight from the Cops mouth who investigated the whole incident.
As the door came apart at the frame, from his last kick, the "perp" stumbled back, fell over a bush beside our front porch and broke his femur. Muther fudder got at least some payback. So did the cops then showup and arrest him? Nope, his buddies showed up, threw him in the back of a pickup truck and drove him away. He was finally arrestted several months later. Did he go to jail? Nope he got probation.
So you want to tell me that owning a gun is not going to help me in a situation like that? diddly THAT !:mad:
I've been there. I've lived it. And its a figure of speech, but I feel like I've "Danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight". And I'll never ever forget what it was like.
I'm keeping my guns. Because I know the truth. Not had it "told to me" by some bleeding heart liberal who wants to run others lives.
-
Ah... thrawn I see... an analodgy.. I also speeded in your country and I enjoyed that. Was that the same as smoking crack too? maybe I just don't get the whole anolodgy thing...
fear for your life allways takes precedence if there is any proof at all of a real threat involved. Dune no doubt knows a lot more about it tho than I do. I still would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
lazs