NationStates Jolt Archive

you cant see it on the video,but the guy pulled a gun on the guy that shot back.
it was cleared by the police and da as a good shoot...this is exactly why it is nessaccary to have concealed carry laws in the states.

every thug is armed with a knife at the least,let alone a gun like this skell had.

one could argue he could have just gave the scumbag the money and called the cops...i guess that is true..but what if he was inclined to rape the women or worse..no witnesses,then what?

as far as i am concerned..bad guy down...good guy and innocent victims safe!

by the way,the perp got 11 years for aggravated assault with an ILLEGAL gun,robbery,etc.

but they plead it out to 7 years so he is out in 4 years!

so we get the pleasure of having that pos in our community in a few years,along with a million of others,and i am going to be disarmed so the bunnyhuggers feel safer....no thanks,i will be the one to protect the bunnyhuggers when the shit hits the fan in their safe little world.

check out the video...talk about gun control...woohooo!

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80

Nah, I've seen better.


Also, that asshole was pretty dumb shooting a fucking gun with a fucking kid right in front of him.

Nah, I've seen better.


Also, that asshole was pretty dumb shooting a fucking gun with a fucking kid right in front of him.


I was going to say, look how close that child was to the line of fire. Had someone stumbled to the left or right, she could have been killed.

Agreed, pretty poor handling of the situation.

Also, the rock music in the background is just dumb. Firing a weapon in self defense or defense of others is sometimes necessary, but putting a rock sound track to it just seems a bit inappropriate. Shooting someone is something that should be done only in a last resort, and isn't something you should enjoy.

Nah, I've seen better.


Also, that asshole was pretty dumb shooting a fucking gun with a fucking kid right in front of him.

the camera angle makes it seem closer to the kid then it is...i actually talked to the guy,and they were about 3 feet to his left when he fired.

as far as the music,i'll concede,but thats the way the video came to me.

and i'll also agree that shooting someone is a very serious thing,but i will point out that if he had not shot the pos,the pos may have killed someone else down the road.

the whole point i was trying to make was everyone nay says the fact that guns are used to protect people,and i wanted to point out that in this instance,it saved those present and maybe some down the road.

the camera angle makes it seem closer to the kid then it is...i actually talked to the guy,and they were about 3 feet to his left when he fired.

as far as the music,i'll concede,but thats the way the video came to me.

and i'll also agree that shooting someone is a very serious thing,but i will point out that if he had not shot the pos,the pos may have killed someone else down the road.

the whole point i was trying to make was everyone nay says the fact that guns are used to protect people,and i wanted to point out that in this instance,it saved those present and maybe some down the road.

Three feet... I don't know, that's still pretty close. That's just a few degrees of rotation on part of the shooter. And yes, guns MAY protect people, they also MAY kill people. Honestly, for protection, I think a tazer or mace works well. Those things cause more pain, diabling the victim quick. People can go awhile and not even realize that they have been shot.

the whole point i was trying to make was everyone nay says the fact that guns are used to protect people,

Beep. Incorrect. Guns are used to put holes in things. Doors, glass, windows, floors, people, etc, etc. Anything beyond that is semantics and dependent on intent. Wouldn't have made a jot of difference if it had been a baseball bat save for the mechanics.

this is gun control!!! Not!!

That is non control. Very stupid taking that shot the way he did. Innocents in front of him and he probably busted the kids eardrum.

If he had control he would have waited a few seconds for a clear shot.

The big problem with a lot of gun nuts is they are so pumped up about a chance to actaully use that phallic piece of metal that they are ...uh, sort of premature with their discharge.:p

I was going to say, look how close that child was to the line of fire. Had someone stumbled to the left or right, she could have been killed.
Agreed ... personally I am not for gun controll but I feel this is a poor example of a GOOD choice to use. It was just some money and that kid was almost in the line of fire

Three feet... I don't know, that's still pretty close. That's just a few degrees of rotation on part of the shooter. And yes, guns MAY protect people, they also MAY kill people. Honestly, for protection, I think a tazer or mace works well. Those things cause more pain, diabling the victim quick. People can go awhile and not even realize that they have been shot.
I don't think it was that bad. Look at the video again in a larger size, and than watch the part where the video is slowed down. Looks like a clear shot to me. I would have taken it. Too bad he only had a handgun.:mp5: It's like the justice system Minus lawyers.

(If this humor is to crude for some of you, I'm sorry. People either seem to love me or hate me)

Three feet... I don't know, that's still pretty close. That's just a few degrees of rotation on part of the shooter. And yes, guns MAY protect people, they also MAY kill people. Honestly, for protection, I think a tazer or mace works well. Those things cause more pain, diabling the victim quick. People can go awhile and not even realize that they have been shot.

My God how much room do you want? 10 ft? 100? Maybe we should form a committee to decide what is in fact a safe distance for bystanders from the line of fire, and the next time a situation arises we'll freeze time so that we can accurately measure it before allowing the guy with the gun to stop the bad guy. Easy for you to criticize when you're sitting at your computer desk watching a video.

My God how much room do you want? 10 ft? 100? Maybe we should form a committee to decide what is in fact a safe distance for bystanders from the line of fire, and the next time a situation arises we'll freeze time so that we can accurately measure it before allowing the guy with the gun to stop the bad guy. Easy for you to criticize when you're sitting at your computer desk watching a video.
Yes it is a lot easier to make the decision afterwords ... but that has no effect on if it was a good or a bad decision THEN

Personally I think it was a bad one

I agree. It's easy to say "Oh, what a moron for shooting so close to that kid." when you're able to watch a recap of the situation. The fact is that the thief got what he deserved and everyone else was fine. If you draw a weapon, you have to be willing to fire it, otherwise you're endangering yourself and others. If he had just sat there with a weapon drawn, who knows, the thug might have pulled out his own and just started firing indiscriminately, injuring and/or killing anyone in the room. Also, i'm just going to go ahead and say as a pistol owner myself, you have no business carrying a handgun if you can't make that shot. The kid being 3 feet away is plenty far. If the guy had pulled out a sawed off shotgun, yeah, a little more risky.

snip If you draw a weapon, you have to be willing to fire it, otherwise you're endangering yourself and others. If he had just sat there with a weapon drawn, who knows, the thug might have pulled out his own and just started firing indiscriminately, injuring and/or killing anyone in the room
snip
I know you mean to be Anti-gun controll but you give the exact reason gun controll people say people should NOT have guns on their person

check out the video...talk about gun control...woohooo!

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80
Yeah, really cool. :rolleyes:

The idiot put the woman with her baby right in the line of fire.

Dumb....really dumb!!

Well, I'm impressed. It's not often I get to see such feats of stupidity.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Anyone either for or against gun control should check this site out.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Anyone either for or against gun control should check this site out.
Way too simplistic

I think they are a liability and dont wear one to protect me ... yet when I select that option all it does is give a horribly biassed quiz

You can interpret what I say anyway you'd like I guess, but let me just throw a little quote out there that you can't really argue with.

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws and police officers will have guns.


And the military...

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Anyone either for or against gun control should check this site out.
Hihihi... That was funny. :)

Yeah, really cool. :rolleyes:

The idiot put the woman with her baby right in the line of fire.

Dumb....really dumb!!

ummm
i never said it was cool,in fact firing a weapon is anything if not deadly serious.
i was commenting on his gun control,getting 3 rounds off in quick succession and striking the target/perp/ARMED ROBBER 3 times.

and the woman and child were in the line of fire as soon as the thug drew his gun and tried to rob the place(he is to her right,and if you notice the person that fires back,conceals his movement and then brandishes,then fires)
the last thing she or the kid needs to worry about is someone like the defender shooting her...as he obviously did not..and struck his target 3 times..she would have been in more danger from some drugged up robber going nuts and not wanting witnesses.

don't worry though,the poor robber did not die,and will be back on the streets in 4 years.

i am amazed out how out of context this is being interpeted.

would the baby be better off with damaged eardrums or murdered?

easy to nay say when your monday morning quarterbacking..but the fact remains..if the man was unarmed and did not resist with force...alot of really bad things could have happened to everyone there..baby included..then the responce would be what a shame..4 innocent people killed over some money,so the robber would not be captured,and go on and hurt or kill other innocents.

also...the baby was NOT shot or anyone but the scumbag,if you notice the door is ajar because his foot is stuck in it while he is down on the ground,and the fellow did not finish him off,but made sure the others where safe and then stayed back and waited for the police.

and if he wasnt armed and obviously skilled with a pistol,the cops may have come upon a quadruple homicide.

and as far as just giving him the money...first off...screw that..i hate thieves,and i particularlyhate bullies with guns that rob you at gunpoint..happened to me,and i was also beaten stupid with the gun,secondly,if he gave them the money,who's to say he would not have raped or killed all of them,he would have had total control of the enviroment...it has happenned and will happen again no doubt.

happy you want to be a victim..i don't.
the guy should get a medal for bravery if you ask me.

i am sick of armed gangbangers running roughshod over society,raping and killing innocent people for whatever reason you wish to espouse.
did you see any cops in the video to protect the people...no?
then i guess it was up to the one guy too...but even thats not good enough...he fired near the kid...give me a break...that kid may owe his/her life to his quick responce.

and he clearly had a clear line of fire if you look closely,not to mention he was not charged with anything.

the scumbag drew a .45 caliber handgun and got more then he bargained for.
end of story.

my point was the guy's gun control was outstanding,he obviously was skilled..hit only the target,did not hit innocents,hell he did not even break the window of the door with a stray bullet....that is gun control.

ummm
i never said it was cool,in fact firing a weapon is anything if not deadly serious.
i was commenting on his gun control,getting 3 rounds off in quick succession and striking the target/perp/ARMED ROBBER 3 times.

and the woman and child were in the line of fire as soon as the thug drew his gun and tried to rob the place(he is to her right,and if you notice the person that fires back,conceals his movement and then brandishes,then fires)
the last thing she or the kid needs to worry about is someone like the defender shooting her...as he obviously did not..and struck his target 3 times..she would have been in more danger from some drugged up robber going nuts and not wanting witnesses.

don't worry though,the poor robber did not die,and will be back on the streets in 4 years.

i am amazed out how out of context this is being interpeted.

would the baby be better off with damaged eardrums or murdered?

easy to nay say when your monday morning quarterbacking..but the fact remains..if the man was unarmed and did not resist with force...alot of really bad things could have happened to everyone there..baby included..then the responce would be what a shame..4 innocent people killed over some money,so the robber would not be captured,and go on and hurt or kill other innocents.

also...the baby was NOT shot or anyone but the scumbag,if you notice the door is ajar because his foot is stuck in it while he is down on the ground,and the fellow did not finish him off,but made sure the others where safe and then stayed back and waited for the police.

and if he wasnt armed and obviously skilled with a pistol,the cops may have come upon a quadruple homicide.

and as far as just giving him the money...first off...screw that..i hate thieves,and i particularlyhate bullies with guns that rob you at gunpoint..happened to me,and i was also beaten stupid with the gun,secondly,if he gave them the money,who's to say he would not have raped or killed all of them,he would have had total control of the enviroment...it has happenned and will happen again no doubt.

happy you want to be a victim..i don't.
the guy should get a medal for bravery if you ask me.

i am sick of armed gangbangers running roughshod over society,raping and killing innocent people for whatever reason you wish to espouse.
did you see any cops in the video to protect the people...no?
then i guess it was up to the one guy too...but even thats not good enough...he fired near the kid...give me a break...that kid may owe his/her life to his quick responce.

and he clearly had a clear line of fire if you look closely,not to mention he was not charged with anything.

the scumbag drew a .45 caliber handgun and got more then he bargained for.
end of story.

my point was the guy's gun control was outstanding,he obviously was skilled..hit only the target,did not hit innocents,hell he did not even break the window of the door with a stray bullet....that is gun control.


Or luck either way you take the theory that the robber was going to shoot everyone and ran with it did you?

Which was more likely the gunman doing that after he got his money or the gun man or defender doing that after the bullets start flying

Personally the latter seems to me to be more likely

Or luck either way you take the theory that the robber was going to shoot everyone and ran with it did you?

Which was more likely the gunman doing that after he got his money or the gun man or defender doing that after the bullets start flying

Personally the latter seems to me to be more likely

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.
Normally I am a fan of defending ones self

But not over money and not when a baby is present and not with a gun in this case.

If it was the two of them maybe my view would be different but that child and mother change the situation some.

Even in the "best" of circumstances the DA and Police are loathe to call somthing a "good" shooting... especially when there are children present.

Often, even a "good" shooting will get the victim/shootist a charge of Reckless Endangerment if there are other people in the immediate vicinity - for exactly the reasons posted my many of you above.

The simple fact that he WASN'T charged shows the ultimate legitimacy of the LAC's actions.

Camera angles are tricky things. But, the LAC has a better stress-shot-to-hit than 90+% of cops... :eek:

You can interpret what I say anyway you'd like I guess, but let me just throw a little quote out there that you can't really argue with.

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
That has to be one of the dumbest statements ever. Well duh. If you make something illegal, then obviously anyone with that item is committing an offence which makes them criminals.
Here's one for you:
"If we don't stop to think about what we say, then we state only stupid opinions and mindless soundbites"

Normally I am a fan of defending ones self

But not over money and not when a baby is present and not with a gun in this case.

If it was the two of them maybe my view would be different but that child and mother change the situation some.


I've been a bit touchy lately. Sorry if I came off harsh.

It wasn't an "ideal" shot to be sure. However, like I said, the violence levels of criminals has been on the increase for decades. You watch Cops, AMW, and various video shows and they regularly show criminals shooting their victims even after they gave up thier belongings. IMO, the guy in the video made a decision and was successful in his actions.

I've been a bit touchy lately. Sorry if I came off harsh.

It wasn't an "ideal" shot to be sure. However, like I said, the violence levels of criminals has been on the increase for decades. You watch Cops, AMW, and various video shows and they regularly show criminals shooting their victims even after they gave up thier belongings. IMO, the guy in the video made a decision and was successful in his actions.
I understand

And I am not saying he is deserving of any punishment or anything of the sort ... I just would not call it a good example of what to strive for as the OP originally seems to say.

Or luck either way you take the theory that the robber was going to shoot everyone and ran with it did you?

Which was more likely the gunman doing that after he got his money or the gun man or defender doing that after the bullets start flying

Personally the latter seems to me to be more likely


Ok Upward, what would you do when you are looking down the barrel of a pistol?
I will not take the attitude that "Oh, s/he just wants money and will not harm me" if someone had a gun drawn on me. They might as well have a knife to your neck at that point. It is a direct threat on your life in either case.

After looking at the video the man did what he was trained to do. In CCW training, one has to put 5 rounds rapid fire into a target 4" in diameter from 15 ft. If you can't, it's back to the practice range for you. When I do competition which is simulating this sort of senerio the targets are human sized silouettes but the distances are greater, around 20-30 ft down to 5.

To the person who said 3ft was too close. The woman and child were less than 5 ft from the shooter, if you run the math the man would have to have the muzzle 30-35 degrees to the left to hit the child. My old Ruger .45 didn't even shoot that inaccuratly. To add to this I have yet seen any absolutely new shooter preform that badly. The bottom line to this was that it is unfortunante that we have to face these situation because of people wanting easy money. These people have no qualms about putting others in dangerous situations to get that money. The good thing is that in the end of the day here, no one but the criminal had gotten hurt, I think we can all agree on that.

I understand

And I am not saying he is deserving of any punishment or anything of the sort ... I just would not call it a good example of what to strive for as the OP originally seems to say.

Shooting someone is never somthing to strive for... just train for.

Apparantly he trained sufficiently to do more than "spray and pray".


Now, for somthing totally different(?)

Marilyn Vos Savant published this tidbit this Sunday:

Since the founding of the US, just over a million "Americans" have died as a result of warfare.

Since 1913 and the introduction of the Automobile, over 2.5 million "Americans" have died as a result of automobile collisions.

Half as long, over twice the deaths... and no guns involved.

Shooting someone is never somthing to strive for... just train for.

Apparantly he trained sufficiently to do more than "spray and pray".


Now, for somthing totally different(?)

Marilyn Vos Savant published this tidbit this Sunday:

Since the founding of the US, just over a million "Americans" have died as a result of warfare.

Since 1913 and the introduction of the Automobile, over 2.5 million "Americans" have died as a result of automobile collisions.

Half as long, over twice the deaths... and no guns involved.

Yup ... hopefully we can continue to make roads safer.

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.
Can you back up your assertion with any kind of substantive proof?

Can you back up your assertion with any kind of substantive proof?
From a source you won't sneer at? Probably not. That's why I won't stoop to your "cite a source I can sneer at" mode of argumentation.

IIRC one of the whole reasons for your anti-thing position is that crime has gotten more violent and the use of things has made it so.

There has been a long debate even in anti-gun circles whether passivity to crime is helpful or counter productive. However, most US anti-gun organizations present it as a matter of "fact" that you are more likely to be injured/killed if you resist than if you comply.

Thus, their meme is one of non-resistance. Yet attacks have become demonsterably more violent. One need only to reference incidents of "wilding", Home Invasion, etc. to get the picture.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to ignore my counterpoints to your "arguments". Your Silence speaks volumes.

From a source you won't sneer at? Probably not. That's why I won't stoop to your "cite a source I can sneer at" mode of argumentation.

IIRC one of the whole reasons for your anti-thing position is that crime has gotten more violent and the use of things has made it so.

There has been a long debate even in anti-gun circles whether passivity to crime is helpful or counter productive. However, most US anti-gun organizations present it as a matter of "fact" that you are more likely to be injured/killed if you resist than if you comply.

Thus, their meme is one of non-resistance. Yet attacks have become demonsterably more violent. One need only to reference incidents of "wilding", Home Invasion, etc. to get the picture.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to ignore my counterpoints to your "arguments". Your Silence speaks volumes.

All you did was restate your original with no more statistics to back it up? Yet make statistical claims.

While your point may very well be valid you really have not done anymore then restate an opinion as of yet. Seems rather silly in the face of a request for more hard data.

All you did was restate your original with no more statistics to back it up? Yet make statistical claims. Me not Kecibukia. Me Syniks. Kecibukia & Canuck argue stats. I won't. I answered Canuck's retort to Kecibukia because I come at it from a different angle.
While your point may very well be valid you really have not done anymore then restate an opinion as of yet. Seems rather silly in the face of a request for more hard data.
I'll leave the data to Kecibukia.

Did I restate Kecinbukia's post, yes, but I was framing it around whatI recal of Canuck's own statements vis-a-vis current levels of violence vs. previous levels of violence, not statistics.

Me not Kecibukia. Me Syniks. Kecibukia & Canuck argue stats. I won't. I answered Canuck's retort to Kecibukia because I come at it from a different angle.

I'll leave the data to Kecibukia.

Did I restate Kecinbukia's post, yes, but I was framing it around whatI recal of Canuck's own statements vis-a-vis current levels of violence vs. previous levels of violence, not statistics.
Sorry I must be tired I completely zoned on that one I am sorry ... makes more sense now

All you did was restate your original with no more statistics to back it up? Yet make statistical claims.

While your point may very well be valid you really have not done anymore then restate an opinion as of yet. Seems rather silly in the face of a request for more hard data.
I agree. Syniks just made the same argument as Kecibukia but in a more elongated manner.

If someone makes a claim that violent crime has increased due to "non-resistance" of victims, then I would expect the claimant to prove that statement with hard statistics.

Can you back up your assertion with any kind of substantive proof?

Sure CH even though you ignored my questions in the other thread.

Here ya go:

http://www.preventioninstitute.org/pdf/violence.pdf

(of course their hypothesis' on firearms and the NRA turned out to be wrong :) )


Former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields, said, "If attacked put up no defense - give them what they want." (Guns Don`t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981.)

Sorry I must be tired I completely zoned on that one I am sorry ... makes more sense now
's OK. Comes from being a 'nix-head. Too many daemons running around to let you concentrate. :D

I agree. Syniks just made the same argument as Kecibukia but in a more elongated manner.

If someone makes a claim that violent crime has increased due to "non-resistance" of victims, then I would expect the claimant to prove that statement with hard statistics.
Yup as “more” is a quantity ... show us it.

I would be more then happy to run some statistical analysis if they got me the raw data as well would be no problem I have SAS and MiniTAB on this machine already in fact I would not even have to do the math by hand lol

I agree. Syniks just made the same argument as Kecibukia but in a more elongated manner.

If someone makes a claim that violent crime has increased due to "non-resistance" of victims, then I would expect the claimant to prove that statement with hard statistics.

No, I didn't claim causality. Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. You've been doing that alot lately. HCI, on the other hand, made the causality that resistance = more violence which has been proven false.

I agree. Syniks just made the same argument as Kecibukia but in a more elongated manner.

If someone makes a claim that violent crime has increased due to "non-resistance" of victims, then I would expect the claimant to prove that statement with hard statistics.
Not "due to", concomitant with.

Simply, despite the rhetoric that non-resistance makes crime "safer", that simply hasn't happened in any meaningful sense.

OTOH, Shooting your attacker pretty much ends the attack, and prevents (for a good long bit anyway) further attacks... somthing non-resistance will never succeed in doing.

Sorry I must be tired I completely zoned on that one I am sorry ... makes more sense now

I don't bother w/ stat wars w/ CH anymore. I got tired of having to post the same information over and over to false statements like "the Brady bill lowered crime" and "more guns = more crime" etc.

Not "due to", concomitant with.

Simply, despite the rhetoric that non-resistance makes crime "safer", that simply hasn't happened in any meaningful sense.

OTOH, Shooting your attacker pretty much ends the attack, and prevents (for a good long bit anyway) further attacks... somthing non-resistance will never succeed in doing.
Just like accidentally shooting bystanders on the part of the "defendeR" is something that non-resistance will never succeed in doing as well

I don't bother w/ stat wars w/ CH anymore. I got tired of having to post the same information over and over to false statements like "the Brady bill lowered crime" and "more guns = more crime" etc.
You may have gotten tired of it but it smacks of wishful thinking rather then actual truth when you don't. I understand how frustrating it can be but making qualitative comparisons without any data is resonable grounds for it being dismissed as nothing but garbage

Just like accidentally shooting bystanders on the part of the "defendeR" is something that non-resistance will never succeed in doing as well

Except by the criminals and the involuntary termination of the victims. ;)

Just like accidentally shooting bystanders on the part of the "defendeR" is something that non-resistance will never succeed in doing as well
Which brings us back to the OP and the fact that the LAC was trained and able to put 4 rounds on target without hitting anybody, or anything, else (not even the front door of his shop!).

Except by the criminals and the involuntary termination of the victims. ;)
Thats why I put that part about the defender there

Sorry if it was not clear it was ment to be a comentary on the little "fact" posted rather then a reflection on my personal beliefs as well (just saying cause it seems unclear now for some reason)

Which brings us back to the OP and the fact that the LAC was trained and able to put 4 rounds on target without hitting anybody, or anything, else (not even the front door of his shop!).
Good for him ... maybe I would not be so wary if that sort of training was a prerequisite for having a firearm but it is not for the general population.

Sure CH even though you ignored my questions in the other thread.

Here ya go:

http://www.preventioninstitute.org/pdf/violence.pdf

(of course their hypothesis' on firearms and the NRA turned out to be wrong :) )


Former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields, said, "If attacked put up no defense - give them what they want." (Guns Don`t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981.)
That report was produced in 1993, which is before the Brady legislation was enacted. I haven't read the whole report yet but it appears to be an interesting read.

Now have you got anything to back up your claim?:

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.

BTW, the other thread was just a back and forth regarding who was "disengenuous" and/or "hypocritical". There was no substantive debate going on whatsoever.

You may have gotten tired of it but it smacks of wishful thinking rather then actual truth when you don't. I understand how frustrating it can be but making qualitative comparisons without any data is resonable grounds for it being dismissed as nothing but garbage
Exactly my point.

Good for him ... maybe I would not be so wary if that sort of training was a prerequisite for having a firearm but it is not for the general population.
See my big long post about Licensing. :D

You may have gotten tired of it but it smacks of wishful thinking rather then actual truth when you don't. I understand how frustrating it can be but making qualitative comparisons without any data is resonable grounds for it being dismissed as nothing but garbage

See, now I posted the public health article. The stat wars between CH and myself are a separate issue that I don't bother w/ anymore when it comes to him.

If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again and crime still dropped makes the claim that putting up no resistance makes crime "less violent" highly circumspect.

Some other sources on rape specific and resisting:

http://www.csubak.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/Bart&OB.htm
http://tkdtutor.com/08Strategy/Rape.htm

That report was produced in 1993, which is before the Brady legislation was enacted. I haven't read the whole report yet but it appears to be an interesting read.
Now have you got anything to back up your claim?:


and during the years that the "no resistance" meme was being pushed w/ crime being described as "epidemic".

What the hell does that have to do w/ the BB? Oh, wait, nothing.





BTW, the other thread was just a back and forth regarding who was "disengenuous" and/or "hypocritical". There was no substantive debate going on whatsoever.

The other thread was about you calling me a hypocrite, making false allegations, and then trying to deny that you used Ad Hominems.

See, now I posted the public health article. The stat wars between CH and myself are a separate issue that I don't bother w/ anymore when it comes to him.

If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again and crime still dropped makes the claim that putting up no resistance makes crime "less violent" highly circumspect.

Some other sources on rape specific and resisting:

http://www.csubak.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/Bart&OB.htm
http://tkdtutor.com/08Strategy/Rape.htm
Thanks for the interesting rape statistics ... I am going to dig through it but on the surface their sample size is a bit circumspect (at least on the first one) That and may be violating a few stats rules about randomized sample application (Could throw the curve if they don't normalize) But I will dig into it more when I am not doing ten things at once lol

See, now I posted the public health article. The stat wars between CH and myself are a separate issue that I don't bother w/ anymore when it comes to him.

If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again and crime still dropped makes the claim that putting up no resistance makes crime "less violent" highly circumspect.

Some other sources on rape specific and resisting:

http://www.csubak.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/Bart&OB.htm
http://tkdtutor.com/08Strategy/Rape.htm

Even though it is 30 years old, I suggest this book to every woman I engage in this discusson.

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&qwork=4030087&qsort=p&cm_ven=Search&cm_cat=Google&cm_pla=Titles&cm_ite=C32to35O0_Looking+Forward+To+Being+Attacked&siteID=weIGhKlvRv8-b.O19KN3mGmSG7LfRpwaaw

While the pics are '70s loopy, the techniques are solid. And while they don't talk muh about firearms, they don't discount them either. A nicely Pro Choice book.

See, now I posted the public health article. The stat wars between CH and myself are a separate issue that I don't bother w/ anymore when it comes to him.

If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again and crime still dropped makes the claim that putting up no resistance makes crime "less violent" highly circumspect.
Can you pinpoint when the "no resistance" meme was suggested by Brady?

Can you assign statisical data that clearly identifies the results of those who resisted and those who chose not to resist?

Some other sources on rape specific and resisting:

http://www.csubak.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/Bart&OB.htm
http://tkdtutor.com/08Strategy/Rape.htm
Two more "no name", no reference, web sites. I can make one of those myself.

Can you pinpoint when the "no resistance" meme was suggested by Brady?

Handgun COntrol Inc (HCI) became "The Brady Center". He posted the quote from the former HCI chair; Former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields, said, "If attacked put up no defense - give them what they want." (Guns Don`t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981.)

Can you assign statisical data that clearly identifies the results of those who resisted and those who chose not to resist?

Two more "no name", California State University, Bakersfield. http://www.csubak.edu/ : http://tkdtutor.com/ A Taekwondo website. Good Internet skills there Canuck. no reference, web sites. I can make one of those myself.

Nice sneer.

Handgun COntrol Inc (HCI) became "The Brady Center". He posted the quote from the former HCI chair;

California State University, Bakersfield. http://www.csubak.edu/ : http://tkdtutor.com/ A Taekwondo website. Good Internet skills there Canuck.

Nice sneer.
Yeah and painfully accurate ... I did not see any link to their data ... even an overview

They also jumped right to their conclusions
I would love to see their ANOVA even ... even if they don't provide full access to their stats.

Yeah and painfully accurate ... I did not see any link to their data ... even an overview

They also jumped right to their conclusions
I would love to see their ANOVA even ... even if they don't provide full access to their stats.
It's only because Canuck refuses to do any research that might contridict his POV.

The Bart & Obrien report hails from 1985

Just a quick Google:

http://www.icasa.org/uploads/adult_victimss.pdf See Pg 8 & 9

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_36/ai_61487446

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/rape017.htm (Cites the B&B study and others)

It's just easier for Canuck to sneer than to self-verify. Besides, even if we verify, that doesn't mean our verification is true either. :rolleyes:

Can you pinpoint when the "no resistance" meme was suggested by Brady? Like Synik said, try reading the quote.

Can you assign statisical data that clearly identifies the results of those who resisted and those who chose not to resist?

I can, yes.


Two more "no name", no reference, web sites. I can make one of those myself.

Another Ad Hominem. Outstanding CH. Your high quality debating skills hold to their standard. Are you going to deny that this is one as well?

http://www.trccmwar.ca/fight-back.html

http://www.trccmwar.ca/fight-back.html#more-studies

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/20/reekie.pdf

Oh, and by the way Canuck, Paulene Bart and Patricia O'Brien's work is the foundarion for RAD - "Rape Agression Defense" (http://www.publicsafety.upenn.edu/Special/dpsRAD.asp) - you know, those women-only training sessions where the trainer wears heavy padding and gets the shit kicked out of him.

so we get the pleasure of having that pos in our community in a few years,along with a million of others,and i am going to be disarmed so the bunnyhuggers feel safer....no thanks,i will be the one to protect the bunnyhuggers when the shit hits the fan in their safe little world.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear : If I ever should get attacked by anyone, and some self-proclaimed hero stumbles in and actually shoots the attacker and kills him, I'll see to it that this would-be defender gets his time in prison. Personally.

I won't ever kill a person, and I'll never stand by and see one killed in my name.

It's only because Canuck refuses to do any research that might contridict his POV.

The Bart & Obrien report hails from 1985

Just a quick Google:

http://www.icasa.org/uploads/adult_victimss.pdf See Pg 8 & 9

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_36/ai_61487446

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/rape017.htm (Cites the B&B study and others)

It's just easier for Canuck to sneer than to self-verify. Besides, even if we verify, that doesn't mean our verification is true either. :rolleyes:


Again referencing them but not showing their data ... nor the accuracy of their conclusions. A good statistical survey makes like I said the basic ANOVA available

That way we can calculate fit rates or p-vals ourself if we need to. It will also show variable correlation. Curve modification.

Not only that but it would be nice to know if they did a Variable Added last regression.

Sorry I am looking at this from a statistical point of view rather then a reference credibility. As a statistical source these are practically useless but that is not necessarily a reflection on the accuracy of the conclusions rather our inability to ascertain that accuracy and quantify it

Again referencing them but not showing their data ... nor the accuracy of their conclusions. A good statistical survey makes like I said the basic ANOVA available

That way we can calculate fit rates or p-vals ourself if we need to. It will also show variable correlation. Curve modification.

Not only that but it would be nice to know if they did a Variable Added last regression.

Sorry I am looking at this from a statistical point of view rather then a reference credibility. As a statistical source these are practically useless but that is not necessarily a reflection on the accuracy of the conclusions rather our inability to ascertain that accuracy and quantify itAnd the statistical sources are largely unavailable for general review - so calling for them is simply a red herring in this type of debate... and Canuck knows it.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear : If I ever should get attacked by anyone, and some self-proclaimed hero stumbles in and actually shoots the attacker and kills him, I'll see to it that this would-be defender gets his time in prison. Personally.
Fortunately, that's not up to you.
I won't ever kill a person, and I'll never stand by and see one killed in my name.No, because you would already be bleeding on the ground when someone attempts to save your life.

Fortunately, that's not up to you.

Actually, it would be.


No, because you would already be bleeding on the ground when someone attempts to save your life.

Better hope I won't get up again.

And the statistical sources are largely unavailable for general review - so calling for them is simply a red herring in this type of debate... and Canuck knows it.
Not only him I would like to see them as well

Maybe it is the statistician in me but I have seen too many people do a bad regression to blindly trust sources like this

I mean something as simple as fitting a curve can screw up the accuracy of your results.

As for the wishing for the hard stats and how they come by them that was as much me as the poster you attributed it to (at least in this thread)

I would love to have a concealed weapons permit. I believe that would stop crime on the streets, or at least cut it down, because you would never know who's packing or who isnt....

As for the wishing for the hard stats and how they come by them that was as much me as the poster you attributed it to (at least in this thread)
Ah, but you don't call for them every time you enter into a discussion.

Canuck uses it as a method of stopping debate. There is a difference.

Ah, but you don't call for them every time you enter into a discussion.

Canuck uses it as a method of stopping debate. There is a difference.
I would too if this was really pertinent to the topic at hand but as a side track there are too many independent variables to directly relate back to gun defense in other situations so its more just out of intrest right now

I would too if this was really pertinent to the topic at hand but as a side track there are too many independent variables to directly relate back to gun defense in other situations so its more just out of intrest right now
Why is it important to stop the debate? You see, I have never claimed that firearm ownership/CCW/use is apanecea to crime or violence. I simply refuse to allow person A say "my (non anova'd) statistics/anecdotes deserve the force of law but you must prove yours to the thirty secons decimal place".

Edit: It occurs to me that I referred you to a "big long post" on licensing which is currently a few pages down. Here's the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10520747&postcount=82

Why is it important to stop the debate? You see, I have never claimed that firearm ownership/CCW/use is apanecea to crime or violence. I simply refuse to allow person A say "my (non anova'd) statistics/anecdotes deserve the force of law but you must prove yours to the thirty secons decimal place".
Personally neither side has much in the way of proof ... at least statistical

Personally neither side has much in the way of proof ... at least statisticalAgreed. Which is why it is so damn ludicrous for Canuck to continually demand we provide it - and why I don't even try.

Personally neither side has much in the way of proof ... at least statistical

Agreed. Ironically, the debate for CCW has gone from "how much blood will it cause to run" to " how much has it helped" due to the lack of the much ballied "Wild West Shootouts".

Agreed. Ironically, the debate for CCW has gone from "how much blood will it cause to run" to " how much has it helped" due to the lack of the much ballied "Wild West Shootouts".
Add to that how much crime it will prevent vs cause and yeah

But in the end some of the stats on both sides is highly inconclusive ... or at least un-supported. Might have to bring it up to our stats department head and see if we could do it as a post-grad project

Add to that how much crime it will prevent vs cause and yeah

But in the end some of the stats on both sides is highly inconclusive ... or at least un-supported. Might have to bring it up to our stats department head and see if we could do it as a post-grad project
In Minnesota? Land of the DFL? :eek: Heaven forbid! :p

In Minnesota? Land of the DFL? :eek: Heaven forbid! :p
Why not? That sort of stuff is right up our ally in the stats department. Though lot of our studies are for private or governmental organizations so we are not allowed to publish our results generally.
Lets just say there was some interesting results on body armor (that was not my primary project but I got to sit in ... interesting)

Why not? That sort of stuff is right up our ally in the stats department. Though lot of our studies are for private or governmental organizations so we are not allowed to publish our results generally.
Lets just say there was some interesting results on body armor (that was not my primary project but I got to sit in ... interesting)
Dammit. What's a guy to do when a Minnesotan won't rise to a jab at the DFL? :headbang: :)

Dammit. What's a guy to do when a Minnesotan won't rise to a jab at the DFL? :headbang: :)
Get a new joke :P lol

Besides I am used to it ... as many hard core right wingers as I have met on here ... my dad is worse lol

and as far as just giving him the money...first off...screw that..i hate thieves
You don't have to resort to hate to justify this opinion. If the money had been given over, the thief would go free and probably rob another person. Makes perfect sense.

That has to be one of the dumbest statements ever. Well duh. If you make something illegal, then obviously anyone with that item is committing an offence which makes them criminals.
Here's one for you:
"If we don't stop to think about what we say, then we state only stupid opinions and mindless soundbites"
Makes sense. Sometimes it takes stating the obvious to clarify an argument.

and during the years that the "no resistance" meme was being pushed w/ crime being described as "epidemic".

What the hell does that have to do w/ the BB? Oh, wait, nothing.
I am still waiting for statistical data that supports the following claim of yours:

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.

Somehow or another, you appear to be deflecting the debate towards rape situations only. What about "no resistance" in regards to robberies. After all, this thread started with a clip showing careless resistance to an armed robbery, and had nothing to do with rape.

I am still waiting for statistical data that supports the following claim of yours: :rolleyes: See above.
Somehow or another, you appear to be deflecting the debate towards rape situations only. What about "no resistance" in regards to robberies. After all, this thread started with a clip showing careless resistance to an armed robbery, and had nothing to do with rape.
It was not "careless" enough to warrant a charge of recless endangerment - which he most certainly would have recieved had it been so.

:rolleyes: See above.

It was not "careless" enough to warrant a charge of recless endangerment - which he most certainly would have recieved had it been so.
Possibly ... there have been worse things that have slipped through the cracks

Handgun COntrol Inc (HCI) became "The Brady Center". He posted the quote from the former HCI chair;
Wherever the quote stems from, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the claim that Kecibukia makes as follows:

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.

California State University, Bakersfield. http://www.csubak.edu/ : http://tkdtutor.com/ A Taekwondo website. Good Internet skills there Canuck.
The California State University is not identified on the web site and doesn't appear to be an official study?

And the web site from a "Taekwondo website" is just a link to a web page with no supporting documentation.

How did this turn into a rape only debate? The initial comment by Kecibukia was about "no resistance" to a robbery.

Nice sneer.
It wasn't a sneer. It is simple fact. Anyone can make a web site and put information on it.

The California State University is not identified on the web site and doesn't appear to be an official study?
Hmmm.. Lets see. (A) it's an EDU site. Learn to read http addresses.(B) the page in question, while not citing the chapter and verse, refrences the Bart and O’Brien study, which has long precedence if not statistical purity. See my links to their book and its use.

As to "no resistance to armed robbery" try "no resistance to violent crime". Rape just happens to be the one area where at least some research has been done.

Hmmm.. Lets see. (A) it's an EDU site. Learn to read http addresses.(B) the page in question, while not citing the chapter and verse, refrences the Bart and O’Brien study, which has long precedence if not statistical purity. See my links to their book and its use.

As to "no resistance to armed robbery" try "no resistance to violent crime". Rape just happens to be the one area where at least some research has been done.

Not like it matters. CH will just Ad Hominem anything that is shown to him automatically as he has just proven and will Red Herring away from or ignore anything that contradicts him.

Hmmm.. Lets see. (A) it's an EDU site. Learn to read http addresses.(B) the page in question, while not citing the chapter and verse, refrences the Bart and O’Brien study, which has long precedence if not statistical purity. See my links to their book and its use.
First off, I can decipher some http addresses but if I have to do that, how credible is the web site, and the info supplied? Would you except the same from me? Probably not.

As to "no resistance to armed robbery" try "no resistance to violent crime". Rape just happens to be the one area where at least some research has been done.
Kecibukia made the claim, and he should be able to back it up. Why should I go searching? The burden of proof lies with him. As it is, I have already been sent on a wild goose chase checking out these unofficial sites that you guys are throwing out here.

Not like it matters. CH will just Ad Hominem anything that is shown to him automatically as he has just proven and will Red Herring away from or ignore anything that contradicts him.
Now you are making excuses for your inability to back up your claim? In the process you are trying to accuse me of what only you are actually doing , which is the dreaded ad hominem!!

Now you are making excuses for your inability to back up your claim? In the process you are trying to accuse me of what only you are actually doing , which is the dreaded ad hominem!!

And which you did (again) in the reply to Synik.

Keep the Red Herrings coming CH. You are one master debater.

Note: I did not make an Ad Hominem against you. That would involve claiming that your arguement is false following an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions.

I stated that you would merely ignore the arguements made or red herring away from them. That says nothing about your arguement (which you have made none BTW) of being false.

Like Synik said, try reading the quote.
I read the quote and now I am asking you to provide the proof.

Can you assign statisical data that clearly identifies the results of those who resisted and those who chose not to resist?

I can, yes.
Then where is it?

Two more "no name", no reference, web sites. I can make one of those myself.

Another Ad Hominem. Outstanding CH. Your high quality debating skills hold to their standard. Are you going to deny that this is one as well?
An ad hominem? I made a simple statement in regards to the fact that you linked "two more "no name", no reference, web sites" that do not prove your case at all. The fact that I can also make a web site is also a simple statement.

Just provided the proof, quit attacking my debating skills and quit playing the ad hominem game.

Some facts about guns. (http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm)

I read the quote and now I am asking you to provide the proof.

Proof of what, that the statement was made? Because that's what you asked. I provided a source.




Then where is it? Lots of sources have been provided already and you've dismissed them. There have been several studies done on results of defensive v passive resistance to crime. Based on several statements you've made, I'm not even going to bother posting links because you will claim they are "biased".




An ad hominem? I made a simple statement in regards to the fact that you linked "two more "no name", no reference, web sites" that do not prove your case at all. The fact that I can also make a web site is also a simple statement.

Sites that referenced studies done and which you have made multiple comments as to their authenticity due to the cites themselves w/o providing any countering data.

Just provided the proof, quit attacking my debating skills and quit playing the ad hominem game.

Sources and information have been provided. You choose to ignore them and just attack the sources and try and divert the topic. Those are Ad Hominems (the same you used in the other thread, remember), the definition of which is in the post above and fits to a tee your recent posts.

And which you did (again) in the reply to Synik.

Keep the Red Herrings coming CH. You are one master debater.

Note: I did not make an Ad Hominem against you. That would involve claiming that your arguement is false following an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions.

I stated that you would merely ignore the arguements made or red herring away from them. That says nothing about your arguement (which you have made none BTW) of being false.
Perhaps you don't really know what an ad hominem is?

ad hominem

appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think.

Now please quit appealing to my emotions by attacking my debating skills and provide some proof to this statement that you made.

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.
And just to remind you, the above comment you made was in reference to shooting a robbery suspect in this statement:

Or luck either way you take the theory that the robber was going to shoot everyone and ran with it did you?

Which was more likely the gunman doing that after he got his money or the gun man or defender doing that after the bullets start flying

Personally the latter seems to me to be more likely

Perhaps you don't really know what an ad hominem is?

ad hominem

appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think.

Now please quit appealing to my emotions by attacking my debating skills and provide some proof to this statement that you made.


And just to remind you, the above comment you made was in reference to shooting a robbery suspect in this statement:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Read up on them.

Like I said. You'll just attack the source. You've done it in this thread and you've already stated that you won't accept anything from even remotely resembling a "pro gun" site or source (or apparently any where else)so I'm not going to bother. Good night.

Sites that referenced studies done and which you have made multiple comments as to their authenticity due to the cites themselves w/o providing any countering data.
None of those sites back up your claim. None of them....period.

It is not up to me to prove your case. Now either you can back it up with credible statistics, or you can't? My guess is that you can't.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Read up on them.

Like I said. You'll just attack the source. You've done it in this thread and you've already stated that you won't accept anything from even remotely resembling a "pro gun" site or source (or apparently any where else)so I'm not going to bother. Good night.
Are you suggesting that you cannot back up your arguments without using "pro gun" sites?

Are you suggesting that you will now accept arguments from "anti-gun" sites? You haven't in the past.

Some facts about guns. (http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm)
I can not open your "facts" page

I can not open your "facts" page
I'm having the same problem here. This is the first time I ever had a problem with that site. Try again a little later.

First off, I can decipher some http addresses but if I have to do that, how credible is the web site, and the info supplied? Would you except the same from me? Probably not.Actually, I do - and I check the links.
Kecibukia made the claim, and he should be able to back it up. Why should I go searching? The burden of proof lies with him. As it is, I have already been sent on a wild goose chase checking out these unofficial sites that you guys are throwing out here.Ah. "Unofficial" sites are no good. "Pro-Gun" sites (regardless of the origin of the information posted therein) are no good.

I suppose the only "good" sites are the ones that espouse your POV?


The fact of the matter is, neither side has solid statistics. The "best" (most neutral?) statistics come from tr DOJ, and they confirm neither the pro or anti gun position. Thus, the argument must fall to Logic and emoton.

I accept that - yet you continue to demand hard statistics that aren't there, and that you know aren't there. You are happy to throw out statistics from Anti-gun sites, but hold pro-choice people to a higher standard.

That is both hypocritical and a dejure - if not defacto Red Herring - sending people looking for what is not there.

Now, if you would like to argue consistantly and logically, fine. But this "you can't back up your arguments without using pro-choice sources but I'm free to use accusations and anti-gun sources" is getting really tedious.

The site's back up now.

I'm having the same problem here. This is the first time I ever had a problem with that site. Try again a little later.
Lol its up now

“MYTH: 13 Children are killed each day by guns.

FACT: The statistics cited for this myth include "children" up to age 19 or age 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, so these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity.
“

Thanks I needed a laugh

It starts by making a claim that those stats go up to age 24 in some studies. But what does the 2nd statement really have to do with the first?
What age does crime perpetrators have to do with victims?

Not to mention the un-substantiated attribution of conceal and carry laws dropping crime. IT may or may not but they don't give ANY regression on the stats. What is the correlation coefficient? Without one there is no way to get an idea of the error rate. Nor do we get a handle on what is explained by the predictor

Same with the claim to Canada gun controls causing crime rate ... they have NO regression statistics.


In fact I think I am going to save this and bring it to my stats prof ... he would love to show this as a prime example of providing too little info can twist statistics beyond explaining actual events. This is a good what not to do.

One of the unfortunate problems with regressions (or any stat analysis) with the gun-choice issue is that, almost more than any other subject, it is almost impossible to weed bias out of the survey method.

Both pro and con, it is far to easy and emotionally important to lie.

The DOJ study I cite at length (one of those non-pro-anything studies) over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10519843&postcount=64) discusses the problem of False Positives in Defensive Gun Use reporting.

Likewise, there is statistical skewing on the other side - i.e. including obvious ctiminal activity of essentially emancipated teens into "child" categories.

So, Pro Gun people exagerate DGUs. Criminals exagerate Gun Use in crime and the anti-choice jump on that.

The only hard data we have is on the total # of people seeking medical care for gunshot wounds - which includes both "good" and "bad" shootings.

Up, if you can come up with - and publish - a truly clean and unbiased stat set - one that takes into account the variations in US demographics sufficiently to negate both Urban Tribalisim and Rural Survival - you will own the book/talk circuit for years.

Unfortunately, you can accept no money from anyone to do this because if anyone who donated money somewhere happens to be pro-gun, your study will be worthles in the eyes of people like Canuck. :(

Lol its up now

“MYTH: 13 Children are killed each day by guns.

FACT: The statistics cited for this myth include "children" up to age 19 or age 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, so these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity.
“

Thanks I needed a laugh

It starts by making a claim that those stats go up to age 24 in some studies. But what does the 2nd statement really have to do with the first?
What age does crime perpetrators have to do with victims?
What it does is skew the statistics.

If a 17y/o gangbanger dies in a turf-war gun battle, that 17y/o gets lumped into the "child" category with the 4 y/o who sucked on momma's boyfriend's .38.

The two deaths are not remotely comparable, but are statistically equal. :headbang:

Are you suggesting that you cannot back up your arguments without using "pro gun" sites?

Are you suggesting that you will now accept arguments from "anti-gun" sites? You haven't in the past.

I don't accept the majority of them from you CH because the same old tired "arguements" that you continuously repeat from those sites have been shown to be false or misleading multiple times yet you continue to do it. You even attempted to red herring to the BB AGAIN. In the other thread, I DID NOT critisize the poster for using an "anti-gun" site yet you claimed I did and even called me a hypocrite for alledgedly doing so . You then alternated between rejecting "guncite" because it's biased and trying to claim you weren't making an Ad Hominem along w/ some trollish semantics/spelling games.

I posted a link (an anti-gun one) that stated criminals were becoming more violent during the "passive resistance" era of HCI. I and Synik posted several links about the effects of resistance during rapes (a violent crime) yet you crapped on all the sources as is YOUR want demanding spoon fed numbers.

You want "hard numbers" here so you can post a few stats and claim the opposite and make comments about people being "gun happy" etc.. Guess what CH, there aren't many "hard numbers" and what there are you won't accept anyway because you don't like where they came from.

You have been acting like a disingenuous prick and I have called you on it. You don't like it? Tough.

Also, that asshole was pretty dumb shooting a fucking gun with a fucking kid right in front of him.

that was my first thought...

What it does is skew the statistics.

If a 17y/o gangbanger dies in a turf-war gun battle, that 17y/o gets lumped into the "child" category with the 4 y/o who sucked on momma's boyfriend's .38.

The two deaths are not remotely comparable, but are statistically equal. :headbang:
Sorry I covered a few the first part was picking apart the quote the last part were about the rest of the site ...

I don't accept the majority of them from you CH because the same old tired "arguements" that you continuously repeat from those sites have been shown to be false or misleading multiple times yet you continue to do it. You even attempted to red herring to the BB AGAIN. In the other thread, I DID NOT critisize the poster for using an "anti-gun" site yet you claimed I did and even called me a hypocrite for alledgedly doing so . You then alternated between rejecting "guncite" because it's biased and trying to claim you weren't making an Ad Hominem along w/ some trollish semantics/spelling games.

I posted a link (an anti-gun one) that stated criminals were becoming more violent during the "passive resistance" era of HCI. I and Synik posted several links about the effects of resistance during rapes (a violent crime) yet you crapped on all the sources as is YOUR want demanding spoon fed numbers.

You want "hard numbers" here so you can post a few stats and claim the opposite and make comments about people being "gun happy" etc.. Guess what CH, there aren't many "hard numbers" and what there are you won't accept anyway because you don't like where they came from.

You have been acting like a disingenuous prick and I have called you on it. You don't like it? Tough.
Wow, I am really impressed. At the beginning of this thread you made a claim and I asked you to back it up. You have been unable to do so. Since then, you have accused me of ad hominems, red herrings, and attacked my debating skills, and now you are suggesting that I am a "disingenuous prick".
You can flame me all you wish. Although you seem to be making a bad habit of it.

Now, I will give you one more shot at it. Prove the following statement:

Because if you don't resist, they "might" not hurt you, right? The Brady's pushed the "no resistance" meme for years and the criminals just got more violent.

Bolding mine.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear : If I ever should get attacked by anyone, and some self-proclaimed hero stumbles in and actually shoots the attacker and kills him, I'll see to it that this would-be defender gets his time in prison. Personally.

I won't ever kill a person, and I'll never stand by and see one killed in my name.

well, i would like to see how you would have me do prison time for saving someones life?
if you want to die a victim,that is your choice,and i respect that...but dont presume to tell me i have no right to defend myself just because you happen to be there and are a pacifist.
i respect your feelings on pacifism,however i dissagree with them.
some people deserve to be taken off this planet,and i for one will not stand idly by while an innocent person is being hurt or worse.
thats your choice,not mine.

if someone is being savagely attacked and or raped..your decision is to stand by passively,call the cops,console the victim or the victims family afterward?

i find that cowardice, to the same extent you apparently find the word hero derogatory.
i do not claim to be a hero,i would probably piss my pants in certain scenarios..but i just cannot stand by and see harm come to the weak or innocent..apparently you can?
i respect your feelings and i wish i lived in a utopian paradise...but sad fact is we don't..no how hard you click your heels and wish..evil people do evil things to innocent vulnerable people every minute of every day.
i have seen it first hand too many times to think about,and it sickens me!

and the cops are not every 5 feet..so your solution is to die meekly..you have that choice and right...i reserve the right to protect myself and others if possible.:confused:

and back to your statement about someone shooting/intervening on your behalf...does that also apply to a cop who stumbles upon your problem?
if it does not....how is that different then any other person trying to help you?
dont say it is a cops duty or they are trained,because that is half wrong,yes it is a cops job to help people,one could say their responsibility,but more often then not..their job is to investigate the aftermath in hopes of preventing a reoccurance.
i am more well trained with handguns and tactical situations then most of the cops i know..because i have had more extensive training...yet they are more trained(only so much time in a day)on a multitude of procedural things then i am,mostly relating to accident investigations,etc.

From a source you won't sneer at? Probably not. That's why I won't stoop to your "cite a source I can sneer at" mode of argumentation.
I wasn't asking YOU to prove anything. I was asking Kecibukia, and you believe that gives you license to take a swipe at me?

IIRC one of the whole reasons for your anti-thing position is that crime has gotten more violent and the use of things has made it so.
My reasons for any position I take on any issue are just that, my reasons. In any case your assertion is wrong. At any rate what do your assertions have to do with the question I asked Kecibukia?

There has been a long debate even in anti-gun circles whether passivity to crime is helpful or counter productive. However, most US anti-gun organizations present it as a matter of "fact" that you are more likely to be injured/killed if you resist than if you comply.
Who is winning the debate?

Thus, their meme is one of non-resistance. Yet attacks have become demonsterably more violent. One need only to reference incidents of "wilding", Home Invasion, etc. to get the picture.
However, violent crime in the US has decreased over the past 8 years, in all indicees? Please explain?

Oh, and thank you for continuing to ignore my counterpoints to your "arguments". Your Silence speaks volumes.
What are you talking about? Your post #34 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10536234&postcount=34) was your first addressed to my post #33 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10536162&postcount=33), which was addressed to Kecibukia, not you, which you felt compelled to answer anyways. In the process, you take another swipe at me.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear : If I ever should get attacked by anyone, and some self-proclaimed hero stumbles in and actually shoots the attacker and kills him, I'll see to it that this would-be defender gets his time in prison. Personally.

I won't ever kill a person, and I'll never stand by and see one killed in my name.

Technically, until the CCW holder here is threatend they can not intervene in a situation. So, you would be on your own unless they threatend a CCW person along with yourself. In any case, no one would shoot strictly on your behalf.

Technically, until the CCW holder here is threatend they can not intervene in a situation. So, you would be on your own unless they threatend a CCW person along with yourself. In any case, no one would shoot strictly on your behalf.

i am not quite sure about that?

i have read instances were a ccw holder was present during the commission of another felony/attack and drew..not shot and held the perp until police arrived(so much for the notion of bloodthirsty gun owners)and was not charged with anything.
as far as actually shooting in defence of another,i am not sure in all honesty of the legality involved.
i believe and could be wrong,in florida i think you can shoot in defence of others,but i am not sure.
you can for damn sure shoot to protect yourself and property down there,even on the street if you feel threatened with violence.

i do remember a witness of the killeen shootings in texas,whose parents were murdered,testified to the congress,that if only one person was armed they could have saved numerous lives in that massacre.
as to that being in defence of self or defence of others is not quite clear to me.
you could argue by being present at a shooting,even if you are not the direct target,you can presume to fire back out of a self defence reason,and yet if you were not the direct target...and fired in defence of others you may not be...interesting question.

sad fact is..it is needed in this society...i rarely carry a gun..rarely!
but i was in nyc last week and brought a pistol,which is illegal,because i know for a fact,i am a victim if i am caught in a bad spot,and the cops are spread pretty thin,and they have an outright ban..period!
but in pennsy,were they have must issue laws,i never carry because i feel there is a significant deterrent to crimminals that lac are possibly armed and i rely on that as a deterrent,rather then carry..which i can legally do.
ironic isnt it,i carry where i am not allowed,and dont where i am allowed.

such is life..full of contradictions...like the states with the highest violent crime rate and gun related crime..also have the outright ban on guns,and where they are allowed for lac's,they have lower crime rates.
which is why if i go to dc or nyc...i carry,and if get caught,without even breaking a law(aside from the stupid ban)i go to jail for what is legal in 30 odd other states,and the citizens are far safer for it.
and at home..i never carry because the crime is just not there..cause the crimminals realise they may get shot.

tell you what..if i was a thug..i would go to dc or nyc and commit my crimes..for obvious reasons.

anyhow,good question you raised on the legality of shooting in a defence posture in defence of another..time for some research i guess!

well, i would like to see how you would have me do prison time for saving someones life?
if you want to die a victim,that is your choice,and i respect that...but dont presume to tell me i have no right to defend myself just because you happen to be there and are a pacifist.
i respect your feelings on pacifism,however i dissagree with them.
some people deserve to be taken off this planet,and i for one will not stand idly by while an innocent person is being hurt or worse.
thats your choice,not mine.

if someone is being savagely attacked and or raped..your decision is to stand by passively,call the cops,console the victim or the victims family afterward?

i find that cowardice, to the same extent you apparently find the word hero derogatory.
i do not claim to be a hero,i would probably piss my pants in certain scenarios..but i just cannot stand by and see harm come to the weak or innocent..apparently you can?
i respect your feelings and i wish i lived in a utopian paradise...but sad fact is we don't..no how hard you click your heels and wish..evil people do evil things to innocent vulnerable people every minute of every day.
i have seen it first hand too many times to think about,and it sickens me!

and the cops are not every 5 feet..so your solution is to die meekly..you have that choice and right...i reserve the right to protect myself and others if possible.:confused:

and back to your statement about someone shooting/intervening on your behalf...does that also apply to a cop who stumbles upon your problem?
if it does not....how is that different then any other person trying to help you?
dont say it is a cops duty or they are trained,because that is half wrong,yes it is a cops job to help people,one could say their responsibility,but more often then not..their job is to investigate the aftermath in hopes of preventing a reoccurance.
i am more well trained with handguns and tactical situations then most of the cops i know..because i have had more extensive training...yet they are more trained(only so much time in a day)on a multitude of procedural things then i am,mostly relating to accident investigations,etc.

You fundamentally misunderstood me.
I never said I wouldn't try to protect myself or others in a dangerous situation. What I did say was that I will never stand for anybody, attacker or victim, being killed.

I live in a country where the police don't carry weapon, so any garda trying to protect a victim of a crime is doing a great job indeed. No different from any civilian trying the same. However, if that garda or that civilian should kill one of the involved, there should be legal consequences at least.

No, nobody ever deserves to be taken off tihs planet.

i am not quite sure about that?

i have read instances were a ccw holder was present during the commission of another felony/attack and drew..not shot and held the perp until police arrived(so much for the notion of bloodthirsty gun owners)and was not charged with anything.
as far as actually shooting in defence of another,i am not sure in all honesty of the legality involved.
i believe and could be wrong,in florida i think you can shoot in defence of others,but i am not sure.
you can for damn sure shoot to protect yourself and property down there,even on the street if you feel threatened with violence.

i do remember a witness of the killeen shootings in texas,whose parents were murdered,testified to the congress,that if only one person was armed they could have saved numerous lives in that massacre.
as to that being in defence of self or defence of others is not quite clear to me.
you could argue by being present at a shooting,even if you are not the direct target,you can presume to fire back out of a self defence reason,and yet if you were not the direct target...and fired in defence of others you may not be...interesting question.

sad fact is..it is needed in this society...i rarely carry a gun..rarely!
but i was in nyc last week and brought a pistol,which is illegal,because i know for a fact,i am a victim if i am caught in a bad spot,and the cops are spread pretty thin,and they have an outright ban..period!
but in pennsy,were they have must issue laws,i never carry because i feel there is a significant deterrent to crimminals that lac are possibly armed and i rely on that as a deterrent,rather then carry..which i can legally do.
ironic isnt it,i carry where i am not allowed,and dont where i am allowed.

such is life..full of contradictions...like the states with the highest violent crime rate and gun related crime..also have the outright ban on guns,and where they are allowed for lac's,they have lower crime rates.
which is why if i go to dc or nyc...i carry,and if get caught,without even breaking a law(aside from the stupid ban)i go to jail for what is legal in 30 odd other states,and the citizens are far safer for it.
and at home..i never carry because the crime is just not there..cause the crimminals realise they may get shot.

tell you what..if i was a thug..i would go to dc or nyc and commit my crimes..for obvious reasons.

anyhow,good question you raised on the legality of shooting in a defence posture in defence of another..time for some research i guess!


It really depends on local laws. Each state is different on them, which is a headache for us trying to abide by em. In any case I would prefer not to run afoul of any if I can help it. It has worked great here so far, there has been one shooting in the almost 2 years it has been legal. Three teens stole a car then tried to hold someone up at gunpoint, the man was down on his knees, drew on the teen with the gun and got em in the shoulder. They caught the three with they tried to drag the one into the hospital for the wound. It is very far flung from the "Wild West shootouts" the anti-gun people preached and squalled about.

You fundamentally misunderstood me.
I never said I wouldn't try to protect myself or others in a dangerous situation. What I did say was that I will never stand for anybody, attacker or victim, being killed.

I live in a country where the police don't carry weapon, so any garda trying to protect a victim of a crime is doing a great job indeed. No different from any civilian trying the same. However, if that garda or that civilian should kill one of the involved, there should be legal consequences at least.

No, nobody ever deserves to be taken off tihs planet.

It worked great for France! http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_ugh2.gif

It really is what works for the country. However, underarming the defence force is not the wisest thing to do. The world is far from a safe place and there are always those who will disregard human life for thier own selfish wants. I am just thankful to live in a country where I can meet or exceed my assaliants method of attack rather than be forced to act like a sheep at the mercy of a butcherer.

For the record: Regardless of the curcumstances everyone involved in any death of anyone is investigated. If the police have to shoot someone thier gun is taken as evidence and a full investigation done, once the person is cleared of any wrongdoing life returns to something resembling normal. A friend of mine is a retired SWAT officer who has had to take people out in the line of work. One night while heading back to his place I had to stop the car to let him puke because of that. Being able to defend ones self with force is never something to be taken lightly, fortuantly everyone who has one knows this and has acted accordingly.

It worked great for France! http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_ugh2.gif

It really is what works for the country. However, underarming the defence force is not the wisest thing to do. The world is far from a safe place and there are always those who will disregard human life for thier own selfish wants. I am just thankful to live in a country where I can meet or exceed my assaliants method of attack rather than be forced to act like a sheep at the mercy of a butcherer.


It has worked for Britain, Ireland and a good number of other countries for a long time now... :rolleyes:
It's not like this was new at all.

"If we don't stop to think about what we say, then we state only stupid opinions and mindless soundbites"

Unfortunately, there's a bit too much truth in that these days...

...However, like I said, the violence levels of criminals has been on the increase for decades. You watch Cops, AMW, and various video shows and they regularly show criminals shooting their victims even after they gave up thier belongings...

Cops, America's Most Wanted, and various other video shows are not quite an accurate representation of what is going on in our country. In fact violent crime has decreased dramatically since 1994. I would direct you to the Office of Justice Programs for a pretty chart to that effect: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

... If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again and crime still dropped makes the claim that putting up no resistance makes crime "less violent" highly circumspect...

The Crime Control Bill, (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) also known as The Brady Bill, became law in 1994. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@T

One might note that 1994 is also when violent crime had it's first major drop in 20 years.

I was not able to find national numbers for concealed carry permits but I would imagine that they have been on the rise as well since there is an increased feeling of insecurity in this country. Whether CCW permits and the rate of violent crime corelate I don't know but I would guess that crime rates would have less to do with concealed weapons and more with a police department's budget.


As to opinion, solving violent crime by having more guns seems silly to me. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and will soon be in possession of one myself complete with safe, lock, locking case, and range membership. But having been a victim of violent crime on two occasions I'm pretty sure that if I had a weapon on me at the time it would not have been of much use. Being held up at gunpoint by multiple assailants wouldn't have been helped by me having a gun, the most likely senario would be the criminals ending up with my weapon. On the other hand resistance can be great, in the other instance I was able to my money back by simply using a loud voice.

Wow, I am really impressed. At the beginning of this thread you made a claim and I asked you to back it up. You have been unable to do so. Since then, you have accused me of ad hominems, red herrings, and attacked my debating skills, and now you are suggesting that I am a "disingenuous prick".

Being that you refuse to accept any sources, you keep proving me right.


Now, I will give you one more shot at it.

Oh, you'll "give" me one more shot. I'm so honored.

Cops, America's Most Wanted, and various other video shows are not quite an accurate representation of what is going on in our country. In fact violent crime has decreased dramatically since 1994. I would direct you to the Office of Justice Programs for a pretty chart to that effect: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

No, but it gives a good representation of the activities of criminals if not crime as a total.



The Crime Control Bill, (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) also known as The Brady Bill, became law in 1994. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@T

One might note that 1994 is also when violent crime had it's first major drop in 20 years.

Incorrect. Violent crime started dropping between 91/92. I'll also ask you a question. In how many states was the BB in effect when it started?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I was not able to find national numbers for concealed carry permits but I would imagine that they have been on the rise as well since there is an increased feeling of insecurity in this country. Whether CCW permits and the rate of violent crime corelate I don't know but I would guess that crime rates would have less to do with concealed weapons and more with a police department's budget.

I haven't claimed that CCW reduces crime. Might the "increased feeling of insecurity" have more to do w/ news reports constantly going for ratings than CCW?

Crime factors have dozens of variables. Here's a list of some of them from the FBI:



* Population density and degree of urbanization.
* Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
* Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
* Modes of transportation and highway system.
* Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
* Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
* Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
* Climate.
* Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
* Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
* Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
* Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
* Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.





increased feeling of insecurityAs to opinion, solving violent crime by having more guns seems silly to me. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and will soon be in possession of one myself complete with safe, lock, locking case, and range membership. But having been a victim of violent crime on two occasions I'm pretty sure that if I had a weapon on me at the time it would not have been of much use. Being held up at gunpoint by multiple assailants wouldn't have been helped by me having a gun, the most likely senario would be the criminals ending up with my weapon. On the other hand resistance can be great, in the other instance I was able to my money back by simply using a loud voice.

Being that I haven't claimed that more guns = less crime....

Your decision to purchase a firearm is fine w/ me. If you want to keep it locked up at all times, that is your decision. However, it will keep you from using it in case of a home invasion unless you purchase a quick opening model.

I'm sorry for your experiences but as you stated earlier, anecdotals don't give a whole view. I could post dozens of anecdotals where individuals saved themselves and others from single and multiple attackers w/ the use of firearms.

Being that you refuse to accept any sources, you keep proving me right.
You haven't posted anything that even remotely backs up your claim. You appear more willing to flame me than to prove your point. Your interest in serious debate appears to be secondary in nature?

Oh, you'll "give" me one more shot. I'm so honored.
Your sarcasm is noted, but your evidence is lacking.

You haven't posted anything that even remotely backs up your claim. You appear more willing to flame me than to prove your point.

I have but you refuse to accept the sources. You reject published studies because you don't like the sites. Go ahead, deny it.

Your interest in serious debate appears to be secondary in nature?

Pot meet kettle.


Your sarcasm is noted, but your evidence is lacking.

Only to those who refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their opinion.

I find it particulary humerous that not a few "Pro-Gun" (pro-choice) sites include direct links to "anti-gun" sites, yet as far as I have seen, no "anti-gun" site reciprocates.

GunCite is a good example of this - including both Pro and Anti positions, links and what passes for data. http://guncite.com/

That, in an of itself speaks volumes about the intellectual honesty and level of debate each of the two sides have.

Pro Choice vs No Choice.

I find it particulary humerous that not a few "Pro-Gun" (pro-choice) sites include direct links to "anti-gun" sites, yet as far as I have seen, no "anti-gun" site reciprocates.

GunCite is a good example of this - including both Pro and Anti positions, links and what passes for data. http://guncite.com/

That, in an of itself speaks volumes about the intellectual honesty and level of debate each of the two sides have.

Pro Choice vs No Choice.
Because some webmaster with a lot of time linked just a whole load of stuff? I mean it is not a BAD thing but all he did was link to a directory search for pro and anti gun control

Personally it does not say much to me at all ... ya may want to stick to your other points they were stronger

Because some webmaster with a lot of time linked just a whole load of stuff? I mean it is not a BAD thing but all he did was link to a directory search for pro and anti gun control.

Yet Canuck considers any information so linked suspect because it comes from a "Pro Gun" site. :rolleyes:

Personally it does not say much to me at all ... ya may want to stick to your other points they were stronger

Guncite was just an example of one such pro-choice website.

Which arguments did you find were "stronger"?

Yet Canuck considers any information so linked suspect because it comes from a "Pro Gun" site. :rolleyes:



Guncite was just an example of one such pro-choice website.

Which arguments did you find were "stronger"?
The arguments based on stats then opinion (not just this thread). Even if we had some issue with the data and such.

But anyways Personally I have been breezing through a bunch of the sites pro and anti gun and lots of them don't seem to have anything in their links page

Gah and some of the designs of their websites. Did a 3rd grader make them or something.A few of them were made in word for god sakes .

Cops, America's Most Wanted, and various other video shows are not quite an accurate representation of what is going on in our country. In fact violent crime has decreased dramatically since 1994. I would direct you to the Office of Justice Programs for a pretty chart to that effect: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
According to National Crime Victimization Survey, your information is bang on:

Criminal Victimization, 1973-95: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf)

In 1994, compared to 1973, the U.S. population was about as vulnerable to
violent crime but significantly less vulnerable to property crime. From 1973
through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability,
increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a
virtually uninterrupted decrease. The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime
rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent
category.

The Crime Control Bill, (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) also known as The Brady Bill, became law in 1994. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@T

One might note that 1994 is also when violent crime had it's first major drop in 20 years.
Actually, the Bureau of Justice Statistics states that it was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent category.

In 1995 rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and murder, measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), were at or near a 23-year low.

You fundamentally misunderstood me.
I never said I wouldn't try to protect myself or others in a dangerous situation. What I did say was that I will never stand for anybody, attacker or victim, being killed.

I live in a country where the police don't carry weapon, so any garda trying to protect a victim of a crime is doing a great job indeed. No different from any civilian trying the same. However, if that garda or that civilian should kill one of the involved, there should be legal consequences at least.

No, nobody ever deserves to be taken off tihs planet.


thank you for first,not flaming me...and for your honesty.

i will reply in kind,while i appreciate your ideal of the preciousness of life,i dissagree.
i more then anyone wish for peace and tranquility...but alas,were i am..it is not reality,which i have to live in.
i am very happy that you feel safe and wish i did as well.

maybe i have had differing life episodes then you,i have been beaten into the hospital by cops,i have been beaten into a 5 day coma by gang bangers when i went to get my kids dinner,and i have seen my best friend murdered before my eyes...i could go on.

the simple fact is...i am a bunny hugger and cry at romantic moments...nice guy...yea probably....but i also have seen first hand how being without resort,leaves you without resort.

in my deepest and heartfelt feelings...wish..i lived in a world were i could be safe(by protection of cops..etc.) and my family and loved ones...and everyone really...but i have seen so many instances of people abusing there power...be it cops or crimminals...my only logical deduction is...protect myself.i know it is cynical,and i am happy you feel safe...but that is not a luxury alot of people can afford,and being burnt numerous times...i will not again,no matter how it offends the people that think they know what is best for me.
i truly hope you dont hate me or think i am some gun totin hick..because i choose to not be killed!and defend myself.

you seem oustanding,and i love your optimism,wish i could,but then again...we have a different reality.

oh,and i also have kids that i have trained to defend themselves..at all cost.
now that may be horrible to you..but to me it is prudent as i love my kids and want them to be safe...looking away does not protect you.

my girl is in law school learning how to keep violent crimminals off the street so our kids can play in the playground and not be molested and worse.

maybe 20 years fom now..everything will be fine an dandy for everyone,,,but now....go to the wrong neighborhood...and not for the fun stuff!!!
ang if you come out..i will be your friend.hell,i will probably save you..lol

rant off...sorry

Three feet... I don't know, that's still pretty close. That's just a few degrees of rotation on part of the shooter. And yes, guns MAY protect people, they also MAY kill people. Honestly, for protection, I think a tazer or mace works well. Those things cause more pain, diabling the victim quick. People can go awhile and not even realize that they have been shot.


ooops,i missed a major point....3 days later,sorry.
the robber shot first by the way...if that matters,you can see ceiling tiles flakes falling.
i just talked to him and he feels bad for the pos,i wouldnt,but the kid was jusrt going to college..so i gueesss it was a college prank type thing and he is now gonna go to prison,for a dumb mistake..tragic..yes,but if that was my wife and kid....grrrr..i aint so forgiving,i would have finished him off before i was questioned..bloodthirsty?maybe?stick a gun in my face and shoot ...and miss...fuck you..your getting what you ask for.
college prank or not..you fire a bullet at me and miss...your beat...sorry...2 seconds is not enough time to weigh the greater aspects of the world.

he is luckyu to be alive,lety alone getting out in 4 years..shoot,i know people that have done more time for veh. manslaughter with no intent,this idiout fired a weapon at innocent people,and people say the victims cant defend themselves?
truly baffled...but i am a blood lust kill them all kinda guy...lol...i was happy he wasnt dead,so he can go to jail like everyone else.

what a turd scumbag...but i know i am wrong,he robbbed and shot at some innocent person...he must have a compelling reason...lol:headbang:

ooops,i missed a major point....3 days later,sorry.
the robber shot first by the way...if that matters,you can see ceiling tiles flakes falling.
i just talked to him and he feels bad for the pos,i wouldnt,but the kid was jusrt going to college..so i gueesss it was a college prank type thing and he is now gonna go to prison,for a dumb mistake..tragic..yes,but if that was my wife and kid....grrrr..i aint so forgiving,i would have finished him off before i was questioned..bloodthirsty?maybe?stick a gun in my face and shoot ...and miss...fuck you..your getting what you ask for.
college prank or not..you fire a bullet at me and miss...your beat...sorry...2 seconds is not enough time to weigh the greater aspects of the world.

he is luckyu to be alive,lety alone getting out in 4 years..shoot,i know people that have done more time for veh. manslaughter with no intent,this idiout fired a weapon at innocent people,and people say the victims cant defend themselves?
truly baffled...but i am a blood lust kill them all kinda guy...lol...i was happy he wasnt dead,so he can go to jail like everyone else.

what a turd scumbag...but i know i am wrong,he robbbed and shot at some innocent person...he must have a compelling reason...lol:headbang:


I have you covered there. Go back and read my post on that.

thank you for first,not flaming me...and for your honesty.

i will reply in kind,while i appreciate your ideal of the preciousness of life,i dissagree.
i more then anyone wish for peace and tranquility...but alas,were i am..it is not reality,which i have to live in.
i am very happy that you feel safe and wish i did as well.

maybe i have had differing life episodes then you,i have been beaten into the hospital by cops,i have been beaten into a 5 day coma by gang bangers when i went to get my kids dinner,and i have seen my best friend murdered before my eyes...i could go on.

the simple fact is...i am a bunny hugger and cry at romantic moments...nice guy...yea probably....but i also have seen first hand how being without resort,leaves you without resort.

in my deepest and heartfelt feelings...wish..i lived in a world were i could be safe(by protection of cops..etc.) and my family and loved ones...and everyone really...but i have seen so many instances of people abusing there power...be it cops or crimminals...my only logical deduction is...protect myself.i know it is cynical,and i am happy you feel safe...but that is not a luxury alot of people can afford,and being burnt numerous times...i will not again,no matter how it offends the people that think they know what is best for me.
i truly hope you dont hate me or think i am some gun totin hick..because i choose to not be killed!and defend myself.

you seem oustanding,and i love your optimism,wish i could,but then again...we have a different reality.

oh,and i also have kids that i have trained to defend themselves..at all cost.
now that may be horrible to you..but to me it is prudent as i love my kids and want them to be safe...looking away does not protect you.

my girl is in law school learning how to keep violent crimminals off the street so our kids can play in the playground and not be molested and worse.

maybe 20 years fom now..everything will be fine an dandy for everyone,,,but now....go to the wrong neighborhood...and not for the fun stuff!!!
ang if you come out..i will be your friend.hell,i will probably save you..lol

rant off...sorry

I definitely don't hate you for that.
If there's one thing I learned on this forum, it's that reality in the United States is a lot more violent, a lot less safe and an awful lot more based on emotions (positive and negative) than it is in any country in Europe.
The reasons for that are not easy to trace, and I assume that gun ownership is merely a symptom, not a cause, of that violent reality.

With freedom comes resposibility, and it's my impression that a very great number of people don't live up to the responsibility.
If I had to decide if I wanted to live in a place where I have the freedom to own guns, as many as I want, but I will be faced with 1) others who own them as well and might use them at any moment and 2) a society that relies on the individual protecting himself, and a place where getting a gun is a lot of hassle (it's not illegal, but it's no right, either, you do need a good reason to have one) but where society is doing a good job at protecting individuals and creating a relativly safe and peaceful environmet, I'd choose the second.

I've lived through a good deal of violence myself, within my own family. No gun would ever have protected me there, anyway. If I seriously believed that there is any situation whatsoever in which it is ok to kill a person, my father would be dead and cold by now.

I'll defend myself, but not with any means that are potentially lethal.

No, but it gives a good representation of the activities of criminals if not crime as a total.[in response to COPS and television shows being an accurate representation of crime]

Entertainment media is solely a representation of what we find entertaining. One could use the same argument to say that crime has never been as violent as when Jack the Ripper ran the streets of London. COPS and such are fun to watch and I think that I'll let you have the last word on it so that we can regain focus.


Incorrect. Violent crime started dropping between 91/92. I'll also ask you a question. In how many states was the BB in effect when it started?

First off, the Brady Bill is part of the Crime Bill which is a federal bill, now a federal law. We have quoted two different statistical gathering sources. The Bureau of Justice Statistics in this case used NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey, while the site you referenced uses an FBI report which used the UCR, Uniform Crime Report. You will agree perhaps that the introduction of the Brady bill occurred after 1990, I was trying to show you that the "non-resistance meme" as I believe you called it had not stopped and that it's introduction as law correlates with a significant drop in the violent crime rate. As CanuckHeaven pointed out, 1994-1995 was the largest decrease in violent crime according to both the NCVS and the UCR. That same pattern has continued on through 2004.

I haven't claimed that CCW reduces crime. Might the "increased feeling of insecurity" have more to do w/ news reports constantly going for ratings than CCW?

I could not find enough information on the number of carry concealed weapon permits we added to the system to see if there was a relation to the drop in crime rates as well. It was my impression that the CCW debate was something as follows, more CCW means that criminals won't know who does and who doesn't carry a weapon and will be less inclined to rob anybody. I know that the NRA showed a statistic that Florida had a more drastic decrease in crime than the national average and it also had an increase in the CCW permits issued but I cannot find the quote again.

the following is solely opinion:
As to your comment about personal experiences, I agree that they do not give the whole view and that is why I included that in the opinion section of my post. And for having a weapon in my house: I am (or was) purchasing a handgun for the purpose of practicing with it not for protection. A telephone near your bed is a much better security method than a weapon, even the police will tell you that their most important safety tool is their radio.

First off, the Brady Bill is part of the Crime Bill which is a federal bill, now a federal law. We have quoted two different statistical gathering sources. The Bureau of Justice Statistics in this case used NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey, while the site you referenced uses an FBI report which used the UCR, Uniform Crime Report. You will agree perhaps that the introduction of the Brady bill occurred after 1990, I was trying to show you that the "non-resistance meme" as I believe you called it had not stopped and that it's introduction as law correlates with a significant drop in the violent crime rate. As CanuckHeaven pointed out, 1994-1995 was the largest decrease in violent crime according to both the NCVS and the UCR. That same pattern has continued on through 2004.

The BB had nothing to do w/ non-resistance. It had to do primarily w/ a 5 day waiting period for handguns. The crime trend started dropping BEFORE the BB was introduced so the causality is not there. There were also over 2 doz states that enacted CCW laws, lessened restrictions, strong economy, good weather, etc. during that time period.


Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 284 No. 5, August 2, 2000) found:

"Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."

By your logic, you could claim absolute causality on the crime turnaround and subsequent violence in DC to their handgun ban.

I'll ask again, how many states were affected by the requirements of the BB when it was introduced? (Hint: It wasn't all of them) It is also no longer in effect BTW, It has been replaced by the NICS.


BTW, here is some information regarding the NCVS and UCR.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appendices/appendix_04.html



I could not find enough information on the number of carry concealed weapon permits we added to the system to see if there was a relation to the drop in crime rates as well. It was my impression that the CCW debate was something as follows, more CCW means that criminals won't know who does and who doesn't carry a weapon and will be less inclined to rob anybody. I know that the NRA showed a statistic that Florida had a more drastic decrease in crime than the national average and it also had an increase in the CCW permits issued but I cannot find the quote again.

originally the CCW debate was "people should be allowed to defend themselves against criminals vs Wild West shootouts and blood in the streets". It has migrated to "It has decreased crime vs it has had no effect on crime" due to the fact that crime has NOT increased due to it.

the following is solely opinion:
As to your comment about personal experiences, I agree that they do not give the whole view and that is why I included that in the opinion section of my post. And for having a weapon in my house: I am (or was) purchasing a handgun for the purpose of practicing with it not for protection. A telephone near your bed is a much better security method than a weapon, even the police will tell you that their most important safety tool is their radio.

I respect your opinion. I have both a phone and a firearm near my bed. I've read to many reports of criminals cutting phone lines or cell phones dying to completely rely on it. The reaction time of police also varies from place to place. I live out in the country and could expect no better than 20 min.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
Can you pinpoint when the "no resistance" meme was suggested by Brady?]

Handgun COntrol Inc (HCI) became "The Brady Center". He posted the quote from the former HCI chair;

Quote: [Kecibukia]
Former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields, said, "If attacked put up no defense - give them what they want." (Guns Don`t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981.)

The BB had nothing to do w/ non-resistance...

well... ok then. But still, the Brady Bill was proposed by people who supported non-resistance.

If you look at crime data from '81 on, there was a small drop for about 3 years then a sharp increase until '91. During this period, the "no resistance" meme was at its height. The fact that, during the '90's, defending oneself became in vogue again

The brady bill was written into law in 1994.

BTW, here is some information regarding the NCVS and UCR.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appen...pendix_04.html

Thank you, the reason why both the NCVS and the UCR were referenced in the quote "1994-1995 was the largest decrease in violent crime according to both the NCVS and the UCR" was in order to show that the comment covered murder as well.

While you live in the country, I live in a city where if I were to fire a weapon in my house I would in fact be firing near dozens of other people who I have no way of knowing where they are. That coupled with the fact that I am within walking distance of three police stations add to the feeling of security a telephone provides. I also know my neighbors well enough to know that I would be able to call on them just as they would me in an emergency.

All that being said I still find it hard to see how adding a gun to the mix lessens the potential for violence. That's pretty much the problem with handguns, they're meant to kill people.

With freedom comes resposibility, and it's my impression that a very great number of people don't live up to the responsibility.
If I had to decide if I wanted to live in a place where I have the freedom to own guns, as many as I want, but I will be faced with 1) others who own them as well and might use them at any moment and 2) a society that relies on the individual protecting himself, and a place where getting a gun is a lot of hassle (it's not illegal, but it's no right, either, you do need a good reason to have one) but where society is doing a good job at protecting individuals and creating a relativly safe and peaceful environmet, I'd choose the second.

Luckily for us in the States there are different...well, States, to choose from each with their own gun laws. For example in California you need to get the county Sheriff's approval before you can carry a concealed weapon, while in Florida you can pick one up over the weekend at your church bazaar.

[QUOTE=Syniks]



well... ok then. But still, the Brady Bill was proposed by people who supported non-resistance.



The brady bill was written into law in 1994.



Thank you, the reason why both the NCVS and the UCR were referenced in the quote "1994-1995 was the largest decrease in violent crime according to both the NCVS and the UCR" was in order to show that the comment covered murder as well.

I didn't dispute the NCVS. I'm trying to figure out exactly what point you are trying to make. The BB had nothing to do w/ passive resistance nor is there ANY evidence that it caused a reduction in crime. I've already listed several other factors that were occuring at the same time.

Since you refuse to answer my question as to how many states the BB actually applied in, 18 states and DC were exempt from the BB from the beginning due to the fact that they already had STRICTER firearm laws on books. They also accounted for for 63% of violent crimes, including 57% of murders, in the U.S. in 1993. There were also numerous cities and jurisdictions that were exempt. By the time it expired, 31 states were exempt.

While you live in the country, I live in a city where if I were to fire a weapon in my house I would in fact be firing near dozens of other people who I have no way of knowing where they are. That coupled with the fact that I am within walking distance of three police stations add to the feeling of security a telephone provides. I also know my neighbors well enough to know that I would be able to call on them just as they would me in an emergency.

I'm glad for you but not eveyone has the same feeling of security.

All that being said I still find it hard to see how adding a gun to the mix lessens the potential for violence. That's pretty much the problem with handguns, they're meant to kill people.

Noone here said it "lessens the potential for violence" nor are handguns exclusively "meant to kill people". It's all upon the intent of the weilder.



Luckily for us in the States there are different...well, States, to choose from each with their own gun laws. For example in California you need to get the county Sherif's approval before you can carry a concealed weapon, while in Florida you can pick one up over the weekend at your church bazaar.

Oh, now don't start that nonsense, it really hurts your arguement.

Here's the pertinant FL regulations:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/Sec06.htm#0790.06

I didn't dispute the NCVS. I'm trying to figure out exactly what point you are trying to make. The BB had nothing to do w/ passive resistance nor is there ANY evidence that it caused a reduction in crime. I've already listed several other factors that were occuring at the same time.

Since you refuse to answer my question as to how many states the BB actually applied in, 18 states and DC were exempt from the BB from the beginning due to the fact that they already had STRICTER firearm laws on books. They also accounted for for 63% of violent crimes, including 57% of murders, in the U.S. in 1993. There were also numerous cities and jurisdictions that were exempt. By the time it expired, 31 states were exempt.

The point was that the non-resistance movement was still going strong in 1994 and had not stopped in '91 as I read in one of your previous statements. As to the Brady Bill having nothing to do with non-resistance I once again direct you to your quote of the HCI Chair and add this footnote from a Brady Act constitutionality hearing
FN3. Handgun Control, Inc., et al., Senator Paul Simon, and the State of
Ohio, have filed briefs as amici curiae in support of the U.S..

[EDIT] I realize I should include my source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun02.htm - near the bottom under footnotes.

The 18/31 States are impacted by the Brady Act regardless of whether more strict legislation was in place. The act set a minimum for all States to meet.

Oh, now don't start that nonsense, it really hurts your arguement.

Here's the pertinant FL regulations:

haha yes well luckily that was directed at Cabra West and was not meant to be an argument builder. I used two States in which I have lived in order to give an idea of how different States can be. And you can in fact, go to a gun show over the weekend and get yourself a gun while complying with Florida law. Not saying that is wrong I am simply contrasting that to California, another State I have experience in.

The point was that the non-resistance movement was still going strong in 1994 and had not stopped in '91 as I read in one of your previous statements.

You haven't shown that at all. All you've shown is that the BB became law in '94. That has nothing to do w/ non-resistance at all. I could just counter and say that multiple states were passing CCW laws which is active resistance.
As to the Brady Bill having nothing to do with non-resistance I once again direct you to your quote of the HCI Chair and add this footnote from a Brady Act constitutionality hearing
FN3. Handgun Control, Inc., et al., Senator Paul Simon, and the State of
Ohio, have filed briefs as amici curiae in support of the U.S..

That still says nothing about non-resistance movements being large in the 90's. The BB applied to a waiting period for handguns. Are you going to provide a link?

The 18/31 States are impacted by the Brady Act regardless of whether more strict legislation was in place. The act set a minimum for all States to meet.

How were they impacted if they were exempt from its requirements in the first place? You've basically stated that the BB resulted in dropping crime when most of the exempt states accounted for the majority of crime. Since crime was ALREADY dropping, you have shown no causality. I would refer you back to my previous post that cited a JAMA article.

Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 284 No. 5, August 2, 2000) found:

"Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates. In particular, we find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 treatment states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."

Most of the states that became exempt passed "Instant Checks" which negated the mandatory waiting period anyway.



haha yes well luckily that was directed at Cabra West and was not meant to be an argument builder. I used two States in which I have lived in order to give an idea of how different States can be. And you can in fact, go to a gun show over the weekend and get yourself a gun while complying with Florida law. Not saying that is wrong I am simply contrasting that to California, another State I have experience in.

Now you're bouncing from CCW to just purchasing. You can purchase firearms at gun shows in CA as well.

You can go to VT and carry w/o a license. It is also one of the safest states. They get a D- from the Brady's BTW on safety.

I find it particulary humerous that not a few "Pro-Gun" (pro-choice) sites include direct links to "anti-gun" sites, yet as far as I have seen, no "anti-gun" site reciprocates.

GunCite is a good example of this - including both Pro and Anti positions, links and what passes for data. http://guncite.com/

That, in an of itself speaks volumes about the intellectual honesty and level of debate each of the two sides have.

Pro Choice vs No Choice.
Actually GunCite is really pro gun with the illusion of being pro choice. For example, on their cite under Gun Control, their is a link that says The Brady Bill. When you click on that link, it does not take you to the Brady Bill.

Halfway down the page is this statement:

Although GunCite does not speak for, or represent any gun rights organizations, the majority of citizens concerned about preserving gun rights would drop opposition to certain gun laws if the Second Amendment were treated as normal constitutional law. If you think this opposition is merely gun paranoia nonsense, please read "Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns."

When you click on that link, it takes you to yet another page that ultimately makes this statement at the bottom of the page:

But a public policy of simply discouraging people from owning or using firearms is not, in and of itself, a constitutionally permissible objective, any more than discouraging people from religious observance would be permissible to some future, oh-so-progressive government that considered religion as hopelessly declasse progressives nowadays consider the right to keep and bear arms. Thus the Los Angeles Police Department has behaved unconstitutionally by refusing, over a period of many years, to exercise its statutory discretion to issue carry permits, because the department didn't think it a good idea for people (other than police officers) to carry guns around. And any statute or regulation that burdens the right to keep and bear arms on the ground that guns are a public health hazard should enjoy the same frosty reception in court that would be given to a statute or regulation that burdened the free exercise of religion as a mental health hazard.

All smoke and mirrors, but then you expect that from pro gun sites?

Actually GunCite is really pro gun with the allusion of being pro choice. Allusion or Illusion? :rolleyes:

All smoke and mirrors,
Yep. Linking to Anti Gun sites is sooooo in keeping with the "pro-gun agenda". :rolleyes:

And what about your quotes implies that "pro-gun" people want to force anything on anybody? We simply believe people should have the choice... somthing the anti's want to deny.

Allusion or Illusion? :rolleyes:
Slight typo thanks. Illusion.

Yep. Linking to Anti Gun sites is sooooo in keeping with the "pro-gun agenda". :rolleyes:
Top left corner of GunCite states this message:

"If you learn only one thing from GunCite, let this be it. Click here."

Which takes you to a page all about 2nd Amendment Rights.

And talk about misleading...under this title (Other Gun Control Information) is a link to the NRA.

And what about your quotes implies that "pro-gun" people want to force anything on anybody? We simply believe people should have the choice... somthing the anti's want to deny.
However, you want unregulated choice and that is were the battle begins?

Oh, now don't start that nonsense, it really hurts your arguement.
Just for clarification, using your definition for "ad hominem", would the above count as an "ad hominem" or is it just a simple case of flaming?

Slight typo thanks. Illusion.


Top left corner of GunCite states this message:

"If you learn only one thing from GunCite, let this be it. Click here."

Which takes you to a page all about 2nd Amendment Rights.

And talk about misleading...under this title (Other Gun Control Information) is a link to the NRA. As well as to (IIRC) HCI/Brady and the VPC.
However, you want unregulated choice and that is were the battle begins?Nope. Never said that. Go back and revisit my Licensing Programme.

We most certainly need a level of regulation. Criminals and the Adjudicated Insane should not be allowed to "keep and bear" arms. We already do that - to the extent you can keepa criminal from doing anything.

A LAC should have the same right to Keep and Bear a (whatever personal weapon) they choose and can afford - just like they do Automobiles, Motorcycles, and Golf Clubs.

And don't say " cars are not designed to kill". Doesn't matter. INNOCENTLY, legitimately used Cars are the primary factor in death far more often than illigitimately, criminally used guns are.

Talk to me again when we reach over 2.5 million non criminal "gun deaths". We hit that with cars a long time ago.

We most certainly need a level of regulation. Criminals and the Adjudicated Insane should not be allowed to "keep and bear" arms. We already do that - to the extent you can keepa criminal from doing anything.
Regulations:

NO CCW, instead recommend tazers for personal protection.
Safe storage, as in unloaded and locked.
Proper registration, and permanent records storage.
Background check.
Waiting period.
Increased jail terms for use of gun in commission of crime.
Reduce number of licenced sellers.
Secondary sales have to be processed like original sale.
Safety training mandatory.
If your guns are constantly stolen, then you lose the right to own guns.

A LAC should have the same right to Keep and Bear a (whatever personal weapon) they choose and can afford - just like they do Automobiles, Motorcycles, and Golf Clubs.
People don't buy cars and golf clubs to use as murder weapons. That argument is ummmm, kinda silly. :p

And don't say " cars are not designed to kill". Doesn't matter. INNOCENTLY, legitimately used Cars are the primary factor in death far more often than illigitimately, criminally used guns are.
See above.

Talk to me again when we reach over 2.5 million non criminal "gun deaths". We hit that with cars a long time ago.
See above.

I will start off by saying that it is late and I haven't slept in over twenty four hours, there may be mistakes and I may not be as polite as I usually try to be. But I will be on my best behavior.

You can't quote the chair of the HCI as a non-resistance proponent and then say that when that same group (same group being the HCI again) pushes a law (the brady bill) through congress it has nothing to do with non-resistance.

I've gathered information and tried to pass it on, but we seem to be stuck in a feedback loop here so turn down your radio and argue with me, not yourself. It's no fun to use your own words against you, I like mine so much better.

Now I know I said I wouldn't... but I direct you to post number 24 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10535639&postcount=24)

I will refer my first post and say that I haven't been able to find numbers on initial CCW permits issued but that I think it would show a possible connection in much the same way that the passing of the Crime Bill seemed to have with the NCVS depiction of violent crime levels (first drastic drop in 20 years which continues to present). I have still not found the numbers, though I have arizona's for the past year and a half, it's not nearly enough to form an opinion.

My post should have ended this thread, other than the scores of people that should have agreed with me. This is disappointing.

haha you are too right

My post should have ended this thread, other than the scores of people that should have agreed with me. This is disappointing.
I do believe that you are correct there.

Luckily for us in the States there are different...well, States, to choose from each with their own gun laws. For example in California you need to get the county Sheriff's approval before you can carry a concealed weapon, while in Florida you can pick one up over the weekend at your church bazaar.

Actually, I'm quite happy that more or less the same strict gun laws apply all over Europe.
There's very little point in restricting gun ownership in one area, if a more liberal area is just a short drive away. Europe's actually a prime example for that: There used to be very, very few guns in private posession, hardly anybody apart from hunters and people regarding shooting as a sport had any. Those that were around were registered and accounted for. Then communism/socialism in Eastern Europe broke down, countries were falling into chaos, and illegal gun trade flared up. The black market for guns reached Europe easily, as the borders were no longer virtually sealed of. And suddenly, illegal gun ownership became a problem, although not nearly to the extend it is in the US.
Strong gun laws in one place are ineffective, as long as it's easy to get to another place to get guns.

And one more thought : I've often heard the argument that if you restricted gun ownership, the only people around would be criminals. Where do criminals get there guns? Either those have to be brought into the country illegally, which makes them expensive, or else they'd steal them from people who got them legally, wouldn't they?

Actually, I'm quite happy that more or less the same strict gun laws apply all over Europe.
There's very little point in restricting gun ownership in one area, if a more liberal area is just a short drive away.

You're right, uneven regulation makes a market for guns between States in much the same way that there is a market for fireworks during the summer over here. But we're a young country yet, and hopefully working towards reigning in much of the gun crime, even if we have to do it State by State.

[edit]Just saw the last part.
And one more thought : I've often heard the argument that if you restricted gun ownership, the only people around would be criminals. Where do criminals get there guns? Either those have to be brought into the country illegally, which makes them expensive, or else they'd steal them from people who got them legally, wouldn't they?

Maybe you mean "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." That particular quote is just a silly soundbite that would be much like saying... if it's illegal to walk, only criminals will be walking. Where do criminals get their guns? Well I'll say Florida again just because I'm one to pick at an open wound, but seriously in the US all (well I'll say almost all, there might have been one or two that don't fit this category) guns collected by law enforcement were originally legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer. And in New York City 49 percent of those original dealers were from a Southern State (Virginia, the two Carolinas, Georgia and yes, Florida) while 16 percent were originally sold in New York. Some of those guns might have been stolen, but not most of them. Again it goes to show you that changing a gun control law where you live is not the only solution. But it's at least to know that of the more than 6284 guns traced in new york city in the year 2000, about 86% were collected in firearms offences, traffic stops and so on leaving only 14% gathered from those hurty crimes like murder and such.

Interlinear - Bolded:

CanuckHeaven - Regulations:

NO CCW, instead recommend tazers for personal protection.
Agreed... if and when Tazers can engage multiple threats rather than being "one shot wonders"

Safe storage, as in unloaded and locked.
The way all my guns, except my daily CCW, are kept. Question - how are you going to enforce without no-knock warrantless searches? (Police State tactics)

Proper registration, and permanent records storage.
Why? Historically that has only been used as a confiscation database. See Police State.

Background check.
Got one. NCIS. See also my DL/GL comparison.

Waiting period.
Got one - If you haven't already recieved a CCW License (background check again)

Increased jail terms for use of gun in commission of crime.
NRA sponsored program exists.

Reduce number of licenced sellers.
BATFE has already harrassed most "home FFL holders" out of business. My town has only one gunshop, and it doesn't even sell "assault weapons". IIRC The total number of dealers has been cut in half since the 1990s.

Secondary sales have to be processed like original sale.
With the exception of individual "face-to-face" sales between residents of the same state, this is already required. FTF transfers are comparatively rare.

Safety training mandatory.
Good idea, but at what cost, to whom, and who sets the official criteria?

If your guns are constantly stolen, then you lose the right to own guns.
I think that with a little investigation, someone who's "guns are constantly stolen" could be proven in a court of law to be an illegal "trafficker".

I guess you no longer have issues with LAC gun ownership in the US, right?

People don't buy cars and golf clubs to use as murder weapons. That argument is ummmm, kinda silly. :p
Yet those things have been used as such. I didn't buy any of my guns to use as murder weapons either. Nor did 99.99% of gun owners.

The point is, when used non-feloniously, you stand a greater chance of dying/killing with a car than you do with a gun.

I will start off by saying that it is late and I haven't slept in over twenty four hours, there may be mistakes and I may not be as polite as I usually try to be. But I will be on my best behavior.

You can't quote the chair of the HCI as a non-resistance proponent and then say that when that same group (same group being the HCI again) pushes a law (the brady bill) through congress it has nothing to do with non-resistance.

I've gathered information and tried to pass it on, but we seem to be stuck in a feedback loop here so turn down your radio and argue with me, not yourself. It's no fun to use your own words against you, I like mine so much better.

Now I know I said I wouldn't... but I direct you to post number 24 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10535639&postcount=24)

Um, it's called multiple agenda's. Pushing non-resistance and waiting periods for handguns are two different topics.

Just for clarification, using your definition for "ad hominem", would the above count as an "ad hominem" or is it just a simple case of flaming?

Neither, but your post is definite trolling.

You're right, uneven regulation makes a market for guns between States in much the same way that there is a market for fireworks during the summer over here. But we're a young country yet, and hopefully working towards reigning in much of the gun crime, even if we have to do it State by State.

[edit]Just saw the last part.


Maybe you mean "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." That particular quote is just a silly soundbite that would be much like saying... if it's illegal to walk, only criminals will be walking. Where do criminals get their guns? Well I'll say Florida again just because I'm one to pick at an open wound, but seriously in the US all (well I'll say almost all, there might have been one or two that don't fit this category) guns collected by law enforcement were originally legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer. And in New York City 49 percent of those original dealers were from a Southern State (Virginia, the two Carolinas, Georgia and yes, Florida) while 16 percent were originally sold in New York. Some of those guns might have been stolen, but not most of them. Again it goes to show you that changing a gun control law where you live is not the only solution. But it's at least to know that of the more than 6284 guns traced in new york city in the year 2000, about 86% were collected in firearms offences, traffic stops and so on leaving only 14% gathered from those hurty crimes like murder and such.

Now read up on "gun traces".

Gun traces are only performed at the request of a police department. It does NOT represent the number of confiscated firearms w/i the state or of confiscated firearms as a whole.

If you want to go that route, the majority of firearms used in crime in DC were from MD, a very restrictive state.

Taser International has developed a wireless shotgun taser, the Taser XREP:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=816707&highlight=
Multiple rounds were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, one of the most prevalent shoulder fired launchers in use today, at ranges up to 30 meters

Last I heard it was Military/LEO (law enforcement officer) only but it's at least a glimpse of the less-than-lethal options to come.

Handguns especially should be required to be sold with an effective lock, some states may require it, I have no idea, let me know.

Proper registration helps LEO when they are tracing a weapon used in a crime, whether it's for prosecution of information gathering to prevent crimes like it from happening again.

Safety training can be paid for at least in part by an increased tax on guns and bullets. Even if it's type specific because I know hunting licences are already taxed nicely to help rebuild game populations so just tax handguns and handgun bullets. Taxes of that nature worked with cigarettes.

Owning a hunting rifle is one thing, but a handgun is another all together. Handguns are made for killing people, the short barrel for ease of carry not accuracy in shooting a deer or rabbit. If you have a handgun for self defense what do you plan on doing to defend yourself? Will you use it as a bartering tool? Throw it in another direction as a distraction? My guess is that if you were defending yourself with a handgun you would use it to shoot at the attacker, because that's what they are designed to do.

Now before you start telling me to look at D.C. if I want to see what happens when a city bans handguns I ask this. Where do the guns come from? 81% of guns used in a crime in DC are handguns, and only 3% of all guns used in a crime there were sold in DC. Cabra West is right, it's not nearly as helpful to has strict legislation one place when you can walk across the border to a more liberal area.


[edit]And Kecibukia is right, I should mention that when I say "guns used in a crime" I do mean trace-able guns used in a crime. And that crime is usually not a crime where the gun was actually used but where a detained person had the gun with them. Here's to preventative policing.

Taser International has developed a wireless shotgun taser, the Taser XREP:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=816707&highlight=
Multiple rounds were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, one of the most prevalent shoulder fired launchers in use today, at ranges up to 30 meters

Last I heard it was Military/LEO (law enforcement officer) only but it's at least a glimpse of the less-than-lethal options to come.

Sure, but for the time being, they are one shot, innacuratte weapons.

Handguns especially should be required to be sold with an effective lock, some states may require it, I have no idea, let me know.

Why? Unless the lock is actually placed on it, it does no good for storage and inhibits the firearm being used for defensive purposes.

Proper registration helps LEO when they are tracing a weapon used in a crime, whether it's for prosecution of information gathering to prevent crimes like it from happening again.

The only "information gathering" registrations have been used for is to confiscate previously legal firearms when the laws become more draconian.

Safety training can be paid for at least in part by an increased tax on guns and bullets. Even if it's type specific because I know hunting licences are already taxed nicely to help rebuild game populations so just tax handguns and handgun bullets. Taxes of that nature worked with cigarettes.

Hunting licenses are not taxed evenly in all states. Some allow unlimited hunting on private land w/o any fees due to overpopulations. It's also interesting to note that Anti-gun groups and politicians have endorsed taxes in order to make it prohibitevily expensive and to discourage firearm ownership. Like cigarettes.

Owning a hunting rifle is one thing, but a handgun is another all together. Handguns are made for killing people, the short barrel for ease of carry not accuracy in shooting a deer or rabbit.

This shows a lack of knowledge of firearms. Handguns are used in target shooting, plinking, varmint hunting, etc. Not just for "killing people".

If you have a handgun for self defense what do you plan on doing to defend yourself? Will you use it as a bartering tool? Throw it in another direction as a distraction? My guess is that if you were defending yourself with a handgun you would use it to shoot at the attacker, because that's what they are designed to do.

Your "guess" is used as a last resort. The majority of DGU's don't even involve the firing of the weapon.



Now before you start telling me to look at D.C. if I want to see what happens when a city bans handguns I ask this. Where do the guns come from? 81% of guns used in a crime in DC are handguns, and only 3% of all guns used in a crime there were sold in DC. Cabra West is right, it's not nearly as helpful to has strict legislation one place when you can walk across the border to a more liberal area.

And most of DC's crime guns came from MD, a HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE state while the citizens of DC weren't able to defend themselves.


[edit]And Kecibukia is right, I should mention that when I say "guns used in a crime" I do mean trace-able guns used in a crime. And that crime is usually not a crime where the gun was actually used but where a detained person had the gun with them. Here's to preventative policing.

And "preventative policing" is great until they start "preventing" LAC's from owning firearms due to criminal actions.
Read up on the recent ATF abuses at gun shows. They violated law by going to peoples houses (as well as their neighbors) questioning whether they knew the individual was purchasing a firearm and what they thought about that, openly followed minorities and women through the shows, and delayed NICS paperwork.

Tasers are short range, innacurate less than lethal weapons the first time they are fired and then they are even shorter ranged accurate less than lethal weapons. Handguns are longer ranged, fairly accurate lethal weapons. If my goal is to prevent a crime from happening I'm chosing the less-lethal weapon if I have to chose one.

Why should handguns be sold with an effective lock? Because then people might use them. If people already use them, YAY, the lock is already there. And yes a lock on a gun might slow you down in an emergency but locking your doors and windows might slow you down in a fire just as easily. Having a lock on a handgun will hopefully make it harder for a child/intruder to use the gun to hurt people you care about.

Information gathering is also used with those gun tracing things you told me I should read up on. It's used for the same reason why DUI check points show up in the same areas, why gang task forces work one neighborhood. You need information to prevent crime. If you don't want to register don't buy a gun, build a moat, they've been keeping families safe much longer than gun's have.

Hunting licenses are not taxed evenly in all states. Some allow unlimited hunting on private land w/o any fees due to overpopulations. It's also interesting to note that Anti-gun groups and politicians have endorsed taxes in order to make it prohibitevily expensive and to discourage firearm ownership. Like cigarettes.

yes, everything is different everywhere but that is by far the only reason groups back hunting taxes and even though it's way off topic and ignores the point of my quote I'll respond. I buy a hunting licence every year because it's the only tax that puts money into habitat restoration where I am. I don't hunt often but I think it's important that the land and animals be there for future generations who want to hunt or not hunt.

This shows a lack of knowledge of firearms. Handguns are used in target shooting, plinking, varmint hunting, etc. Not just for "killing people".

yes yes and newspapers are used for bedding, glue is inhaled for drugging, tennis balls for baseball, the handgun was designed for war, a newspaper for reading, glue for holding things together and tennis balls for being hit with a tennis raquette. You can use whatever tool for whatever reason, it doesn't change what the tool is designed for.

Tasers are short range, innacurate less than lethal weapons the first time they are fired and then they are even shorter ranged accurate less than lethal weapons. Handguns are longer ranged, fairly accurate lethal weapons. If my goal is to prevent a crime from happening I'm chosing the less-lethal weapon if I have to chose one.

And your choice is fine. Others choose to use handguns.

Why should handguns be sold with an effective lock? Because then people might use them. If people already use them, YAY, the lock is already there. And yes a lock on a gun might slow you down in an emergency but locking your doors and windows might slow you down in a fire just as easily. Having a lock on a handgun will hopefully make it harder for a child/intruder to use the gun to hurt people you care about.

The most effective way to prevent children and "accidents" w/ firearms is education. As for the intruder, if he's there, the odds are you'll have the firearm and not him but not being able to use it due to a lock. I have no problem w/ firearms being sold w/ locks but I feel making it mandatory is pointless.

Information gathering is also used with those gun tracing things you told me I should read up on. It's used for the same reason why DUI check points show up in the same areas, why gang task forces work one neighborhood. You need information to prevent crime. If you don't want to register don't buy a gun, build a moat, they've been keeping families safe much longer than gun's have.

It's an "after the fact" measure that HAS been used for confiscation. If you don't want a firearm for defense, don't use it for such. But don't presume to tell me what I can and can't own. As for the non-sequiter about moats, personally owned weapons have been keeping more families safer than moats and for much longer, which were generally only used by nobility.



yes, everything is different everywhere but that is by far the only reason groups back hunting taxes and even though it's way off topic and ignores the point of my quote I'll respond. I buy a hunting licence every year because it's the only tax that puts money into habitat restoration where I am. I don't hunt often but I think it's important that the land and animals be there for future generations who want to hunt or not hunt.

Now, what if those "hunting licenses" went up so high only the rich could afford them, would you still support it?

Those are the EXACT measures that anti-gun pundits use to discourage firearm ownership.



yes yes and newspapers are used for bedding, glue is inhaled for drugging, tennis balls for baseball, the handgun was designed for war, a newspaper for reading, glue for holding things together and tennis balls for being hit with a tennis raquette. You can use whatever tool for whatever reason, it doesn't change what the tool is designed for.

Non-sequiter again. None of the "alternate" uses for the products you mentioned are original intent. The ones I mentioned ARE original intent for handguns.

If handguns are "only" designed for killing people, is that the reason police carry them?

As far as I could tell the handgun was designed for the military (even going way back to the 1400s) and the military is more concerned with killing the enemy than with killing varmint. Now sure there are handguns that have been designed to be used as competition guns but they are not the same ones sold as ideal for concealing. And yes, the police have their guns for killing people. But if you really believe that you carry a concealed weapon and have a weapon by your bed because it's not a tool for killing, who am I to argue with you. I'd just like to know what the final sequence of events in this line would be:
unknown person enters your house at night (yes it's a burglar/rapist/serial killer or whatever I'm not trying to say "haha it's your daughters boyfriend" but if it was, cap him anyway it's for the best)
homeowner retrieves gun from where ever it is
intruder and homeowner meet
both have guns and point at eachother
what happens next

The most effective way to prevent children and "accidents" w/ firearms is education.

ooor not having the firearm... but no

finally, have a gun, whatever has anybody been able to find initial CCW permit numbers nationwide, or even state to state I'll compile it myself.

As far as I could tell the handgun was designed for the military (even going way back to the 1400s) and the military is more concerned with killing the enemy than with killing varmint. Now sure there are handguns that have been designed to be used as competition guns but they are not the same ones sold as ideal for concealing. And yes, the police have their guns for killing people. But if you really believe that you carry a concealed weapon and have a weapon by your bed because it's not a tool for killing, who am I to argue with you. I'd just like to know what the final sequence of events in this line would be:
unknown person enters your house at night (yes it's a burglar/rapist/serial killer or whatever I'm not trying to say "haha it's your daughters boyfriend" but if it was, cap him anyway it's for the best)
homeowner retrieves gun from where ever it is
intruder and homeowner meet
both have guns and point at eachother
what happens next

They both have guns? homeowner gets off shot and hits while any shots criminal gets off miss.

Like I said, no matter which DGU report you use, the overwhelming majority DO NOT use thier firearms to kill but to scare away. Quite a few things were designed for the military that have civilian uses, radar, jet propulsion, weather sattelites, hummers, and ALL firearms. That doesn't mean my hunting rifle is "only" for killing people. Even most non-olympic target shooting is done w/ previously military weapons or civilian versions thereof.





ooor not having the firearm... but no

But since millions of people DO own firearms and will continue to own them unless the Brady's and thier ilk have their way, your statement is pointless. It's statistically more dangerous to own a pool and have children.

finally, have a gun, whatever has anybody been able to find initial CCW permit numbers nationwide, or even state to state I'll compile it myself.

Here's issuing/revocation data for 11 states:

* Florida: 798,732 issued, 146 (0.02%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees. (Dept. of State, 10/1/87-2/29/02)
* Kentucky: 71,770 valid permits, 585 (0.8%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, 10/1/96-12/31/01)
* Louisiana.: 15,319 issued, 67 (0.4%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, (11/1/96-2/28/02)
* Oklahoma: 35,329 issued, 108 (0.30%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 2/28/ 2002)
* North Carolina: 47,046 issued, 242 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 12/1/95-9/29/01)
* South Carolina: 33,492 issued, 164 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SLED, 8/96-5/26/02)
* Texas: 223,584 issued, 1,772 (0.8%) revoked for any reason. (DPS, 1/1/96-5/1/02)
* Tennessee.: 130,187 issued, 1,126 (0.9%) revoked for any reason. (DPS, 12/96-5/4/02)
* Utah: 44,173 issued, 565 (1.3%) revoked for any reason. (Dec. 31, 2001)
* Virginia: 172,347 issued, 372 (0.2%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, 7/95-4/02)
* Wyoming: 7,480 issued, 20 (0.3%) revoked for any reason. (Dept. of Criminal Investigation, 10/1/94-2/02)

In honor of this thread, I have ordered a .50cal single shot Sniper rifle. With open sights and sabots it should be good for 200+ yd shots.

I'm even getting it delivered in the post. No Questions asked.

Damn Lax USian Gun Laws.








http://www.budsgunshop.com/auction/33767.jpg

Like it?

Interlinear - Bolded:

CanuckHeaven - Regulations:

NO CCW, instead recommend tazers for personal protection.
Agreed... if and when Tazers can engage multiple threats rather than being "one shot wonders"
The majority of circumstances will be one on one, especially for women? At any rate, certainly more preferable as the tech advances.

Safe storage, as in unloaded and locked.
The way all my guns, except my daily CCW, are kept. Question - how are you going to enforce without no-knock warrantless searches? (Police State tactics)
Good for you, but way too many gun owners are not as responsible as you? It would be enforced by the gun owner required to report any thefts. When the police investigate the gun theft, they would check the condition of the safe storage facility. If there is none or the storage facility was not tampered with, then the gun owner would face charges.

Proper registration, and permanent records storage.
Why? Historically that has only been used as a confiscation database. See Police State.
That is the catch phrase? You don't trust your government? You want to own a gun? Then you should be responsible, and proper registration and data base helps you to be responsible.

Background check.
Got one. NCIS. See also my DL/GL comparison.
A thorough background check. It is not as if you are going to purchase a loaf of bread. You are purchasing a deadly weapon.

Waiting period.
Got one - If you haven't already recieved a CCW License (background check again)
Many gun sales are instantaneous with no background check, and no registration.

Increased jail terms for use of gun in commission of crime.
NRA sponsored program exists.
I would be skeptical of any NRA sponsored programs. Legislators should not be beholding to pro gun lobbyists.

Reduce number of licenced sellers.
BATFE has already harrassed most "home FFL holders" out of business. My town has only one gunshop, and it doesn't even sell "assault weapons". IIRC The total number of dealers has been cut in half since the 1990s.
It certainly doesn't seem to have stemmed the tide of gun sales.

Secondary sales have to be processed like original sale.
With the exception of individual "face-to-face" sales between residents of the same state, this is already required. FTF transfers are comparatively rare.
From what I have read, it really isn't that rare and gun show sellers are somehow exempt from regulations? FTF transfers should be made to provide all necessary documentation.

Safety training mandatory.
Good idea, but at what cost, to whom, and who sets the official criteria?
I think Doonce suggested that training could be financed through taxes on bullet sales etc., which is a great idea.

If your guns are constantly stolen, then you lose the right to own guns.
I think that with a little investigation, someone who's "guns are constantly stolen" could be proven in a court of law to be an illegal "trafficker".
However, how do the laws in the various States handle these situations?

I guess you no longer have issues with LAC gun ownership in the US, right?
Since there is still wide disagreement as to responsible gun ownership, of course I would have issues.

Yet those things have been used as such. I didn't buy any of my guns to use as murder weapons either. Nor did 99.99% of gun owners.

The point is, when used non-feloniously, you stand a greater chance of dying/killing with a car than you do with a gun.
I really don't think that such an argument makes for good debate.

The majority of circumstances will be one on one, especially for women? At any rate, certainly more preferable as the tech advances.

Is that first sentence a question or a statement? If a statement, can YOU back it up?


Good for you, but way too many gun owners are not as responsible as you? It would be enforced by the gun owner required to report any thefts. When the police investigate the gun theft, they would check the condition of the safe storage facility. If there is none or the storage facility was not tampered with, then the gun owner would face charges.

So punish the victims for the actions of criminals? What defines "safe storage"? Do you need a $1000 safe for a $75 gun? Isn't this just really a way to keep the poor from owning firearms and being able to protect themselves?


That is the catch phrase? You don't trust your government? You want to own a gun? Then you should be responsible, and proper registration and data base helps you to be responsible.

From all the disparaging statements you've made about the US Gov't, would you trust them. "Proper registration and data base" helps you to be responsible how?


A thorough background check. It is not as if you are going to purchase a loaf of bread. You are purchasing a deadly weapon.

Which they already have, NICS. Unless you want psych testing and other subjective checks to be included.


Many gun sales are instantaneous with no background check, and no registration.

What's "many"? Can YOU back that up?


I would be skeptical of any NRA sponsored programs. Legislators should not be beholding to pro gun lobbyists.

So you're skeptical of the federal regulations regarding AP rounds? The NRA helped draft that. How about the national safety courses for Law enforcement and youth? On the same note, they shouldn't be beholded to anti-gun lobbyists either. Are you skeptical of HCI sponsored programs?


It certainly doesn't seem to have stemmed the tide of gun sales.

So they're doing better business. Yay capitalism.


From what I have read, it really isn't that rare and gun show sellers are somehow exempt from regulations? FTF transfers should be made to provide all necessary documentation.

You've read wrong. Most dealers at gun shows are FFL liscenced. There are also NICS systems set up at the shows. Only private transactions aren't covered and they represent a small fraction of firearms sales at shows. Criminals also rarely obtain them there according to the BJS and NIJ:

* The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2001 report "Firearms Use by Offenders," the largest such study ever conducted by the government, found that less than 1% of U.S. "crime guns" come from gun shows.
* A 2000 BJS study, "Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98," found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show.
* A National Institute of Justice 1997 study, "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," reported less than 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows.



I think Doonce suggested that training could be financed through taxes on bullet sales etc., which is a great idea.

Unless it's used to become prohibitively expensive to own firearms like the measures already attempted have tried to make it. Similar to the "safe storage" laws you push.


However, how do the laws in the various States handle these situations?

depends on the quality of the police in the state.


Since there is still wide disagreement as to responsible gun ownership, of course I would have issues.

You want to blame victims for the actions of criminals and discourage the poor from owning firearms. You are also opposed to CCW whose holders have been proven to be MORE law abiding than the average citizen.


I really don't think that such an argument makes for good debate.

Why not? You have used the "cars are licensed so guns should be too" comparison arguement in the past.

"Now before you start telling me to look at D.C. if I want to see what happens when a city bans handguns I ask this. Where do the guns come from? 81% of guns used in a crime in DC are handguns, and only 3% of all guns used in a crime there were sold in DC. Cabra West is right, it's not nearly as helpful to has strict legislation one place when you can walk across the border to a more liberal area."


umm then would you say the now defunct "assault weapon ban" was of any use,or just the anti gun types whipping up hysteria..ie..you cant use that for hunting crowd..only made for killing people types.
when in reality...the amount of crimes commited was/is miniscule,yet they used it to scare people to get their toe in the door on bans,on something that did nothing to effect crime at all,just was easy to paint a scary picture to the sheeple that know nothing of guns but what are :told: by the media and gun grabbers..
completely dishonest and pathetic to appeal to fear(like the bush crowd does,when it is not based in fact)
wow,guess liberal nannystater gungrabbers are not much different then the neocons when it comes to lying and using dishonest fear tactics to further their agendas.
cant stand the lies from either side..so i'll keep my guns cause i dont trust dishonest liars that tell me what i should fear,based on lies designed to appeal to my fears...i fear them ..more then i fear guns!:sniper:

Now read up on "gun traces".

Gun traces are only performed at the request of a police department. It does NOT represent the number of confiscated firearms w/i the state or of confiscated firearms as a whole.
The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/introduction.pdf)

While many law enforcement agencies trace some crime guns, agencies participating in YCGII commit to instituting comprehensive tracing of all crime guns, providing the maximum investigative leads for law enforcement officials, and permitting optimal strategic analysis. These cities received special support from ATF. ALL cities with City Reports participate in YCGII.

If you want to go that route, the majority of firearms used in crime in DC were from MD, a very restrictive state.
It depends on the age groups, but overall, you are talking about a 7 gun difference from Virginia (274 for 28.7%) versus Maryland (287 for 30%).

ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/washingtondc.pdf)

Washington, D. C.

Juvenile (ages 17 & younger) Percent of Crime Guns

Virginia 37.2
Maryland 30.2

An interesting tidbit:

Few Possessors Are Purchasers. In 63,526 of the trace requests (72 percent of 88,570), a crime gun possessor was identified. In 47,478 requests (53 percent of 88,570), the crime gun purchaser was identified. In 34,847 requests both purchaser and possessor are known, and in 88 percent of those
traces (30,775), the possessor and the purchaser are not the same person.

The high proportion of crime guns not possessed by their original purchasers suggests the potential importance of a more extensive investigation of the chain of possession of crime guns. There is little variation by firearm type in the proportion of possessors that are also the first purchasers of crime guns.

Three feet... I don't know, that's still pretty close. That's just a few degrees of rotation on part of the shooter. And yes, guns MAY protect people, they also MAY kill people. Honestly, for protection, I think a tazer or mace works well. Those things cause more pain, diabling the victim quick. People can go awhile and not even realize that they have been shot.


Standing less than 4 feet away from the kid, three feet is still plenty for a clear field of fire. But honestly I don't know if i would have taken the shot that close.

Maybe you mean "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." That particular quote is just a silly soundbite that would be much like saying... if it's illegal to walk, only criminals will be walking. Where do criminals get their guns? Well I'll say Florida again just because I'm one to pick at an open wound, but seriously in the US all (well I'll say almost all, there might have been one or two that don't fit this category) guns collected by law enforcement were originally legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer. And in New York City 49 percent of those original dealers were from a Southern State (Virginia, the two Carolinas, Georgia and yes, Florida) while 16 percent were originally sold in New York. Some of those guns might have been stolen, but not most of them. Again it goes to show you that changing a gun control law where you live is not the only solution. But it's at least to know that of the more than 6284 guns traced in new york city in the year 2000, about 86% were collected in firearms offences, traffic stops and so on leaving only 14% gathered from those hurty crimes like murder and such.

Well, the point I was getting at here was, the more legally owned guns you have in any one place, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them.

It is my impression that US society is in actual fact depending on privately owned guns for protection of the individual. The downside of this being that a situation like this makes life a lot easier for criminals, as guns are readily available, and public demand for an effective, well-organised police force with a good presence is small.
It is, however, not a situation that can be changed by simply making the gun laws stricter. To change that would require a change in mentality of a large part of the population.

Another argument I keep hearing is "Criminals will think twice before attacking someone if they have to suspect that the person is carrying a gun".
If criminals thought twice, they would not commit crimes, as they will also have to suspect that they will be caught, prosecuted, and might end up in jail or, in the case of the US, even be executed.
It's the same reason why capital punishment does not and has never worked as deterrant. People still think they can get away without being harmed.

Standing less than 4 feet away from the kid, three feet is still plenty for a clear field of fire. But honestly I don't know if i would have taken the shot that close.
I would not have ... for better or worse

It is my impression that US society is in actual fact depending on privately owned guns for protection of the individual. The downside of this being that a situation like this makes life a lot easier for criminals, as guns are readily available, and public demand for an effective, well-organised police force with a good presence is small.
It is, however, not a situation that can be changed by simply making the gun laws stricter. To change that would require a change in mentality of a large part of the population.

Not always, many own guns just for recreational shooting or collecting. I own all but one for these reasons alone. According to the DOJ, less than 1% of these guns made per year are going to end up in the criminals hands. Now, what you are asking is that the 99% of other gun owners give up our firearms because of the criminals? I worked way too hard to get my collection and I sure as hell will not let people take that away from me because of a small faction. All you are doing is making a law for something that is illegal and with that punishing normal citizens.

Another argument I keep hearing is "Criminals will think twice before attacking someone if they have to suspect that the person is carrying a gun".
If criminals thought twice, they would not commit crimes, as they will also have to suspect that they will be caught, prosecuted, and might end up in jail or, in the case of the US, even be executed.
It's the same reason why capital punishment does not and has never worked as deterrant. People still think they can get away without being harmed.

In a perfect world, people would respect the property and life of another. In reality that is far from the truth. What a CCW permit enables is it allows one to be able to meet fire with fire if threatend. The threat to a criminal being that they do not know who has teeth and who doesn't. That is the concept behind it, so far it has shown to work locally. There has only been one instance of force used in the state sence the program was instated and even then the criminal was only wounded.

BTW, you were mentioning the "If guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns." Well, the statement is true, if one wants something bad enough, they can get it. Be it buy or build one's own. The pandora's box has long been open and there is no way to get it closed again. The only way to eliminate guns in private hands is to uninvent the technology, something that will not happen.

To add further, here is a snippet from previous posts.

Well, I do not wish to antagonize for to get a answer. In many ways I can understand why those from other countries who do not have any knowledge about guns aside from watching them blaze away in movies (Do not get me started about the inaccuracy shown in movies about any sort equipement) and sometimes in the evening news when a criminal uses one to commit a violent act. This forms a mindset that guns are bad, period. Unfortunantly, many of these people will never understand the fun of trying to put a very tiny peice of metal through a peice of paper 1,2,3+ football field lengths away. They will never understand the nastalgia of having a rifle used in a war in years past. Just the thrill of being able to handle, work on, and admire something that had a small hand in shaping the world as it is today. To them, that peice of metal and wood represents violence, represents fear, and in some cases represents what exactly is wrong with humanity. Because of this they loathe guns, which in all honesty is absolutely fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating something. However, what gets me is these people go on a crusade to ban the thing that they hate. Under the flag of anti-crime, social safety, and just flat phobias of guns they set out to remove all firearms. When someone has spent the amount of cash I have invested in my collection, I will have a very serious issue with this. Especially when the groups have to lie (brady campaign) to get the public on thier side in thier gun bans. Now, regardless of the banner they fly under or any genuine well meaning of these groups there is one thing that is ignored, the rights of the everyday citizen. No one seems concerned about those who keep guns for a hobby or recreational purpose. They by a very far margin outweigh those who use guns for malicious purposes. So, what these gun bans do is punish the lawful gun owners by taking away historical/recreational peices, not including the cash investment a owner expends to buy them. (Guns are by no means cheap) All this for what? You made a vast majority give up thier property for help ease your phobia. Something that may put a slight dent in crime level if any. This is simply unacceptable for any free country to follow through with something like this. What has just happened was like taking cough syrup for a serious flu. It may help releave a annoyance but does nothing to fight a deep seated virus in ourselves and in society. All that has happened is we banished a scapegoat instead of addressing the real problem. This is exactly why I am against any further gun control, I see any further as being punished for crimes that I did not commit while doing little to nothing to reduce crime or punish those who commit these crimes.

Not always, many own guns just for recreational shooting or collecting. I own all but one for these reasons alone. According to the DOJ, less than 1% of these guns made per year are going to end up in the criminals hands. Now, what you are asking is that the 99% of other gun owners give up our firearms because of the criminals? I worked way too hard to get my collection and I sure as hell will not let people take that away from me because of a small faction. All you are doing is making a law for something that is illegal and with that punishing normal citizens.

I think you entirely misread my post.
I'm not from the USA, I've no plans to ever go there again, and I frankly don't care who over there owns a gun and who doesn't.
All I'm doing is giving you my opinion as somebody living in a country where guns are strictly regulated, to the extend that I myself have never seen one in all my 30 years of life. Not even the police carry firearms here. It's a very different society in that respect, so seeing yours as an outsider is frankly scarry.

But to talk about those statistics... if the peaceful part of the population actually owns 99% of all guns produced, wouldn't it be almost impossible for any attacker to ever find an unarmed victim?



In a perfect world, people would respect the property and life of another. In reality that is far from the truth. What a CCW permit enables is it allows one to be able to meet fire with fire if threatend. The threat to a criminal being that they do not know who has teeth and who doesn't. That is the concept behind it, so far it has shown to work locally. There has only been one instance of force used in the state sence the program was instated and even then the criminal was only wounded.

If you need/want that to feel safe, I don't have a problem with that.
But I daresay that gun crime statistics are not on your side in this case, if you compare the numbers of gun crimes in the USA with the number of gun crimes in any given European country.


BTW, you were mentioning the "If guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns." Well, the statement is true, if one wants something bad enough, they can get it. Be it buy or build one's own. The pandora's box has long been open and there is no way to get it closed again. The only way to eliminate guns in private hands is to uninvent the technology, something that will not happen.

The same is true for non-criminal civilians who just "want guns bad enough". Enforced restriction of gun ownership does in fact seriously reduce the number of guns in criminal hands.
But then again, I'm just happy that I live in a place where this is the case, and whatever you want to do in your country is up to you.

To add further, here is a snippet from previous posts.

As I said before (but I'll gladly repeat it) : I don't care what kind of legislation you have in the USA. It would be more than pointless for me to start a protest about that, it's none of my business.
And, again, I don't think that banning guns outright in the USA is going to work at all anyway, due to the fact that the mentality is set on self-defense. In short, you want the freedom to own guns, I want the freedom to walk in the streets at night without fear of being attacked or shot at.
You've got yours, I've got mine.

BTW, you were mentioning the "If guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns." Well, the statement is true, if one wants something bad enough, they can get it. Be it buy or build one's own. The pandora's box has long been open and there is no way to get it closed again. The only way to eliminate guns in private hands is to uninvent the technology, something that will not happen.So how many people that decide to mug someone because its easier than getting a job are going to spend the time it takes to build their own guns?

As I said before (but I'll gladly repeat it) : I don't care what kind of legislation you have in the USA. It would be more than pointless for me to start a protest about that, it's none of my business.
And, again, I don't think that banning guns outright in the USA is going to work at all anyway, due to the fact that the mentality is set on self-defense. In short, you want the freedom to own guns, I want the freedom to walk in the streets at night without fear of being attacked or shot at.
You've got yours, I've got mine.

Gotya!
http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_beerchug.gif

Oh, for the person who posted about building a gun. It is unlikely that a criminal would spend the time to build one. However, with the right equipment or friends it can be done. Building something resembling a Sten is rather simple.

Well, the point I was getting at here was, the more legally owned guns you have in any one place, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them.
I think you raise a very good point here. The US Southern States have perhaps the least restrictive gun laws, yet have the highest violent crime rate:

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html)

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures. The number of robberies and murders decreased, 4.1 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. However, from 2003 to 2004, the estimated volume of forcible rapes and aggravated assaults in that region increased 2.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

When you look at the US Northeast States, which have by and large the most restrictive guns laws, yet have the lowest violent crime rate:

The Northeast accounted for an estimated 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and an estimated 15.6 percent of violent crime in 2004. Of the four regions, the Northeast had the largest decrease, 2.5 percent, in the volume of violent crime. In addition, each of the offense types comprising the violent crime category had decreases in the volume of violent crime when compared with 2003 data. The number of robbery offenses fell 3.3 percent; forcible rape, 2.7 percent; aggravated assault, 2.0 percent; and murder, 1.9 percent.

It is my impression that US society is in actual fact depending on privately owned guns for protection of the individual. The downside of this being that a situation like this makes life a lot easier for criminals, as guns are readily available, and public demand for an effective, well-organised police force with a good presence is small.
Another good point. Readily available guns is one thing but to factor into that equation one should look at all the guns that are stolen from gun owners who refuse to store their guns safely.

Surveys of gun owners suggest that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens.1 In addition, in 1998 and 1999, more than 27,000 firearms were reportedly stolen from licensed gun dealers and more than 3,700 firearms stolen from common carriers who transport guns.2 Obviously, these stolen guns go directly into the hands of criminals.

It is, however, not a situation that can be changed by simply making the gun laws stricter. To change that would require a change in mentality of a large part of the population.
Certainly changing the mentality is a large obstacle, especially when organizations such as the NRA are constantly lobbying the government for less restrictive gun laws, but I do believe that enacting more restrictive laws on a federal level would be beneficial.

Another argument I keep hearing is "Criminals will think twice before attacking someone if they have to suspect that the person is carrying a gun". If criminals thought twice, they would not commit crimes, as they will also have to suspect that they will be caught, prosecuted, and might end up in jail or, in the case of the US, even be executed.
If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion.

It's the same reason why capital punishment does not and has never worked as deterrant. People still think they can get away without being harmed.
I have to agree with you there and there are some studies which tend to support that reasoning.

Gotya!
http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_beerchug.gif

Oh, for the person who posted about building a gun. It is unlikely that a criminal would spend the time to build one. However, with the right equipment or friends it can be done. Building something resembling a Sten is rather simple.
Follow the linky in my sig... :eek: ;)

I think you raise a very good point here. The US Southern States have perhaps the least restrictive gun laws, yet have the highest violent crime rate:

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html)

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures. The number of robberies and murders decreased, 4.1 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. However, from 2003 to 2004, the estimated volume of forcible rapes and aggravated assaults in that region increased 2.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

When you look at the US Northeast States, which have by and large the most restrictive guns laws, yet have the lowest violent crime rate:

The Northeast accounted for an estimated 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and an estimated 15.6 percent of violent crime in 2004. Of the four regions, the Northeast had the largest decrease, 2.5 percent, in the volume of violent crime. In addition, each of the offense types comprising the violent crime category had decreases in the volume of violent crime when compared with 2003 data. The number of robbery offenses fell 3.3 percent; forcible rape, 2.7 percent; aggravated assault, 2.0 percent; and murder, 1.9 percent.


Please - cite more statistics. Since only your statisticsare acceptable in this debate. :rolleyes:

Another good point. Readily available guns is one thing but to factor into that equation one should look at all the guns that are stolen from gun owners who refuse to store their guns safely.

Surveys of gun owners suggest that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens.1 In addition, in 1998 and 1999, more than 27,000 firearms were reportedly stolen from licensed gun dealers and more than 3,700 firearms stolen from common carriers who transport guns.2 Obviously, these stolen guns go directly into the hands of criminals.


You know, I sort of addressed this before... Hmmm, what was it, 500,000 stolen out of 65,000,000+ owned? Basic math = .00769, i.e. less than 1%. Seems people are keeping pretty good control of their firearms.

Certainly changing the mentality is a large obstacle, especially when organizations such as the NRA are constantly lobbying the government for less restrictive gun laws, but I do believe that enacting more restrictive laws on a federal level would be beneficial.


If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion. Blame the victim. Are scantily clad womed responsible for rape too?

I have to agree with you there and there are some studies which tend to support that reasoning.And there are studies that indicate the US Government has oth mind control and weather control satellites too. :rolleyes:

But I guess we have to accept your studies, since none of "ours" couls ever be acceptable.

BTW, I do see a arguement in this thread regarding firearms being stolen then used in a crime. Does this mean I can not own something because someone may commit a ILLEGAL act by stealing it then commiting a further ILLEGAL act by using it? Guess I need to be robbed by the feds of my toys because of another's malicious intent? That is my fundamental issue with gun bans, taking away one's property because of some damned criminals.

I think you raise a very good point here. The US Southern States have perhaps the least restrictive gun laws, yet have the highest violent crime rate:



And now I get to point out (again) that the Southern states have NOT always had the "least" restrictive gun laws and their crime rates have traditionally always been higher. Only Alabama was a RTC state until the 90's while the NE states had 4(one w/ no licensing at all). All four w/ traditionally low crime rates..

It's amazing how many times a person can ignore this.


Another good point. Readily available guns is one thing but to factor into that equation one should look at all the guns that are stolen from gun owners who refuse to store their guns safely.

Surveys of gun owners suggest that approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens.1 In addition, in 1998 and 1999, more than 27,000 firearms were reportedly stolen from licensed gun dealers and more than 3,700 firearms stolen from common carriers who transport guns.2 Obviously, these stolen guns go directly into the hands of criminals.

And we get to point out (again) that that constitutes less than 1% of firearms owned. You have already stated you want to punish victims for the activity of criminals. You also still refuse to answer what constitutes "safe storage". I can point out that in Canada, almost 50 guns were stolen from an individual who HAD stored them according to the law. These laws are also discriminatory towards the poor and prevent self-defense.


Certainly changing the mentality is a large obstacle, especially when organizations such as the NRA are constantly lobbying the government for less restrictive gun laws, but I do believe that enacting more restrictive laws on a federal level would be beneficial.

You can beleive it all you want. There is NO evidence that more restrictive laws have helped reduce crime.


If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion.

Like you said to me: Belief =/= facts. Even if there is an eventual "upswing", it won't necessarily be due to CC. You still are trying to punish citizens for the activities of criminals.

BTW, I do see a arguement in this thread regarding firearms being stolen then used in a crime. Does this mean I can not own something because someone may commit a ILLEGAL act by stealing it then commiting a further ILLEGAL act by using it? Guess I need to be robbed by the feds of my toys because of another's malicious intent? That is my fundamental issue with gun bans, taking away one's property because of some damned criminals.

That is exactly CH's arguement. He feels citizens should be punished for the activities of criminals unless they follow discriminatory and highly subjective laws.

That is exactly CH's arguement. He feels citizens should be punished for the activities of criminals unless they follow discriminatory and highly subjective laws.

I like this one:

If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion.

Going out alone at night means that criminals may resort to mugging me under the cover of darkness.

Having Locks, an alarm system & telephone means that criminals may resort to forced entry and disabling my security system to burglarize my home.

Going out in groups means that criminals may end up resorting to gangs fights.

Your having a dick means that a rapist might end up resorting to buttfucking you...

Yep. It's ALWAYS the victims fault for the crime being committed.

BTW, I do see a arguement in this thread regarding firearms being stolen then used in a crime. Does this mean I can not own something because someone may commit a ILLEGAL act by stealing it then commiting a further ILLEGAL act by using it? Guess I need to be robbed by the feds of my toys because of another's malicious intent? That is my fundamental issue with gun bans, taking away one's property because of some damned criminals.

Property is responsibility :D
No, seriously, I don't think that owning guns should be made illegal. As I said before, it's not illegal here. Banning them would never work anyway.
But the first step of reducing the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals is to find out how they got them in the first place, and then take according measure to cut off the supply, wouldn't you say?

Going out alone at night means that criminals may resort to mugging me under the cover of darkness.

Having Locks, an alarm system & telephone means that criminals may resort to forced entry and disabling my security system to burglarize my home.

Going out in groups means that criminals may end up resorting to gangs fights.

Your having a dick means that a rapist might end up resorting to buttfucking you...

Yep. It's ALWAYS the victims fault for the crime being committed.

It's not. It never is.

Are you old enough to remember the cold war?
Do you remember the arms race between the USA and Russia? The "They developed an even more effective way to destroy the planet 3 times over, we have to react and find something even bigger and deadlier!"-politics on both sides?
Frankly, not that different from the "Criminals have [insert big gun here]s, I need to get me something even bigger"-attitude, I'd say.

It's not. It never is.

Are you old enough to remember the cold war? I was part of it. I was Serving in Germany when the Wall came down...
Do you remember the arms race between the USA and Russia? The "They developed an even more effective way to destroy the planet 3 times over, we have to react and find something even bigger and deadlier!"-politics on both sides?
Frankly, not that different from the "Criminals have [insert big gun here]s, I need to get me something even bigger"-attitude, I'd say.

I guess I should have uses a :rolleyes: ... Victems are never to blame. Period.

What CH is trying to say is the converse of what you are saying. CH is attempting to make it MY fault that criminals are armed by saying:


Originally Posted by Canuck
If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion.

That is placing the blame for violence on the head ov the victim... Somthing CH is wont to do in the case of firearms. :headbang:

I was part of it. I was Serving in Germany when the Wall came down...


I guess I should have uses a :rolleyes: ... Victems are never to blame. Period.

What CH is trying to say is the converse of what you are saying. CH is attempting to make it MY fault that criminals are armed by saying:


Originally Posted by Canuck
If anything, I believe that as more people arm themselves for self protection there may eventually be an upswing in violent crime as criminals may end up resorting to shooting first and asking questions later. However, that is my personal opinion.

That is placing the blame for violence on the head ov the victim... Somthing CH is wont to do in the case of firearms. :headbang:

Right. That may be his view on things, he'll have to explain that to you himself. I was just giving you my angle.

Right. That may be his view on things, he'll have to explain that to you himself. I was just giving you my angle.
Your angle is at least rational. :D

I'm all for restricting Criminal Activity. I just have issues with Restricting everybody else. ;)

Yep. It's ALWAYS the victims fault for the crime being committed.
Wasn't it our favorite alcoholic liberal from Massachusetts that introduced legislation to require a victim to "run away" when confronted with an intruder in their own home? That's blaming the victim just about as much as one can, without actually saying it.

Wasn't it our favorite alcoholic liberal from Massachusetts that introduced legislation to require a victim to "run away" when confronted with an intruder in their own home? That's blaming the victim just about as much as one can, without actually saying it.
"Duty to Retreat" otherwise known as the "Criminal Occupational Health, Safety and Unimpeeded Profit Act."

"Duty to Retreat" otherwise known as the "Criminal Occupational Health, Safety and Unimpeeded Profit Act."
I guess it takes one to know one. Kennedy and the criminals, I mean.

I guess it takes one to know one. Kennedy and the criminals, I mean.
Didn't work for Marion Barry... :rolleyes:

Your angle is at least rational. :D

I'm all for restricting Criminal Activity. I just have issues with Restricting everybody else. ;)

It's a fine balance. We don't allow just anybody to drive a car, because without training and proven ability to drive responsibly, they might infringe on the right of others to remain physically unharmed. It's not a foolproof system, and the enforcement may lacking, but it does serve its purpose to some extend.
As I said, with freedom comes responsibility. And it's always advisable to make sure that the person you're giving the freedom to can deal with the responsibilities as well.

It's a fine balance. We don't allow just anybody to drive a car, because without training and proven ability to drive responsibly, they might infringe on the right of others to remain physically unharmed. It's not a foolproof system, and the enforcement may lacking, but it does serve its purpose to some extend.
As I said, with freedom comes responsibility. And it's always advisable to make sure that the person you're giving the freedom to can deal with the responsibilities as well.
Have you read my oft-posted Cars vs. Guns liscensing meme yet? If I didn't post it in this thread, I know I at least linked to it. If you can't find it I'll TG it to you.

Have you read my oft-posted Cars vs. Guns liscensing meme yet? If I didn't post it in this thread, I know I at least linked to it. If you can't find it I'll TG it to you.

I haven't read it, but let me guess... cars kill more people than guns?

Wasn't it our favorite alcoholic liberal from Massachusetts that introduced legislation to require a victim to "run away" when confronted with an intruder in their own home? That's blaming the victim just about as much as one can, without actually saying it.

Jesus, do you people have to have legislation brought in to regulate your intelligence or what?

Stay and risk dying.
Leave and live.

Hmmm, tough choice given the fact that my insurance will cover stolen my stolen property.

I haven't read it, but let me guess... cars kill more people than guns?
You wound me. :(

No, it actually directly compares Dirvers Liscensing in the US and creates a Firearms liscensing system that is equivelent.

Most anti-gun types who say that we should "liscense guns like we do cars" tend to change their tune or go sulk after reading it.

Check your TG in a couple of minutes.

Jesus, do you people have to have legislation brought in to regulate your intelligence or what?

Stay and risk dying.
Leave and live.

Hmmm, tough choice given the fact that my insurance will cover stolen my stolen property.

You could rephrase that :

The only thing in your house that's truly irreplaceable is yourself. Why would you want to put the most valuable thing directly in harm's way?

Jesus, do you people have to have legislation brought in to regulate your intelligence or what?

Stay and risk dying.
Leave and live.

Hmmm, tough choice given the fact that my insurance will cover stolen my stolen property.

Please Mr House Invader, let me gather my family and leave. Oh, you object to me seeing you? You broke into my house while I was home because you don't care if you kill me and my family? Gee. Here's my throat. I wouldn't want to make it hard for you. :rolleyes:

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_wheelchair.jpg

That's all I have to say.

You could rephrase that :

The only thing in your house that's truly irreplaceable is yourself. Why would you want to put the most valuable thing directly in harm's way?
There's my wife, there's my kids, there's me...Why would I expect someone that broke into my house in the middle of the night to quietly gather the silver and then leave? The days of pretending to sleep through a burglary are long gone. The days of expecting the police to respond to and protect each citizen are long gone, too. The only constant is that I still have the right to defend myself and my family. The insane thing is that many states feel they are forced to pass "Castle" legislation to codify this right.

You wound me. :(

No, it actually directly compares Dirvers Liscensing in the US and creates a Firearms liscensing system that is equivelent.

Most anti-gun types who say that we should "liscense guns like we do cars" tend to change their tune or go sulk after reading it.

Check your TG in a couple of minutes.

Don't get me wrong, but that article is insulting the intelligence of its readers. Or at least mine.

I never suggested to use the system that is in place for driving licenses and apply it directly to guns.
What I did was compare the way drivers licenses are handled, most importantly tests of ability to use the item responsibly, enforcement of those rules that do apply and are known to the person in possesion of the license, and general traceability via a centralised issuing system.
To suggest I implied that guns ought to only be reigstered when they are in use is frankly ridiculous. And the same is true for the implication that guns only would require registration when used in urban areas.

The one thing about which I do agree with you, though, is that the best of legislation is worthless without proper enforcement.

There's my wife, there's my kids, there's me...Why would I expect someone that broke into my house in the middle of the night to quietly gather the silver and then leave? The days of pretending to sleep through a burglary are long gone. The days of expecting the police to respond to and protect each citizen are long gone, too. The only constant is that I still have the right to defend myself and my family. The insane thing is that many states feel they are forced to pass "Castle" legislation to codify this right.

Again, I'm so grateful for living in Europe....
Honestly, I have little to no idea what happened to your society to let the situation escalate to such extremes.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_wheelchair.jpg
*Applauds*

Right.... with the emotional side taking over, it's time for me to leave this thread.
Thanks for the discusion.

In honor of this thread, I have ordered a .50cal single shot Sniper rifle. With open sights and sabots it should be good for 200+ yd shots.

I'm even getting it delivered in the post. No Questions asked.

Damn Lax USian Gun Laws.

It is amazing that you can have a black powder rifle delivered to the door, but not a bolt-action, single shot, 30-06. Well, that's not true. I did get a new Springfield from the CMP a few months back. And another Garand. Fedex delivered them right to the door.

And now I get to point out (again) that the Southern states have NOT always had the "least" restrictive gun laws and their crime rates have traditionally always been higher. Only Alabama was a RTC state until the 90's while the NE states had 4(one w/ no licensing at all). All four w/ traditionally low crime rates..

It's amazing how many times a person can ignore this.
Is that an ad hominem or you just flaming me again?

You can point something out a hundred times and that won't automatically make your argument valid and mine incorrect?

Most of what you have stated is incorrect and/or misleading. Couple of examples. Alabama was not the only RTC State prior to 1990....you forgot Florida (1987), and Georgia (1989) and West Virginia (1989).

From 1965 to the late 80's, Florida's VCR was lower than New York State. As of 2003, Florida's VCR is 150% higher than NY State. In 2000, Florida had the highest VCR in the US, despite having the RTC since 1987.

From 1965 to 2000, Texas' VCR was lower than NY State. As of 2003, Texas' VCR is 16% higher than NY State.

In 1965, NY State's VCR was 83% higher than South Carolina. As of 2000, South Carolina's VCR is 45% higher than NY State.

Try comparing Texas to New Jersey or Massachuesetts to Alabama?

And we get to point out (again) that that constitutes less than 1% of firearms owned. You have already stated you want to punish victims for the activity of criminals. You also still refuse to answer what constitutes "safe storage". I can point out that in Canada, almost 50 guns were stolen from an individual who HAD stored them according to the law. These laws are also discriminatory towards the poor and prevent self-defense.
You are ignoring the fact that roughly 500,000 guns are falling into criminal hands, per year. Do you think that is acceptable?

Being a gun owner, I am sure you understand what constitutes "safe storage"?

Safety Essentials for Responsible Gun Owners (http://www.mppgv.org/SAFE%20brochure.htm)

Safe Gun Storage Campaign -- Seattle, WA (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile52.html)

You still are trying to punish citizens for the activities of criminals.
You are still trying to defend irresponsible gun owners? How would you feel if someone died as the direct result of you not being a responsible gun owner?

Again, I'm so grateful for living in Europe....
Honestly, I have little to no idea what happened to your society to let the situation escalate to such extremes.

Me too.
It is odd isn't it.

It is amazing that you can have a black powder rifle delivered to the door, but not a bolt-action, single shot, 30-06. Well, that's not true. I did get a new Springfield from the CMP a few months back. And another Garand. Fedex delivered them right to the door.If I was into cartrige rifles, I'd e all over the CMP for a 1903A3. Might still, since it is an excellent D&C gun.

Is that an ad hominem or you just flaming me again?

You can point something out a hundred times and that won't automatically make your argument valid and mine incorrect?

Most of what you have stated is incorrect and/or misleading. Couple of examples. Alabama was not the only RTC State prior to 1990....you forgot Florida (1987), and Georgia (1989) and West Virginia (1989).

From 1965 to the late 80's, Florida's VCR was lower than New York State. As of 2003, Florida's VCR is 150% higher than NY State. In 2000, Florida had the highest VCR in the US, despite having the RTC since 1987

From 1965 to 2000, Texas' VCR was lower than NY State. As of 2003, Texas' VCR is 16% higher than NY State.

In 1965, NY State's VCR was 83% higher than South Carolina. As of 2000, South Carolina's VCR is 45% higher than NY State.

Try comparing Texas to New Jersey or Massachuesetts to Alabama?

VCR =/= gun crime rate. Carrying guns does not necessairly lower VCR, but it does give the potential victim the chance to stop the crime in progress. I guess you would rather see those crimes committed?

You are ignoring the fact that roughly 500,000 guns are falling into criminal hands, per year. Do you think that is acceptable?

How many times must I say it? Gun Owners have better than Six Sigma on this. LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of ALL PERSONALLY OWNED FIREARMS ARE STOLEN. The owners didn't necessairly have to be irresponsible, someone just had to decide to COMMIT A CRIME and steal their gun(s). You would have 99.24% of lawful gun owners submit to rules that probably wouldn't be followed by the stupid .5% anyway. (If you cant do the math, that leaves .26% to have their gun safes stolen... :rolleyes: )

Then too, how many firearms stolen are stolen from people who stole them/illegally acquired them in the first place? Just like anything in the drug/gang world, more crimes are committed against criminals than against honest citizens. That is certainly the case with the majorith of Urban Homicides and woundings... somthing that utterly skews the the piucture. Yet you would have the criminals make the rules for the innocent. Bravo.

Being a gun owner, I am sure you understand what constitutes "safe storage"? Yes. Tell me how anything you suggest will make me any safer, or make my non-carry gun any harder to steal. OTOH, tell me how it will make any fool less foolish.

Safety Essentials for Responsible Gun Owners (http://www.mppgv.org/SAFE%20brochure.htm) Wait a minnit... using pro-gun sites = bad, but using anti-gun sites=good? Typical Hypocrisy.
Safe Gun Storage Campaign -- Seattle, WA (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile52.html)Well, at least one of your sites is "neutral".

You are still trying to defend irresponsible gun owners? How would you feel if someone died as the direct result of you not being a responsible gun owner?We had a case here in indiana not long ago where the felons stole the entire 300lb gun safe. I guess that gun owner was "irresponsible" too?

The reality is you want to enforce your will on people who have not and will not commit a crime. How does it feel to be a Dictator?

Right.... with the emotional side taking over, it's time for me to leave this thread.
Thanks for the discusion.
Ah. Another case of anti-gun emotion (children die!) = good but pro-gun choice (disabled people have rights too!) = bad.

Lovely.

I thought better of you Cabra.

Well, I was going to add something but looks like Syniks has pretty well mopped up.


...Where is Dobbs? She usually adds a rather funny aspect to these debates.

Hey Canuck. Quick question, if you had your way and guns were banned... how far would you take it? I found something that was rather rediculous. Hopefully you would not go as far as Britian is to ban anything that could have the potential of being a weapon...or would you?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Lautens_Stephen/2006/03/10/1480871.html

n the ongoing attempt to ban all things fun, the Ontario town of Scugog, located northeast of Toronto, became the first municipality to prohibit anyone under 18 from playing with toy guns in public.

Police there have the power now to apprehend pint-sized malfeasors, arrest them and present them to our under-worked courts for a $150 fine.

For the record, the bylaw bans imitation or replica firearms that can fire anything out its barrel.

This, of course, includes pellet guns, which no one wants blasting around crowded parks, but also bans guns that fire plastic disks, foam arrows and the ever-deadly rubber suction-cup darts.

When you think about it, I suppose it also covers potato guns and the scourge of the classroom -- the hollow pen barrel and spitball.

The reason for including the last category of toys is theoretically to spare the police the risk of calling out the tactical team and accidentally taking down a cap gun-waving six-year-old mistaken for a pint-sized terrorist.

Now, Scugog's finest just get to arrest and fingerprint pre-schoolers, and give them their one call home on a Playskool phone.

Will they do that?

Of course not -- but it always worries me when we have a law on the books that could allow it.

I suppose it won't be long before someone suggests a Federal Toy Gun Registry, with ID cards, permits and tests.

"I'm sorry sir," a clerk at the dollar store will say sadly to some eight-year-old, "but your permit only allows you to purchase a dart gun and up to a dozen suction-cup rounds of ammo. We can't sell you the water balloon cannon."

While it masquerades as a public safety issue, it really is all about people who want to stop kids from playing with toy guns. Specifically, they don't want other people's kids playing with toy guns, since I don't know anything that keeps a parent from banning whatever they like in their own house.

If you'll permit me a cranky, old-guy moment, as a kid I played constantly with toy guns.

We went out in the mornings loaded for bear, with an assortment of weapons the Canadian Army can only dream of. Our back pockets were stuffed with red rolls of caps, which you had to remember when you slide down a rocky hill.

We played war, cops and robbers, and -- heaven help us intolerant, bigoted youngsters -- cowboys and Indians. For the record, the Indians won as often as they lost.

As far as I know, none of us grew up to become serial killers or bank robbers, although a few became lawyers, so it wasn't always a happy ending.

We played, whooped and blasted our way through mountains of darts, caps, arrows and plastic grenades, and no one thought about calling the cops on us, or mistook us for the Boyd gang. Everyone left childhood with at least two eyes.

Last week, we entertained another couple and their small boy. Theirs is an ideologically gun-free household, which we discovered too late, as their child's eyes lit on our son's plastic armoury. Forbidden fruit is always the sweetest, and for the next two hours their boy wandered around dressed like a mercenary.

No amount of coaxing could get him to put his guns down and play with the gender-neutral, educational puzzle his parents had brought to entertain him. Our pistol-packing son? He didn't know what the big deal was, and was more interested in the puzzle.

Just remember, when toy guns are criminalized, only criminals will have toy guns.

Hey Canuck. Quick question, if you had your way and guns were banned... how far would you take it? I found something that was rather rediculous. Hopefully you would not go as far as Britian is to ban anything that could have the potential of being a weapon...or would you?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Lautens_Stephen/2006/03/10/1480871.html
Your first problem is that the article comes from the Calgary Sun. The "Sun" newspapers tend to sensationalize the news to fit their "audiences". Now re-read the story you posted and now read the story that it was based on from the Toronto Sun:

Toy gun ban goes too far (http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Woodcock_Connie/2006/02/20/1452179.html)

I was out in my garden one day last fall when I saw something I haven't seen in years: Two little boys playing a classic game of guns.

They crept quietly through the tall grass at the top of our hill and flopped down on their stomachs, squinting along the barrels of their toy shotguns at a passing squirrel and muttering, "Bang! Bang! Bang-bang!"

The squirrel, unaware it had just been blasted to kingdom come, continued on its way. Then the boys took aim at my next-door neighbour, who was fixing his motorcycle in his driveway.

It occurred to me that there are lots of people these days who would have been horrified at this scene and would have wasted no time calling the police. And I suppose the sight of kids drawing a bead on a real person, if only in their imaginations, is scary to many people today. But all I saw was a couple of eight-year-olds playing a game exactly like the "cowboys and Indians" my friends and I played decades ago.

(What do eight-year-old boys play now that cowboys and Indians is politically incorrect? Soldiers and terrorists? Cops and drug dealers?)

There was a time not long ago when pretend shooting games were absolutely unheard of in the backyards of the nation. Moms were horrified at the very idea and many of them tried to teach their boys to play with dolls, with not much success, little boys being little boys.

But then along came those fancy water guns and lately, I've seen other kids playing with old-fashioned toy guns, including cap pistols. So I guess pretend warfare has become marginally more socially acceptable again. Perhaps that's not a big surprise, given how much television news time is given over to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But not in Scugog Township, north of Oshawa, and perhaps soon the entire GTA. Scugog has become the first Ontario municipality to ban toy guns and it wants everyone else to get on the bandwagon.

You'd think we have enough trouble with real guns and real criminals without wasting time on children, but I guess not.

Durham regional chairman Roger Anderson, said his region endorses Scugog's bylaw. "I think it will be an important tool for the safety of children," he told a Sun reporter last week.

Used in robberies

Anderson said there have been a number of robberies involving toys. "Heaven forbid some 14-year-old pulls out one of these weapons with a police officer around and as a result gets shot."

You don't see many toy guns in toy stores, but you do find them in some convenience stores and according to Durham Regional Police, they're quite common in dollar stores where they can be bought for as little as $2.

The new Scugog bylaw says no one under 18 can possess a replica or imitation firearm while on public property, or on private property to which the public has general access. An "imitation" firearm is defined as "any device that is designed or intended to resemble a firearm or replica firearm or may be reasonably mistaken as a firearm."

The fine is $150, but Durham police have said they'll go easy on eight-year-olds. What a relief.

Now, if we're talking replica guns -- the kind that look and feel like the real thing -- I have no problem with a ban. They can be and have been used in the commission of crimes and really, cops shouldn't have to wonder whether the gun they're facing is real or fake. But children's toys as a crime? Come on.

This is one weird society we live in, when we condone games of extreme, almost unimaginable violence as long as they're on video screens, but eight-year-olds can be targeted by police for running around outside playing with toys.

The Calgary Sun writer had to "juice it up" a bit for the "pro gun" Alberta types.

Now, for the reality of the situation:

FACT SHEET ABOUT TOY GUNS (http://www.irol.com/avc/Fact_Sheet_About_Toy_Guns.html)

Ah. Another case of anti-gun emotion (children die!) = good but pro-gun choice (disabled people have rights too!) = bad.

Lovely.

I thought better of you Cabra.

Please show me one sinlge post in which I have made an emotional arguement against guns, before you start putting words in my mouth again.

Please show me one sinlge post in which I have made an emotional arguement against guns, before you start putting words in my mouth again.

Clearly Cabra, by not advocating the use of guns for and by everyone, you just must hate little doe- eyed innocents, wheelchair bound grannies and above all- WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!

*...what... oh, sorry, wrong forum....*

Now, for the reality of the situation:

FACT SHEET ABOUT TOY GUNS (http://www.irol.com/avc/Fact_Sheet_About_Toy_Guns.html)

:rolleyes: Rediculous on both accounts. Sounds like some people won the Darwin awards there. So, would I understand you are for such a ban?

Please show me one sinlge post in which I have made an emotional arguement against guns, before you start putting words in my mouth again.
Not you specifically, but your assertion that the simple reality of my "emotional argument" could drive you to abandoning the debate is a typical response of people who, when confronted by an unpleasant reality, cry "foul" then leave the debate.

The fact is, any position that creates a "duty to retreat" is specifically discriminatory to the disabled - and nothing will change that.

As to your finding my article "insulting to your intelligence", I specifically state in the article that - as a direct comparison to Drivers Licensing Regulations - the DL/GL comparison is fallacious, for the simple reason that it is would be a liberalization of existing gun laws. Yet time and again people, not necessairly you directly, make the assertion that "we license drivers, why not gun owners?". In your case you said: Originally Posted by Cabra West
It's a fine balance. We don't allow just anybody to drive a car, because without training and proven ability to drive responsibly, they might infringe on the right of others to remain physically unharmed. It's not a foolproof system, and the enforcement may lacking, but it does serve its purpose to some extend. Which is essentially the same argument.

We can address a third aspect of "use licensing" by looking at hunting permits. In most states, anyone applying for a permit to hunt, on any property you do not own, must undergo a state-authorized "Hunter's Safety" programme, which includes gun safety and accuracy training.

So, now that someone has actually responded to my article, let's let everyone look at it.... again (remember, this was written as an Op-Ed piece in 1999).

License & Registration Please?

Perhaps it's time to call their bluff.
In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of "why don't we treat guns like cars..." and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half factiously. Really.

The President has said, "Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do...", and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.

Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader's offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.

Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.

Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:

Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":

A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:

A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.


I never suggested to use the system that is in place for driving licenses and apply it directly to guns.
What I did was compare the way drivers licenses are handled, most importantly tests of ability to use the item responsibly, enforcement of those rules that do apply and are known to the person in possesion of the license, and general traceability via a centralised issuing system.Which, only occurs to the extent that you license a vehicle that is to be used in a public space.
To suggest I implied that guns ought to only be reigstered when they are in use is frankly ridiculous. And the same is true for the implication that guns only would require registration when used in urban areas.Why? What does it matter to an Urban Dweller what I may be doing on my property out in the sticks? I can't take my unlisensed farm truck into town, but I can take my liscensed Mustang. Why should it be different for firearms?

Hell, there are all kings of weird registration requirements for urban areas. Some Cities won't allow, or register & tax, food-disposal units. Urban Auto owners often have to go through extra registration and licensing procedeures - yet none of them are "discretionary". If you aren't a felon/convicted of multiple auto-related crimes you can get a "permit". Why should firearms be treated differently?

you cant see it on the video,but the guy pulled a gun on the guy that shot back.
it was cleared by the police and da as a good shoot...this is exactly why it is nessaccary to have concealed carry laws in the states.

every thug is armed with a knife at the least,let alone a gun like this skell had.

one could argue he could have just gave the scumbag the money and called the cops...i guess that is true..but what if he was inclined to rape the women or worse..no witnesses,then what?

as far as i am concerned..bad guy down...good guy and innocent victims safe!

by the way,the perp got 11 years for aggravated assault with an ILLEGAL gun,robbery,etc.

but they plead it out to 7 years so he is out in 4 years!

so we get the pleasure of having that pos in our community in a few years,along with a million of others,and i am going to be disarmed so the bunnyhuggers feel safer....no thanks,i will be the one to protect the bunnyhuggers when the shit hits the fan in their safe little world.

check out the video...talk about gun control...woohooo!

http://media.putfile.com/How-To-Make-Swiss-Cheese80


AR15.com? That's where I saw this one.

Is that an ad hominem or you just flaming me again?

You can point something out a hundred times and that won't automatically make your argument valid and mine incorrect?

Most of what you have stated is incorrect and/or misleading. Couple of examples.

But your examples do not state what you said, you are actually contradicting yourself in some instances and don't mention firearm laws at all:



The US Southern States have perhaps the least restrictive gun laws, yet have the highest violent crime rate:

When you look at the US Northeast States, which have by and large the most restrictive guns laws, yet have the lowest violent crime rate:



and since now you are using "anti-gun" sites as sources, here ya go:

http://www.nraila.org/images/cbr.gif

Being a gun owner, I am sure you understand what constitutes "safe storage"?

I do. What I understand it constitutes is different from yours.

You want all firearms locked up at all times so they are useless for defense and in ways that make it too expensive for the average citizen to own.

You are still trying to defend irresponsible gun owners? How would you feel if someone died as the direct result of you not being a responsible gun owner?

You're definition of "irresponsible" is to blame the victims for the actions of criminals. The only way I would be "directly" responsible is if I pulled the trigger.

Since you want to go to emotional arguements, I guess you would consider this case to be one of "irresponsible gun ownership":

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04
Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."


Under your arguements, she, and her child, would most likely be dead. Congradulations.