Man, 73, kills robber holding shears to wife's neck [Archive]

EvilYeti

20th November 2003, 05:11 PM

Young victim of San Francisco bus shooting death laid to rest
San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Nov 15, 2003
During his funeral Saturday, police and clergy urged Dawson's friends and family
to honor the 15-year-old by not seeking revenge for his death that has become ...

Lane's widow sentenced in his shooting death
FOX Sports - Nov 5, 2003
The widow of NFL running back Fred Lane was sentenced to nearly eight years in prison
Wednesday for shooting her husband to death three years ago as he walked ...

Dallas police investigating shooting death of teen
Dallas Morning News (subscription), TX - Nov 19, 2003
Homicide detectives are investigating after a teenager was found shot
to death in a South Dallas house Tuesday night. Another man ...

Former Combs bodyguard mourned after shooting death
Newsday - Nov 19, 2003
... Jones and Combs were acquitted in March 2001 of gun possession and bribery charges
stemming from a December 1999 shooting inside a New York club in which three ...

Former star charged in shooting death of limousine driver
MSNBC - Nov 6, 2003
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Edward Coleman set the date during a brief hearing Wednesday,
the deadline for Williams to reach a plea deal with Hunterdon County ...

BSO investigating shooting death of Lighthouse Point man at home
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, FL - Oct 30, 2003
LIGHTHOUSE POINT – Detectives are investigating the shooting death of a
businessman whose body was discovered in his home Wednesday evening. ...

2 Moncks Corner teens linked in Summerville shooting death turn ...
WIS, SC - Oct 31, 2003
31, 2003 - Two 18-year-old Moncks Corner men linked to the shooting death
of a Summerville teen have turned themselves into authorities. ...

Probe into shooting death continues
Wilson County News, TX - Nov 19, 2003
FLORESVILLE — An investi-gation into the shooting death of a 16-year-old
boy remained open as detectives awaited results of an autopsy. ...

Man Charged With Second-Degree Murder In Shooting Death
Channel Oklahoma.com, OK - Oct 29, 2003
-- Pottawatomie County prosecutors have filed a second-degree murder charge against
an Oklahoma City man for the shooting death of a Tecumseh resident. ...

Police Search For Two Cars In Shooting Death Of Mom
NBC4.TV, CA - Nov 12, 2003
... 2 shooting death of Monica Agustina Noriega in Harbor Gateway, Calif. One is described
as a two-door black or dark gray 1980 Volkswagen Cabriolet convertible. ...

Suspect in custody in shooting death
Bismarck Tribune, ND - Nov 19, 2003
A suspect in the shooting death of a woman whose body was found in
a Minot house was in custody Tuesday, facing a murder charge. ...

Suspect in neighbor's shooting death arrested
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS - Nov 8, 2003
VICKSBURG, Miss. - A Vicksburg man accused in the shooting death of his neighbor
has turned himself in to authorities, ending a 10-day search. ...

Murder charged in Henderson Co. shooting death
Jackson Sun, TN - Nov 6, 2003
LEXINGTON - A Decatur County man has been charged with second-degree murder
after Wednesday's shooting death of Daryl McCollum of Henderson County. ...

Shooting death may have been self-defense
Boca Raton News, FL - Oct 28, 2003
... ripped away the quiet veneer of a busy West Boca shopping plaza at mid-morning Tuesday,
leaving one man dead in the region’s second fatal shooting in four ...

Latest: Shooting Death of Vietnamese Woman
KRON4.com, CA - Oct 30, 2003
... statements are scheduled for this morning in San Jose, paving the way for grand
jurors to begin their deliberations over the July shooting death of a young ...

Second woman charged in 2-year-old shooting death
Columbia State, SC - Nov 11, 2003
COLUMBIA, SC - A second woman has been charged with murder and armed
robbery in a 2-year-old shooting death. Richland County Sheriff's ...

Police: Robbery apparent motive in shooting death of baseball ...
Access North Georgia, GA - Nov 10, 2003
... Police also said they are investigating another shooting death nearby
for a possible connection. Police found the body of Jarrod ...

Man Pleads Not Guilty In Teen Sister's Shooting Death
Channel Cincinnati.com, OH - Nov 17, 2003
... mother, Kelly Wright, said her children loved each other and the shooting was an ... A
family friend, Helen Dunbar, said the death was a shock because the family ...

Argument over barking dog blamed in Ault shooting death
Greeley Tribune, CO - Nov 4, 2003
The victim of the shooting, Richard L. Hammock, 47, had gone to his neighbor's house
to confront him about allegedly shooting Hammock's dog with a pellet gun. ...

Man Charged In Teen's Accidental Shooting Death
KOIN, OR - Nov 19, 2003
VANCOUVER, Wash. -- A man accused in the accidental shooting death of
a teenage boy in Vancouver was set to appear Wednesday in court. ...

Woman charged in 2001 shooting death
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - Nov 9, 2003
A Columbia woman has been charged with murder and burglary in the 2001
shooting death of a Richland County man. Sheriff's investigators ...

Newport News Police Seek Suspect in Sunday Night Shooting Death
WAVY-TV, VA - Nov 17, 2003
Newport News police are seeking a suspect wanted in connection with
a Sunday night shooting death. Police say they were called to ...

Suspects in shooting death surrender
Charleston Post Courier, SC - Oct 31, 2003
MONCKS CORNERóTwo people linked to the shooting death of William Allie Martin
II turned themselves in to authorities Thursday to face related charges of ...

Innocent Plea Entered In Shooting Death
Fort Smith Times Record, AR - Oct 30, 2003
The attorney for a Lavaca man charged with first-degree murder in the shooting
death of his son-in-law entered an innocent plea for his client Wednesday. ...

Sheriff: Lee County teen's shooting death an accident
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - Nov 14, 2003
The shooting death of a Lee County teenager who died while hunting
was an accident, authorities said Friday. Harnette County Larry ...

Charges stand in Bradford County shooting death
Providence Journal Bulletin (subscription), RI - 7 hours ago
WYSOX, Pa. (AP) - A New York man was ordered to stand trial in the
shooting death of his former son-in-law. Thomas MacKechnie, 59 ...

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death
Washington Observer Reporter, PA - Nov 15, 2003
A Mon Valley man was arrested early Thursday in the shooting death
of a Crafton man at Station Square in Pittsburgh. Ranza Ford, 24 ...

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death
Washington Observer Reporter, PA - Nov 15, 2003
A Mon Valley man was arrested early Thursday in the shooting death
of a Crafton man at Station Square in Pittsburgh. Ranza Ford, 24 ...

Leads scarce in weekend shooting death
Jackson Clarion Ledger, MS - Nov 5, 2003
Authorities here have yet to establish a motive or suspects in the weekend
shooting death of a former congressional candidate. Philadelphia ...

Investigators Consider Charges In Anderson Shooting Death
Carolina Channel.com, SC - Oct 28, 2003
... No charges have been filed in Grant's death. Captain ... murder. Vaughn told
deputies Friday the shooting occurred during a domestic dispute.

Toledo police seek clues in shooting death
Toledo Blade, OH - Nov 19, 2003
... The four deaths he won’t count include a premature baby left on a bed by his
teenage mother, a justifiable shooting by police, the death of a man who was ...

Family's attorneys investigate shooting death of son
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, FL - Oct 29, 2003
... apart, because of the teenage antics family and friends say provoked the shooting. ... The
parents have been mourning the death of their only child, a sophomore at ...

Murray indicted in shooting death
Newton Daily News Tribune, MA - Oct 31, 2003
... he shot another man in self- defense was indicted yesterday in connection with the
death. ... Murray admitted to shooting Joseph McDaniel, 19, of Framingham, on Oct ...

Police call shooting death a planned execution
Democrat and Chronicle, NY - Oct 31, 2003
... shooting, Abdulaziz Ahmad, 30, was shot about 30 minutes earlier on Hudson Avenue.
Investigators are still trying to nail down the motive for the death of Ahmad ...

Police seek information in woman's shooting death
Petersburg Progress Index, VA - Nov 12, 2003
... Johnson, 60, of the 500 block of South Dunlop Street, was shot to death by an ... The
shooting appears to have been done by someone on foot, not from a vehicle ...

Boy to stand trial in shooting death of child
MLive.com (subscription), MI - 23 hours ago
... 3 shooting that killed a 12-year-old classmate. Midland County Probate Court officials
set a Feb. 11 trial date for the boy in the death of James K. Scheifflee ...

Ralph

20th November 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by clk
Hey Richard,
Why don't you tell us how James Martin (who was killed Oct. 2 at a Shoppers Food Warehouse in Wheaton, Md., as he was picking up food for his church's youth group) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun?
Better yet, tell us how Sarah Ramos could have saved herself (she was killed on Oct. 3 while sitting on a bench and waiting for a ride to her job).
If you want, you can tell us how Premkumar Walekar (who lost his life to a sniper's bullet as he pumped gas at a station in the Aspen Hill area) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun....
There are several more people, but I don't have time to go through the list.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_snipervictims021014.html

Maybe you'd like to tell the man who saved his wife's life that hanguns are useless for self-defense...........

xouper

20th November 2003, 05:45 PM

The question often asked by people who wish to ban guns is, "what do you need a gun for?" That question is being answered by the news items posted by RichardG. [see footnote]

Granted, a gun may not always be effective in all circumstances, but it is not logical to argue, "you won't always be able to defend yourself with a gun, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to have one." It is also not reasonable to take guns away from law abiding citizens just because a few people use them illegally or stupidly.

Self defense is a fundamental human right and a gun is clearly an effective weapon for self-defense. The Michigan State Constitution clearly acknowledges this right.

In this particular incident, what weapon other than a gun would have been as effective in defending the life of the man's wife - a knife? a stun gun? a baseball bat? a bag of rocks?

Footnote: Not all gun control advocates on this forum ask that question, but it has been asked, so please save your straw man protest for some other time.

clk

20th November 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Maybe you'd like to tell the man who saved his wife's life that hanguns are useless for self-defense...........

I never said that they are useless for self-defense. I just don't think that we should start legalizing any and all kinds of guns just because they can be used for self defense. If we were to legalize all guns (automatic rifles, etc.), it would only cause more problems. Guns can be used for self-defense, but I don't think that any problems would be solved if everyone carried a gun around.

edited to add: I am also saying that for every story of someone using a gun for self defense that Richard can come up with, I can find a dozen stories of people getting killed by guns in a situation where they could not have defended themselves with a gun.

Ralph

20th November 2003, 06:07 PM

I'd say the guy who's problem was his wife had a sharp object held to her throat found the gun to be a very good solution....

I noticed the intruder wasn't using one of stolen guns that always seem to be a problem......

Seriously---pretend I'm that guy......what would you say to me about my ownership of a handgun.......If I accept your arguement that I shouldn't have had it......my wife might be dead right now.

Now pretend YOU'RE that guy...........someone's got a knife to your wife's throat........

Would you like to have access to a handgun...... ??

If not a handgun---what would you prefer instead (besides a shotgun)....................??.................

Richard G

20th November 2003, 06:25 PM

edited to add: I am also saying that for every story of someone using a gun for self defense that Richard can come up with, I can find a dozen stories of people getting killed by guns in a situation where they could not have defended themselves with a gun.

I will agree with you on this clk. I'll even concede to you that you will find more news stories of crimes commited with firearms than crimes thwarted. Its not because that is the reality, its because the media in general does not cover incidents of succesful self defense incidents as vigorously as it will crimes. Much of it is because of anti-gun media bias. And much of it is because if someone thwarts a crime just by displaying a firearm, and scaring off their attacker, there really is no news story at all. Or even a crime commited.

When the bad guy is dropped and killed by the good guys, that will make the headlines. And for every one of those, there are a dozen others in which no shot was fired at all, and is not news worthy.

clk

20th November 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Its not because that is the reality, its because the media in general does not cover incidents of succesful self defense incidents as vigorously as it will crimes. Much of it is because of anti-gun media bias.

I disagree. I think those types of stories would be welcomed by the media because they are heroic. Unfortunately, gun deaths have become so common in this country that they are reported in almost every edition of every local newspaper. However, if there was a successful self defense story, I think the media would report it right away, because it is different from what is usually reported.

And much of it is because if someone thwarts a crime just by displaying a firearm, and scaring off their attacker, there really is no news story at all. Or even a crime commited.

When the bad guy is dropped and killed by the good guys, that will make the headlines. And for every one of those, there are a dozen others in which no shot was fired at all, and is not news worthy.

I agree with that. However, I still think that there are more deaths caused by criminals using guns than there are successful self defenses of a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves. I believe that because of the news stories you can find that show that many people die every day because they were killed by guns. You may think that this is because the media has an anti-gun bias, but I disagree. What is your evidence for stating that the media is anti-gun biased?

hal bidlack

20th November 2003, 06:44 PM

This thread has been reported for the "spam" spamming. I find that such posts are a violation of the spam rule. If you find a particular poster frustrating, please put that person on ignore, but do not actively try to disrupt his thread. That same behavior by varioius "trolls" in the past has been attacked, and it's not right to do it now.

No more spam, please.

hal

shanek

20th November 2003, 07:03 PM

[knows he's going to regret getting into yet another gun thread...]

Originally posted by clk
Hey Richard,
Why don't you tell us how James Martin (who was killed Oct. 2 at a Shoppers Food Warehouse in Wheaton, Md., as he was picking up food for his church's youth group) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun?

Hey clk,
Why don't you tell us how the inability of a gun to protect oneself in one situation means that someone in a different situation where a gun could protect him should be stripped of that option?

shanek

20th November 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by clk
I disagree. I think those types of stories would be welcomed by the media because they are heroic.

Then why was Vice Principal Joel Myrick's use of his personal handgun to stop a school shooting in Pearl, MI left out of most national accounts of the story? Oh, and it was actually illegal for the gun to be in his car, so if people like you had their way Myrick likely wouldn't have been able to stop them and there might have been an incident to rival Columbine. As it is, they're all lucky he forgot to take it out of his car the night before.

Unfortunately, gun deaths have become so common in this country that they are reported in almost every edition of every local newspaper.

That's just a load of crap. They don't report every single death from traffic accidents, do they? The news media does NOT report things that are common in this country...because that just isn't news, now, is it?

I agree with that. However, I still think that there are more deaths caused by criminals using guns than there are successful self defenses of a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves.

Even if that's true, how do you justify taking the guns from people who are defending themselves? How do you justify telling someone, "Sorry you had to let your wife die and all, but other people were using guns to kill people"?

Ralph

20th November 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Ralph
I'd say the guy who's problem was his wife had a sharp object held to her throat found the gun to be a very good solution....

I noticed the intruder wasn't using one of stolen guns that always seem to be a problem......

Seriously---pretend I'm that guy......what would you say to me about my ownership of a handgun.......If I accept your arguement that I shouldn't have had it......my wife might be dead right now.

Now pretend YOU'RE that guy...........someone's got a knife to your wife's throat........

Would you like to have access to a handgun...... ??

If not a handgun---what would you prefer instead (besides a shotgun)....................??.................

Anybody else..... feel free to answer these questions if clk doesn't.......

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Anybody else..... feel free to answer these questions if clk doesn't.......

Cannot really see the point of the question.

If someone had a knife at my wife's throat would I like to have a gun? Yes. If she was being attacked by a shark would I like a spear? Yes. If she was floating in space would I like a space suit? Yes.

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

clk

20th November 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Even if that's true, how do you justify taking the guns from people who are defending themselves? How do you justify telling someone, "Sorry you had to let your wife die and all, but other people were using guns to kill people"?

I never said that I wanted to take guns away from people defending themselves. I've only said that arming everyone in the country with a handgun would not solve any problems, but only lead to more.

Originally posted by ralph

your arguement that I shouldn't have had it

Jesus, how many times do I have to repeat this? I never said that guns should be taken away from anyone .

BTox

20th November 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I don't think everyone should carry guns, or own them (and I own a handgun), but your hypothetical is absurd. I'm having a fight with my wife... I realize there's a gun in the house.... gun takes over mind.... must kill wife....

Richard G

20th November 2003, 08:21 PM

Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

Thats not a hypothetical. I have a pistol on my hip every waking hour. My wife ALSO has a pistol that she carries. We have been married 11 years now, and have had more heated domestic disputes than I could count. Your notion that we would blow each other away over stupid argument is false.

(We only fire warning shots at each other. We never shoot to kill).

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Thats not a hypothetical. I have a pistol on my hip every waking hour. My wife ALSO has a pistol that she carries. We have been married 11 years now, and have had more heated domestic disputes than I could count. Your notion that we would blow each other away over stupid argument is false.

(We only fire warning shots at each other. We never shoot to kill).
This may be valid in your case Richard but, as usual, anecdotes are not going to add value to this issue. If everyone packed handguns 24/7 there would be many cases where people use those handguns to save themselves and others. There would also be many cases where those handguns would be used to deliberately or accidently kill innocent people.

If you advocate that everyone should be entitled to carry handguns then you are also supporting the rights of those who are unstable and dangerous to be armed. If you are saying that only sane, sensible, rational people with a valid reason should be armed then you are just another gun control advocate like me.......We only differ in our opinion of what is sane enough, sensible enough or what constitutes a valid reason to be armed.

Tell me why insane people should be allowed to carry guns. Tell me why people with uncontroled violent tempers should be allowed to carry guns. Tell me why people who bash thier wives should be allowed to carry guns......If you think they should not, tell me why you are not just another gun control advocate like me.
You know you are sane, how does the gunshop owner?

Richard G

20th November 2003, 08:49 PM

Sane and sensible people may be armed. No valid reason required. Thats my position.

People who are violent, unstable, or bash thier wives are already prohibited by Federal law from possesing, or owning firearms.

The gunshop owner in America is required by Federal law to run an F.B.I. background check on the buyer. Thats how they know.

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by BTox

I don't think everyone should carry guns, or own them (and I own a handgun), but your hypothetical is absurd. I'm having a fight with my wife... I realize there's a gun in the house.... gun takes over mind.... must kill wife....
Does this statement mean you are a "gun grabber"? Does it mean you want to "ban guns"? These are all things I am regularly called on this forum.

Why shouldn't everyone carry guns? What is it about you that puts you in the "ok to own a gun" category?

If you think a hypothetical about domestic violence using guns is absurd I don't really know what to reply..... Do you read newspapers at all? Man bashes wife, Man shoots wife dead...which example requires a gun?

BTox

20th November 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Does this statement mean you are a "gun grabber"? Does it mean you want to "ban guns"? These are all things I am regularly called on this forum.

No, it means I think sane and law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns if they so desire. BTW, you really care what people call you on an internet forum? I couldn't care less...

Originally posted by The Fool

Why shouldn't everyone carry guns? What is it about you that puts you in the "ok to own a gun" category?

Same as above, sane and law-abiding. I had to undergo an FBI and background check in my state to get a permit to buy a handgun. I have no issue with such controls.

Originally posted by The Fool

If you think a hypothetical about domestic violence using guns is absurd I don't really know what to reply..... Do you read newspapers at all? Man bashes wife, Man shoots wife dead...which example requires a gun?

Yes, I read newspapers. I see man beats wife to death, man stabs wife to death, man kills wife with hammer, wife runs over husband (repeatedly) with car (let's not let the ladies off in this)... in addition to gun killings. The point is insane, irrational people will kill each other whether they have guns or not.

The Fool

20th November 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by BTox

No, it means I think sane and law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns if they so desire. BTW, you really care what people call you on an internet forum? I couldn't care less...

What form of psychiatric testing do you suggest be given to people who want to buy a gun, how should it be administered and by who?

Same as above, sane and law-abiding. I had to undergo an FBI and background check in my state to get a permit to buy a handgun. I have no issue with such controls.

welcome to the forum fellow gun control advocate...

Yes, I read newspapers. I see man beats wife to death, man stabs wife to death, man kills wife with hammer, wife runs over husband (repeatedly) with car (let's not let the ladies off in this)... in addition to gun killings. The point is insane, irrational people will kill each other whether they have guns or not.

Are handguns good at killing people? would I be more effective at killing with a handgun or is thier usefullness greatly over-rated? I mean, if they are no damn good at improving my killing ability why do people want them for protection? If I carry a gun because it would make me more effective at killing rapists and muggers why would it not also make me more effective at killing wives?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways....guns lead to more dead baddies but not more dead goodies?????

BTW...Nice Avater, do you own a Boxer?

Cain

21st November 2003, 12:43 AM

Future winners of the GDFM award will be privately contacted in advance. I'm fudging in declaring this week's recipient a little sooner than usual (as I might be unavailable for the next three or four days.)

Richard- best of luck on all your future endeavors.

NightG1

21st November 2003, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.%20Louis%20City%20/%20County/E7BF159BE8A9090A86256DE4001D3671?OpenDocument&Headline=Man,%207
10 year old Houston boy shoots and kills friend. (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/110703_local_friendshoot.html)

21st November 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by clk

IYou may think that this is because the media has an anti-gun bias, but I disagree. What is your evidence for stating that the media is anti-gun biased?

At the risk of getting sucked in to another gun thread, I would point out the use of the phrase "assult weapon" which is the media way of refering to any firearm that they don't like. They have also used the term "machine gun" in stories that I have heard. This too is wrong. They attempt to demonize, not report and the choice of words makes this quite clear. I have also heard the phrase "assult pistol" which is meaningless but scarey.

They tend not to report gun news that does not fit their agenda. For example, I have never read or heard a word (I am not suggesting that I audit the news, just that I consume it a fair amount) regarding the passage of carry laws across the country. When NJ passed an "assult weapon" bill some time ago it was promised that it would reduce murders. Well, these things account for a vanishingly small percentage of crimes in the first place but when the bill was up for renwewel there was no change in the numbers that were supposed to be improved. This was not reported. Similarly when, at that time, the pols wanted photo ops showing these horrid things, they found that the Cops could not provide one since they had not confiscated one in a dogs age. They ended up getting one from a gun store.

The hysteria over assault weapons is a complete media fabrication. It goes far beyond simple mistakes and is uniform in the mainstream media. The laws that were created do not address any problem yet their passage is hailed as a victory with no support. Pure propaganda, and sad that a free press is part of it.

I ask you, what stories have you seen that are pro gun? Any? That would suggest that there are none. Do you buy that? Then why does it occur?

NightG1

21st November 2003, 06:41 AM

Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

21st November 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by NightG1
Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

Very fair question.

An assult rifle is a military arm that is mainly characterized as having full automatic capability. I believe that the first one was the Schmeisser Machine Pistol in 9mm developed by my favorite, socialist, peace loving folks, the Germans in WW2.

Anyhoo... the term "assult rifle" has nothing to do with operation, and all to do with appearence. ie. plastic stock, stamped alloy frame, bayonet lug (I kid you not). Functionally, these critters are identical to any semi-automatic deer rifle. They just look like military arms.

The problem is that they (the media) do know exactly what they are talking about. If you concede the principle that an "assult rifle" is worthy of banning, you really are on a slippery slope because there is no material difference between them and millions of hunting rifles. None. Nor, I might add, with semi-automatic shotguns.

I, personally, find them to be not asthetically pleasing and for that reason do not own one.

Thank you for your kind words.

21st November 2003, 07:10 AM

Let me add that the "assult weapon" ban uses this incorrect terminology. That is recent and ongoing.

NightG1

21st November 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Sane and sensible people may be armed. No valid reason required. Thats my position.

People who are violent, unstable, or bash thier wives are already prohibited by Federal law from possesing, or owning firearms.

The gunshop owner in America is required by Federal law to run an F.B.I. background check on the buyer. Thats how they know.
Richard:

Pardon me for asking the obvious but if Mr. Not-so-Sane has never been arrested or otherwise done anything that would cause his name to appear in the FBI's database, how would the gun shop owner know he is selling a weapon to a dangerous and unstable person? Minority Report perhaps?

Richard G

21st November 2003, 12:14 PM

Well NightG, thats pretty much impossible to know, short of mind reading.

Hexxenhammer

21st November 2003, 12:21 PM

I think the real lesson of this story is: Don't bring a knife to a gun-fight.

Ralph

21st November 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by NightG1
Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

Two things make an assault rifle an assault rifle.

#1..it's an automatic.......pull the trigger once--the gun keeps firing (generally at a very fast rate) until the magazine is empty.

#..It uses a rifle, not a smaller pistol cartridge.

Guns like the German Schmeisser or the American "Tommy gun" aren't assault rifles.....they're submachine guns. Even though they fire automatically......they use handgun-sized cartridges--not rifle cartdridges.

They throw a lot of lead but are innacurate at lonf range.

The first assault rifle was the German STG-44----also called the "Sturmgewehr". It was very effective but only issued in limited #s ....mainly to Waffen SS units.

Had it been standard issue for the entire German army--things may have gone differently.

I think you'll find most responsible gun owners aren't against gun laws. They're against stupid gun laws that serve only to allow a politician to claim he's "doing something about the gun problem".....but do NOTHING to solve the problems of gun-related violence.

The assault weapons ban is a perfect example of this. As Ed said--- the only things it bans are cosmetic things.....pistol grips--folding stocks.......things that make the gun LOOK "bad"............

Ralph

21st November 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Cannot really see the point of the question.

If someone had a knife at my wife's throat would I like to have a gun? Yes. If she was being attacked by a shark would I like a spear? Yes. If she was floating in space would I like a space suit? Yes.

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I've been married almost 20 years. I've had quite a few fights with my wife but somehow...even though there's always been firearms in the house......we've never shot each other.

In fact---I've never even hit her.....or my kids....or even my dog.
I'm not a violent person and don't generally resort to violent methods to solve my problems. If I had any history at all of a violent crime....(even juvenile offenses count---for the purposes of getting a CW permit---they DO look at things done as a kid.)
I wouldn't be allowed to carry a CW. Anythings possible...but I'm probably not the guy who's going to go postal.

I don't carry a gun 24/7 and I realize there are situations where a gun wouldn't help but there are also situations where a gun would help----in fact it may be the only thing that could save you.
You yourself answered "yes" to my question so obviously you recognize that if some punk has a knife to your wife's throat---diplomacy or a wiffle ball bat might not be real effective. I know we have a few "martial arts experts" on the board who'd simply kick the weapon out of his hand.....but this guy was 72....and having the gun probably saved his wife's life.........

These situations always get dismissed as "not likely to happen"....."Oh--that's a one in a billion occurrence so why bother". I'd argue that if YOU'RE the one in the ****......you may have a different take on this.

What's equally unlikely is that MY right to defend myself represents a threat to others. No history of violent crime....no mental illness....I don't drink or drug.......The guns are either under my direct control or locked up.......no Smith & Wesson bumper stickers telling thieves "gun here to steal"....I'm not the guy you have to worry about....so stop passing laws that take away my right to protect my life .

I appreciate you answering my question........I noticed that nobody else did.....................Ralph

shanek

21st November 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

Richard G

21st November 2003, 04:56 PM

The mentality, and leaping to such conclusions you speak of Shanek, is covered in depth by a paper of Sarah Thompson, M.D. I've posted it before, but you can see it again here: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

BTox

21st November 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

What form of psychiatric testing do you suggest be given to people who want to buy a gun, how should it be administered and by who?

Testing is never going to happen. Best we can do is psychiatric background checks, which is what our state does.

Originally posted by The Fool

Are handguns good at killing people? would I be more effective at killing with a handgun or is thier usefullness greatly over-rated? I mean, if they are no damn good at improving my killing ability why do people want them for protection? If I carry a gun because it would make me more effective at killing rapists and muggers why would it not also make me more effective at killing wives?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways....guns lead to more dead baddies but not more dead goodies???

Guns are obviously more effective for killing people, but it will not change the intent of killing someone (like the wife example we keep using. Are you trying to say something about your wife? ;) ). Accidental deaths are a whole other issue, and a good one. Again, controls are needed - my 8 year old son does not know it exists, but if he were to find it, it has a trigger lock.

Originally posted by The Fool

BTW...Nice Avater, do you own a Boxer?

Yes, my avatar is a pic of our boxer. She turns 2 tomorrow - great dog.

BTW... do you own a Sergeant Schultz??

The Fool

21st November 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by BTox

BTW... do you own a Sergeant Schultz??

I did own a schultz but the damn things bark too much...
Actually, along with many mongrels I have owned German Shepherd dogs, English springer spaniels, English Bull terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Grew up with many dogs, my father was a Dog judge in three groups...... Working Dogs, Gun dogs and Hounds.
Anyway, must sign off. I have to deal with Shaneks stupidity.

The Fool

21st November 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

Listen up doofus. You want to comment on my mental stability?You want to leap to conclusions? Well try leaping to the concusion that a housefull of guns improves the survival rates of women in domestic violence situations. Lol....yea whatever. But why the F*ck would you care eh????

Tell us all again how because you are gods gift to fine family values that your opinion on Domestic violence and guns is any more useful than any of the other libertarian/anarchist fairytales you dress up as reality. Tell us what your answer to pointless tragic gun deaths is Shanek, we could all do with a laugh.

I fully realise that in your imaginary world everyone would do the right thing, maybe you should get out more.

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Young victim of San Francisco bus shooting death laid to rest

Lane's widow sentenced in his shooting death

Dallas police investigating shooting death of teen

Former Combs bodyguard mourned after shooting death

Former star charged in shooting death of limousine driver

BSO investigating shooting death of Lighthouse Point man at home

2 Moncks Corner teens linked in Summerville shooting death turn ...

Probe into shooting death continues

Man Charged With Second-Degree Murder In Shooting Death

Police Search For Two Cars In Shooting Death Of Mom

Suspect in custody in shooting death

Suspect in neighbor's shooting death arrested

Murder charged in Henderson Co. shooting death

Shooting death may have been self-defense

Latest: Shooting Death of Vietnamese Woman

Second woman charged in 2-year-old shooting death

Police: Robbery apparent motive in shooting death of baseball ...

Man Pleads Not Guilty In Teen Sister's Shooting Death

Argument over barking dog blamed in Ault shooting death

Man Charged In Teen's Accidental Shooting Death

Woman charged in 2001 shooting death

Newport News Police Seek Suspect in Sunday Night Shooting
Suspects in shooting death surrender

Innocent Plea Entered In Shooting Death

Sheriff: Lee County teen's shooting death an accident

Charges stand in Bradford County shooting death

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death

Leads scarce in weekend shooting death

Investigators Consider Charges In Anderson Shooting Death

Toledo police seek clues in shooting death

Family's attorneys investigate shooting death of son

Murray indicted in shooting death

Police call shooting death a planned execution

Police seek information in woman's shooting death

Boy to stand trial in shooting death of child

Good work, EYeti. I have considered keeping a running post on this board on gun-related news just in Houston, both pro and con. This would show that the "good news" would be swamped by the "bad news".

People like Richard like to seize upon the occasional good news and publicize it, while ignoring all of the gun deaths that occur with such alarming regularity. Gun lovers say that the news only reports bad news, but my experience (in the gun crazy state of Texas) is that good news gun stories are in great demand. It is sad that the supply is so limited.

a_unique_person

22nd November 2003, 04:59 AM

Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
[a whole bunch of personal abuse, and nothing of any constructive contribution]

Uh-huh...looks like I may have been right!

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

Kennedy was shot by a sniper. There's nothing much anyone can do in a case like that.

Ralph

22nd November 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

You're right...a gun wouldn't have helped Kennedy.

I think I'll spend my afternoon ripping out the airbags & seatbelts in my car. While I'm at it.......I may as well toss out the motorcycle helmet & leathers.

After all--if an 18-wheeler crosses into my lane at 80mph.......those things aren't going to help at all.........

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Good work, EYeti. I have considered keeping a running post on this board on gun-related news just in Houston, both pro and con. This would show that the "good news" would be swamped by the "bad news".

People like Richard like to seize upon the occasional good news and publicize it, while ignoring all of the gun deaths that occur with such alarming regularity. Gun lovers say that the news only reports bad news, but my experience (in the gun crazy state of Texas) is that good news gun stories are in great demand. It is sad that the supply is so limited.

Tell you what: Why don't you and EvilYeti go and find all of the headlines like, "Mother killed when rear-ended by sleeping driver," "Man killed by lane-changer not looking," etc. and see if the proportion of news stories covering ordinary traffic accidents to those covering fatal shootings is anywhere close to the real ratio of traffic accident deaths to homicides committed with a firearm? If you can't, then why do you represent that the ratio of news stories covering firearm homicides to defensive gun use is indicative of the real-world ratio of these events?

Ralph

22nd November 2003, 10:27 AM

A 36 year old secretary...while walking through the Sullivan St parking garage to get to her car......was assaulted by a man carring a knife. After a brief struggle.....the woman was able to pull out a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag. The assailant turned & fled the scene and remains at large. The woman was treated & released at Memorial hospital for minor cuts & bruises.

An elderly couple, while taking their daily walk through the town cemetary----were accosted by a gang of youths , one of whom pointed a screwdriver at the them & demanded they both get on the ground and not move. The husband...opened up his jacket and pulled out his semi-automatic pistol at which point the attackers turned & fled.

A 911 call was recieved at 3am by a man claiming he heard the sound of glass smashing in his living room. He immediately grabbed his shotgun and racked a shell into the gun. At that point......he heard footsteps and the sound of someone exiting his home through the front door. When police arrived at the scene------they found evidence of forced entry.

These kinds of things happen all the time. They rarely make the front pages....never mind the evening news. At best they get a small column on page 6.

How about answering my questions Yeti.

A half an hour ago a lunatic broke into my home and put a knife to my throat. Because my husband had access to and knew how to use a firearm.......I'm alive now. Convince me that it's wrong for my husband to have a gun & it should be taken away from him.

Pretend it's your wife with the knife at her throat. Would you like to have access to a gun under these circumstances????...............In not----what would you prefer instead?????

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Tell you what: Why don't you and EvilYeti go and find all of the headlines like, "Mother killed when rear-ended by sleeping driver," "Man killed by lane-changer not looking," etc. and see if the proportion of news stories covering ordinary traffic accidents to those covering fatal shootings is anywhere close to the real ratio of traffic accident deaths to homicides committed with a firearm? If you can't, then why do you represent that the ratio of news stories covering firearm homicides to defensive gun use is indicative of the real-world ratio of these events?
Meanwhile, you go and find all the headlines about "disgruntled worker kill 7 with car" or, "child accidentally kills brother while playing with father's car", or "enraged husband kills unfaithful wife with car" or "gang war erupts into car crash".

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Ralph
A 36 year old secretary...while walking through the Sullivan St parking garage to get to her car......was assaulted by a man carring a knife. After a brief struggle.....the woman was able to pull out a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag. The assailant turned & fled the scene and remains at large. The woman was treated & released at Memorial hospital for minor cuts & bruises.

An elderly couple, while taking their daily walk through the town cemetary----were accosted by a gang of youths , one of whom pointed a screwdriver at the them & demanded they both get on the ground and not move. The husband...opened up his jacket and pulled out his semi-automatic pistol at which point the attackers turned & fled.

A 911 call was recieved at 3am by a man claiming he heard the sound of glass smashing in his living room. He immediately grabbed his shotgun and racked a shell into the gun. At that point......he heard footsteps and the sound of someone exiting his home through the front door. When police arrived at the scene------they found evidence of forced entry.

These kinds of things happen all the time. They rarely make the front pages....never mind the evening news. At best they get a small column on page 6.
Guess what, Ralph. The crime blotter is on page 6 too. Sad gun stories are just as underreported as happy gun stories. More sad gun stories happen than happy ones. Not surprising when you have a gun around that someone gets hurt.

Originally posted by Ralph
A half an hour ago a lunatic broke into my home and put a knife to my throat. Because my husband had access to and knew how to use a firearm.......I'm alive now. Convince me that it's wrong for my husband to have a gun & it should be taken away from him.

Pretend it's your wife with the knife at her throat. Would you like to have access to a gun under these circumstances????...............In not----what would you prefer instead?????
Did they? Really? Or are you just personalizing this to make it sound dramatic. If so, then I will tell you that half an hour ago I was hit by a stray bullet from a nearby gang war. Pretend that for a minute.

shanek

22nd November 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Meanwhile, you go and find all the headlines about "disgruntled worker kill 7 with car" or, "child accidentally kills brother while playing with father's car", or "enraged husband kills unfaithful wife with car" or "gang war erupts into car crash".

Why should I? I'm not the one making those representations.

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Why should I? I'm not the one making those representations.
Because you seem to be suggesting that the media ignores automobile deaths and focusing on gun deaths. What you seem to be ignoring is that the majority of gun deaths are crimes, while many, if not most car deaths are, at worst, traffic violations. Even drunk drivers do not set out intending to commit a crime.

It seems to me that you are asking people to compare carelessness with criminal intent. Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me.

shanek

22nd November 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Because you seem to be suggesting that the media ignores automobile deaths and focusing on gun deaths.

You are the one making the representation that all events are covered proportionately by the media; because if they aren't, your entire argument falls apart. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

[special pleading deleted]

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek
You are the one making the representation that all events are covered proportionately by the media; because if they aren't, your entire argument falls apart. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

Well, Shane, that's sort of impossible to prove. We all know that various media outlets have various agendas. Newspapers, as a general rule, have to please their readership or else they won't sell subscriptions. Even in a very conservative town like Houston, the "bad news" about guns swamps the "good news" about guns. I could, as I have considered, start a thread reporting all gun-related news, good and bad, in the local paper, but it would be pretty boring. Yet I have no doubt that it would overwhelmingly show that "bad news" gun stories outnumber "good news" ones.

Who would you consider an impartial arbiter on this issue? What news source do you think has no agenda? If you can convince me (and the rest of the board) that you have found such a source, then perhaps we can settle such questions. If you have any specific evidence that local newspapers are misreporting the news, then let's hear it. Otherwise, I must suggest that they report what they have found. I certainly don't have any evidence that they suppress "good news" gun stories, so I must assume that such stories are relatively rare.

shanek

23rd November 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, Shane, that's sort of impossible to prove.

Then don't act as if it's true.

Yet I have no doubt that it would overwhelmingly show that "bad news" gun stories outnumber "good news" ones.

But nothing about that shows that the ratio between the two stories is the same as the actual ratio of the two events.

Who would you consider an impartial arbiter on this issue?

It's not about being "impartial." Obviously rare events are going to be rarely covered in the news; but also, more common events are going to be rarely covered as well, because that just isn't news. So you can't assume just because something isn't covered that often that it doesn't happen that often.

Tricky

23rd November 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Then don't act as if it's true.
Why not? To do otherwise would be to surmise that the editors of a newspaper in a conservative city are somehow conspiring to keep certain news items, those which would certainly interest their readers, out of print. No I can't prove they don't do this (proving a negative, remember), but it would make no sense. I think Occam is on my side here.
Originally posted by shanek

But nothing about that shows that the ratio between the two stories is the same as the actual ratio of the two events.
It is certainly not exactly the same, but I am guessing the ratios are fairly close. I don't have a paranoia about the media trying to hide stuff from me. But if you really are worried about the nasty media lying to you, you could investigate crime reports. I suspect they would show a similar pattern of "bad news" stories outnumbering "good news" stories. Of course, you might then propose that the police are in on the cover-up.
Originally posted by shanek
It's not about being "impartial." Obviously rare events are going to be rarely covered in the news; but also, more common events are going to be rarely covered as well, because that just isn't news. So you can't assume just because something isn't covered that often that it doesn't happen that often.
Ah, but it is news. the article seized upon by Richard to start this thread is evidence of how starved the public is for just such stories.

Of course we don't know for sure how many situations go unreported, and it is conceivable that some "good news" stories don't make it to the news because the person involved does not want the police to know he has a gun. But unless you can provide a convincing argument why the ratio of unreported cases should be higher on one side than the other, then the most sensible position to take is that they are about equal.

But even if "good news" stories were underreported by 10:1, the "bad news" stories would still outnumber them. If you pay any attention to the local news, you must know this is true.

shanek

23rd November 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Why not?

Because that is assuming a conclusion which you admit you cannot support.

To do otherwise would be to surmise that the editors of a newspaper in a conservative city are somehow conspiring to keep certain news items, those which would certainly interest their readers, out of print.

No, it isn't. It simply means that more common events, like traffic accidents, just do not justify taking up the newspaper's space. Why are you always seeing consipiracy theories in people's arguments against you?

No I can't prove they don't do this (proving a negative, remember),

I am NOT asking you to prove a negative! I AM asking you to prove your assumption that the ratios between events reported in the newspaper at least closely match the ratios between those actual events in the real world.

I think Occam is on my side here.

I'd love to hear you explain why. I don't know of any reasonable person who says that the commonality of the reporting of events corresponds with the commonality of those events actually occuring. In fact, you're the ONLY person I've EVER heard assert this!

I don't have a paranoia about the media trying to hide stuff from me.

Nor do I; but I'm sur that it comforts you to assume so. My position has nothing at all to do with paranoia or media bias or cover-ups; just the very simple, obvious, and widely recognized effect that events which are more commonplace don't warrant as much news coverage.

But if you really are worried about the nasty media lying to you, you could investigate crime reports.

This has already been done, as has been pointed out on these threads so many times it's insane for someone to actually suggest they haven't been done.

I suspect they would show a similar pattern of "bad news" stories outnumbering "good news" stories.

No, they don't. Just the opposite.

Ah, but it is news. the article seized upon by Richard to start this thread is evidence of how starved the public is for just such stories.

How so? And if they're so "starved" for this news, then why isn't it front-page?

No, you're just rambling on about paranoia and conspiracy theories because you know you cannot challenge my actual refutation.

clk

23rd November 2003, 12:03 PM

shanek, you did seem to imply that the media is biased and they seem to want to keep certain stories out of the news because the editors are pro-gun control. See quote below.

Originally posted by shanek

Then why was Vice Principal Joel Myrick's use of his personal handgun to stop a school shooting in Pearl, MI left out of most national accounts of the story?

NightG1

23rd November 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Two things make an assault rifle....

Thanks Ralph. I already know what makes a gun an assault rifle but thank you for addressing a question I was not asking.

I think you'll find most responsible gun owners aren't against gun laws. They're against stupid gun laws that serve only to allow a politician to claim he's "doing something about the gun problem".....but do NOTHING to solve the problems of gun-related violence.

My personal experience with "responsible gun owners" is quite different. Most if not all have adopted Heston's "from my cold dead fingers" act as their only response to the gun violence problem in this country. Some politicians on both sides are only too happy to fan the flames and play up the hysteria.

BTox

23rd November 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by NightG1

My personal experience with "responsible gun owners" is quite different. Most if not all have adopted Heston's "from my cold dead fingers" act as their only response to the gun violence problem in this country. [/B]

Anecdotal evidence and valued as such.

Zep

23rd November 2003, 07:17 PM

Questions for Shanek, Richard G, etc.

I'm about to make an extended visit to Houston, Texas on business. I will be walking the streets of Houston, and will also be doing some sightseeing in a rental car. I understand it is not only common practice but "a very good idea" to carry a firearm for "personal protection" in these parts. In fact, some parts of the USA have made firearm ownership mandatory. But I have no firearm license, and no experience with them. So...

Can I rent / lease a decent high-powered personal firearm while I'm in the USA?

What conditions do I need to meet for me to have such a weapon on me?

As a non-US citizen, what happens to me if I use the weapon, accidentally or deliberately, and I hurt, maim or kill someone?

Can I get insurance to cover any of this?

shanek

23rd November 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by clk
shanek, you did seem to imply that the media is biased and they seem to want to keep certain stories out of the news because the editors are pro-gun control. See quote below.

That was a specific refutation of a specific point. Again, the accusaiton is thrown out because apparently no one wants to respond to the refutation itself.

Richard G

23rd November 2003, 08:57 PM

Zep....it is illegal for non-U.S. citizens (foreigners) to posses or purchase a firearm in the country. There are a few exceptions, such as diplomatic envoys, and Olympic shooting teams.

The only firearm "rental" I have ever seen cannot leave the firing range. You rent it, shoot it, then return it before you leave. Its a good way to try out different makes and models before making a purchase.

I believe the law would prohibit you from even renting one on the range just to shoot for the day. A liscensed firearm dealer would know for sure. And you can definitely find the answer on the BATF web site.

Zep

23rd November 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Zep....it is illegal for non-U.S. citizens (foreigners) to posses or purchase a firearm in the country. There are a few exceptions, such as diplomatic envoys, and Olympic shooting teams.

The only firearm "rental" I have ever seen cannot leave the firing range. You rent it, shoot it, then return it before you leave. Its a good way to try out different makes and models before making a purchase.

I believe the law would prohibit you from even renting one on the range just to shoot for the day. A liscensed firearm dealer would know for sure. And you can definitely find the answer on the BATF web site. OK, I understand. Thanks for the info.

So doesn't this mean that I, a naive foreigner, would be forced to walk or drive around ANYWHERE in the USA, not just Houston, completely and utterly unarmed and defenceless, from your point of view?

The Fool

23rd November 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That was a specific refutation of a specific point. Again, the accusaiton is thrown out because apparently no one wants to respond to the refutation itself.
Sorry Shane, I'm a little confused here....what is it you think you have refuted? I think you have claimed that "good stories" are just too common and boring to make it into the news....I think you have required others to show proof if they believe otherwise....I think you have exempted yourself from a similar burden...or am I mistaken?

Richard G

24th November 2003, 07:58 AM

So doesn't this mean that I, a naive foreigner, would be forced to walk or drive around ANYWHERE in the USA, not just Houston, completely and utterly unarmed and defenceless, from your point of view?

Legaly, yes. And I don't completely agree with position that the law puts you in. And I can sympathize. Almost anywhere I decide to travel in the world will have either total gun bans, or restrict me from carrying .

I understand the point of it though. A boat full of (name a country) immigrants could come over, then stage their own armed insurrection/ invasion.

Richard G

24th November 2003, 08:00 AM

Found another news item:
Muder suspect and kidnapper Scott Eizember shot with a concealed handgun! http://ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

Lufkin, TX - The search for accused double murderer Scott Eizember is over. Police in Lufkin, Texas say Eizember is hospitalized in stable condition after being shot four times by a man he allegedly kidnapped Sunday.

Tricky

24th November 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Found another news item:
Muder suspect and kidnapper Scott Eizember shot with a concealed handgun! http://ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

And for every "happy" story you can find, I can find a dozen tragic ones, like this (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/24/kkk/index.html) (courtesy of Headscratcher).

Nov. 24, 2003 | JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP) -- A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.

(Not even racists deserve to be shot.)

Zep

25th November 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Legaly, yes. And I don't completely agree with position that the law puts you in. And I can sympathize. Almost anywhere I decide to travel in the world will have either total gun bans, or restrict me from carrying .

I understand the point of it though. A boat full of (name a country) immigrants could come over, then stage their own armed insurrection/ invasion. Actually, that wasn't my point at all, but anyway...

So here I am, a foreigner who cannot carry a gun in the USA. So I have to ask myself a question before I visit: Is the USA so seriously dangerous that to go there without a gun would be seriously putting my own health or even life at risk? Which should I choose - go there and risk the dangers, or just not go?

And your answer, Richard G, would be...?

shanek

25th November 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Zep
So here I am, a foreigner who cannot carry a gun in the USA. So I have to ask myself a question before I visit: Is the USA so seriously dangerous that to go there without a gun would be seriously putting my own health or even life at risk?

Not usually. The USA is a big place, though; it depends a lot on where you're going. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports can help you out here because every state, county, and municipality sends the FBI their crime statistics every year. In particular, you can see crime statistics by state:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls

Or by Metropolitan area:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls

And it's a good idea as well to do a Google search for the city you'll be visiting along with "crime" to see what areas of the city you should avoid.

Zep

25th November 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Not usually. The USA is a big place, though; it depends a lot on where you're going. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports can help you out here because every state, county, and municipality sends the FBI their crime statistics every year. In particular, you can see crime statistics by state:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls

Or by Metropolitan area:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls

And it's a good idea as well to do a Google search for the city you'll be visiting along with "crime" to see what areas of the city you should avoid. Shane, what message is this sending to me about the USA, especially the regions referred to as "high crime" by the FBI? That they are so dangerous that visitors to the USA can't go there because they are not allowed to be armed to protect themselves? Is it really that bad that I have to avoid places because I'm not armed?

The Fool

25th November 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Shane, what message is this sending to me about the USA, especially the regions referred to as "high crime" by the FBI? That they are so dangerous that visitors to the USA can't go there because they are not allowed to be armed to protect themselves? Is it really that bad that I have to avoid places because I'm not armed?

There are undoubtably places in the USA where you would be mad to go...Just as there are places in Australia. The issue to me is if you would be safer with a gun. If you walk down mugger street at midnight you may very well get mugged, USA or Australia....... Pulling a handgun may just start a gunfight instead of a fistfight. I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Or I could elect someone who is willing to address why we end up with such crime zones.

BTox

25th November 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Won't work. IMO a good defense is the best strategy in such situations. I always wear one of these when I travel in the seedier areas of the U.S.

http://www.knightsedge.com/images/suit-of-armor-6009t.jpg

shanek

25th November 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
There are undoubtably places in the USA where you would be mad to go...Just as there are places in Australia. The issue to me is if you would be safer with a gun. If you walk down mugger street at midnight you may very well get mugged, USA or Australia....... Pulling a handgun may just start a gunfight instead of a fistfight. I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Wouldn't it be far more useful to learn in advance where these high-risk places are and avoid them in the first place?

Really, Zep's response to my sincere and helpful post says a lot about him. Here I try to help the guy out, and all he can do is try and turn it against me...like there aren't places in any country that you would want to avoid. And the War on Drugs here has turned many poor and urban areas into just that...a war zone.

Zep

25th November 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Really, Zep's response to my sincere and helpful post says a lot about him. Here I try to help the guy out, and all he can do is try and turn it against me...like there aren't places in any country that you would want to avoid. And the War on Drugs here has turned many poor and urban areas into just that...a war zone. Shane, thanks for your help, but I'm not trying to turn this against you at all. I'm simply trying to get a grasp as to why it is "accepted" that there are places in the USA where it is "sensible" to go there only if armed. Alternatively, I'm trying to find out if this is actually the true situation, if it is really that bad that being armed is necessary in some places.

My own experience of the USA, limited though it is, is that the necessity for being personally armed anywhere is well nigh pointless and unnecessary. But I'm more than willing to take a native's advice here.

Incidentally, I partially disagree with Fool - while there are indeed some rough parts in many Australian cities and towns, and we do have our measure of violent crimes, I don't think there is anywhere in Australia where I would ever think I would NEED to be armed for my own self-defence.

The Fool

25th November 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Incidentally, I partially disagree with Fool - while there are indeed some rough parts in many Australian cities and towns, and we do have our measure of violent crimes, I don't think there is anywhere in Australia where I would ever think I would NEED to be armed for my own self-defence.

I didn't say there are places where you would need a gun....There is no place where you "need" a gun because I don't accept that packing a gun would decrease your chances of being killed or injured.

I said there are dangerous places, places you cannot go with safety, gun or no gun. Try a walk down Everleigh St in Redfern (Sydney) after dark. Unless you are with a local or known by the locals you will be bashed robbed and thrown out of the street, If you were silly enough to pull a gun you would be killed....

Zep

25th November 2003, 10:55 PM

I understand your point - some parts of Cabramatta, Liverpool area, Villawood, and Darlinghurst/Kings Cross are also just as nasty as Redfern at night. I know - I have walked these areas many times over the years living and working in Sydney, and I know their reputations. Even the suburban trains at night have a bad reputation these days, as you know.

But is there yet any push for people to go about armed here? I'm not seeing it, although people like Pauline H. say so, but then she's now back in a guarded palatial brick fortress in rural Queensland, far from reality!

The Fool

25th November 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Zep
But is there yet any push for people to go about armed here? I'm not seeing it, although people like Pauline H. say so, but then she's now back in a guarded palatial brick fortress in rural Queensland, far from reality!

I don't see any real move towards people wanting to carry a gun, besides the illegality my opiion is that the average Australian would think someone was a bit scary and paranoid if they packed a hundgun for "self defence".

athon

25th November 2003, 11:32 PM

No offence folks, but I am constantly amused how often critical thinking goes out the window where the whole 'gun' issue raises its ugly head.

I'm afraid I'm with Fool on this whole issue. There are just too many misassumptions about what a gun could do for you. Let's break it down further -

If you are walking through a bad neighbourhood (and I can speak from experience here, having lived in several in Queensland), when do you draw your weapon with the intention of using it?

a) When you feel unsafe?
b) When you feel threatened?
c) When you are threatened?
d) When you perceive an immediate danger to your wellbeing?

If you answered anything but (d), you are saying you are willing to kill somebody without strong evidence that they are going to kill you. And even looking at (d), there is only a chance that you are going to be killed by this person.

If you are going to kill somebody to protect your property, is that a justified reaction? A life for material goods?

And finally, I work by a 'social contract', that says if I'm allowed a gun, everybody is allowed one. I've read here that an FBI background check is grounds for deciding whether somebody is 'sane' or not. WTF?!! What magical machine do they have to tell whether somebody is not going to pull a glock out of their pants when they feel unsafe at 2 a.m. on a saturday morning in the Valley?

I'm not trying to take the p*ss out of anybody here - I just cannot perceive any logical way a gun is going to make me any safer. Is it a visual deterent? I would hesitate and say maybe, if not for the fact that most 'pro-gunners' would argue that an unloaded weapon is pointless (put another way, I would argue then 'sell the guns, ban the ammo').

Athon

Zep

26th November 2003, 12:25 AM

Athon, the point I'm trying to get to is to discover why there is a culture in the USA of people feeling there is a necessity to be armed for personal safety. Never mind the legalities of it, second amendment and all that.

Let's say that there is a genuine threat that makes it worth while to go about armed, at least in some specific (and determinable?) locations. In which case these parts of the USA would have the definite aura of a war-zone, a la Baghdad, etc. There, too, is a necessity for perpetual personal firearms. The response from Shane above is that I, an unarmed and utterly vulnerable foreign visitor, should consult official crime statistics (and I'm accepting these are valid) that show the hot-spots, and then avoid them like the plague. My subsequent question was to ask what sort of an image does this say about the USA to intending visitors. Certainly it isn't one of a peaceful nation, or one that would invite visitors anyway. Talk about not wanting people to visit...

However, let's assume that there is not a genuine threat that makes it necessary in places to go about armed. Immediately, the USA is portrayed as a more peaceful place, more desirable for visitors who can travel about without having to worry that they are unarmed. But this also raises a dilemma for the "personal safety firearms" adventists - if the USA is peaceful enough for visitors to be unarmed, isn't it equally as safe for ordinary US citizens? If the answer here is "yes" then why the push to arm US citizens? (If "no" then where can I get a stamp on my forehead that says "Made in the USA"?)

The answers, as the song says, are blowin' in the wind...

My own experience tends well towards the latter view - the US citizens are generally so peaceful that no firearms are required to be carried by anyone in public, except for police. But I'm not a resident, so this could be a completely skewed viewpoint!

shanek

26th November 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Shane, thanks for your help, but I'm not trying to turn this against you at all. I'm simply trying to get a grasp as to why it is "accepted" that there are places in the USA where it is "sensible" to go there only if armed.

That's a question only you can answer for yourself. There are higher crime areas, and you have several choices to ensure your safety: you could arm yourself, you could hire a bodyguard, or you could simply just not go there in the first place. There are a plethora of options. How you choose to deal with it is entirely up to you.

Of course, in your case, one of those options has been taken from you, so you must consider one of the others.

shanek

26th November 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Athon, the point I'm trying to get to is to discover why there is a culture in the USA of people feeling there is a necessity to be armed for personal safety.

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms.

Thanz

26th November 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by shanek

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms.
I think that you are in a bit of a minority there shanek. While I consider it admirable that you stand on principle rather than just self interest, I think that there is a cultural bias in the USA towards owning a gun for personal safety. Exploring this issue is what "Bowling for Columcine" was all about.

For example, if there is an equivalent to the NRA in Canada, I am not aware of it and it certainly does not have the same political clout as the NRA. Richard G. keeps posting these anecdotes, with the undercurrent being that guns are needed for personal protection - otherwise, what would these poor people have done?

So, I think the cultural bias is real - not a strawman - but perhaps it does get overstated sometimes.

DavidJames

26th November 2003, 08:20 AM

"There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right."

This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

Zep

26th November 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms. I believe I did point out above that the legality of the situation was not relevant to my point. I'm not about to argue in this thread about the rights of US citizens - that would be presumptuous on my part, not being one myself, and I'm certain I don't have all the relevant facts at hand (although it sometimes amuses me to read the more inane comments from some people - not yourself, Shane - on this subject!).

Instead, DavidJames has put the question more succinctly:This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.And with that question in mind, I'm trying to discover if there actually is, or is not, a sufficient threat in US society that necessitates the advocation of arming citizens for their own safety. The example I'm using above is to evaluate the threats to a visiting foreigner, who, perforce, must be unarmed. If they are not threatened, why do US citizens feel that they themselves are?

shanek

26th November 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
For example, if there is an equivalent to the NRA in Canada, I am not aware of it

A simple Google search reveals several organizations.

and it certainly does not have the same political clout as the NRA.

Meaning what? The Canadian government isn't as representative as ours maybe?

Richard G. keeps posting these anecdotes, with the undercurrent being that guns are needed for personal protection - otherwise, what would these poor people have done?

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.

shanek

26th November 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

And what right do you have to demand such a reason of them?

NightG1

26th November 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Questions for Shanek, Richard G, etc.

I'm about to make an extended visit to Houston, Texas on business. I will be walking the streets of Houston, and will also be doing some sightseeing in a rental car. I understand it is not only common practice but "a very good idea" to carry a firearm for "personal protection" in these parts. In fact, some parts of the USA have made firearm ownership mandatory. But I have no firearm license, and no experience with them. So...

Can I rent / lease a decent high-powered personal firearm while I'm in the USA?

What conditions do I need to meet for me to have such a weapon on me?

As a non-US citizen, what happens to me if I use the weapon, accidentally or deliberately, and I hurt, maim or kill someone?

Can I get insurance to cover any of this?

As a resident of the Bayou City, I really hope you enjoy your stay and Howdy Zep. Houston is really, really, really big. By big I mean spread out and not planned very well so don't think you can get around without a map. There is no zoning so you will see tatoo parlors in the middle of residential areas. I do not think carrying a gun in Houston is a good idea whatever the reason. You may want to ask Tricky, SubG or c0rbin about this as well. People get shot on the freeway for lane crossing for crissakes. Houstonians are good people in their own insane way. Just smile and nod in a knowing sort of way and you will be left alone. Whatever you do, stay away from the parts of Houston that have the word "ward" in their names. I won't go into why.

As a non-US citizen, I am not sure if you can carry in Texas. You may want to check the internet for the correct regulations or ask your counsel. I am serious about enjoying yourself. I have been in Texas for 25 years now and have no intention of leaving.

Ralph

26th November 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right."

This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

Perhaps you should go back to the original post for an answer to this question.

I'm sure one reason the individual kept a gun in his house was for the unlikely----but possible situation where he might NEED one.

I asked two questions. One person answered one of those questions and all the other critics ignored them.

#1.....What would you say to the wife of the woman who had the shears to her neck to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?

#2....If it was YOUR wife in that situation...........would you like to have access to a firearm and if not---what would you prefer instead???..............

OK..maybe thats 3 questions ...............but I'd love to hear some answers to a very difficult situation...............

clk

26th November 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?

Ralph, I find your recurring use of this strawman strange. As I've pointed out to you several times, nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone. I haven't seen anyone state that the husband should not have had a gun. I don't know why you keep asking that question...

Ralph

26th November 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by clk

Ralph, I find your recurring use of this strawman strange. As I've pointed out to you several times, nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone. I haven't seen anyone state that the husband should not have had a gun. I don't know why you keep asking that question...

I think I'd have to disagree with you about "nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone". Richard did kind of get "piled on" for his post.

That may be your position......but I think I've seen a few people argue in this, and other gun threads that guns ARE the problem & possibly should be taken away from people.

I'm also getting a kick out of how people just refuse to give a straight answer to a few simple questions........but I would genuinely like to hear some alternative (non-gun)solutions to this situation.......

clk

26th November 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I'm also getting a kick out of how people just refuse to give a straight answer to a few simple questions........but I would genuinely like to hear some alternative (non-gun)solutions to this situation.......

That's because nobody is saying that guns are completely useless for self-defense. A gun would obviously be useful in that situation, I don't think anyone could say otherwise. However, I think most people are arguing that the world would not be a better place if everyone carried a gun around with them. RichardG is posting stories that show examples of how guns were used in self defense. However, I think he is implying that their usefulness in those situations demonstrate how "good" guns are. Other posters are pointing out that guns are also "bad" by posting stories that demonstrate how guns are used to kill innocent people.

Ralph

26th November 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by clk

That's because nobody is saying that guns are completely useless for self-defense. A gun would obviously be useful in that situation, I don't think anyone could say otherwise. However, I think most people are arguing that the world would not be a better place if everyone carried a gun around with them. RichardG is posting stories that show examples of how guns were used in self defense. However, I think he is implying that their usefulness in those situations demonstrate how "good" guns are. Other posters are pointing out that guns are also "bad" by posting stories that demonstrate how guns are used to kill innocent people.

...and nobody's saying that "everybody" should carry a gun. I don't think convicted felons should have guns. I don't think that mentally unstable people should have guns. I don't think people should be allowed to have automatic weapons.

I do think that "bad gun" stories where someone is shot are going to far outnumber "deterrent" situations....where violence is avoided and NOBODY is shot......because the potential victim was armed.

At any rate...even if there are 55% "bad gun" incidents vs. 45% "good gun" incidents.......that doesn't mean law abiding citizens should be made to disarm. Had this incident occured in a "gun free" city like London or Boston......his wife would probably be dead now..........

You may not be arguing for the disarming of citizens......but others are.........that's exactly what's happened in those cities.

Zep

26th November 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by NightG1
As a resident of the Bayou City, I really hope you enjoy your stay and Howdy Zep. Houston is really, really, really big. By big I mean spread out and not planned very well so don't think you can get around without a map. There is no zoning so you will see tatoo parlors in the middle of residential areas. I do not think carrying a gun in Houston is a good idea whatever the reason. You may want to ask Tricky, SubG or c0rbin about this as well. People get shot on the freeway for lane crossing for crissakes. Houstonians are good people in their own insane way. Just smile and nod in a knowing sort of way and you will be left alone. Whatever you do, stay away from the parts of Houston that have the word "ward" in their names. I won't go into why.

As a non-US citizen, I am not sure if you can carry in Texas. You may want to check the internet for the correct regulations or ask your counsel. I am serious about enjoying yourself. I have been in Texas for 25 years now and have no intention of leaving. Howdy, NightG1!

Somewhere up above I was informed that, as a foreign visitor, I'm not allowed to carry firearms at any time anywhere in the whole USA. And if you read further on you will see my dilemma - is the USA, or parts of it, so dreadful that I should not go there without arming myself? Perhaps I should just not go to the USA just in case? Alternatively, are the problems being overstated so that the "carry a gun for self-defence" idea is really just a beat-up?

I think the latter...

Zep

26th November 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

...and nobody's saying that "everybody" should carry a gun. I don't think convicted felons should have guns. I don't think that mentally unstable people should have guns. I don't think people should be allowed to have automatic weapons.Why, Ralph! You sound just like a ... gun-control advocate???!!!

Ralph

26th November 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Why, Ralph! You sound just like a ... gun-control advocate???!!!

I am very much in favor of gun control Zep.........

If you would like to take a walk down my street at night---I think you'll be very safe.........lot's of gun owners here....none of who have the slightest interest in harming someone just out for a walk
through the neigborhood.....

I'd be interested in your answer to those questions though.........

Zep

26th November 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I am very much in favor of gun control Zep.........

If you would like to take a walk down my street at night---I think you'll be very safe.........lot's of gun owners here....none of who have the slightest interest in harming someone just out for a walk
through the neigborhood.....

Unless one of them decides that I look too much like a Muslim, or a burglar, or something else they don't like, and takes a shot at me "just in case". Yep, your neighbourhood sounds REAL safe, but not for me...

I'd be interested in your answer to those questions though.........
#1.....What would you say to the wife of the woman who had the shears to her neck to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?What would she think if the husband had got really jumpy, shot, missed the bad guy and got her instead? He was 73 years old, and she jumped out of the way before he shot at the bad guy, so I would say that she did the dangerous action stuff. And the fact that an old lady could get out of his grasp would indicate that the burglar was either not very strong or not very bright.#2....If it was YOUR wife in that situation...........would you like to have access to a firearm and if not---what would you prefer instead???..............No, I would NOT like to have access to a firearm. I would much prefer a baseball bat or similar (locally, a cricket bat). Knowing my wife, she would not be in a position to be able to pull away from anyone holding her, as happened in this case, so I would much prefer a weapon that I know will be both threatening and can be used accurately at close range. A baseball bat up side the ear would be just fine...

Thanz

27th November 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by shanek

A simple Google search reveals several organizations.
You have missed the point. Why do you think that, as a Canadian, I am aware of the NRA but not any Canadian organizations? Could it possibly be that Canadian culture is not as obsessed with guns and gun ownership as those in the USA?

Meaning what? The Canadian government isn't as representative as ours maybe?
Meaning that Canada is much more focussed on important issues like education and health care. I don't see how special interest lobbying groups like the NRA having significant political clout makes your government more "representative".

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.
Like who? That sounds like a big strawman argument. I could just as easily say that gun advocates say that guns are perfectly safe and then refute this argument with an anecdote of an accidental home shooting. Would you accept that as a valid argument/refutation?

shanek

27th November 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
You have missed the point. Why do you think that, as a Canadian, I am aware of the NRA but not any Canadian organizations?

Only you are responsible for what you are or are not aware of.

Meaning that Canada is much more focussed on important issues like education and health care. I don't see how special interest lobbying groups like the NRA having significant political clout makes your government more "representative".

Oh, sure, who cares about the will of the people?

Like who?

Well, look at Zep's post directly above yours, for example.

That sounds like a big strawman argument.

Except that it isn't.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.

Anyone who actually claims this is either an idiot or is being overly general and is saying this in context of the "uselessness" being of a statistical nature, not that there is literally no possible circumstance that a gun would be useful.

This statement is, in that light, a strawman. It is a formulation of an argument either never made, made in a particular context or made by a drooling idiot and presented as a general statement of those favoring restrictions on guns.

Do you really believe that there are many people that believe that guns are literally useless for self defense, that there are never circumstances that guns can be used to protect one's self from harm? It looks to me like you have some need to believe that those that disagree with you are idiots, or at least nowhere near as smart as you are. I find that quite weak.

The fact is that the anti-gun argument isn't that self defense is impossible, rather that when taken as a whole guns used for self defense are much more likely to cause harm than to prevent it. Anecdotes are competely irrelevent to this argument.

When this argument is discussed it always makes me think of a poker game. I play a fair bit of a game called "texas holdem," where each player is given two cards that are to combine with 5 cards belonging to all players, best 5 card hand winning the pot. To simplify, a large part of the strategy is to decide which two card starting hands to play and which ones to throw away. The savvy player plays only good hands, like a pair of aces ("A-A") and tosses bad hands like a seven and a two ("7-2").

Why? Well, in the long run the A-A will show a profit, the 7-2 will show a loss. Hovever, in the short run in one particular hand when the savvy player has the aces and the poor player has 7-2, the board could wind up "772KQ" thus giving the 7-2 player a full house. There are many players that can't stand the idea of tossing crappy starter hands as they believe "you never know" as the board could be anything and that "any two cards can win." I like players like that. More specifically, I like their money, a lot of which is in my possession.

How does this tie into guns? Anti-gun people believe that in general having a handgun in the home is like playing that 7-2. Sure there are times that the makes a full house and you bust everybody, but far more often the result is negative, family members shot, gun stolen, etc. Every statistic I have seen indicates that gun ownership is a losing play in the long run, and only a fool or gambling addict goes against the odds. That's why I like poker, people with a poor grasp of these concepts, those that believe they are "lucky" or "special" lose and I take their money. Very theraputic.

Whenever I see an anecdote where a person defends his/her person from harm with a gun it makes me think of those guys that have such a look of smug satisfaction when they table a crap hand like 7-2 or J-4 to take down a pot over another players pair of kings.

They wind up broke, usually sooner but sometimes later. I don't really care, I'm sure they are having a good time and will lie to themselves later, that they lose because they are unlucky, or whatever. That doesn't bother me, because those poor decisions don't kill people.