), so the shooter is interested in firearms, shooting, and other enthusiasts.2: Knoxville, TN 12/22/99 : Stanley Horn and his wife were at their home one evening when a knife-wielding man forced his way inside and proceeded to tie them up and lead them upstairs. But the hopme invaded apparently didn't do a thorough job on Horn's knots, and he was able to free his hands and shot his tormenter three times, killing him.
3: Charlotte: NC 1/2/00 : Bail bond agency owner Juliet Williams stopped by her ofice early one morning and found Judal Caudle, a career criminal stealing office equipment. When Caudle came at her with a crowbar, Williams fought back, firing once from the handgun for which she had a carry permit and mortally wounding Caudle.
4: Santa Ana, CA 12/24/99 : homeowner Larry Sphar awoke to find his back door kicked in and a hand reaching inside. Four shots rang out, sending glass toward Sphar who retreated to his bedroom, grabbed a .357 Mag. handgun, and fired. The inept home invaders fled.
5: Phoeniz, AZ 12/24/99 : Reynaldo Batista had just given a man and his female companion a ride when the man pulled a gun while the woman relieved Batista of his wallet, watch, and car keys. As Batista and the man became engaged in a struggle, Batista pulled his own Glock handgun and fired twice. The would-be robber, who had a lengthy criminal record including several outstanding felony warrants, died of his wounds.
6: Clinton, NC 12/24/99 : Convenience store owner Ali Odeh suspected something when he saw acustomer enter his store and keep one hand in his pocket. The man approached him, pulled a hammer and demanded "Give me your money!" Odeh promptly upped the man's ante by producing a gun. The fleeing would-be robber was caught by police soon afterward.
7: Miami, FL 12/18/99 : As Garnett Campbell stood in line at his bank's ATM, a man standing at the next machine made a threatening gesture and ordered "Give me all your money." A brief struggle ensued, until Campbell pulled his licensed handgun and fired, mortally wounding his would-be robber.
8: St Petersburg, FL 12/22/99 : 62-year-old widow and grandmother Betty Kulas was awakened by a crashing sound. Arming herself, she went to the living room, and, seeing a man moving through her kitchen, fired, wounding the intruder who was caught later hiding in a field and charged with burglary. The man reportedly later told his mother, "I am so tired of this. I really want to go straight."
9: Knoxville, TN 12/11/99 Attempting to evade police, shooting suspect James M. Smith ducked into Tom Campbell's Glass Company's supply room, where Campbell caught him reaching into his pocket. Campbell drew his .40 cal. pistol, held it against Smith, and held him for police.
4 down, 5 out. Not a bad inning.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Uh-uh. I really don't like what you're saying, First.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh
------------------
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
George Orwell
~John Lennon
------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf
------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.
The point Tahna made was perfectly valid - and it wasn't an unfortunate incident, it was a tragic incident. He was an ordinary person asking for directions and all he got was a bullet for his troubles. All this talk of self defence simply serves to create a trigger happy nation who get itchy trigger fingers every time someone walks up to them or even looks at them the wrong way.
If you want to shoot the villians, shoot them. However don't support a situation where a lapse in judgement can lead to a person's death.
------------------
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh
I have the right to live, and I'll take measures to ensure that right.
------------------
"If a nail is driven into the wrong place, it would be foolish indeed to become angry with the hammer." - Old Russian Proverb
------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh
------------------
"Yes. I have seventeen brains! And eleven legs. And a pecan."
-Frank Gerratana, March 3, 2000
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
Kosh said: "The stories First mentioned were mostly a good cleaning of the gene pool."
Whatever happened to shooting someone in the leg .. or shoulder .. or somewhere not fatal ?? I guess that's just not enough .. These guys were going to steal stuff .. so let's end their lives .. BANG .. DEAD!! Thin the gene pool.
DOn't get me wrong .. I'm not saying that these individuals didn't deserve punishement .. But Death? Well.. I dunno .. Maybe I'd wanna kill 'em too.. but if I did.. I'd have to live the rest of my life knowing that I ended someone's life .. and tho' most people will justfy the deed by saying: He deserved it .. I bet you, the people in that list don't really feel very good when they learned they killed someone. Or maybe they do !! Maybe it gave them a sense of satisfaction .. there's a lot of power that goes with taking a life !!
------------------
-There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!
- Alshrim Dax
The Other Dax:
I related factual incidents. No conceivably 'gung-ho' mentality was included, besides the final line in which I suggested that marauding, threatening people, who ALL committed numerous felony acts, got what they deserved in the end.
The opposite argument, used by many who see humans as essentially untrustworthy, maniacal individuals who need to be controlled, relies soley on largely groundless emotional arguments based on isolated tragic incidents, yet those that were preventable through the application of common sense, and do not require wholesale blanket laws. (And I still wonder how stupid you have to be before you fail to realize that having a gun pointed at you is pretty much the universal sign for 'go away.')
WITHOUT the ability to self-defend, it is likely that most of the potential 'victims' above would have been injured or killed by their assailants. I highly doubt, somehow, that I would then hear you complaining about the 'gung-ho' mentality of the criminals, and how they violated the poor homeowners' rights.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Having a gun may not make me invulnerable, but it'll at least make me safer, Tahna.
------------------
"If a nail is driven into the wrong place, it would be foolish indeed to become angry with the hammer." - Old Russian Proverb
There's a difference between feeling invulnerable and not having to feel afraid. I doubt that ANY of the people in the stories I posted above ever felt invulnerable. I'd bet some of them were very, very afraid, despite the gun. But now there are five less things to be afraid of.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Perhaps if our ban-crazy friends would go a little ENFORCEMENT-crazy, we could actualy make a difference.
� Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
�Fugitives from justice
�Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
�Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
�Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
�Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
�Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
�Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
�Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Now, let's wander over to another thread. The one where he condems the Catholic Church for never apologising for any mistakes that it has made. The one where he says that it's still ersponsible for teh Crusades and such. His primary argument about how that is different from the wholesale slaughter of native Americans is that the Catholic Chruch hasn't apologised.
Now, suppose one of these criminals was, instead of being shot, just sent to prison. And suppose in prison that he becomes sorry for his actions. Suppose he wants to make it up?
Nah, we'll just shoot him when he comes out.
------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf
I do believe in giving someone a second chance. ONCE. So no, I would not be in favor of shooting someone just released from prison, under normal circumstances. But let me tell you something. The crooks, they knew what they were doing when they decided on that lifestyle. Nobody forced them to do what they do. And you seal your fate with your choices.
What, am I the only person who believes that if someone's negative actions towards others have negative consequences on themselves, that isn't simply 'tough for them?' I mean, don't most religions even teach that?
The recidivism rate is roughly 80%. That is, 80% of people incarcerated will CHOOSE to commit crimes again. Most of the remaining 20% are small-time, or 'crime-of-passion' crimes, where being 'scared straight' will cut it. These people are NOT career criminals, such as those described in the instances above.
FYI: I am in favor of capital punishment as a rule, but as it is practiced now I do not support it. I believe the sentencing procedures are unfair towards minorities, and that too many people are sentenced to death on less than absolute evidence.
Why? We all know CP isn't generally a deterrent to crime. However, of all the possible punishments, only CP can guarantee a 0% return rate. THAT ONE PERSON will never hurt anone again.
Draconian? Perhaps.
Effective? Absolutely.
Is CP 'cruel and unusual', as some say? I say no, not crueler or more unusual than, say, raping an 89-year- old woman or bashing a child's skull in with a hammer.
(this reminds me, did you read my responses in the ethics thread?)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
-Thomas Jefferson
That about sums it, doesn't it? Those who fear and distrust the people aren't going to want them to have guns. I trust in the fact that a human being is basically good. Who's with me?
And shouldn't minors be on that list, First?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
What a croc.
[This message has been edited by Daryus Aden (edited March 14, 2000).]
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"This spontaneous stuff takes a little bit of planning." - John Flansburgh
The only good criminal is a good criminal!! Shoot them all, and remember, a double tap in the head will seal the deal.
It's all the swagger and bravado.
------------------
Let's see... Mesmerists, Dowsers, Luddites, Alienists, Zoroastrians, Alphabetizers... A-ha! Assassins...
~C. Montgomery Burns
And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/
That doesn't sound like "Judge, jury, and executioner" to me. The majority of people are generally responsible and not homicidal maniacs. It's okay for them to own firearms, as I expect they will use and store them in a responsible manner. They will also not go to the mall and engage in a shooting spree.
Addressing the possibility of shooting someone in an extremity (leg, arm, etc.), that is impractical and inherently unsafe. Someone who is in fear of immediate death or serious injury (read: getting the crap beat out of him/her) cannot be expected to take careful aim at a rapidly-moving limb that's between 2-8 inches in width (depending on the position and build of the attacker) with any reasonable hope of hitting that target.
I have fired firearms under varying conditions. Poor lighting can seriously impair your marksmanship. So can excessive adrenalin. It's hard enough to be accurate at the range, when all conditions are excellent. I myself have no difficulty hitting the 10-ring at up to 25 yards, but that's a tiny target, and paper doesn't shoot back. Under combat conditions, I would want to ensure that I hit the target so that the bullet will not continue downrange and strike an innocent person. I have been trained to aim at the center of the target. That way, even if you don't get a bullseye, you will still hit the target.
Modern handguns are inherently more accurate than most humans can take advantage of. Fired from a "remote rest", they can reasonably be expected to put all the bullets in a circle about 3 inches in diameter or smaller. That's without changing the aim point. The barrel vibrates with every shot, the air temperature affects the trajectory and velocity -- there are dozens of variables even before you put that weapon into a human hand. Under combat conditions, the closer you are to your target, the better. There are instances where trained officers exchanged fire with armed opponents and emptied their clips, and no-one was struck by a single bullet! These were otherwise excellent marksmen who were simply wired on adrenalin (getting attacked by armed opponents can do that to you).
That is one of many reasons that officers (and other trained firearms users) are trained to aim at the center of the target (right around the solar plexus on an adult male). It's harder to miss, and the bullet will (usually) stop inside the target. This is not good news for the target, but it is good news for anyone behind him. After all, most guns can fire a slug with lethal force out to a half-mile or better.
If a police officer intentionally aimed anywhere but the center of his target in a combat situation, he would be subject to disciplinary action, especially if he missed his target (or the bullet passed through the target) and struck an innocent bystander. A handgun is a last-resort weapon. When used for defense, it is preferable only to knives and bare hands. It is lethal, and not as inherently accurate as a rifle. It is used at the shortest range (typically 5 meters or less) and has the shortest sight radius (the distance between the rear sight aperature and the sight post). During an attack is not the time for "fancy shooting".
Even if you shoot an opponent in a "non-vital" area, there is no guarantee this will stop the fight. Neither is it guaranteed that the person you shoot will only suffer minor injury. People have been killed (sometimes instantly) by a shot to a non-vital part of the body (elbow, foot, etc.) If you have determined that you must use lethal force, there is no mercy (and quite a bit of foolishness) in attempting to "wing" your opponent. The objective is to stop the violent encounter immediately, not to blow stray rounds into the surrounding countryside, to the hazard of all.
If you think you don't need a gun, don't get one. If you think you might need to use a gun, get training and use (and store) it responsibly. Think about the consequences of leaving it where a child might find it, then DON'T! Think about the consequences of getting into a lethal encounter, then do everything you possibly can to prevent this! A responsible gun owner doesn't eagerly await the moment he can pull out "ol' Bess" and destroy a miscreant. Instead, he carefully ensures he minimizes his chances of ever needing to use his weapon.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. This world's not perfect.
--Baloo
------------------
"Sometimes "dark" is just a way of saying you�ve nothing to add, only a new way to subtract."
--James Lileks
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
Jay, if you see 'swagger and bravado' in the words posted here, I'm afraid you're only deluding yourself. The 'swagger and bravado' is prevalent among the people who think they can waltz into someone's home, do whatever they want, and get away unharmed.
Omega: yes, minors should be on that list, except that the list was dealing with adults who would otherwise be legally able to own guns.
Baloo's statements are factual and entirely correct. Nobody WANTS to use their gun. I sure don't. What I WANT is simply to have an effective measure as an option of last resort. People who acquire guns because they WANT to use them on someone are dangerous. Probably, they're already criminals, and THEY make up most of the .0009% of guns actually used to commit crimes. (there may be one more '0' in there, I'm not sure)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2000).]
Just as the cyclist enjoys the sport of cycling and the cameraderie of cyclists, the drag racer the sport of drag racing and other racers, and Trek enthusiasts enjoy Star Trek (in its various forms) and other trekkers (in their various forms ), so the shooter is interested in firearms, shooting, and other enthusiasts.
I myself am mostly interested in the mechanical and historical aspect of firearms. Unlike automobiles, computers, and other technological devices, a well-made firearm can safely endure hundreds of years of regular use with minimal care. Just as with automobiles and aircraft, their safe use for sporting purposes requires one to exercise good judgement and the observation of basic safety rules.
I object to further expansion of gun control laws. This is not because I don't care about the safety of others. I do. It is not because I am eager to see a gun in every home. I am not. It is not because I am eager to possess an "arsenal" of guns to defend my home from criminals or "that nasty ol' gummint". It is because there are already laws in force which, were they enforced, would prevent a great deal of violent crime. Those who would not be deterred by the law would suffer longer sentences, and thus be removed as a danger to society for longer periods of time.
I am personally affronted by the theory that disarming me will somehow keep some criminal from robbing a 7-11 somewhere. What I do with firearms is not criminal. Taking my personal property will not reduce crime.
--Baloo
------------------
"Sometimes "dark" is just a way of saying you�ve nothing to add, only a new way to subtract."
--James Lileks
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
Poverty, I'm sorry, is no excuse.
I live in one of the poorest areas in the country, and I have NEVER seen anyone who was driven to steal, or committ any other crime, because they actually NEEDED to. (Of course, in the US today, you're considered below the poverty line if you don't have your own microwave...)
And the true statistics on drug rehabilitation aren't promising, either. I don't have sympathy for druggies. It's a case of "you knew what you were getting into when you started."
How is a gun in your safe going to protect you, if someone breaks in your bedroom window while you sleep?
How is waiting three weeks going to save someone whose life was threatened yesterday? Generally, people don't say "I'm going to kill you" and then wait three weeks to make the attempt.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
At any rate, First, I don't find your argument convincing. For one thing, unless you believe in the evil gene (Possessed by Hitler and Walt Disney, IIRC.), you cannot deny the role that environment plays in our development. That certainly doesn't constitute a get out of jail free card, but to ignore the root causes is like brushing your teeth with sugar and making up for it with lots of dental insurance.
Also, you seem to present two unrelated arguments. The first, embodied by the original post, is that access to a gun leads to lower crime rates. I can't endorse or denounce this idea due to my own ignorance of the numbers involved, but I won't deny its possibility. However, you, and it seems most gun advocates, hop over to the conclusion that immediate access to guns is even better. But where is the evidence? I've read scads of these sorts of stories, and I can't remember a single one where the person in question had needed to purchase their gun that very day because of some prior threat.
I think the problem is that both sides fear that depolarizing the issue will lead to a sharp decline in their respective coffers. I mean, I can't imagine the slogans "Hey, maybe not everyone who owns a hand gun is the spawn of Satan." or "You know, I guess I really don't need this uzi to protect myself from the taxman." would be very attractive to the fundraisers.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
But to the question at hand... who keeps a safe in the room they sleep in? (I'm sure you're aware that most robberies occur between midnight and 6 AM) My home safe is in my father's den. Which is in the 1/2 basement, past the living room stairs. If the bad guy were between the bedrooms and the stairs, this would be BAD.
If your home invader is the type who doesn't like witnesses, he's likely to head for the sleeping quarters first. This gives you a few moments, which is NOT the time to be fumbling for keys or a combination.
As for the 'evil' gene... don't knock it, yet. Let's wait and see what the folks at Human Genome Project find out.
Until then, it's all a matter of whether you believe human beings have free will or not. I happen to believe that they do. The idea that people MUST do a certain thing is ludicrous. To use an example close to my heart, some, perhaps most, abused children become abusive adults. This is often used as an excuse. However, there are examples of abused children who end up being the nicest people you could possibly imagine. My gf, for one.
Therefore, environment is NOT a predetermining condition. ONLY decisions are. You CHOOSE to lie, cheat, steal, or NOT. EVERY adult human being, the mentally ill or vegetative excepted, has the capacity to say *Kirkspeak* "I will not kill today." (or rob, or rape, or whatever).
It's just that very few of us realize that. I mean, _I_ could do just about any crime, too, but I don't. I've had means, motive, and opportunity. But I haven't used them. I COULD, there's no doubt in my mind as to that, but I WON'T. I CHOOSE not to. It really is that simple. You could drop me on the street, city or country, with LESS than your average poor person has, and I'd be able to survive without resorting to any seriously illegal behavior. And I really don't think I'm a better person than anybody else. Am I?
Admittedly, I've had reason to be very big on self-control, as it's been a major issue in my life for a long time (I can really identify with my tagline.) Perhaps not enough people are taught control of that sort. Perhaps that's what we need to be looking at.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 17, 2000).]
quote:
Baloo, I'm not saying that people should not have guns. End of story. QED. There are responsible gun owners out there.
I agree. There are, and they are a very large majority.
quote:
I think the US would greatly benefit from the adoption of a weapons control program similar to that of Australia. This means that you can apply for a license which allows for certain types of civilian authorised rifles and pistols. To get the license they'll do all the usuall checks. This takes maybe 3 weeks.
The U.S. gun laws require one to fill out a form that includes a lot of information about you, including history of mental health, criminal record, etc. (a long list). There used to be a one-week wait while they checked to see if you were ineligible to own a gun, but the local gun shop now can call a toll-free number and read the information to a representative from ATF, who checks it against his database. If you are legally eligible to own a gun (read that: no disqualifying characteristics, such as being underage, having been convicted of a felony, etc.) you may purchase the gun. The folks at the local gun shop would be more than happy to hold you for the police if you turned out to be a convicted felon or a parolee, since it's illegal to attempt to purchase a gun in that case.
The procedure for purchasing a rifle is similar, but somewhat different. To purchase a muzzle-loading rifle, musket, or caplock revolver, you don't have to show anything except cash, but the percentage of blackpowder weapons used in crime is almost (if not actually) zero (the reload time alone would give the cops plenty of time to arrest you before you were a significant danger, having fired once).
So tell me. How does waiting three weeks before I can take that puppy out to the range keep me safe?
quote:
After that you have to purchase 1 weapon at a time, and register each one with your local station.
And what if I want that matched set of pistols for the Single-Action Shooting Society target shoot? Or a pistol and a rifle? Or a varmint gun for coyotes and a .22 revolver for rats and snakes in the barn?
And the police don't have a need to know what I own unless it requires a special license (in which case they will).
quote:
At home, the weapon must be kept in a govt approved safe at all times, unless in transit to or from a shooting range.
quote:
This system basically ensures that people who are fit to own a weapon do so.
Ours does, too. Of course, that's only when they follow the rules, and that applies to the Australian model as well. The folks who want illegal things badly enough will either get arrested, tried, and convicted (good!) or they will find a way to get what they want without getting caught (bad, of course).
quote:
Afterall, how many shootings are there in Australia? Even % wise.
I don't know. You live there. You tell me?
quote:
I don't see why a law abiding US citizen would have a problem with that, afterall, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? This law actually protects you.
"If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?"
?!?
Well, if the appointed officials are trustworthy and honest, they'll keep their noses out of other people's business until they have evidence that the law is being violated. That's part of what the privacy laws are for in the U.S. Never mind guns, for a moment. What if the local gendarmes decide they don't like the cut of your jib? It's happened before (not to me thankfully) and I like having the protection of the law from it's enforcers. Under the law they can't abuse my freedoms just because they want to have some amusement at my expense.
That law protects you only as far as the police are willing and able (and don't have conflicting priorities). That is not much of a guarantee.
I believe the current laws are adequate, when enforced (and I believe they are. Locally, anyhow).
--Baloo
------------------
"Lassie, her ears pricked up!"
--Atoth the Tamarian [From "Star Trek: Door Repair Guy"]
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited March 17, 2000).]
------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Oh, here's something. DESPITE the fact that it's illegal to try to buy a gun under the circumstances Baloo mentioned above (that is, if your name shows up on the 'bad' database check), and despite the fact that a small number of people HAVE been stopped that way (most of the figures on this usually quoted also include computer or operator errors, which are unpleasantly inconvenient for the buyer in that case),
NOONE has been charged and prosecuted for the attempt.
Hello? Enforcement of existing laws, please?
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
These people exist. They ususally don't give three-week notice of just when they're going to become murderous.
And everybody's seen enough tragedies on the news to know a restraining order is only worth the paper its printed on.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Sure, but not many gun owners do that, they aren't that honest. In many shooting stories I hear, the murderer got his hands on a gun from a regular gun owner just like that. Whether the gun owner went through the database is unclear. This shows how easy it is (unfortunately) to obtain such a dangerous weapon. The owner probably didn't care or wanted the cash.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Dad would be appalled.
Not all abusive people become violent enough to kill. Not EVERY batterer goes after his wife/girlfriend after she leaves him. If they did, wouldn't there be a screaming case to lock all such people up forever?
Not all killers have killed before, and since in many states lethal force is justifiable ONLY when your life is in danger... how can you know for certain if your life is in danger until the incident happens? And isn't it better to be prepared beforehand? Even the POLICE will tell you they can't do anything until a violent incident occurs. Why wait?
In effect, you're saying that anybody who doesn't recognize the pattern of behaviour (and it's not all that easy, trust me ,in some of the instances above, - like the guy who won't let it go - past behaviour can remain totally unknown) and take their self-protective steps beforehand, deserves it for not having the foresight. That's a vile concept.
As to the comments in the prior post about gun owners... what utter folderol. Most gun owners are WELL aware that it's illegal to transfer guns under the table, and in the current climate, only the very stupid would do so. (And you already know my feelings towards the very stupid) My father used to sell guns (now he sells antique furniture, coz it's harder to get sued if an idiot hurts themselves with furniture), and he absolutely refused to sell to anyone he didn't know very well, or anyone who didn't have a spotless record.
Anybody who sells guns 'under the table' should be severely prosecuted under the numerous laws that already exist... and doubly so if the said firearm is used in a crime.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
The guy who sold a gun to the two Columbine shooters could get up to 5 years from what I'm told.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
Like I said, the problem isn't that there aren't laws, it's that the 20,000 existing laws aren't ENFORCED.
And that we ARE too lenient on habitual offenders, and too willing to look the other way when things are unpleasant. If that 6-year-old had been isolated, removed from a clearly detrimental home environment, and treated after his FIRST or even SECOND suspension, all of that might have been prevented.
(Of course, you won't hear any of the 'social engineers' calling for that, as it's a 'forbidden' mode of thought.)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
You still aren't making much of a case for the right to purchase a gun immediately, no questions asked. Look, if I'm in a bad situation and aware of it, then I need to take whatever steps I feel necessary. (The first of which should be to notify the police, but why do that when I might get the chance to shoot somebody? And yes, that was meant to be humorous, and yes I'm aware that confidence in The Law is by no means universal nor universally justified. Though with such a view I wonder what keeps us from simply taking the anarchist argument to heart.) But if whatever bad thing that is going to occur occurs with no prior warning, then being able to purchase a gun in five minutes will do me about as much good as being able to hum the entire score to "H.M.S. Pinafore" backwards and in perfect pitch. Besides, if my first exposure to a gun is when I buy it because a shady figure is following me down the street, I'm going to be more dangerous to myself than the bad guy.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Say you're a woman whose just gotten out of a bad situation. Now, you're maybe living with your sister till you can get back on your own feet.
Say your ex starts harassing you by phone or mail or other bad things. Your life is not yet obviously in danger. If you go to the police, they will tell you "Look, you can get a restraining order, but we really can't do anything about it until he violates it." But a smart person gets a restraining order anyway, since it's good evidence that you at least TRIED to stop the guy beforehand. (assuming he even gave you the chance to go and get a R.O. filed.)
Three things can now happen. One, the R.O. can be totally effective, in which case the problem is over. This isn't often the case.
Two, the R.O. keeps him away, physically, but the letters and phone calls keep coming, and he's getting bolder testing the physical limits of the R.O., because now he knows he's got you worried. After all, he reasons, the state can't afford a 24-hour watch on you and your house and your sister (who he has by now transferred at least some of his anger towards.)
Eventually, having no overt incidents to deal with, your case is moved to the back burner and most of your protection is withdrawn. Now is the time to strike. Even IF anyone notices or anyone calls, he figures it's at least 15 minutes until anybody shows up. Plenty of time for a good crowbarring.
In this case, a smart person MAY have had a few weeks to 'cool off' (although why would the victim need a cooling-off period?) before the gun was necesary.
Then there's the third possibility: That the R.O. is useless, and only serves to further enrage the guy. If you've gotten a police presence (a rarity), that doesn't matter to him, either. All that does is hurting you. So he waits for the car to go by, breaks in, and hurts you. Too bad you were only into the first week. Oh, well.
Background checks are pretty much all computerized now. They take place at nearly the speed of light. If you're clear, what's the problem in not having to wait? I can see making someone wait if there's something questionable about them, but that's not true in far over 90% of the cases.
And when the fact that almost all murderers have a long string of criminal behaviour behind them (often including felonies), that should be picked up by the background check, as well.
It comes down to: how much are you willing to restrict the rights of the already law-abiding vast majority, in order to crack down on the minority of (already) law-breaking people? And, does the proposal in fact 'crack down' on ANYBODY? In effect, the proposal functions as thought police, attempting to punish someone BEFORE they have broken any law.
"If you are good, what harm does not being able to do this do you?" is a question which is essentially equivalent to "If you have nothing to hide, wouldn't you answer?" re: "The Drumhead."
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
Germany, c.1936. No, really. You can look it up.
A centralized database makes rounding up and confiscating excessively easy, doesn't it? That's the down side to an otherwise potentially good idea. Generally the first thing an occupying army does, isn't it? Which civilians are armed and might put up a resistance? Let's see, here's the master list... round 'em up, boys.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Of course, if we follow standard online procedure, once Nazis are brought into a discussion, its credibility makes like the Titanic, so I suppose there's no real point in continuing.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Well, I could point out that weapons registration and confiscation is common to ALL occupying forces, but what would be the fun in that? Would you rather be compared to a Russian, or U.S. Cavalry on Indian lands, or the US in Occupied Japan?
Seriously, you know that as well as I do. The best way to subjugate a people is to take away their ability to fight back, and the best way to do THAT is to know who HAS the ability to fight back, and the best way to do THAT is to make sure everything's registered, nice and tidy. Now, I don't know about you, but when my country's government starts acting like an occupying army, I get concerned.
Admittedly, that's not the way that registration necessarily WILL or MUST go. But it is the way it COULD go, and I distrust the motives of the current proponents of such legislation, as much as I do the proponents of religiously-based legislation, for much the same reason.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..."
May soon outdo "The check is in the mail" for top statement of dubious veracity.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 29, 2000).]
Are you REALLY advocating against a central database because an invading army could round up all the guns?
Okay, first, if you really think that a bunch of psycopathicAmericans with hand guns will REALLY manage to turn back an invading army, I say "fart". And don't point out Vietnam. I don't blieve that US citizens are any where near organised enought of something like that.
Second, if you get invaded, you really think that everyone will still keep to the database anyway?
"I'd like that shotgun please"
"Why?"
"I want to lead a rebellion against the invading army"
"You'll be put on a database"
"Shoot. I can't buy it then."
Natch.
------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Bah! Screw Alaska!" - TSN
But there is a reason "against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC" is in certain oaths of defense.
Paranoid? Perhaps, perhaps not. Tell me, Liam, do YOU trust my government? Slick Willie, Reno, et al?
It it possible that an anti-freedom movement might, through conspiracy or subterfuge, corrupt the United States' government for its own ends? (Has it already?) Could Pat Robertson get elected president? Would there BE an election, four years later? If Y2K HAD been really bad, and the effects had lingered, say, a few years, would Willie have 'skipped' an election, 'for continuity?' Things like that have happened elsewhere. Whose to say what's impossible?
Oh, and as to whether an inferior force fighting on its home ground can stave off a superior (numerically or technologically) force which isn't, necessarily, I don't have to say Vietnam. I can say Afghanistan, Columbia, Israel, and the U.K. (during WWII, you stood alone against a German onslaught for quite some time, as I recall) sometimes the Indians did rather well, too.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
In 1997, however, the RCMP charged the Justice Department with misrepresenting the actual number... 73.
Intriguing, that, a fictional inflation of nearly 1000%, just before a gun-control law was to be passed (and it DID pass, though it's not supposed to take effect until 2003.)
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
The RCMP records any guns present at the location where a crime occurred as "guns involved in a crime". Even if they are in a locked cabinet in the other end of a building that was vandalized, the guns are counted. However, the RCMP does not consider that statistic any more relevant than whether silverware or any other items of value are present (they count those as being "involved, too, unless I'm mistaken). The RCMP only consider the presence of a firearm relevant if the firearm was used in a crime. The figure provided to Parliament is the former (higher) latter statistic. The lower figure was what the RCMP expected to be reported to Parliament, as that is a more accurate indicator of gun violence.
--Baloo
------------------
"Motto: you just can�t go wrong giving money to the poor in front of a priest."
-- James Lileks
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
If I read these correctly (not easy with the second one), Australia has twice our rates of aggrivated and sexual assault per capita. Interesting...
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Contrast the city of Chicago, which had tightened its concealed carry law, vs. the state of Florida, which loosened its law. Chicago's action followed a period of several years when the proportion of homicides committed in the city with handguns had been failing, a trend which stopped immediately; theproportion of homicides committed with handguns has increased substantially since. (Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1991) By way of contrast, Florida has experienced a phenomenal 29 percent decrease in its homicide rate since it eased its concealed-carry law (Time, March 27, 1995),
"Each year there are at least 2.5 million defensive uses of guns by crime victims, about four to five times the number of crimes committed with guns." (Kleck and Gertz in Social Pathology, January 1995).
In The New England Journal of Medicine,
November 10, 1989, the authors tried to make a case for gun control as crime control by comparing homicide statistics from Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. But what came to light was that the homicide rate for "Non-Hispanic Caucasians" (about 75 percent of the
population in both cities) was actually lower in Seattle, with all its lack of gun control, than it was in Vancouver. Actually, Vancouver's experience is one of many examples of a gun ban being followed by an increase in the homicide rate. In the seven years following British Columbia's ban, Vancouver's rate went up substantially ("Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation." Elisabeth Scarff, Decision Dynamics Corporation).
Like the gum commercial says... "Chew on this!"
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
As for those stats, refer to the ratio of deaths via weapons and lethal crimes involving weapons. You'll notice that the US has over 60X the number of weapons related incidents.
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
Now exactly how do you read this freakin chart when it comes to murders? All I can come up with are a million and a half murders every year, or 1500, both of which seem rediculous in their own way. But since there can't be 1.5 million murders every year over here, I'm going to stick with the 1500 until otherwise noted.
OK, for the record, we have 35% of their murder rates, 57% of their assault rate, 50% of their sexual assault rate, a 55% higher robbery rate, 75% of their motor vehicle theft rate, and around 55% of their rate of entry with the intent to take property. All per capita. And not accounting for the fact that 20% of their population is so isolated from the rest as to make comission of any of these sorts of crimes unworkable.
One also finds it interesting that between '96 and '97, the number of cases of armed robbery in Australia shot up by 50%. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this about when they instituted their strict gun control laws?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
While the US has higher murder and rape rates than the UK (and always has, gun bans or no, probably for ill-understood cultural reasons), the gap has lessened considerably between 1981 and 1996. (Langdon and Farrington, "Crime and Justice in the United States and England and Wales, 1981-1996", Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998), the UK (excluding Scotland, which has a different legal system, and Northern Ireland, a place of conflict which would skew the Uk statistics even more upwards) has 1.4 times the robbery rate, more than twice the assault rate, and nearl double the burglary rate and auto theft rate. (ibid)
In fact, Britian's crime rates were far lower in the period before WWI, when any law-abiding and sane adult could buy a handgun, and get a permit to carryt it concealed. (Colin Greenwood, "Firearms Control: A Study of Firearms Control in England and Wales" 1972.
The May 9, 1999 Times of London carried an amazing article on the failure of British Gun Control, including:
"Last week a 16-year-old boy, a self-confessed gang leader from a housing estate in east London, proudly displayed his 9,, Smith & Wesson... another, 14 years old, opened up his Nike bag to the reporter, showing him two .357 revolvers... a 16-year old delinquent told the reporter he could 'rent' a gun for about 80 pounds. Official statistics show children as young as 12 arrested for possession of loaded guns in public. (Eden Hamzie, "Children of 14 carry guns for 'status'," Sunday Times, May 9, 1999.
A research study done for a Parliamentary inquiry concluded that there were some 3 MILLION guns illegaly held in Britain. In some areas, 1/3 of young criminals (15-25) have acces to guns, and according to the Home Office, armed crime rose 10% from 1997-1998. (John Ungoed-Thomas, "Killings rise as 3m illegal guns flood Britain", Sunday Times, Jan 16, 2000.
And they think they're SAFE???
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
BWA-HA-HAAAA! FEAR OUR DATA!
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Really. Having taken graduate-level courses in database searching, information retreival, and reference works... If it can be found, I can find it.
Or to paraphrase another Forumite...
I AM DATA GOD. FEAR MY WRATH!
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
Oh, wait...
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
No, no fanatics here. fanatics don't have hard data. Usually, they just say stuff like "do it for the CHILDREN!" with very ill-defined goals and misty statistics as best, cross-referential quoting, like a Hangun Control Inc. spokesperson quoting a Handgun Control Inc. study. (which reminds me.. Sarah Brady gets paid a couple hundred thousand a year. The NRA president isn't salaried. not that that means anything to anybody.)
the fact of the matter is, none of the 10,000 or more gun-control laws directed at law-abiding citizens in the last 50 years have ever reduced crime and criminal activity. Only those directed towards harsher sentences for those who break the law have had any effect.
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
-------------
Whoever claims that something is so without facts is a fool. Whoever claims the facts are wrong is a fool's fool.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
).Still, after having spent another fun month in a temp job up London, I will put my vote in with the "mayo and any meat" catagory of bap. But mainly turkey and chicken.
Although it's quite nice with sossy and bacon.
Gee, us brits have boring sandwiches, don't we.
And as a final point in the debate, ignoring stats (DON'T!), First's comment of "and they feel safe?" probably sticks out most. We do. Not in a "we leave our doors open and neighbours pop in for tea all the time" kind of way, but just comparing it to the impression I get from US TV, newspapers, and general talking to people, we either have a safer country, or a safer feeling country.
Or maybe I'm just big and scary.
Still, A guy in our office got mugged last Saturday. In quite a rough area of London. Now that was bad and all. But after taking a quick straw-poll of the 10 people in our office, most girls aged 20-35, we found that the total number of muggings we'd all received was...one. I'd be curious to see how many of the US forum-goers had seen acts of violence or experienced them. The fact that a fair number of you have screwed-up parents is already a depressing sign.
(That was all over the place, wasn't it? Sorry.)
------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student
Think about this: how many of the school shootings in the past year would have taken place if it weren't for the media making such a huge deal out of Columbine?
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Of course, I realize that since some of you believe I am a large, animated bear (without pants) that this provides me with some modicum of protection from muggers ("Dude! No pants -- no pockets. Let's mug someone else!") The fact that I am a larger-than-average individual who looks like he might be able to disassemble any but a professional wrestler might also prove a discouragement to potential muggers. To confess the truth, however, my more normal-sized friends and even the ones with reed-like physiques and no visible defenses have never been mugged.
The nearest to a mugging anyone I personally know came was a few years ago when a disoriented drunk person tried to get into my mom's house after finishing his new year's eve revels. He explained to the police that he thought it was his house, and apologized to my mom before they carted him away to sober up.
--Baloo
------------------
"Just because you know you're right doesn't mean you are."
-- Me
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/
Most of the people are girls, and do either live in London (not the nice parts), or the more splendid charms of Essex (Romford in particular, which isn't in Essex, but let's not start on that now).
However, are you SURE that Australia has twice the crime rate of the US? Sure they're all convicts, whereas you lot are all religious freaks, but still...
------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
"Think about this: how many of the school shootings in the past year would have taken place if it weren't for the media making such a huge deal out of Columbine?"
So, are you saying that ALL school shooting are because of the media making a big deal about another? So, if the media didn't report on, say, rape, then no-one would get raped? Why does that sound like a bats-arse idea?
------------------
"Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be."
Sol System
"However, are you SURE that Australia has twice the crime rate of the US?"
Look at those two links I posted a while back. Except for burglary, they have nearly double our crime rates in every category, and nearly triple in murder, when you account for population difference. And again, that doesn't account for the fact that a good chunk of their populace is too geographically isolated to commit any such crimes.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
I was watching a CNN show about gun shows, and they were talking to this really old guy with a bicycle bar moustache, and he was buying his 15 year old son a shotgun.
They asked him wether or not he would attend shows anymore if they implimented real background checks (Not "You look like a good person, here's and MP5K") and he replied:
"No, I don't think I'd come anymore. Too much hassle, with all the paperwork."
Now, I don't want to pidgeonhole, but I'd guess that the majority of gun owners have a relalitvely similar attitude. If I can get a gun hassle-free, why go somewhere with forms?
Aah, I don't care. I live in a country where the guns per capita isn't a three digit number, so I don't really care about this issue anymore. It's too taxing, and if I needed hassle, I've got Math Class to worry about.
------------------
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
-Mark Twain
Just as MY statistics, showing the same problem in the UK, came direct from the Home Office. (Though, O, it DOES help your argument if you can cite sources)
Interesting tidbit for today:
Clinton visited Colorado a couple days ago on his 'milk the tragedy 2000' tour, and gave a speech promoting gun control at a 'town meeting'... at which one of the VICTIMS of Columbine (yeah, that's right, a kid who'd been shot, but lived) stood up to Clinton and opposed his gun-show bill.)
Odd, that...?
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Now accounting for a 14x population differential, we have 1300 murders for every segment of our population the size of your population. You have 360. That gives us three and a half times your murder rate. Three, if you account for your population's internal geographic isolation.
So where exactly did you get the number 60? We'd have to have a quarter of a million murders every year!
The other statistics I reported earlier are correct, however. You do have twice our rates in most other crimes.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven
You're wasting my time. Stats can be interprited and displayed to send just about any message. I'd just love to know how YOU interprit them. Must be in some weird Pat Roberston / Rush Limbaugh language.------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
*wags finger*
We must stop the politics of personal destruction.
Actually, I just got some numbers confused in my head. Like, the murder rates of New York and Nashville. Sounds about right, now.
Daryus:
My stats are taken directly from the US government and Australian government web pages. If you have a problem with my interpretation of them, then point it out. Otherwise, you're acting like DT. He'll deny the validity of anything, no matter how simple, just because it doesn't fit into his world view. He denies the validity of the journals of William Bradford himself, on the simple basis that they show a communist society that didn't work. No other reason. These stats are accurate. If anyone would care to point out a problem with my interpretation of them, please do. Otherwise, it stands that Australia has a higher crime rate in most areas, and in murder ours is about 5% of what you claim.
------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
AUSTRALIAN GUN CONTROL UPDATE
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."
------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi