NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.


Now, I'm not turning my back on my liberal...ity? But I have to say, this was fun to read. Yay!

you need to arm your self to protect yourself..You should have a lincense as well..problem solved!

Good irony.

Embrace the dark side Ilie!

I'm against gun control, and I'm as liberal as they come. We don't need the government controlling more things about our lives. That is what it means to be liberal. Liberal does not mean supporting the DNC's position.

I think guns should be legal to own, but you're putting yourself and your family at risk having it, ESPECIALLY if you conceal carry.

Embrace the dark side Ilie!

Heehee. Well heck...okay! Anything else you crazy conservatives want to sell me on while I'm still receptive? You'd better be quick about it. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.


Now, I'm not turning my back on my liberal...ity? But I have to say, this was fun to read. Yay!


Amen.

Amen.

I knew, KNEW you'd love that, DK. Laerod is crouching and quietly weeping in a running shower somewhere.

Laerod is crouching and quietly weeping in a running shower somewhere.
And he's not the only one. :( :p

Yay! Violence!

...

And he's not the only one. :( :p

Yes, you would have rather that the person in the wheelchair be the recipient of violence.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/g13.gif

I'm against gun control, and I'm as liberal as they come. We don't need the government controlling more things about our lives. That is what it means to be liberal. Liberal does not mean supporting the DNC's position.

I think guns should be legal to own, but you're putting yourself and your family at risk having it, ESPECIALLY if you conceal carry.

Doesn't the word liberal mean someone who believes liberty is the most important aspect of society? The 2nd amendment shouldn't be at odds with liberalism...

Are we going to start another guns make us safe topic again?

*cough signature cough*

Are we going to start another guns make us safe topic again?

*cough signature cough*

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up arrested for pulling a gun on an IRS agent.

What happens to you?

corrected :D

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

I would kneecap you and leave you writing on the ground in pain, and run away.

corrected :D

Haha! Yet it's never been that way for me. Several attempted robberies, but no IRS agents.

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

First of all, I don't walk around in downtown DC by myself. That's why I would have at least one other person with me. (I certainly won't ask YOU.) I protect myself by not putting myself in dangerous situations.

Self-defense is a basic human right, and to ban the means necessary for it is unacceptable tyranny.

Whether from the state or from individuals such as the mugger in this news story, people have the right to protect their lives and liberty from those who would threaten them.

First of all, I don't walk around in downtown DC by myself. That's why I would have at least one other person with me. (I certainly won't ask YOU.) I protect myself by not putting myself in dangerous situations.

Just going to a crowded movie theater in the suburbs here can count as a dangerous situation, even if you're with another person.

First of all, I don't walk around in downtown DC by myself. That's why I would have at least one other person with me. (I certainly won't ask YOU.) I protect myself by not putting myself in dangerous situations.

You do realize that not everyone has the privilege of being able to live in areas that aren't dangerous?

You do realize that not everyone has the privilege of being able to live in areas that aren't dangerous?

And danger doesn't limit itself to places and times.

probably raped/mugged/killed

guns do have good uses

:cool:

Just going to a crowded movie theater in the suburbs here can count as a dangerous situation, even if you're with another person.

Aaaand how is that, now?

Self-defense is a basic human right, and to ban the means necessary for it is unacceptable tyranny.

Whether from the state or from individuals such as the mugger in this news story, people have the right to protect their lives and liberty from those who would threaten them.

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

You do realize that not everyone has the privilege of being able to live in areas that aren't dangerous?

*sigh* Human beings are dangerous. Fine. But can we all just stick with the long-handled kitchen knives, please?

Oh, wait...http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005
:p

Aaaand how is that, now?

Criminals don't stay in "the bad areas". They have cars and take public transit.

A friend of mine had his hands cut off by a gang of them at a local movie theater, in front of hundreds of witnesses who just stood there and gaped.

Banning guns for everybody

Including the state?

and then enforcing the ban

How?

would be much better in preventing crime.

I am far more concerned with protecting freedom.

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

[agreed]

[agreed]

The problem in the US being that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all.

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

I'd assume you were working with the rather large man and have you arrested. What are you doing, leading me to rather large men that rob people?

Criminals don't stay in "the bad areas". They have cars and take public transit.

A friend of mine had his hands cut off by a gang of them at a local movie theater, in front of hundreds of witnesses who just stood there and gaped.

It sounds like the gang had knives.

Heehee. Well heck...okay! Anything else you crazy conservatives .....

Who said I'm consrvative?

Criminals don't stay in "the bad areas". They have cars and take public transit.

A friend of mine had his hands cut off by a gang of them at a local movie theater, in front of hundreds of witnesses who just stood there and gaped.

Surely this was in the news?

The problem in the US being that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all.

Alright, then why do we need a gun to deal with people who have no weapons?

*sigh* Human beings are dangerous. Fine. But can we all just stick with the long-handled kitchen knives, please?

If muggers, rapists, murderers, and the state will, fine.

Alright, then why do we need a gun to deal with people who have no weapons?

Because they often:

are stronger, bigger, and faster (they don't usually pick large strong people to attack)

and run in packs

The problem in the US being that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all.

Can you source some of this stuff DK? the statistics and your friend losing his hand.

Alright, then why do we need a gun to deal with people who have no weapons?

For situations like the scenario in the OP.

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

so, that means that the criminals will give in their guns as well, and stop smuggling in guns from other countries? all because a gun ban was put in place by the law?
sceuse me a sec.........
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! woooooo I needed a good laugh from that!!
yeah, the reason they are criminals is because they break the law, and pay no attention to the law. Telling them to stop is really not gonna do much to stop crime!

Can you source some of this stuff DK? the statistics and your friend losing his hand.

This will be the hundredth time I've sourced it on NS.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.

Because they often:

are stronger, bigger, and faster (they don't usually pick large strong people to attack)

and run in packs

I run in packs!

well, remember one thing....
you cant throw a punch 100 ft!

If muggers, rapists, murderers, and the state will, fine.

Deal!

Guns are for people that are not sheeple.

Including the state?

How?

I am far more concerned with protecting freedom.

The military and police can have them, lets not nitpick

How about actually arresting people instead of being apathetic about gun violence. We don't care since there is no prison space for them and not enough prosecuters, courtrooms to try them all.

I feel that the 2nd Amendment only allows those in a militia to be allowed arms, or I guess now the National Guard.

The military and police can have them, lets not nitpick

How about actually arresting people instead of being apathetic about gun violence. We don't care since there is no prison space for them and not enough prosecuters, courtrooms to try them all.

I feel that the 2nd Amendment only allows those in a militia to be allowed arms, or I guess now the National Guard.

*Knock Knock Knock*

Hear that? Tyranny is knocking.

so, that means that the criminals will give in their guns as well, and stop smuggling in guns from other countries? all because a gun ban was put in place by the law?
sceuse me a sec.........
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! woooooo I needed a good laugh from that!!
yeah, the reason they are criminals is because they break the law, and pay no attention to the law. Telling them to stop is really not gonna do much to stop crime!

Yeah, lets just legalize everything because those nasty criminals will break those laws anyway so whats the point right? :rolleyes:

Guns are for people that are not sheeple.

Or who don't want to suffer injury while being robbed, raped, assaulted, etc.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/g13.gif

I run in packs!

I stand in lines and sometimes walk in circles. I will never fly in the ointment however.

*Knock Knock Knock*

Hear that? Tyranny is knocking.

Sorry, I'm not of the opinion that civilians losing their weapons will turn this country into some kind of police state. I'm not that paranoid.

Sorry, I'm not of the opinion that civilians losing their weapons will turn this country into some kind of police state. I'm not that paranoid.

Heh. Still trusting of the Federal Government. You will learn.

For those interested in the study that generated the graph...

the raw data is here... http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#nibrs

More:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995


And for those who like peer review done by people hostile to the idea of gun ownership:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you, but in the real world such a ban would be absolutely impossible to enforce, it would be a joke. All that would happen is less law abiding citizens would be able to get their hands on guns, but criminals would remain armed.

Drugs are banned to....that bans pretty well enforced with all the hundreds of millions we spend on enforcing it :rolleyes:



Pointless issue, America will never get rid of its guns. Not many nations civilians are as well armed as we are, and face it, civilian gun ownership is a part of American culture back to when America was still a handfull of colonies.

Sorry, I'm not of the opinion that civilians losing their weapons will turn this country into some kind of police state. I'm not that paranoid.

Thank you for apologising for that.

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

Signature. We already went over crime rates in states with better policing vs states with looser gun laws. You got so obssessed with not being wrong you went and shot yourself in the foot - over and over.

After searching CNN.com and googling...this was the best I could do in instances of hands being cut off:

http://www.nbc4.com/news/9564218/detail.html

Heh. Still trusting of the Federal Government. You will learn.

I don't trust them to tell me the truth or actually do anything truly competant but do I expect them to totally turn away from the Constitution like in some bad movie? No.

Yeah, lets just legalize everything because those nasty criminals will break those laws anyway so whats the point right? :rolleyes:

now now,
what I am saying is no matter how many laws you try to slap onto the existing law, a criminal will ignore. All it does is tie the hands of the larger law abiding populace into depending on the police to "help" them. Stop trying to blow this out of proportion! This "new law" is totally pointless. Some laws are common sense and need to be there. And most people follow them. But what you are suggesting will just backfire and make the situation much, MUCH worse for everyone else!

You are saying we should ban all guns and enforce it right? Ok, so guns are now banned. Completely. No guns. All of the law-abiding civilians have turned in their guns and are now completely unarmed. Wait a minute.... where are the gangbangers? Why arent they turning in their guns? The Latin Kings? M13? why arent they here? So guess what, you just disarmed an entire population, leaving them totally dependent on a poorly staffed police force that cant be everywhere at the same time. Unless you want to beef up police numbers thats great,but then we'll get into the whole "Oh no, we are turning into a police state!!" argument. Think about it.

I feel that the 2nd Amendment only allows those in a militia to be allowed arms, or I guess now the National Guard.

2nd doesn't apply to national guard - it is a personal right - read your federalist papers - well regulated then meant supplies necessary to.....

one could make the case based on the original intent that well regulated could be like switzerland today - everyone issued current mil.gov style firearms [exceptions for criminals/mentally deficient/etc]

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

After searching CNN.com and googling...this was the best I could do in instances of hands being cut off:

http://www.nbc4.com/news/9564218/detail.html

Try MS13 hands cut off. Thats what I found.

Now, for a final statement before I retire from this thread for a few hours (game time).

If anyone tries to take my firearms, be it the Federal Government, the UN, or anyone else, they can come and take them. Just don't flinch when the bullets start flying.

Pointless issue, America will never get rid of its guns. Not many nations civilians are as well armed as we are, and face it, civilian gun ownership is a part of American culture back to when America was still a handfull of colonies.

If anything we need to spend more on social issues to end the poverty in this country. Given the wealth we have that we have such poor people that they end up commiting crimes to survive is really pathetic for America. (not that I'm excusing them, mind).

I don't trust them to tell me the truth or actually do anything truly competant but do I expect them to totally turn away from the Constitution like in some bad movie? No.

Isn't they what they're doing now?

If anyone tries to take my firearms, be it the Federal Government, the UN, or anyone else, they can come and take them. Just don't flinch when the bullets start flying.

good for you!

Now, for a final statement before I retire from this thread for a few hours (game time).

If anyone tries to take my firearms, be it the Federal Government, the UN, or anyone else, they can come and take them. Just don't flinch when the bullets start flying.

I sure feel safe letting civilians own guns now.

People who oppose total gun control always speak like if their guns were banned, they'd be raped, pillaged and mugged every point eight nanoseconds and there'd be mass breakdowns in society.

But then they forget that many other nations totally ban guns and they're not anarchistic societies, and in many cases, they have lower crime rates than America.

Sucks to interpret the facts to suit you.

Now, for a final statement before I retire from this thread for a few hours (game time).

If anyone tries to take my firearms, be it the Federal Government, the UN, or anyone else, they can come and take them. Just don't flinch when the bullets start flying.

You'd die for an inanimate object? Why not let the government take them, head down to the black market, buy some more and do a better job of hiding them this time?

I knew, KNEW you'd love that, DK. Laerod is crouching and quietly weeping in a running shower somewhere.Yeah right. :D

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

Well teh pantless hero is certainly no worse off for not having you around any more. Considering your offer to the rather large man, TPH may even be better off with only the anonymous big guy making demands and offers. I reckon TPH's lot has improved a little when you left but his discretionary spending money is about to become less.

This one is even better:

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-06.html

You are saying we should ban all guns and enforce it right? Ok, so guns are now banned. Completely. No guns. All of the law-abiding civilians have turned in their guns and are now completely unarmed. Wait a minute.... where are the gangbangers? Why arent they turning in their guns? The Latin Kings? M13? why arent they here? So guess what, you just disarmed an entire population, leaving them totally dependent on a poorly staffed police force that cant be everywhere at the same time. Unless you want to beef up police numbers thats great,but then we'll get into the whole "Oh no, we are turning into a police state!!" argument. Think about it.

I've already said that enforcement is neccessary. Actually going in and disarming the gangs is possible if we had the will. If more police are neccessary then that is great, many places need more cops anyway. Further I've said I really don't see this turning into a police state by losing our guns and getting a few more officers on the streets.

Try MS13 hands cut off. Thats what I found.

Hm.

People who oppose total gun control always speak like if their guns were banned, they'd be raped, pillaged and mugged every point eight nanoseconds and there'd be mass breakdowns in society.


I notice a similar tendency for those who support such policy, as well. If we don't ban or regulate into the ground, we'll all be raped, pillaged, mugged, fall to general chaos, etc.


Sucks to interpret the facts to suit you.

Sure it does.

Isn't they what they're doing now?

As far as I see it they are eating around at the edges which is as far as they will get if they don't want to get tossed out of office. That is certianly bad and hopefully the courts will actually grow a spine but taking another look at the 2nd Amendment isn't a violation.

Whenever I see the gun debate I thank my lucky stars I live in a civilised society and not a paranoid nightmare like America

But then they forget that many other nations totally ban guns and they're not anarchistic societies, and in many cases, they have lower crime rates than America.

There are also countries with similar or higher instances of gun ownership, like Finland and Switzerland that have lower crime rates. One of the correlating factors with all of these countries with lower crime rates is the existence of a proper social welfare system.

I've already said that enforcement is neccessary. Actually going in and disarming the gangs is possible if we had the will. If more police are neccessary then that is great, many places need more cops anyway. Further I've said I really don't see this turning into a police state by losing our guns and getting a few more officers on the streets.

Imagine the amount of man power required to keep the population safe. a few more cops won't cut it. Ever been to Chicago? HUGE city. Now, take a walk through the south side and the west side during anytime of the day, or in the evening. So a police car drives by once in while, big deal. The gangs are still out there, throw a mean glare at he cops, and continue with their drug dealing, and other gang activity.
why is it that in most cities that have very strict gun control and no conceal/carry laws, have the highest crimes, than compared to those who allow it?? It means criminals have to think if they are going to jump somebody, "Is this guy packing, or not? Or is the other guy across the street packing heat?" in a conceal/carry city than in a strictly banned gun area. After all, criminals want to go after easily intimidated, weaker, unarmed victims than someone who is armed. If the criminals know the place is armed, they will tend to stay away right?
If you want to keep the peace in a large urban area, then you'll need to have an entire army of police to make the streets safe.

I notice a similar tendency for those who support such policy, as well. If we don't ban or regulate into the ground, we'll all be raped, pillaged, mugged, fall to general chaos, etc.





oh yeah, and then you get, "We'll have kids running around with rocket launchers and people shooting each other like crazy if we don't ban those 'evil' guns!" Wow! what is this, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas??

Imagine the amount of man power required to keep the population safe. a few more cops won't cut it. Ever been to Chicago? HUGE city. Now, take a walk through the south side and the west side during anytime of the day, or in the evening. So a police car drives by once in while, big deal. The gangs are still out there, throw a mean glare at he cops, and continue with their drug dealing, and other gang activity.
why is it that in most cities that have very strict gun control and no conceal/carry laws, have the highest crimes, than compared to those who allow it?? It means criminals have to think if they are going to jump somebody, "Is this guy packing, or not? Or is the other guy across the street packing heat?" in a conceal/carry city than in a strictly banned gun area. After all, criminals want to go after easily intimidated, weaker, unarmed victims than someone who is armed. If the criminals know the place is armed, they will tend to stay away right?
If you want to keep the peace in a large urban area, then you'll need to have an entire army of police to make the streets safe.


I don't know about the crime figures but I do know that plenty of people who are carrying weapons are really more a threat to themselves then any criminal they might encounter. Besides who said anything about a cop on every street corner? Enforcement is what counts! Drug dealers feel they can do their crimes openly because the cops don't care. Then even if they are arrested they are out in day and dealing again. What is the point there if we don't hammer these criminals? The courts have to get serious with this "war on drugs" and toss these people in jail instead of this halfassed way. Either that or start legalizing that crap. Now, I belive that much crime ultimately stems from drugs so if we actually put people in prison when we catch them then perhaps we wouldn't have to worry about guns. Same with when we catch a gangbanger with a weapon. Hammer them with jail and send a message to the scum that if they want to carry then it will be a serious risk to do so.

EDIT: Rehabilitation (an entirely different matter) could work in some cases but I don't want to get to sidetracked.

Whenever I see the gun debate I thank my lucky stars I live in a civilised society and not a paranoid nightmare like America

This is a win win situation, most Americans are thankful that you dont live here as well.

Whenever I see the gun debate I thank my lucky stars I live in a civilised society and not a paranoid nightmare like America

http://ephemeron.net/photochops/FeedTroll.jpg

some day utracia, ilie and teh pantless hero are going to get mugged, and they'll go from zealous gun control advocate to all-consuming proponent of the right to bear arms.

"a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged"

oversimplification, but not without its truth.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.


Now, I'm not turning my back on my liberal...ity? But I have to say, this was fun to read. Yay!
You can still be liberal and pro-gun too.

The military and police can have them, lets not nitpick

Ah, so the state and its enforcers get to have firearms, but not the people it is allegedly supposed to serve. I see.

How about actually arresting people instead of being apathetic about gun violence. We don't care since there is no prison space for them and not enough prosecuters, courtrooms to try them all.

We've done such a great job stopping inflows of drugs, haven't we? Why do you think it would be any different with firearms?

I feel that the 2nd Amendment only allows those in a militia to be allowed arms, or I guess now the National Guard.

I don't care about the Second Amendment. Human rights are not granted by Constitutions; at best, they are protected by them.

Including the state?


Of course not. Without the infallible and perfect state, how else would we enforce a ban?

I myself would assert and/or agree with the notion that gun control amounts to essentially nothing more than to further centralize power (be it economic, political, or whatever) into the hands of the privileged classes (chiefly that of the state), at the expense of the majority. I simply don't understand why the left-wing, as a whole, seems to not have figured this out yet.


I am far more concerned with protecting freedom.


This is what seperates people like you from about 99% of the rest of the species. Some are so fantastically selfish as to render society into a prison, and its members into prisoners, for their own individual profit. Those of us who are not so incredibly self-centered, are, unfortunately, an increasingly rare phenomenon.

Not that it makes a difference, but I'll toss in my 2 cents.

The United States is socially and culturally different from pretty much every other country. While gun bans may work in the UK (debatable), Japan, and many other nations they'd be pointless here. As stated above by many others, criminals break the law, so a gun ban would most likely be broken by them. The government is already spending a lot of money on drug bans with limited results. Am I saying that the drug ban should be lifted because it can't be enforced? No. There are a number of differences between drugs and firearms, and while both do harm, a person can use a firearm in many ways that do not harm others or themselves, the same cannot be said for drugs.

I will make no bones about it, most firearms are designed to kill. As is rat poison, any manner of traps, various designs of knives, etc. So why can we use these items legally? Because a great majority of the population uses these items with no trace of criminal intent. And for the record, self defense is not criminal intent. The average person can live their lives without ever needing to use a firearm for self defense. The same can be said about airbags and fire suppression systems. But when and if the time comes that I need airbags, fire sprinklers, or a .357 I'll be damned glad that I have one. Life, by its very nature, is unpredictable. Living in a way that reduces risk will lower the likelihood of problems, but it will never eliminate it.

The second amendment allows the populace the right to self defense. Self-defense from a mugger, rapist, murder, or tyrant. In a perfect world armed militia, armed militaries, and armed citizenry isn't needed. This is not a perfect world. I truly hope that there will never be a need in the USA for armed citizens to fight the government, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to be ready if need be. To make things clear, I feel that all citizens should have access to as much and as many weapons as they can afford. If I have enough money to buy myself a tank, then I'll have a tank. If bill gates wants a few nukes, then let him have the nukes. An armed society is a polite society, and to those who say," Then why isn't every one in the US polite to each other?", well, they haven't all gotten themselves a gun yet.

some day utracia, ilie and teh pantless hero are going to get mugged, and they'll go from zealous gun control advocate to all-consuming proponent of the right to bear arms.

"a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged"

oversimplification, but not without its truth.

I've known people who have been mugged and they didn't turn into gun nuts...

I have a far better understanding now than I once did about why people want guns and I support their right but I don't want or need one. I still think there should be tougher licensing on possessing a weapon. But I live in America, it's in the Constitution and people have their freedom to own a gun.

You can still be liberal and pro-gun too.

Quite so. I'm a social democrat and pro-gun. Of course, I'm assuming you're meaning liberal in the American sense.

oh yeah, and then you get, "We'll have kids running around with rocket launchers and people shooting each other like crazy if we don't ban those 'evil' guns!" Wow! what is this, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas??

Actually legend has it that the second wave of gun control in the US (IIRC the first was putting the ATF in charge of licensing fully automatic weapons, notably Thompson sub machine guns during prohibition) happened because some young men got ahold of a WWII bazooka and ammo at an Army surplus store (or possibly mail order) and went cruising in the boondocks blowing all hell out of some ungodly expensive amount power transformers up on power poles. The gummint decided that bazookas werent for everybody directly after that.

Quite so. I'm a social democrat and pro-gun. Of course, I'm assuming you're meaning liberal in the American sense.

I mean everything I say in the American sense.

some day utracia, ilie and teh pantless hero are going to get mugged, and they'll go from zealous gun control advocate to all-consuming proponent of the right to bear arms.

"a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged"

oversimplification, but not without its truth.

No, I will feel that I was incredibly unlucky or that it is further proof that we need more enforcement of laws instead of letting the bastards back out on the streets. Besides, I really don't trust the average person with a weapon.

Actually legend has it that the second wave of gun control in the US (IIRC the first was putting the ATF in charge of licensing fully automatic weapons, notably Thompson sub machine guns during prohibition) happened because some young men got ahold of a WWII bazooka and ammo at an Army surplus store (or possibly mail order) and went cruising in the boondocks blowing all hell out of some ungodly expensive amount power transformers up on power poles. The gummint decided that bazookas werent for everybody directly after that.

Doesn't it always take something like that until people wisen up? I suppose after a few crazies with automatic weapons kill a bunch of people then we might get serious about controlling arms. Hell, if terrorists want to hurt us why use bombs? Just get a few guys with firepower like the above in a crowded place and the casualties will be horrendous.

But I suppose one guy with a concealed permit will stop them I'm sure.

Of course not. Without the infallible and perfect state, how else would we enforce a ban?

I myself would assert and/or agree with the notion that gun control amounts to essentially nothing more than to further centralize power (be it economic, political, or whatever) into the hands of the privileged classes (chiefly that of the state), at the expense of the majority. I simply don't understand why the left-wing, as a whole, seems to not have figured this out yet.

Liberals (in the US sense) tend to be rather blindly faithful in the status quo; they are happy to reform it slightly to deliver a bit of extra justice here and there, but to upset it is to become an extremist, something that is only good in people who are long dead.

The notion that the people should be deprived of their right to self-defense while the privileged classes retain their grip on the economy and on the repressive machinery of the state is a notion that merely serves to expand the power of those privileged classes at the expense of all others. And it is, after all, the powerful who have always been responsible for the greatest of atrocities in history (however "legal" they may have made them.)

Doesn't it always take something like that until people wisen up? I suppose after a few crazies with automatic weapons kill a bunch of people then we might get serious about controlling arms. Hell, if terrorists want to hurt us why use bombs? Just get a few guys with firepower like the above in a crowded place and the casualties will be horrendous.

But I suppose one guy with a concealed permit will stop them I'm sure.

One guy with one gun has a better chance of stopping a mad bazookist than no men with any weapons.

One guy with one gun has a better chance of stopping a mad bazookist than no men with any weapons.

There is a reason we have police. Besides some guy with a gun going after a wacko with an automatic weapon or worse who is slaughtering people? Maybe in the movies...

Doesn't it always take something like that until people wisen up? I suppose after a few crazies with automatic weapons kill a bunch of people then we might get serious about controlling arms. Hell, if terrorists want to hurt us why use bombs? Just get a few guys with firepower like the above in a crowded place and the casualties will be horrendous.

But I suppose one guy with a concealed permit will stop them I'm sure.

last I checked, fully automatic guns are BANNED in the US.
Just saying, you'll ban assault weapons doesnt mean its something new. Its there, stop redoing it.

Liberals (in the US sense) tend to be rather blindly faithful in the status quo; they are happy to reform it slightly to deliver a bit of extra justice here and there, but to upset it is to become an extremist, something that is only good in people who are long dead.


I came to realize exactly that when I took the Political Compass test and found that, compared to most of my fellow Americans, I am an insanely radical leftist. Which is funny because I consider economic collectivism largely insane and radical myself. :D

So, we have a Conservative Party, and a Way Conservative Party.


The notion that the people should be deprived of their right to self-defense while the privileged classes retain their grip on the economy and on the repressive machinery of the state is a notion that merely serves to expand the power of those privileged classes at the expense of all others. And it is, after all, the powerful who have always been responsible for the greatest of atrocities in history (however "legal" they may have made them.)

How common is this point of view out there around -9 and -8 on the political spectrum?

last I checked, fully automatic guns are BANNED in the US.
Just saying, you'll ban assault weapons doesnt mean its something new. Its there, stop redoing it.

Yeah, banned. Still, people seem to get ahold of them pretty easy, not to mention plenty of people who would believe they have every right to aquire such weapons. Obviously for the time when the government comes after us. Any day now...

I came to realize exactly that when I took the Political Compass test and found that, compared to most of my fellow Americans, I am an insanely radical leftist. Which is funny because I consider economic collectivism largely insane and radical myself. :D

Don't stray too far from Proudhon, and you'll be alright. ;)

I think my only major political disagreement with you is over private property rights; everything else is mostly a consequence of that.

So, we have a Conservative Party, and a Way Conservative Party.

And anyone who hates the status quo is left either voting tactically for the lesser of two evils, voting meaninglessly, or not voting at all.

Ah, the wonders of statist bourgeois "democracy."

How common is this point of view out there around -9 and -8 on the political spectrum?

It's there; I'm far from the only one. I can't say how "common" it is, I don't talk to enough fellow left-wing extremists, but certainly most revolutionaries, whether of statist or anarchist persuasions, recognize the utility of an armed populace.

Yeah, banned. Still, people seem to get ahold of them pretty easy, not to mention plenty of people who would believe they have every right to aquire such weapons. Obviously for the time when the government comes after us. Any day now...

so, um where are they getting these full auto guns? I'd like to know. Have you ever actually set foot in a gun store and asked if you could buy a full auto AK-47? Or an M-60? Or an M-16?
The only ones that are full auto everybody bitches about are Mac-10s,11, uzis, and other small machine pistols. I hae yet to see a full auto selection on an AR-15 in a gun store.

plus those machinepistols are already banned and illegal. Its hard to find something like that in a gun store today. So where o where are they getting them from??

Yeah, banned. Still, people seem to get ahold of them pretty easy, not to mention plenty of people who would believe they have every right to aquire such weapons. Obviously for the time when the government comes after us. Any day now...

Fully automatic weapons have been severely limited since 1934, when the National Firearms Act came into being.

Only a few have ever been used in the commission of a crime (a number you can count on one hand). That is, ones purchased legally through the NFA program.

Manufacturers since the 1960s have made it extremely difficult to modify an existing semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon, even if you have the parts. Hence the fact that they don't sell weapons that work off the open bolt system (everything is closed bolt), and they make the receivers so different from the fully automatic versions that a conversion requires essentially a complete remanufacture of the weapon. If you can do that, you can already make one from scratch from stock metal.

When you hear about fully automatic weapons being used in the commission of a crime, the odds are infinitesimally small that they were ever legally purchased.

Period.

Fully automatic weapons have been severely limited since 1934, when the National Firearms Act came into being.

Only a few have ever been used in the commission of a crime (a number you can count on one hand). That is, ones purchased legally through the NFA program.

Manufacturers since the 1960s have made it extremely difficult to modify an existing semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon, even if you have the parts. Hence the fact that they don't sell weapons that work off the open bolt system (everything is closed bolt), and they make the receivers so different from the fully automatic versions that a conversion requires essentially a complete remanufacture of the weapon. If you can do that, you can already make one from scratch from stock metal.

When you hear about fully automatic weapons being used in the commission of a crime, the odds are infinitesimally small that they were ever legally purchased.

Period.


Not to mention the penalties incurred when you even attempt to change a semi-auto into full-auto! 10 years and about $30,000 fine. Even if all you have is one peice of a full auto mechanism in the same building as a corresponding semi-auto rifle.

plus those machinepistols are already banned and illegal. Its hard to find something like that in a gun store today. So where o where are they getting them from??

Which is a question to ask the goverment. I'd have to take a look at those supposive sweetheart gun merchants who follow the law so completely. And those lovely gun shows. Selling weapons to gangs? Naughty.

Not to mention the penalties incurred when you even attempt to change a semi-auto into full-auto! 10 years and about $30,000 fine. Even if all you have is one peice of a full auto mechanism in the same building as a corresponding semi-auto rifle.

The LEOs I've talked to about my own weapons say they have no fear of the legitimate gun owners.

They strongly believe that full auto weapons come in from overseas sources, usually along with shipments of drugs.

If someone is shipping 5 million dollars worth of cocaine in a car trunk or light aircraft, tossing in a few submachineguns worth 300 dollars each is just a nice way of saying "thanks for doing business".

Which is a question to ask the goverment. I'd have to take a look at those supposive sweetheart gun merchants who follow the law so completely. And those lovely gun shows. Selling weapons to gangs? Naughty.

The gun merchants don't have fully automatic weapons to sell to anyone.

Maybe you're completely unfamiliar with how well the NFA program works.

Strawman purchases are what you're talking about - and fully automatic weapons just don't make it through the strawman process.

Not to mention the penalties incurred when you even attempt to change a semi-auto into full-auto! 10 years and about $30,000 fine. Even if all you have is one peice of a full auto mechanism in the same building as a corresponding semi-auto rifle.

Unfortunately I doubt many criminals would really be afraid of this. Have to catch them with it you know? Besides, I can't believe that is as difficult as the gun manufacturers would claim.

Here's an example of what you get with buying a legal fully automatic weapon in the US.

1. You give up your right to search and seizure (by warrant) permanently, in writing.
2. You pay a tax in advance of the purchase, and if the sale is denied, you lose the money anyway.
3. Your local law enforcement has to approve of it - they have to know you.
4. The FBI does a full background check on you, comparable to a Top Secret clearance background check. This takes up to a year or more. If they find any reason to not like you, you don't get the weapon.
5. The ATF now has the right to enter your home (where the weapon is registered) at any time of the day or night, year round, with no advance warning, to ask to see the weapon. And they do this a lot during the first year. If you don't have the weapon when they show up, you do at least 10 years.
6. It used to be that you only had to pay the tax once. Now it's every year, and they reinvestigate your background from time to time.

That's why there have been NO strawman purchases of legally owned fully automatic weapons in the US. They know EVERYTHING about you.

Unfortunately I doubt many criminals would really be afraid of this. Have to catch them with it you know? Besides, I can't believe that is as difficult as the gun manufacturers would claim.

The reason that criminals rarely use fully automatic weapons is that it is difficult to get them.

1. You cannot buy one at a gun show. Period.
2. Current designs based on closed bolt would require you to remanufacture the receiver - if you can do this, you can build one yourself from straight bar stock, and don't need to purchase any weapon in the first place.

Your ignorance of firearms is astonishing.

The gun merchants don't have fully automatic weapons to sell to anyone.

Maybe you're completely unfamiliar with how well the NFA program works.

Strawman purchases are what you're talking about - and fully automatic weapons just don't make it through the strawman process.

I somehow don't trust people. Some gun merchants may not have any problem selling a few illegal weapons to make a few extra bucks. Human nature you know? Besides I feel this as a logical progression in the arguement, hardly a strawman. Still I do accept that most crimes in America are done by handguns. Doesn't really change my position on firearms at all however so whatever the current laws say it doesn't really matter to me until guns are restricted to the armed forces and police.

...it doesn't really matter to me until guns are restricted to the armed forces and police.

So...never then?

I somehow don't trust people. Some gun merchants may not have any problem selling a few illegal weapons to make a few extra bucks. Human nature you know? Besides I feel this as a logical progression in the arguement, hardly a strawman. Still I do accept that most crimes in America are done by handguns. Doesn't really change my position on firearms at all however so whatever the current laws say it doesn't really matter to me until guns are restricted to the armed forces and police.

The source of fully automatic weapons (illegal) on the street is not gun merchants. Sorry. They don't usually have the ability to purchase them themselves.

Can't buy them at gun shows, either. Because they're not there.

2. Current designs based on closed bolt would require you to remanufacture the receiver - if you can do this, you can build one yourself from straight bar stock, and don't need to purchase any weapon in the first place.

Your ignorance of firearms is astonishing.

Current designs? Fine, what about older ones?

I really don't consider any supposded ignorance on this matter to be a bad thing. Besides given my position on the matter, it doesn't really matter in the end as I don't care how powerful the gun is, people still shouldn't have it.

I think my only major political disagreement with you is over private property rights; everything else is mostly a consequence of that.


I honestly don't care if people want to form collectives or whatever else; I don't assert that collectivism is inherently evil, or some such other nonsense that is commonly promoted by those more to my "right." My primary concern is that people be motovated by individual liberty and choice. Thus, I envision property as, at least, an attempt to maintain this basic level of individual sovereignty. If an individual voluntarily agrees to surrender this sovereignty, including his property, to a group of his choice, then so be it. Assuming the choice is made in peace, I cannot and will not try to stop it. Let each (and groups thereof) go his way. (edit: I want to create a society that allows maximum choice. This means trying to find a way to allow property and collectivity to operate side by side. Thus my apparent obsession with Proudhon; he seems to be the nearest to this that I have seen so far.)

In short, I simply fear the tendency for homo sapiens sapiens to get a whole lot less finicky about putting guns to people's head when there is enough of a mob to feel confident in doing so. This is essentially the same point about enabling the priviliged classes at the expense of all others; historically, the "left-wing" has had its share of problems in this area, after all.


And anyone who hates the status quo is left either voting tactically for the lesser of two evils, voting meaninglessly, or not voting at all.


Actually, I think I've finally decided that I'm going to stop voting for people, and vote only for propositions/legislation presented directly to voter. Not only is there the observed lack of candidates who actually support my own positions, but none of those schmoes have got anymore right to rule than I do anyway.


I can't say how "common" it is, I don't talk to enough fellow left-wing extremists...


I have a similar problem, living in an area where "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on SUVs are more than the norm. What passes for "left-wing" are the Greens, who can't possibly drop to their knees in front of the altar of the state fast enough, including gun control of course.

Current designs? Fine, what about older ones?

I really don't consider any supposded ignorance on this matter to be a bad thing. Besides given my position on the matter, it doesn't really matter in the end as I don't care how powerful the gun is, people still shouldn't have it.

You really shouldn't be going for laws about stuff you don't understand, maybe?

The problem in the US being that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all.
Yet 70% of all murders in 2004 in the US were committed with a firearm.

Weapons (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)

Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders.

The south which has arguably the most lax gun laws in the US, ends up as the US region with a higher percentage of murders:

The South

The Nation’s most populous region, the South, accounted for 36.1 percent of the total population in 2004. Forty-three (43.0) percent of the estimated number of murders were reported in this region.

I somehow don't trust people. Some gun merchants may not have any problem selling a few illegal weapons to make a few extra bucks. Human nature you know? Besides I feel this as a logical progression in the arguement, hardly a strawman. Still I do accept that most crimes in America are done by handguns. Doesn't really change my position on firearms at all however so whatever the current laws say it doesn't really matter to me until guns are restricted to the armed forces and police.

but how can you trust the government as well? Police, military controlled by government. Seems to me they are people too. Power currupts. Look at how it is now. everywhere you turn, another gov official is in trouble. Even the police. Just yesterday they arrested and locked up four police officers who kiddnaped and burglerized innocent people, in Chicago. (They were also well decorated in the police force. DK you might have heard about this! They are all people too.

Remember the nut who stole a tank in San Diego a few years ago? Did they ban tanks after that too?

Current designs? Fine, what about older ones?

I really don't consider any supposded ignorance on this matter to be a bad thing. Besides given my position on the matter, it doesn't really matter in the end as I don't care how powerful the gun is, people still shouldn't have it.

The older ones are extremely rare, and generally don't change hands anymore.

Most are not in firing condition.

The ATF has a complete lock on where they all are.

Virtually none (a number I can count on one hand) have been used in the commission of a crime - since 1934 to the present.

Are you saying somehow that criminals are running around with legally purchased fully automatic weapons? Because if you are, you're ignorance is extremely relevant.

So...never then?

What?

The source of fully automatic weapons (illegal) on the street is not gun merchants. Sorry. They don't usually have the ability to purchase them themselves.

Can't buy them at gun shows, either. Because they're not there.

I would love to hear where they come from in that case.

Yet 70% of all murders in 2004 in the US were committed with a firearm.

Weapons (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)



The south which has arguably the most lax gun laws in the US, ends up as the US region with a higher percentage of murders:

It shows right there in red.... HANDGUNS!
Here in Chicago, IL you couldnt even own a legal handgun, much less buy one here either. Only police officers and former police can have them. But good ol Daley and Blago want to stamp that out as well.
Plus shotguns and rifles are very low on the list of murder weapons outlined, and yet you say we must ban them too because they can be used as full-auto!

What?



I would love to hear where they come from in that case.

actually you tell me, if they are soooooo easy to get here.

but how can you trust the government as well? Police, military controlled by government. Seems to me they are people too. Power currupts. Look at how it is now. everywhere you turn, another gov official is in trouble. Even the police. Just yesterday they arrested and locked up four police officers who kiddnaped and burglerized innocent people, in Chicago. (They were also well decorated in the police force. DK you might have heard about this! They are all people too.

Remember the nut who stole a tank in San Diego a few years ago? Did they ban tanks after that too?

Isolated corruption doesn't mean that I don't trust the police not to protect me. I certainly am not going to believe that cops would sell weapons to criminals. Steal drugs, shake people down yes, that, no.

The older ones are extremely rare, and generally don't change hands anymore.

Most are not in firing condition.

The ATF has a complete lock on where they all are.

Virtually none (a number I can count on one hand) have been used in the commission of a crime - since 1934 to the present.

Are you saying somehow that criminals are running around with legally purchased fully automatic weapons? Because if you are, you're ignorance is extremely relevant.

Fine, I'm not saying that the streets are flooding with automatic weapons. When they appear though it is usually because some crazy got their hands on one which is why I think that they are not as difficult to get as is imagined. If someone wants something, they can get it.

I would love to hear where they come from in that case.

I know quite a few LEOs (a few ATF agents, because I collect these sorts of weapons, and a few local police) who all say that the fully automatic illegal weapons all come in from overseas, usually as a gift on top of a drug shipment.

Obviously, the DEA has never been able to interdict drug shipments to the point where it has affected street prices (never in history).

So, as they tell me, if you're purchasing 5 million dollars of cocaine, and they ship it to you, you get a few fully automatic submachineguns as a present.

Still think you can keep these ONLY in the hands of the police and military?

You can't even interdict drugs successfully.

The only effect the current laws on fully automatic weapons have had is to make the already law abiding stay that way. Hasn't affected the street price of an illegal fully automatic weapon at all.

Give you an example.

I have a legal, HK-21E machinegun. Worth well over 27,000 dollars, largely because of legal restrictions that have dried up the present and future stocks of legally purchasable weapons.

I could, if I was a drug dealer, buy one for manufacturer's cost - as part of a drug deal. Probably less than 1000 dollars.

Because I'm law abiding, I pay the higher price.

What do you think the criminal will do? Register with the ATF? Submit to loss of the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Submit to a full background investigation by the FBI?

Right...

The older ones are extremely rare, and generally don't change hands anymore.

Most are not in firing condition.

The ATF has a complete lock on where they all are.

Virtually none (a number I can count on one hand) have been used in the commission of a crime - since 1934 to the present.

Are you saying somehow that criminals are running around with legally purchased fully automatic weapons? Because if you are, you're ignorance is extremely relevant.

well, there was that one incident with the bank robbery where the guys had full auto AKs remember? In LA was it? or something like that. But I doubt those were legally obtained.

actually you tell me, if they are soooooo easy to get here.

I should know how they get here? The point is they ARE on the streets and it doesn't seem too difficult to acquire one. They must get into the hands of criminals somehow.

I should know how they get here? The point is they ARE on the streets and it doesn't seem too difficult to acquire one. They must get into the hands of criminals somehow.

Considering the appallingly small number of incidents reported across the US where a fully automatic firearm is used in the commission of a crime, they obviously aren't that easy to get.

You ignorance is the source of your misperception of their "ease to get".

Just going to a crowded movie theater in the suburbs here can count as a dangerous situation, even if you're with another person.

Just ask Batman!

Isolated corruption doesn't mean that I don't trust the police not to protect me. I certainly am not going to believe that cops would sell weapons to criminals. Steal drugs, shake people down yes, that, no.



Fine, I'm not saying that the streets are flooding with automatic weapons. When they appear though it is usually because some crazy got their hands on one which is why I think that they are not as difficult to get as is imagined. If someone wants something, they can get it.

Actually they did! Right here in Chicago! Its happened where police officers actually did give violent gangbangers weapons, and looked the other way. Drugs same thing.

Also, once agian, where did the crazy get the full auto?? Like I said before, saying you are going to ban them doesnt make them dissappear, and neither does saying enforcing it will make them all go away. So stop saying we should ban them, because the full autos are already banned, nearly impossible to obtain legally, and hard to make (unless you are a gunsmith). Until then you are just beating a dead horse!

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

So is locking down the entire population in a house arrest. Your point?

What?




Lets say you somehow got all those other guns. The next day, hundreds of new ones will have been made, after a trip to Home Depot.

Actually they did! Right here in Chicago! Its happened where police officers actually did give violent gangbangers weapons, and looked the other way. Drugs same thing.

Also, once agian, where did the crazy get the full auto?? Like I said before, saying you are going to ban them doesnt make them dissappear, and neither does saying enforcing it will make them all go away. So stop saying we should ban them, because the full autos are already banned, nearly impossible to obtain legally, and hard to make (unless you are a gunsmith). Until then you are just beating a dead horse!
Interestingly, the FBI alone has "lost" more fully automatic weapons than any group of civilians licensed under the NFA.

They lost six a few years ago, because they put them in the trunk of their SUV, and went into a pancake house to eat. The vehicle was stolen and recovered later, minus the weapons and their laptops.

I know quite a few LEOs (a few ATF agents, because I collect these sorts of weapons, and a few local police) who all say that the fully automatic illegal weapons all come in from overseas, usually as a gift on top of a drug shipment.

Obviously, the DEA has never been able to interdict drug shipments to the point where it has affected street prices (never in history).

So, as they tell me, if you're purchasing 5 million dollars of cocaine, and they ship it to you, you get a few fully automatic submachineguns as a present.

Still think you can keep these ONLY in the hands of the police and military?

You can't even interdict drugs successfully.

The only effect the current laws on fully automatic weapons have had is to make the already law abiding stay that way. Hasn't affected the street price of an illegal fully automatic weapon at all.

Give you an example.

I have a legal, HK-21E machinegun. Worth well over 27,000 dollars, largely because of legal restrictions that have dried up the present and future stocks of legally purchasable weapons.

I could, if I was a drug dealer, buy one for manufacturer's cost - as part of a drug deal. Probably less than 1000 dollars.

Because I'm law abiding, I pay the higher price.

What do you think the criminal will do? Register with the ATF? Submit to loss of the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Submit to a full background investigation by the FBI?

Right...

Keeping everything out of the country is impossible that is clear. Still in the end the arguement reduces to that the criminal isn't going to follow the law so why have the law to begin with, right?

Hell, other countries manage not to have the gun violence we have, I understand Canada has some pretty lax gun laws yet they aren't killing each other like we are.

I should know how they get here? The point is they ARE on the streets and it doesn't seem too difficult to acquire one. They must get into the hands of criminals somehow.

well then that means I should have a full trunkload of full AK-47s, M-16s, M-60s, MP5Ks, G36s, Uzis, and others. Once again, the main way they come here is through drug deals. The crimeworld that exists is quite intricate! You can smuggle in 10 tons of heroin from Columbia or Afghanistan, whats so hard about adding in a few AK-47s or Uzis??

Lets say you somehow got all those other guns. The next day, hundreds of new ones will have been made, after a trip to Home Depot.

If they are banned then this won't matter.

Hell, other countries manage not to have the gun violence we have, I understand Canada has some pretty lax gun laws yet they aren't killing each other like we are.

It's because people having guns isn't the cause. Poverty, education, crowding. Those kinds of things are factors.

If they are banned then this won't matter.

....What, that people can make new guns themselves doesn't matter?

If anything we need to spend more on social issues to end the poverty in this country. Given the wealth we have that we have such poor people that they end up commiting crimes to survive is really pathetic for America. (not that I'm excusing them, mind).

Yea thank GOD rich people NEVER commit crimes nor do drug users and thank god rich people dont do crimes of passion or rapes or any other possible crime.

So is locking down the entire population in a house arrest. Your point?

I think I should be asking you that same question. What I believe won't happen but one can dream...

well then that means I should have a full trunkload of full AK-47s, M-16s, M-60s, MP5Ks, G36s, Uzis, and others. Once again, the main way they come here is through drug deals. The crimeworld that exists is quite intricate! You can smuggle in 10 tons of heroin from Columbia or Afghanistan, whats so hard about adding in a few AK-47s or Uzis??

I believe that we need to get serious on our "war on drugs" as well or start legalizing them. As I said earlier, stopping all smuggling is impossible but that doesn't mean we allow that to give guns to even more people. To me that doesn't make any sense.

Keeping everything out of the country is impossible that is clear. Still in the end the arguement reduces to that the criminal isn't going to follow the law so why have the law to begin with, right?

Hell, other countries manage not to have the gun violence we have, I understand Canada has some pretty lax gun laws yet they aren't killing each other like we are.

well, lets look at the crime statistics! A lot of urban crime is caused by minorites. African-Americans, Hispanics, and others. (no I am not being racist nor am I trying to sound racist, its a fact!) Almost every crime, murder, beating, rape is found in those neighborhoods. And when these groups of people start to move to other areas, they bring tht crap with them. We have people from many different backgrounds, ethnicites, and other differences. add into the mix gang rivalry over turf, drugs, and so on. You have a war almost everyday!

It's because people having guns isn't the cause. Poverty, education, crowding. Those kinds of things are factors.

Utracia is probably unaware that firearm murder in the US has dropped by 63 percent over the past 10 years.

From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

Woo - that means that 90 percent of violent victimizations don't involve a firearm.

Wow Utracia, your gun ban would not be very effective.

If you read the rest of the report, you'll get the impression that it's not the guns - it's the poverty of the people involved that makes the biggest difference.

I think I should be asking you that same question. What I believe won't happen but one can dream...



I believe that we need to get serious on our "war on drugs" as well or start legalizing them. As I said earlier, stopping all smuggling is impossible but that doesn't mean we allow that to give guns to even more people. To me that doesn't make any sense.

So allowing heroin, crack, coke, weed, LSDs, Meth, to become legal will make all of our problems go away? *shudder* I really dont want to see the streets teeming with drugged out losers causeing more problems on the streets!
Plus who said anything about giving everyone guns???

There are also countries with similar or higher instances of gun ownership, like Finland and Switzerland that have lower crime rates. One of the correlating factors with all of these countries with lower crime rates is the existence of a proper social welfare system.

Sooo.......give us welfare money or we will rob you? Nice country live in. No thanks. Ill keep my gun.

Sooo.......give us welfare money or we will rob you? Nice country live in. No thanks. Ill keep my gun.

oooo social welfare will make everything better!!
Wow, so what happened in New Orleans, the Social welfare capitol in the US??

It shows right there in red.... HANDGUNS!
Here in Chicago, IL you couldnt even own a legal handgun, much less buy one here either. Only police officers and former police can have them. But good ol Daley and Blago want to stamp that out as well.
Plus shotguns and rifles are very low on the list of murder weapons outlined, and yet you say we must ban them too because they can be used as full-auto!
I did not say anything about banning guns. There should be stricter laws regarding acquiring guns and owners should be more responsible for safe storage of their weapons.

Approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens.

They don't need to buy them, they just steal them from so called Law Abiding Citizens (LAC).

It's because people having guns isn't the cause. Poverty, education, crowding. Those kinds of things are factors.

Which is why we need to improve our social situation. Not give people guns to protect themselves with. That isn't going to fix the problem.

....What, that people can make new guns themselves doesn't matter?

Average Joes making weapons themselves? There is never going to be a perfect solution to anything you know but keeping guns from everyone is the best way to go.

Yea thank GOD rich people NEVER commit crimes nor do drug users and thank god rich people dont do crimes of passion or rapes or any other possible crime.

*sigh*

I never said that these things don't happen. But the majority of murders and other shootings are commited by poor minorities, often while commiting other crimes at the same time.

As I said earlier, stopping all smuggling is impossible but that doesn't mean we allow that to give guns to even more people. To me that doesn't make any sense.

That's because it's an argument to show you why a ban wouldn't work, not why guns shouldn't be banned. There's different argumnets for that.

oooo social welfare will make everything better!!
Wow, so what happened in New Orleans, the Social welfare capitol in the US??

A hurricane?

They don't need to buy them, they just steal them from so called Law Abiding Citizens (LAC).

Like I said, the FBI has "lost" more weapons than people registered under the NFA.

Criminals can always steal or buy them from police. Are police somehow magically immune from burglary and corruption? Really?

So allowing heroin, crack, coke, weed, LSDs, Meth, to become legal will make all of our problems go away? *shudder* I really dont want to see the streets teeming with drugged out losers causeing more problems on the streets!
Plus who said anything about giving everyone guns???

But think about it for a minute ... Didn't Prohibition bring out the worst in society? If drugs were legalized, but controlled as is liquor, the criminals wouldn't be needed for production and distribution. Additionally, I doubt the prices would remain as high as they are on the black market. That would have to cut down on the criminal acts needed to raise money for them.

I'd like to hear why you think that drug abuse would be any worse with legal, controlled drugs than it is now.

Hypothetical situation:

You and I are in downtown DC, and a man comes up (a rather large one) and demands our money and our cooperation.

I pull a gun, and tell him that he can have you, in any way that he likes.

I end up backing away, and leaving.

What happens to you?

I'd draw out my gun and Shoot you. :P

Which is why we need to improve our social situation. Not give people guns to protect themselves with. That isn't going to fix the problem.

It helps, until we get our utopia, people will need self-defense.


Average Joes making weapons themselves? There is never going to be a perfect solution to anything you know but keeping guns from everyone is the best way to go.

A 9mm hanggun can be built using a quarter inch steel pipe and fittings. You will need the following materials to build this gun; a quarter inch steel pipe 4 to 6 inches in length threaded at both ends. A solid 1/4 inch pipe plug. Two steel pipe couplings. Metal straps roughly 1/8 by 1/4 by 5 inches. Two elastic bands. One flat head nail size 6D or 8D approx 1/16" diameter. Two wood screws #8. Wooden block 8 by 5 by 1 inches and finally a steel or wooden rod longer than the steel pipe length.

The first thing to do is inspect the pipe and fittings, be sure there are no cracks or flaws that could rupture under explosive conditions. Use a 9mm bullet to check the size of the steel pipe, the bullet should fit into the pipe without forcing it but the cartridge casing should not fit into the pipe. The outside diameter of the pipe should not be less than one a and a half x the size of the bullet. i.e for a 9mm bullet the outside of the pipe should measure 1.37 cm.

Drill a 9/16 inch diameter hole 3/8 inches long into one coupling to partially remove the threading. The drilled section should fit tightly over the smooth section of the pipe.

Drill a 25/64 inch (1cm) diameter hole 3/4 inch (1.9cm) into the pipe. The 9mm cartridge should fit in the pipe in such a way that the base of the cartridge should be level with the end of the pipe. Thread the coupling tightly onto the pipe drilled end first.

Drill a hole into the pipe plug just large enough for the nail to fit through. The hole should be exactly centered into the center of the plug. The plug should have a short T shape, square at the base of the T and the rounded end at the top of the T. Push the nail through the hole until the flat head of the nail is flush with the square on the plug. Cut the nail off at the pointed side 1/16 inch away from the end of the plug. After that file the end of the nail so it could be round.

Bend a metal strap into a square U shape and drill two holes at the open ends for the wood screws. The U strap should be one and a quarter inches wide and one and three quarters long. File two notches at the closed end of the U strap on either side before the closed end of the strap. There should be two notches on one face of the U strap. This will be the hammer of the gun to be actuated by an elastic band holding on to the notches.

Shape the wood into the stock of a gun. It should be 6 inches high and the length should be 2 inches greater than the length of the unassembled pipe. The 2 inches should be cut into a 1 inch high groove at the back of the stock. The handle should be 2 inches thick and the thickness of the wood 1 inch.

Drill out a 9/16 inch diameter hole (1.43cm) through the gun stock so that you can place the gun barrel there. The center of the hole should be 1/2 inch below the top of the stock. Slide in the assembled barrel from the rear of the handgun stock coupled side last, the threaded end should emerge from the front where you should attach the second coupling so that you can keep the gun barrel in place. Attach the metallic U strap (hammer) to the gun stock with the wood screws so that when pivoted the top will hit the flat end of the nail (firing pin). This way the elastic band should attach to the space between the gun barrel and the stock wat the front and pull on the U strap's notches (hammer) pulling it towards the nail (firing pin).

It's VERY important to test fire the pistol before use, if the materials used are defective they could result in severe or lethal injury to the gun's user. To test fire place the handgun on a rest facing away, tie a string to the hammer and stand at least 10 feet away behind a barrier, pull and let go of the string to fire the pistol. If it does not fire shorten the elastic bands connecting the hammer to the front of the pistol. Fire the pistol at least 6x and then inspect for defects to be sure that it can operate ok under normal conditions.

To fire the gun under normal use remove the plug from the coupling, insert a cartridge and replace the plug with the nail (firing pin). To fire bring back the U strap metal which is the hammer and let go. To replace a spent cartridge insert the rod into the barrel to eject the cartridge.

well, lets look at the crime statistics! A lot of urban crime is caused by minorites. African-Americans, Hispanics, and others. (no I am not being racist nor am I trying to sound racist, its a fact!) Almost every crime, murder, beating, rape is found in those neighborhoods. And when these groups of people start to move to other areas, they bring tht crap with them. We have people from many different backgrounds, ethnicites, and other differences. add into the mix gang rivalry over turf, drugs, and so on. You have a war almost everyday!

Yup, that is a factor but if we actually took care of our own people perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. Besides it is the fact they are poor that these crimes happen. Give them a job and decent housing in combination of a strong gun policy and we'll see what those people make of themselves. Being poor outranks ethnicity anyway.

A hurricane?

we saw how New Orleans really was! All Katrina did was tear the roof off the place and shown what social welfare does to a society that only understands government handouts, (the gimmie somethin for nuthin, clause)

It helps, until we get our utopia, people will need self-defense.

I guess it's a sign of my old age that I didn't need to be reminded about zip guns.

we saw how New Orleans really was! All Katrina did was tear the roof off the place And everyone's houses and shown what social welfare does to a society that only understands government handouts, (the gimmie somethin for nuthin, clause).

we saw how New Orleans really was! All Katrina did was tear the roof off the place and shown what social welfare does to a society that only understands government handouts, (the gimmie somethin for nuthin, clause)

How does that explain how the police behaved?

Why is it that many liberals who are for the "Constitutional" rights of people to get married are against the Constitutional right of people to bear arms? The Constitution says nothing about the former but it certainly says something about the latter. :confused:

Or who don't want to suffer injury while being robbed, raped, assaulted, etc.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/g13.gif.

I honestly don't care if people want to form collectives or whatever else; I don't assert that collectivism is inherently evil, or some such other nonsense that is commonly promoted by those more to my "right." My primary concern is that people be motovated by individual liberty and choice. Thus, I envision property as, at least, an attempt to maintain this basic level of individual sovereignty. If an individual voluntarily agrees to surrender this sovereignty, including his property, to a group of his choice, then so be it. Assuming the choice is made in peace, I cannot and will not try to stop it. Let each (and groups thereof) go his way. (edit: I want to create a society that allows maximum choice. This means trying to find a way to allow property and collectivity to operate side by side. Thus my apparent obsession with Proudhon; he seems to be the nearest to this that I have seen so far.)

In short, I simply fear the tendency for homo sapiens sapiens to get a whole lot less finicky about putting guns to people's head when there is enough of a mob to feel confident in doing so. This is essentially the same point about enabling the priviliged classes at the expense of all others; historically, the "left-wing" has had its share of problems in this area, after all.

Actually, I think I've finally decided that I'm going to stop voting for people, and vote only for propositions/legislation presented directly to voter. Not only is there the observed lack of candidates who actually support my own positions, but none of those schmoes have got anymore right to rule than I do anyway.

You have a telegram; this discussion is probably too off-topic for this thread. ;)

I have a similar problem, living in an area where "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on SUVs are more than the norm.

I don't, I live in quite a liberal area, but it's liberal. Anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-welfare, but extremely reluctant to see frameworks beyond the status quo - and rabidly in favor of gun control.

Why is it that many liberals who are for the "Constitutional" rights of people to get married are against the Constitutional right of people to bear arms? The Constitution says nothing about the former but it certainly says something about the latter. :confused:

One of the reasons why I changed my stance on the issue. I don't have to like guns, though.

But think about it for a minute ... Didn't Prohibition bring out the worst in society? If drugs were legalized, but controlled as is liquor, the criminals wouldn't be needed for production and distribution. Additionally, I doubt the prices would remain as high as they are on the black market. That would have to cut down on the criminal acts needed to raise money for them.

Given all the crap we have to deal with in the drug trade sometimes I think we should just leaglize this crap and let the losers fuck themselves up. Cancel their health insurance of course. Having a few more messed up people around us is better then the violence in the drug trade. Might cut back on guns in this way... depending on the morality of saying its ok to use hard drugs...

Yup, that is a factor but if we actually took care of our own people perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. Besides it is the fact they are poor that these crimes happen. Give them a job and decent housing in combination of a strong gun policy and we'll see what those people make of themselves. Being poor outranks ethnicity anyway.

Yes, we do that everyday here in Chicago. Ever heard of Cabrini Green? Robert Taylor Homes? These were ment to be temporary housing developments to help those who coldnt afford anything better. Well, people moved in, but didnt move out. They stayed. For free. and the place literally began to rot! It got worse and worse. Now we are knocking them down to make the area more prosperous.
Sure there are programs everywhere to help the poor to get jobs and other benefits, but the overall theme with them is, gimme somethin cause we deserve it!

The south, which has arguably the most lax gun laws in the US, ends up as the US region with a higher percentage of murders:

You also need to examine data concerning economic opportunity, political representation, education levels, and such before any conclusion about anything regarding crime can be drawn.

Here in California, people like to cite South Central Los Angeles. OK, so there are a lot of guns out there. There is also lots of poverty, unemployment, discrimination and/or lack of political representation for minorities, low or non-existant education levels, and a whole standard metric crapload of other factors that account for the existance of crime.

The particular weapon employed is a symptom, not the disease. Stop trying to cure the symptom, start attacking the disease.

Case study: Switzerland. Poverty and unemployment appears to be quite low, its citizens are up to their ears in political representation, education levels are apparently high, etc. While firearms regulations are more substantial than what exists in many states here in the US, the country is still throughly saturated with said firearms, and yet violent crime rates are amazingly low.

See how the issue in question is a lot more complex than simply "ban 'em" or "praise God and pass the ammo?" ;)

How does that explain how the police behaved?

what about the police?
They were overwhelmed!!!
What do they have to do with the massive social welfare bordello in New Orleans??

what about the police?
They were overwhelmed!!!
What do they have to do with the massive social welfare bordello in New Orleans??

They were overwhelmed because they didn't show up for work.

You also need to examine data concerning economic opportunity, political representation, education levels, and such before any conclusion about anything regarding crime can be drawn.

Here in California, people like to cite South Central Los Angeles. OK, so there are a lot of guns out there. There is also lots of poverty, unemployment, discrimination and/or lack of political representation for minorities, low or non-existant education levels, and a whole standard metric crapload of other factors that account for the existance of crime.

The particular weapon employed is a symptom, not the disease. Stop trying to cure the symptom, start attacking the disease.

Case study: Switzerland. Poverty and unemployment appears to be quite low, its citizens are up to their ears in political representation, education levels are apparently high, etc. While firearms regulations are more substancial than what exists here in the US, the country is still throughly saturated with said firearms, and yet violent crime rates are amazingly low.

See how the issue in question is a lot more complex than simply "ban 'em" or "praise God and pass the ammo?" ;)

Amen to that!!!

Given all the crap we have to deal with in the drug trade sometimes I think we should just leaglize this crap and let the losers fuck themselves up. Cancel their health insurance of course. Having a few more messed up people around us is better then the violence in the drug trade. Might cut back on guns in this way... depending on the morality of saying its ok to use hard drugs...
The thing is that even government spending on this 'war' is wasted. Every dollar put into treatment is ten times more effective than a dollar spent on prevention. I'm not in favor of needle exchanges and free methadone clinics until we can control drug production and distribution, but treatment instead of prosecution sure makes more sense.

I guess it's a sign of my old age that I didn't need to be reminded about zip guns.

Here, we can hit a criminal in the eye. :)

http://www.bryanandac.com/images/SunGun7.jpg

Then again the point of a gun is not only self defense but the noise yes?

http://www.costumeholidayhouse.com/Costume/Accessories/07123-5w.jpg

They were overwhelmed because they didn't show up for work.

and why didnt they show up for work?

and why didnt they show up for work?

I dunno. But it couldn't have been because they were on welfare.

.
I am quoting a dot?

That chart means squat.

The South has 36% of the population, yet 43% of the murders. So much for lax gun laws?

In 2004, the Northeast accounted for 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and 14.1 percent of the estimated number of murders. Stricter gun laws in the Northeast = less murders?

You also need to examine data concerning economic opportunity, political representation, education levels, and such before any conclusion about anything regarding crime can be drawn.

Here in California, people like to cite South Central Los Angeles. OK, so there are a lot of guns out there. There is also lots of poverty, unemployment, discrimination and/or lack of political representation for minorities, low or non-existant education levels, and a whole standard metric crapload of other factors that account for the existance of crime.

The particular weapon employed is a symptom, not the disease. Stop trying to cure the symptom, start attacking the disease.

Case study: Switzerland. Poverty and unemployment appears to be quite low, its citizens are up to their ears in political representation, education levels are apparently high, etc. While firearms regulations are more substancial than what exists here in the US, the country is still throughly saturated with said firearms, and yet violent crime rates are amazingly low.

See how the issue in question is a lot more complex than simply "ban 'em" or "praise God and pass the ammo?" ;)
Don't know why you pick the South. Certianly less urban areas out west have far less restrictive laws on firearm ownership. But it's more popular to criticize the Southern states, isn't it?

Yes, we do that everyday here in Chicago. Ever heard of Cabrini Green? Robert Taylor Homes? These were ment to be temporary housing developments to help those who coldnt afford anything better. Well, people moved in, but didnt move out. They stayed. For free. and the place literally began to rot! It got worse and worse. Now we are knocking them down to make the area more prosperous.
Sure there are programs everywhere to help the poor to get jobs and other benefits, but the overall theme with them is, gimme somethin cause we deserve it!

Sounds like the programs were screwed up to begin with. If the housing was actually free then it should be temporary. Making sure they are getting jobs to improve themselves. Sounds like no real oversight.

Which is why we need to improve our social situation. Not give people guns to protect themselves with. That isn't going to fix the problem.


Yes. Yes it will. Im armed and i shoot you if you rob me. Problem fixed.

Don't know why you pick the South. Certianly less urban areas out west have far less restrictive laws on firearm ownership. But it's more popular to criticize the Southern states, isn't it?

Sounded like it was because he lived in California.

I am quoting a dot?

That chart means squat.

The South has 36% of the population, yet 43% of the murders. So much for lax gun laws?

In 2004, the Northeast accounted for 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and 14.1 percent of the estimated number of murders. Stricter gun laws in the Northeast = less murders?

*ahem* "If necessary, please feel free to re-read at any time"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11660710&postcount=165

The thing is that even government spending on this 'war' is wasted. Every dollar put into treatment is ten times more effective than a dollar spent on prevention. I'm not in favor of needle exchanges and free methadone clinics until we can control drug production and distribution, but treatment instead of prosecution sure makes more sense.

Leave more prison space for violent felons.

*nods*

I am quoting a dot?

That chart means squat.


Chart not directed towards you.

Besides it is the fact they are poor that these crimes happen. Give them a job and decent housing in combination of a strong gun policy and we'll see what those people make of themselves.

Oh please give them a job dont make me laugh. Id LOVE to see the job applications your average unemployed LA gangbanger filled out in the last week. You cant FORCE dirtbags to work who would simply rather terrorize people and steal instead of actually working for a living.

with certain poor people, you cant keep giving them money without teaching them how to work for it later.
You know why they say "Please do not feed the wildlife." at National parks and forests? Its so they dont get used to people giving them free food. If they did, the animals would only learn that the best way to get food is to depend on humans. They lose their animal insticts and become dependent on free handouts. then later they can get killed easier, or they'll die off when they cant get anymore free food. (not that I am equating poor people with wildlife, God forbid, I am just stating a point!)
You make a people dependent on free giveaways, that is all they will understand. Self-sufficency goes out the window!

Yes. Yes it will. Im armed and i shoot you if you rob me. Problem fixed.

And if no one had any guns the situation may not occur at all. Most criminals are cowards, without a gun themselves they may not have the guts to commit a direct, violent crime.

Sounds like the programs were screwed up to begin with. If the housing was actually free then it should be temporary. Making sure they are getting jobs to improve themselves. Sounds like no real oversight.

They were temporary.
But those that moved in demanded it become permanent, Jessie Jackson got in on it and they got. Next thing you know, bam! They lived there all of their lives and they refused to leave!

And if no one had any guns the situation may not occur at all. Most criminals are cowards, without a gun themselves they may not have the guts to commit a direct, violent crime.

Sorry im not putting my undefended life on the line cause a criminal may or may not do something.

And if no one had any guns the situation may not occur at all. Most criminals are cowards, without a gun themselves they may not have the guts to commit a direct, violent crime.

And if everyone could fly, we wouldn't need elevators.

Leave more prison space for violent felons.

*nods*

Not to mention the abuses that ownership of private property has suffered. Geez, the things the government does in the name of the War on Drugs makes me want to scream.

Oh please give them a job dont make me laugh. Id LOVE to see the job applications your average unemployed LA gangbanger filled out in the last week. You cant FORCE dirtbags to work who would simply rather terrorize people and steal instead of actually working for a living.

Which is why you have to work to fix the awful situation they are in before they grow up and turn into wanting to get money the easy way. Regardless I am not going to write them all off, that is the kind of choice that makes career criminals to begin with. They go to prison, they get out then what? They need to be able to work or they will commit another crime and go back inside. Employment is the only chance to get them away from commiting more felonies.

I am quoting a dot?

That chart means squat.

The South has 36% of the population, yet 43% of the murders. So much for lax gun laws?

In 2004, the Northeast accounted for 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and 14.1 percent of the estimated number of murders. Stricter gun laws in the Northeast = less murders?

how educated are these folks??
you know in the south? (not to say they all are dumb)
but comeon. Look at the people that live there. Look at everything. Dont just assume, "Oh, guns banned = less murders". look at the demographics!

And if everyone could fly, we wouldn't need elevators.

And if everyone could use a gun properly, without shitting themselves first, and not killing innocents... well that isn't very likely either. I wonder how many people get shot with their own weapon?

Given all the crap we have to deal with in the drug trade sometimes I think we should just leaglize this crap and let the losers fuck themselves up. Cancel their health insurance of course. Having a few more messed up people around us is better then the violence in the drug trade. Might cut back on guns in this way... depending on the morality of saying its ok to use hard drugs...

Neal Bortz said on the radio last week that he believes it would be less expensive to legalize drugs and treat the addicts than it is to conduct the war on drugs. Perhaps he is right. At least if the government controlled the sale of drugs like they do alcohol it would cut out the drug traffickers. At least it's food for thought.

Oh, just because you legalize it you aren't necessarily saying it is morally OK. Look at prostitution in Nevada and gambling in Indian Casinos.

Which is why you have to work to fix the awful situation they are in before they grow up and turn into wanting to get money the easy way. Regardless I am not going to write them all off, that is the kind of choice that makes career criminals to begin with. They go to prison, they get out then what? They need to be able to work or they will commit another crime and go back inside. Employment is the only chance to get them away from commiting more felonies.

Good. You go employ them. I hope you dont mind being robbed blind. Or does it just seem easier to you to tell someone else that THEY have to hire them instead.

They were temporary.
But those that moved in demanded it become permanent, Jessie Jackson got in on it and they got. Next thing you know, bam! They lived there all of their lives and they refused to leave!

I've always thought Jesse Jackson was an idiot, nice to see it confirmed yet again. How the hell is he helping people stay away from crime and to improve their lives by telling them it is fine to sit on their ass and collect welfare?

And if everyone could use a gun properly, without shitting themselves first, and not killing innocents... well that isn't very likely either. I wonder how many people get shot with their own weapon?

I wonder how many people cut themselves with knives in the kitchen. Isn't that a reaason to provide gun training and education?

Which is why you have to work to fix the awful situation they are in before they grow up and turn into wanting to get money the easy way. Regardless I am not going to write them all off, that is the kind of choice that makes career criminals to begin with. They go to prison, they get out then what? They need to be able to work or they will commit another crime and go back inside. Employment is the only chance to get them away from commiting more felonies.

well then.
Tell ya what!
Come down here to Chicago with a whole bunch
of job applications and buisness cards and stand out here on
the West side or the South side, and try handing them out to the potential
workers that stand on the street corners dealin and gang bangin!
If it works, and they reform (and not rob and kill ya) then I'll owe you a Coke!
:)

Good. You go employ them. I hope you dont mind being robbed blind. Or does it just seem easier to you to tell someone else that THEY have to hire them instead.

Again, I'm not going to write people off just because they made a mistake. I don't like the idea of creating a career criminal. With our current policies, it would be better just to give everyone a life sentence instead of letting them out to commit another crime, hurting more people and going back in. Ex-cons can make something of themselves if given the chance and getting jobs is going to be a must. It won't work for everyone of course, some are just plain bad but some rehabilitation has to be done.

Stricter gun laws in the Northeast = less murders?

Then why is it that in every state that has passed concealed carry laws the crime rate has gone down?

Oh please give them a job dont make me laugh. Id LOVE to see the job applications your average unemployed LA gangbanger filled out in the last week. You cant FORCE dirtbags to work who would simply rather terrorize people and steal instead of actually working for a living.

No, but you can take them out of society and put them in a cage in a walled in institution. :p

well then.
Tell ya what!
Come down here to Chicago with a whole bunch
of job applications and buisness cards and stand out here on
the West side or the South side, and try handing them out to the potential
workers that stand on the street corners dealin and gang bangin!
If it works, and they reform (and not rob and kill ya) then I'll owe you a Coke!
:)

They have to get pinched a few times and enjoy life on the inside before they will change. But what, after they are let out we do nothing and let them go back to that same corner dealing? Have to change their environment to try to prevent future people from choosing illegal activity. Besides, I am starting to lean further and further to the idea of legalizing about all drugs so I'm afraid those dealers would be out of a job.

So no need to get mean. :p

I've always thought Jesse Jackson was an idiot, nice to see it confirmed yet again. How the hell is he helping people stay away from crime and to improve their lives by telling them it is fine to sit on their ass and collect welfare?

Unfortunately, a large amount of African-Americans here do support him.
And well, I dont want to sound racist, but do you see what we are dealing with? He is treated like a king.
When Bill Cosby told the African American community to get off their asses and go to school and go to work, he was automatically seen as racist and as having no sympathy for the poor black folks! The thing is, HE'S BLACK TOO!! Even Jessie Jackson said Bill Cosby was being to insensitive!!! How is progress to be made when one silences the best answer?

Unfortunately, a large amount of African-Americans here do support him.
And well, I dont want to sound racist, but do you see what we are dealing with? He is treated like a king.
When Bill Cosby told the African American community to get off their asses and go to school and go to work, he was automatically seen as racist and as having no sympathy for the poor black folks! The thing is, HE'S BLACK TOO!! Even Jessie Jackson said Bill Cosby was being to insensitive!!! How is progress to be made when one silences the best answer?

Taking responsibility is something no one likes to do. If you can say that "I'm black, persecuted, give me special treatment!", well makes you more able to look at yourself as something other than a loser. People want to treat others like children, that is exactly what will happen. Jackson saying that telling people to get a job is insensitive, not understanding their situation? Well, I'm sure their situation is improved by being told its ok not to be productive and not to claw your way up the ladder to a better life. Easier to say its the fault of the white man, keeping me down, even when they are just keeping themselves down.

They have to get pinched a few times and enjoy life on the inside before they will change. But what, after they are let out we do nothing and let them go back to that same corner dealing? Have to change their environment to try to prevent future people from choosing illegal activity. Besides, I am starting to lean further and further to the idea of legalizing about all drugs so I'm afraid those dealers would be out of a job.

So no need to get mean. :p

Well, I agree with you on trying to help them out of those paths. But unfortunately for some, it is beyond hope for them. That is the life they were born into, and that's how they'll die! Not to mention the other innocent lives that will invariably be destroyed by the gangbangers, in their "turf wars".
The options are out there. All of the time! its up to them if they wanna change. "You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him drink!" :)

Plus if we do legalize all drugs, we'll have to deal with an increase of drug-related crimes and problems. Ever seen a person go berserk on meth or ex? Not pretty. Now, when you put that into the mix, we would invariably see an increase in the whole date-rape scene. since drugs are easier to get and legal, what makes you so sure they wont be used in more nefarious ways than for "recreation"?
I dont wanna get mean, just stating facts! :) Plus I dont want enemies!

Taking responsibility is something no one likes to do. If you can say that "I'm black, persecuted, give me special treatment!", well makes you more able to look at yourself as something other than a loser. People want to treat others like children, that is exactly what will happen. Jackson saying that telling people to get a job is insensitive, not understanding their situation? Well, I'm sure their situation is improved by being told its ok not to be productive and not to claw your way up the ladder to a better life. Easier to say its the fault of the white man, keeping me down, even when they are just keeping themselves down.

And that is what is happeneing all the time!
The white man opressed me, so now he gotta repay me and I aint gotta do nuthin!
Sadly we see this often here in Chicago.
What is even sadder is seeing them jump on one of their own when he suggests a way out. there is no real hope. There is problem. And it is damn near impossible to change that mentality. ie New Orleans. "When is the government gonna come here at take us all out of here, and rebuild for us?"
Sorry but that is sad, sad truth!

ie New Orleans. "When is the government gonna come here at take us all out of here, and rebuild for us?"
Sorry but that is sad, sad truth!

Of course, the hardware stores were probably destroyed too.

yeah, duh.
But always EXPECTING the governemnt to fix everything and do everything? Please!

Well, I agree with you on trying to help them out of those paths. But unfortunately for some, it is beyond hope for them. That is the life they were born into, and that's how they'll die! Not to mention the other innocent lives that will invariably be destroyed by the gangbangers, in their "turf wars".
The options are out there. All of the time! its up to them if they wanna change. "You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him drink!" :)

Plus if we do legalize all drugs, we'll have to deal with an increase of drug-related crimes and problems. Ever seen a person go berserk on meth or ex? Not pretty. Now, when you put that into the mix, we would invariably see an increase in the whole date-rape scene. since drugs are easier to get and legal, what makes you so sure they wont be used in more nefarious ways than for "recreation"?
I dont wanna get mean, just stating facts! :) Plus I dont want enemies!

Well, I'm not an expert on various drugs but I was kind of hoping that if the government was monitering their sale then they would find ways to reduce those nasty side effects some drugs have. :)

Well, I'm not an expert on various drugs but I was kind of hoping that if the government was monitering their sale then they would find ways to reduce those nasty side effects some drugs have. :)

mmm I dont know.
Still seems like a dangerous idea to me.
But it still would be quite hard to monitor everyone who would want them, right? And if the government cotrolled it, you'd probably wanna make sure you are not selling them to everyone that wants it right? I still dont see that working out. I dunno, but I still think it would cause some more problems! Well, we'll have to wait and see. after all, they want the drugs "to get high" right? lol! So taking out the "high" well then its like non-alcoholic beer. And that is what these druggies want. The high, the fix!!

And this is why I'm pro-gun:D

You know Utracia, I've read this whole thread and I've finished with a healthier respect for personal gun ownership. Want to know why? Your posts. Yep, not Kimchi's, not the pro-gun side, not the welfare sidetrack, just your posts on gun control.

You've managed to evade dealing with a single relevant issue post after post even as they were piled on you. Your stoic insistence on your own pre-conceived notion even in the face of reasonable points and hard facts has made one thing perfectly clear. Your position is completely indefensible. Thanks for making everything so crystal clear for us! :)

You know Utracia, I've read this whole thread and I've finished with a healthier respect for personal gun ownership. Want to know why? Your posts. Yep, not Kimchi's, not the pro-gun side, not the welfare sidetrack, just your posts on gun control.

You've managed to evade dealing with a single relevant issue post after post even as they were piled on you. Your stoic insistence on your own pre-conceived notion even in the face of reasonable points and hard facts has made one thing perfectly clear. Your position is completely indefensible. Thanks for making everything so crystal clear for us! :)

Perhaps you weren't reading close enough. I'm sure you just read with your own bias and read what you wanted to. Not really a surprise, everyone does it.

Still, you actually read the entire thread, most don't bother to do that. :)

Of course it is only 14 pages. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.






One word:

PWNED

Actually no, this is one of the topics that I don't have any particularly strong feelings about one way or another. It's not something that works well either way because unrestricted gun-ownership is absurd and total gun bans are completely unrealistic bullshit. It's always going to be somewhere in between and it's always going to be more talk then real impact.

Regardless, you still haven't done a damn thing to make your perspective look relevant, realistic, convincing, or even well informed. Hell, you even embraced your ignorance of firearms at one point and you still want to legislate them out of existence like congress is a counsel of fucking wizards!

The problem in the US being that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all.

Still bullshitting about statistics, huh?
This will be the hundredth time I've sourced it on NS.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

And I have no idea why you keep doing it...

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.
There are still weapons involved in most of the violent crimes.

We've been through this before. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11609183&postcount=78) Let me repeat myself...
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.
Weapons Distribution

The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.
Reported offenses (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html)

And from here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt):
Weapons and violent crime

On average each year between 1993 and 2001, approximately 26% (about 2.3 million) of the estimated 8.9 million violent crimes in the United States were committed by offenders armed with guns, knives, or objects used as weapons.
Firearm violence accounted for 10% of all violent crimes;
about 6% were committed with a knife or other sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, or broken bottle; 4% with blunt objects such as a brick, bat, or bottle; and 5% were
committed with unspecified/ "other" objects used as weapons.
and from here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#violent)
Violent Crime
Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault.
Weapon use

In 2004, 22% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 46% of all robberies, compared with 20% of all aggravated assaults and 8% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2004.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2004, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

Still bullshitting about statistics, huh?

Are you just arguing about whether the number of violent crimes that are committed without weapons is 94% or around 75%. That's hardly convincing stuff for gun control. Or are you just arguing about statistics without any particular interest in the reason?

One word:

PWNED

This sort of thing happens all the time. In fact, most times the intended victim only has to display the gun and the predator disappears.

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.
Debatable. It would be helpful to those trying to achieve fascism though.

Debatable. It would be helpful to those trying to achieve fascism though.

If Bush declared himself emperor tomorrow, disbanded Congress and cast away the Constitution, what exactly could people do? Unless you think the citizenry could meet the U.S. Army in battle? Having guns or not won't matter any.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.


Now, I'm not turning my back on my liberal...ity? But I have to say, this was fun to read. Yay!


She could have a taser and a cell phone. She'd first stun the guy and then call the police. Much more civil then this Wild West story.

If Bush declared himself emperor tomorrow, disbanded Congress and cast away the Constitution, what exactly could people do? Unless you think the citizenry could meet the U.S. Army in battle? Having guns or not won't matter any.

The Army would completly ignore his orders as they are illegal and unconstitutional and its the Armys duty to disregard illegal orders. But way to bring up a point that has nothing to do with anything.

Are you just arguing about whether the number of violent crimes that are committed without weapons is 94% or around 75%. That's hardly convincing stuff for gun control. Or are you just arguing about statistics without any particular interest in the reason?

I've not said anything about gun control, have I? I'm just pointing out that the numbers DK use are misrepresented when he says that "94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all."

I've debated him on this before - the number is incorrect - yet he still uses it, and so I call him on it.

And according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the number is 30.7% in 2004 - quite a difference from 94%

So are you just our friendly neighboirhood fact police or do you have a point?

The Army would completly ignore his orders as they are illegal and unconstitutional and its the Armys duty to disregard illegal orders. But way to bring up a point that has nothing to do with anything.

Perhaps you weren't looking at the post I was responding to? Besides Bush wouldn't be able to declare himself emperor if he didn't have the army behind him. And aren't you one of the ones saying if the public loses all their guns the government will instantly trample our civil rights and destroy the Constitution?

Perhaps you weren't looking at the post I was responding to? Besides Bush wouldn't be able to declare himself emperor if he didn't have the army behind him. And aren't you one of the ones saying if the public loses all their guns the government will instantly trample our civil rights and destroy the Constitution?

No im not actually. I believe in the right to bear arms not because i believe im going to get involved in a shootout with the Army, US government or otherwise. I support the right to carry guns so i may protect my home, myself and my family.

No im not actually. I believe in the right to bear arms not because i believe im going to get involved in a shootout with the Army, US government or otherwise. I support the right to carry guns so i may protect my home, myself and my family.

Well good, then you are more rational then some. Still, I was answering a post saying our country could turn away from democracy without the public having firearms and I find the idea ridiculous.

So are you just our friendly neighboirhood fact police or do you have a point?

Me? Why, you don't feel the statistics matter in a debate about gun control?

Me? Why, you don't feel the statistics matter in a debate about gun control?

Sure and your debating what exactly again? Debate means you have to take a position. Your not debating, your fact checking.

Sure and your debating what exactly again? Debate means you have to take a position. Your not debating, your fact checking.

Someone has to... I've had this debate with DK before. I've showed him the numbers then. He uses the 6% claim again and complains when someone asks him for a link, so I repost the numbers I've presented before.

No matter what side one takes, one should have access to the correct data, no?

The question of these debates always is: Does something need to be done about the prevalence of guns used in criminal acts? If we accept the 6%-number, and know that firearms is only used in a fraction of the crimes involving a weapon, we get the impression that there is no problems - after all, it would be such a small percentage. However, considering that the statistics show that weapons are used in a lot more then just 6% of the violent crime, that the 6% only relates to non-lethal incidents involving firearms, that paints a different picture.

Is there a problem? Make up your own mind. However, these are the correct numbers to do so with.

And that's my point.

Unless you think the citizenry could meet the U.S. Army in battle?

Why couldn't they?

Why couldn't they?

Isn't that exactly what the Iraqi insurgency is doing? They have no tanks, no planes, no helicopters, and no artillery, and they are winning.

Isn't that exactly what the Iraqi insurgency is doing? They have no tanks, no planes, no helicopters, and no artillery, and they are winning.

Winning? Cite?

last I checked, fully automatic guns are BANNED in the US.
Just saying, you'll ban assault weapons doesnt mean its something new. Its there, stop redoing it.

well in most states that is patently false - for instance in some 35ish you can own automatic firearms - i'm in ky and have a REGISTERED WITH ATF m16/uzi/mac10-45s/mac11-9mms/and suppressors

learn the facts first please - then spout off

:headbang:

I've not said anything about gun control, have I? I'm just pointing out that the numbers DK use are misrepresented when he says that "94 percent of violent crime is committed without any weapon at all."

I've debated him on this before - the number is incorrect - yet he still uses it, and so I call him on it.

And according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the number is 30.7% in 2004 - quite a difference from 94%
Perhaps he is a firm believer in the bullshit baffles brains theory?

I too have taken DK (even when he was Whispering Legs) to task over that number and he just keeps trotting it out. :(

well in most states that is patently false -

Actually, 822(o) bans civilian ownership of all full-auto weapons that were not already privately legally owned (and registered) before 1986. You can still buy pre-1986 ones.

Perhaps he is a firm believer in the bullshit baffles brains theory?

Definately.
Check the thread in my signature, he gets so overwhelmed by the idea I might be right he goes crazy and starts disagreeing with himself.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchair.shooter.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- Margaret Johnson might have looked like an easy target.

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Manhattan's Harlem neighborhood on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

Deron Johnson was taken to Harlem Hospital with a single bullet wound in the elbow, police said. He faces a robbery charge, said Lt. John Grimpel, a police spokesman.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges, Grimpel said. She also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and later released.


Now, I'm not turning my back on my liberal...ity? But I have to say, this was fun to read. Yay!

Good for her. And I am glad that he survived. Not only does he get to face charges for attempted mugging, he gets to feel the humiliation of not being able to mug a disabled woman. Not gonna be good for his rep inside the lockup. Heh.


jeez, are you anti-self-defense people STILL bitching about the right to carry? You don't want to possess or carry a firearm, fine. Tis your right. But don't fucking tell those of us who are willing to use a handgun/rifle/shotgun for defensive reason that we cannot because you don't like it. You don't have that right.

She could have a taser and a cell phone. She'd first stun the guy and then call the police. Much more civil then this Wild West story.

civil maybe, effective possibly

however she missed and only wounded this asshole - better would be to kill him and make him a darwin award winner for stupidity

:upyours:

Actually, 822(o) bans civilian ownership of all full-auto weapons that were not already privately legally owned (and registered) before 1986. You can still buy pre-1986 ones.

transferrables true

however if you obtain a 02/07ffl you may manufacture [under certain restrictions] post samples for demonstration and personal use for r&d - and make new designs etc - you may not transfer to non leo/.gov though

:fluffle:

Good for her. And I am glad that he survived. Not only does he get to face charges for attempted mugging, he gets to feel the humiliation of not being able to mug a disabled woman. Not gonna be good for his rep inside the lockup. Heh.


jeez, are you anti-self-defense people STILL bitching about the right to carry? You don't want to possess or carry a firearm, fine. Tis your right. But don't fucking tell those of us who are willing to use a handgun/rifle/shotgun for defensive reason that we cannot because you don't like it. You don't have that right.
But those of us who aren't anti-self-defense people could tell you if we wanted to, we have that right :)

civil maybe, effective possibly

however she missed and only wounded this asshole - better would be to kill him and make him a darwin award winner for stupidity

You don't really know much about the Darwin awards, do you...

and we have the right to ignore you

:eek:

You don't really know much about the Darwin awards, do you...

clensing the gene pool of idiots earns a darwin - what do you think it is?

:eek:

and we have the right to ignore you

:eek:
See? Now you're getting it :)
clensing the gene pool of idiots earns a darwin - what do you think it is?

:eek:
You have to do something more special, something more spectacular.

Getting shot during a robbery is not an uncommon enough happenstance, nor idiotic enough, to even be considered.

It is true that outlawing guns keeps guns in the hands of the outlaws. It is also true then that legalizing the froced possession of guns puts guns in the hands of the law-abiding. I don't want the government to mandate the carrying of fire-arms, but I am in favor of allowing people to own guns and carry them. I am in favor of mandated safety training with guns if you intend to carry a concealed weapon as a prerequisite to the permit, and I believe that the use of any armament in defending oneself, one's property, or another innocent person from the malicious intent of a criminal in the act of committing should not just be legal, but the press should laud such behavior as true "American Heroism."

People will find a way to commit crimes. But if you encourage certain equalizing measures of self-defense (such as guns) then you shift power towards the potential victim.

Muggers, take a lesson.

Muggers, take a lesson.

Yeah. Knock the old lady out first! Sheesh! :p

Banning guns for everybody and then enforcing the ban would be much better in preventing crime.

Magical spells like that are always a stupid answer to a real problem.

There are bad, dangerous people in society, and if they try to harm me or someone else, it is my moral duty to respond with massive, irresistable, ferocious violence - shooting them repeatedly and killing them if necessary.

--

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

Magical spells like that are always a stupid answer to a real problem.

There are bad, dangerous people in society, and if they try to harm me or someone else, it is my moral duty to respond with massive, irresistable, ferocious violence - shooting them repeatedly and killing them if necessary.

It is depressing to see that you think you have the right to take upon yourself the "justice" that is the responsibility of the state. Besides I don't see it happening that as soon as people turn in their guns the criminal masses will fall upon the good people of America. It is the same kind of paranoia that the government will turn oppressive with no guns in the public hands.

It is depressing to see that you think you have the right to take upon yourself the "justice" that is the responsibility of the state. Besides I don't see it happening that as soon as people turn in their guns the criminal masses will fall upon the good people of America. It is the same kind of paranoia that the government will turn oppressive with no guns in the public hands.

You're absolutely wrong, and it doesn't look like you read my post.

"There are bad, dangerous people in society, and if they try to harm me or someone else, it is my moral duty to respond with massive, irresistible, ferocious violence - shooting them repeatedly and killing them if necessary."

Self defense or defense of someone else in immediate danger is not an issue of justice and punishment, though indeed the state has the sole right to punish wrongdoers.

Vigilanteism is wrong, but the right and duty of defending one's life from an unwarranted threat is incumbent on all rational agents. The duty is similarly incumbent to defend another person.

Guns do not cause wrongdoing, they do however make a potent self-defense against wrongdoers. If crime could be eliminated first, perhaps by eliminating poverty - a dubiously realistic program to begin with - then it might be morally permissable to restrict the right of self-defense so significantly.

This will be the hundredth time I've sourced it on NS.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

That stat notably avoids instances of murder etc.

I think it's a horses for courses issue, you can't just slap a blanket policy all over the place and expect it to work in all places at all times.

On some level it seems to be a basic debate between two points of view, firstly that members of society should be part of a communal militia (or any other term you like) against criminals and need to hence be able to be well armed. Secondly, the idea that it is the responsibility of the police to deal with criminals, pros and cons to both etc.

If Bush declared himself emperor tomorrow, disbanded Congress and cast away the Constitution, what exactly could people do? Unless you think the citizenry could meet the U.S. Army in battle? Having guns or not won't matter any.

I always love this question. Even a lot of my good friends realize this. I live in the san francisco bay area, one of the most liberal places in the world, and there is a lot more pro-gun ownership then some might think. So many people realize that outlawing guns won't be effective in stopping crime, that law abiding ownership of guns can prevent crime, and that an oppressive government can't stop a citizenry that is well equipped.

But back to the question: What can the people do against a government that turns overtly oppressive?

A. Assault government buildings. The army and police couldn't spread enough men to have effective defense over every government building in the country. The citizens go in, shoot anyone who tries to stop them, forcefully evacuated the people inside, and burns down the buildings. Same with police stations. A dozen well armed, well trained civilians could easily pull these things off with semi-auto rifles, etc.

B. Shoot police, army, etc on the streets. Urban jungle. The US populace is trained and equipped well enough that if they didn't want the government in a city, the government would have to come to massive destruction of these cities to get things done. Every gunman in a random second story window could kill a few soldiers before they could even start returning fire.

C. Attacking army bases. They wouldn't be able to attack the larger bases at first, but a few hundred dedicated people could attack a smaller base, national guard supply bases, etc.

D. Wait it out. The army would have limited supplies, very hard to replenish. The people would shoot recruiters, burn recruitment centers. They would attack people found to be working with the government. They would attack companies supplying the government, or people working for those companies. The military would lose men and supplies, and not be able to replace them. The people would have a nearly 300 million man reserve, with hundreds of millions of guns to go around. As the military killed more people, more and more would join the cause of overthrowing them.

The common argument against this is that the government could just bomb the people fighting it, etc. That's worked so well in history, right? Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon? In the cities, attacks would be over in minutes, the people shooting the military and then dispersing. They wouldn't have targets. The populace would pull of harassment tactics, never giving the airforce or artillery targets.

Well, what about tanks, etc? That might work ok in the country, until things started to turn around. In the cities, molotov cocktails and the like would blind tanks, while people shot the accompanying troops. After a while of taking out troops and tanks, with so many veterans in our society, tanks would get restored to working condition, and AT weapons would be taken from supply depo's that are assaulted, and dead troops with them.

Hell, look at Tianamen Square. The people were widely not even armed, yet with molotov cocktails, flaming bus barricades, etc, they signifigantly slowed down the PLA, and killed a number of them if I remember right. Now imagine that, except 60% of those people having guns and signifigant training. The PLA soldiers getting shot as their tanks get trapped. The tanks getting over-ran as they didn't have troops to protect them.

People really underestimate an armed civilian populace.