20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!) [Archive]

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Bentspoon
This is an example of an irresponsible gun owner - a cowboy.

How was he irresponsible? What evidence do you have that his ownership of the gun or the way he used it put anyone else in danger? Or is it "irresponsible" to inadvertently violate Section 403(C)(9)(g) Subsection 408.24165 of Ambiguous And Confusing Rule 401(C)(7)(q)?

You have made a mistake - you prop this story up to support your opinion on gun control and all you have done is shown us another irresponsible gun owner.

Show how he was irresponsible.

I still contend, albeit without statistical back up, that the majority of gun owners are irresponsible cowboys - untrained, illegal and not caring to be responsible. They hunt poorly, they shoot poorly, they don't pay attention, they mix alcohol with gun sport and/or they do not conform to established laws.

Evidence?

This is another example of the reasons we need to toughen up on gun control.

Yeah, so his 18-month-old baby boy could be put at risk along with him and his wife. :rolleyes:

"Irresponsible coyboys"...you gun control nuts don't have a fscking brain in your heads. You really p*ss me off with your self-righteous blathering.

Can you see my issue with this gentleman.

No. Not at all. He used a gun in a responsible manner to defend his family against an intruder whom the government had already convicted but released early on parole to make room for nonviolent offenders, like those who have weapons they don't like or petty drug offenders.

And he should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Oh, yes, how dare he defend his family from a violent criminal... :rolleyes:

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

If you smell funny they won't let you have a gun? Really?

I can believe prior institutionalizaton in a mental hospital, a felony conviction, even a domestic abuse conviction, but funny looking?

"The problem is not the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." —Michael Cloud

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by sundog
Oh my. Are you serious? A crack dealer who steals a gun is entitled to it?

That wasn't what I said, and you know it.

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
I'm quite certain Shaneck is refering to law abiding citizens. Federal laws prohibit possesion by felons, those under the influence or disability, and those with a current restraining order against them.

Not to mention the fact that stealing anything is illegal in and of itself.

For the law abiding, there are no restrictions.

And someone who steals is, by definition, not law-abiding.

27th February 2003, 03:41 PM

We can't pick and choose which laws we obey, shanek. As a resident of New York, Mr. Dixon is obligated to obey the laws of that state.

Two wrongs don't make a right, no pun intended.

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Reginald
In the absence of a gun, I'll use my cricket bat. Failing that a table leg, failing that my fist.
(All of which would be against the law in those circumstances).

Really? So, anything you could possibly use to defend yourself or others against a violent criminal is against the law there? It's wackier over there than I thought...

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Excellent point Luke. If the courts would quit letting these convicted, violent criminals back on the streets, we wouldn't have half the crime we do today. That another one of my pet-peves, soft assed judges, doing a kind thing for a criminal so me and my family can be victimized later.

That's not it; they have to make room for people like Ron Dixon and Ed Rosenthal.

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

27th February 2003, 03:49 PM

Here's another Newsday article: Intruder Shooting Fourth In 2003 (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/crime/nyc-gun0220,0,6056801.story?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left). In the one case where the gun was legally registered, no charges were filed. Also, Dixon rejected a plea deal on the weapons charge. However, I think if he was in the process of registering, they should cut him some slack.

shanek

27th February 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
We can't pick and choose which laws we obey, shanek.

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Besides, what we have here is conflicting laws—an obscure New York law which contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land. In such a case, you go with the higher law.

Reginald

27th February 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Couldn't agree more.

WHO could stand by and see thier family in peril and not act?

I suppose you could ask the guy downstairs to discuss the rights and wrongs over coffee and a cake!

:rolleyes:

27th February 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by shanek

If a law stops me from defending my family against a violent criminal, I'm d*mn well going to violate it.

Besides, what we have here is conflicting laws—an obscure New York law which contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land. In such a case, you go with the higher law.

His family was not being attacked at the time he bought the gun. His family was not being attacked at the time he brought the gun to New York. You are deliberately obscuring the point.

No one is saying he shouldn't have shot the burglar. No one is saying he shouldn't defend his family.

He broke the law long before the burglar came on the scene.

So the law was not preventing him from defending his family.

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

And since the Supreme Court of the Land has not said the law is unconstitutional, you don't have a leg to stand on.

You do recall that the Supreme Court is in the Constitution, don't you?

shanek

27th February 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
His family was not being attacked at the time he bought the gun.

Well, what sort of sense does that make? Are you saying that someone has to wait until there's an intruder, hope he'll let you out of your house to go buy a gun (if any gun stores are even open at the time), then let you back in where you can threaten him with the gun, and hope he doesn't murder your family in the meantime??? :rolleyes:

This just gets kookier and kookier....

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

That's a question that can only be asked out of ignorance. The Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the US Constitution) sets up states' rights, within certain limitations, one of those being that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Richard G

27th February 2003, 05:26 PM

You keep saying the Supreme Law of the Land suprecedes the state law. How funny is that? I take it you aren't in favor of states' rights?

This is the heart of the matter. I am in favor of CONSTITUTIONAL rights. No state has the authority to supercede the Bill of Rights. New York, along with Chicago, Washington D.C., and California, are all doing their best to do so.

What do all those cities have in common? Left wing, liberal nutbags in office, who don't give a rats ass about individual liberty.

27th February 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, what sort of sense does that make? Are you saying that someone has to wait until there's an intruder, hope he'll let you out of your house to go buy a gun (if any gun stores are even open at the time), then let you back in where you can threaten him with the gun, and hope he doesn't murder your family in the meantime??? :rolleyes:

This just gets kookier and kookier....

Yes. Kookier and kookier. :rolleyes:

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

Or do you somehow believe that the registering of his gun, or the not registering of his gun, would have changed the events of the universe to cause the burglar to come to his house?

That's a question that can only be asked out of ignorance. The Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the US Constitution) sets up states' rights, within certain limitations, one of those being that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution does not set up states' rights. Surely you know better than that! You like to shout about the tenth amendment so much....

Speaking of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is open to a lot of interpretation, as our law history shows.

The thing is, shanek, I don't like the idea of having to register a gun. But then, I don't like abortion, either. But the law, and the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution (and not yours), says I have to live with both.

I don't like the idea of my next door neighbor being able to buy a tank, either. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court does agree with me on that. As you are a Libertarian, I would guess that you disagree.

How do you define "well regulated" ???

scotth

27th February 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

Yes. Kookier and kookier. :rolleyes:

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

You keep going to this.

Do you read only what suits you?

He legally purchased the gun in Florida. He just moved to NY, and was in the process of getting it registered locally.

flannery

27th February 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by scotth

You keep going to this.

Do you read only what suits you?

He legally purchased the gun in Florida. He just moved to NY, and was in the process of getting it registered locally.

Does the law require that you get a permit before possessing the gun?

If you can buy a gun and then register it (which I doubt), then I don't think Mr. Dixon has a thing to worry about, because he would not be in violation of the law.

27th February 2003, 07:40 PM

Once again, I have accidentally posted under my wife's forum name, flannery. That's what happens when you post at work and then come home to continue the conversation, and your wife was on earlier that day unbeknownst to you, and you forget that the forum automatically logs you on as the last user.

Sorry if anyone got confused.

scotth

27th February 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by flannery

Does the law require that you get a permit before possessing the gun?

If you can buy a gun and then register it (which I doubt), then I don't think Mr. Dixon has a thing to worry about, because he would not be in violation of the law.

He didn't buy the gun in NY. He bought in FL.... legally.

He moved to NY.

It is reported that he had a registration in process with NY.

By beginning the registration, he is announcing to NY that he has a firearm in his possession. It would seem (maybe wrongly) that if NY considered it to be a legal problem for him to possess the gun while the registration was going through, they should/would request to at least impound the gun during the process.

The Fool

27th February 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
Once again, I have accidentally posted under my wife's forum name, flannery. That's what happens when you post at work and then come home to continue the conversation, and your wife was on earlier that day unbeknownst to you, and you forget that the forum automatically logs you on as the last user.

Sorry if anyone got confused.
sure luke......c'mon, admit it you are a sad lonely guy and this "wife" Id is just a sockpuppet:) Hang on....maybe its you thats the sockpuppet?

Jedi Knight

27th February 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

Couldn't agree more.

WHO could stand by and see thier family in peril and not act?

I suppose you could ask the guy downstairs to discuss the rights and wrongs over coffee and a cake!

:rolleyes:

What really annoys me about the article is how they arrested the guy that shot the intruder. That is crazy.

There seems to be this new form of judicial thought emerging where no citizen can defend from criminals because it violates their "constitutional rights".

Well, what about the constitutional rights to be alive that the victims of the home invasion suffered and the potential dangerousness of the intruder?

If someone robs someone inside their home via home invasion and the homeowner guns them down, that is being an American. Or if the home invader gets eaten alive by a pack of starving Dobermans, that is justice. No one has the right to go on a person's private property, especially their home where their harmless, innocent family is, and rob them. No way.

All NY politicians have to get laughed out of office if this arrest stands, then judicial impeachments can follow. It is not illegal to be an American. Americans are living, breathing and walking US Constitutions.

JK

corplinx

27th February 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No one has the right to go on a person's private property, especially their home where their harmless, innocent family is, and rob them. No way.

That allows too much wiggle room for people to debate the what the right to private property is and if it can be defended with lethal force.

I think the main thing is, you have to assume that a home invader is armed no matter what. Even if they aren't brandishing a weapon, you have to assume they have one on them. This is why when you find a home invader you _always_ put them down. You don't hold them at gunpoint for the cops to arrive, you dont try to fight them hand to hand, you don't try to club them with the baseball bat you leave by the door.

Andalyn

28th February 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by LukeT

Yes. Kookier and kookier. :rolleyes:

Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun. He broke the law. That is a completely separate issue from the burglar incident and you know it.

Or do you somehow believe that the registering of his gun, or the not registering of his gun, would have changed the events of the universe to cause the burglar to come to his house?

The Constitution does not set up states' rights. Surely you know better than that! You like to shout about the tenth amendment so much....

Speaking of the Second Amendment:

This is open to a lot of interpretation, as our law history shows.

The thing is, shanek, I don't like the idea of having to register a gun. But then, I don't like abortion, either. But the law, and the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution (and not yours), says I have to live with both.

I don't like the idea of my next door neighbor being able to buy a tank, either. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court does agree with me on that. As you are a Libertarian, I would guess that you disagree.

How do you define "well regulated" ???

The Constitution, nor the Supreme Court says you have to live with the registration of Firearms. Not directly anyway. There is no firearm registration in Oklahoma, for instance. It's the State (or city) in which you live.

Also, if you have the cash - you can buy a tank. The Supreme Court does not prohibit you from such a purchase. There is a Doctor in our local area that owns a few tanks, as well as other military vehicles. He isn't the only person either. BTW - This Doctor also owns a minigun. Know what that is? :eek:

On the 2nd Amendment and "well regulated": It's all about the comma!!!! ;)

Troll

28th February 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Oh my. Are you serious? A crack dealer who steals a gun is entitled to it?

I've heard some strange theories about what the second amendment means but this one is really out there. I think I should drop out of this discussion right now. :D

I need a vacation anyway. See y'all soon and hopefully someone will decide to eject the crazies by then, before they're all that's left. (Not meaning you Shanek, you're usually more sane than this...)

what sort of moronic view is that? the me that steals your car is entitled to it? You mention theft, a crime and say someone is entitled? Are you normally this inept?

Troll

28th February 2003, 01:15 AM

You have the right to leagally obtain, not steal, a firearm. You have the standard right to lose that right if you misuse a firearm. UIt's just that simple. He didn't misuse the firearm. he merely failed to read up on the variations in laws from state to state.

a_unique_person

28th February 2003, 01:52 AM

what are the odds that for the one robbery that was interrupted by a gun owner, there were just as many injuries caused by guns being misused. I too have heard all the stories of hunters and their drinking and shooting, and the guns that are not stored securely and are then misused, or the guns used in massacres by formerly law abiding citizens who obtained their guns totally legally.

Troll

28th February 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
what are the odds that for the one robbery that was interrupted by a gun owner, there were just as many injuries caused by guns being misused. I too have heard all the stories of hunters and their drinking and shooting, and the guns that are not stored securely and are then misused, or the guns used in massacres by formerly law abiding citizens who obtained their guns totally legally.

Guns being misused? Like maybe actually stolen as is the case of over 85% of gun related crimes in the US? Wait. does that mean that if you steal or illegally obtain a gun that you may be prone to criminal behavior? Does that mean if you legally obtain one that you may be prone to follow the law and use a gun in a legal manner? does all this mean that law abiding citizens abide by the law and that criminals don't?:rolleyes:

a_unique_person

28th February 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Guns being misused? Like maybe actually stolen as is the case of over 85% of gun related crimes in the US? Wait. does that mean that if you steal or illegally obtain a gun that you may be prone to criminal behavior? Does that mean if you legally obtain one that you may be prone to follow the law and use a gun in a legal manner? does all this mean that law abiding citizens abide by the law and that criminals don't?:rolleyes:

you make it sound like there is are two societies out there, the criminals and the non criminal. That is a ridiculous simplification of what crime really is.

But apart from that, I was talking about the misuse of guns, drunken hunters, columbine bowlers, kids playing, parents fighting. Most criminals seem to kill each other with guns, not victims.

Troll

28th February 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

you make it sound like there is are two societies out there, the criminals and the non criminal. That is a ridiculous simplification of what crime really is.

But apart from that, I was talking about the misuse of guns, drunken hunters, columbine bowlers, kids playing, parents fighting. Most criminals seem to kill each other with guns, not victims.

Oh, nice barb with the bowlers bit. who in that group can you say has misused a gun? And news flash, criminals kill victims with guns not generally other criminals and even then, you've merely proven my point about criminal behavior and guns and the vriminal's lack of respect for human life. Killing in defense of life, with or without a gun is not immoral nor a crime.

a_unique_person

28th February 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Oh, nice barb with the bowlers bit. who in that group can you say has misused a gun? And news flash, criminals kill victims with guns not generally other criminals and even then, you've merely proven my point about criminal behavior and guns and the vriminal's lack of respect for human life. Killing in defense of life, with or without a gun is not immoral nor a crime.

australia was largely a penal colony for many years. it was the dumping ground for all the criminals that wouldn't fit in england. after a while, the crime rate was no different to that of england. how is that explained? many criminals, given jobs in the new colony, went straight because they could get work. the troops to guard them were often more criminal than the convicts.

Troll

28th February 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

australia was largely a penal colony for many years. it was the dumping ground for all the criminals that wouldn't fit in england. after a while, the crime rate was no different to that of england. how is that explained? many criminals, given jobs in the new colony, went straight because they could get work. the troops to guard them were often more criminal than the convicts.

And that answers the question I asked you in what way? Misdirection? Seems to be a common trait among your kind.

DialecticMaterialist

28th February 2003, 04:03 AM

Well this is more on gun control in general, but I find the idea of millions of red necks packing heat to be pretty damn scary.

I know some people think it will be used for self-defense(never mind it empowers the offense as well) but the idea seems laughable.

3 AM, some armed, professional criminals enter a house. Bob, our middle aged, rather obese, suburbanite hero decides to take a stand. He somehow has enough time to unlock his safe, load his gun and undue the safety by the time the criminals reach his bedroom. Bob then manages to take out all four armed men by himself, without any of his family of himself getting seriously hurt; way to go superdad.

Now if you ask me, there's something wrong with scenerio. Something I like to call "probability" which speaks against the average civilian effectively fighting off armed robbers.

It seems to me the civilian will only manage to get himself shot under such conditions. Now there is the chance the criminal(s) will not come with guns of his or her own, but

a) you are probably not going to know this when the confrontation starts.

b) is the small chance of this really reason enough to allow all criminals and psychopaths easy access to weaponry.

Lets not forget most murders are what are called "crimes of passion" as well, meaning they are committed by people during extremely emotional times. This would probably be avoided if they didn't have such an easy way to kill people i.e. guns. Now I imagine they can use knives, but you can counter that rather easily with, lets say, a baseball bat or by running away.

I've also heard it mentioned that we need guns in case the government decides to opress us.

:rolleyes: Please. Imagine this scenerio. a professional army with tanks,choppers,assault rifles,trained/professional soldiers vs what? a mob of civilians, scared ********, armed with hunting rifles.

"Yee haw, just shoot em there tanks in their weak spots!"

It'd be a slaughter. The days of civilian revolutions are over.

If the government really decided on such an action we can only hope for one of three things 1) Reform. 2) Rebelion within the army or government. 3) Foreign invasion.

Armed civilians would make little to no difference, and would probably end up getting themselves as well as others killed. You certainly wouldn't see me going out to meet Navy Seals, Delta Force and Rangers on the battlefield, even if you gave me a chain gun, let alone a shotgun.

Seriously, I think these pro-gun advocates watch too many action movies.

In real life if civilians try to stand up to professional armies or armed criminals, they get butchered. Maybe use up some of the enemies ammo. That's about the extent of their effectiveness.

This is more true with the more professional and high-tech the given army is, and the US army is pretty damn professional and high-tech.

Troll

28th February 2003, 04:11 AM

I'm actually more of a comedy or horror movie type of guy as I've seen action films and know how unrealistic they are. But if you want to base your view of guns on them, then be my guest.

Sure you're going to hear about criminal misuse of weapons, including golf clubs used to beat people to death. crime sells. It sells much more than the stories that happen daily where someone with a legal firearm legally used said firearm to defend themselves of another. I don't know why it sells more, it just seems to do so. You have to actually look for the stories of good and legitimate use of firearms but you can rest assured that you will be fed sotries about the illegal use of them.

Victor Danilchenko

28th February 2003, 05:46 AM

Richard G

This is the heart of the matter. I am in favor of CONSTITUTIONAL rights. No state has the authority to supercede the Bill of Rights. New York, along with Chicago, Washington D.C., and California, are all doing their best to do so.

What do all those cities have in common? Left wing, liberal nutbags in office, who don't give a rats ass about individual liberty.Oh yeah, like right-wing conservative nutbags give a rat's ass about individual liberty!

Victor Danilchenko

28th February 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

3 AM, some armed, professional criminals enter a house. Bob, our middle aged, rather obese, suburbanite hero decides to take a stand. He somehow has enough time to unlock his safe, load his gun and undue the safety by the time the criminals reach his bedroom. Bob then manages to take out all four armed men by himself, without any of his family of himself getting seriously hurt; way to go superdad.

Now if you ask me, there's something wrong with scenerio. Something I like to call "probability" which speaks against the average civilian effectively fighting off armed robbers.How about if there is only one armed robber? or two? how about the fact that the said suburbanite actually knows the layout of his house, and thus would be far more effective? No, in normal (i.e. not stupidly contrived to make a ridiculous pioint) circumstances, our Bob would actually have good odds of defending his home successfully.

As important, if not more important, is the point that wide-spread possession of firearms would be a great deterrent. A would-be professional burglar can't afford to risk his or her life at even 50% odds with each robbery; and if they were stupid enough to do so, we would have a lot fewer robbers very, very fast.

:rolleyes: Please. Imagine this scenerio. a professional army with tanks,choppers,assault rifles,trained/professional soldiers vs what? a mob of civilians, scared ********, armed with hunting rifles.

"Yee haw, just shoot em there tanks in their weak spots!"

It'd be a slaughter. The days of civilian revolutions are overWho says the potential rebels would have to field an army? that would be monumentally stupid.

First of all, think urban warfare. You know, the nooks'n'crannies and stuff.

More importantly, think as a soldier in such situation. if the rebels are unarmed, you simply go in, beat them up with the rifle butt, and go away. if they are armed, you have to shoot and kill your own people while getting shot at in return.

No, i am not saying that the rebellion will happen, or that it should happen, What I am saying is that widespread possession of firearms is not useless if your concern is state oppression.

Armed civilians would make little to no difference, and would probably end up getting themselves as well as others killed.There was a paintball game organized in my area some time ago, a bunch of soldiers against a bunch of local hunters. The redneck paunched suburbanite armed civilian types slaughtered the soldier boys.

You certainly wouldn't see me going out to meet Navy Seals, Delta Force and Rangers on the battlefield, even if you gave me a chain gun, let alone a shotgun.Well then, good thing that vast majority of the army is your plain generic infantry, and not the elite units that you mentioned, eh?

idiot...

In real life if civilians try to stand up to professional armies or armed criminals, they get butchered.Only if they are untrained; and only if their attitude is like yours. The only sure way to lose, is to not try to win.

This is more true with the more professional and high-tech the given army is, and the US army is pretty damn professional and high-tech.yeah. it's also an army drawn from the same population from which our hypothetical rebels would be drawn. There is a big difference between acting as police (against unarmed citizens) and having to shoot your own people. being forced into actual combat against the civilian population would surely cause a lot of soldiers to desert or disobey or join the rebels.

Rouser2

28th February 2003, 06:48 AM

Relevent law:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." -- Art. VI, US Const.

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" -- Amendment II, US. Const.

Case closed.

28th February 2003, 07:39 AM

Andalyn, I am curious to know whether this guy you say who owns some tanks also has the necessary tank rounds and ammunition to make his tanks actual battle-ready weapons.
And yes, I do know what a mini-gun is. Does he also have the ammo for that?

Before we go any further, I should probably clarify where I stand on gun control. Up to this point, I have been only arguing about the law.

First, if someone enters another persons house illegally, then as far as I'm concerned, their life is forfeit. However, the law says that the homeowner must feel his life is in danger before he is allowed to use lethal force. I can understand that. And there are plenty of organizations that can teach you how to make a statement to the police that covers your backside if you happen to kill an intruder.

"I illuminated the trespasser. I informed him I was armed. He came at me. I felt afraid for my life and/or the lives of my family. So I shot him in the center of mass in the front, etc."

I believe every sane, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to possess a firearm. And we can't choose which laws it is okay to abide by, and which ones are okay to break. If we don't like a law, we must take it to the voting booth.

I do not believe everyone should be able to have a fully operational .50 caliber weapon, with 5 million rounds in the garage. Or a tank.

I am undecided on M-16s, AK-47s, and other fully automatic weapons.

I don't buy the argument that the citzenry must be armed in case it is necessary to start a revolution or take on a rogue government. I have a heck of a lot more faith in America than that!

I grew up in the depths of the Cold War, and served in the military for 20 years, so the idea of having to register your gun with the government does not sit well with me. Even though I don't see some other country taking over ours, and confiscating all of our guns using those records, I do have a small amount of fear that our own people might one day decide to confiscate all of our guns and melt them down into pro-choice buttons. Irony intended.

I do not own a firearm. I would like to, but my wife is very much against it, especially now that we have kids. She feels the danger of the kids harming themselves is greater than the danger of a mad burglar-rapist-drug-crazed-murderer. I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, but I suspect she is right.

I would take great pains to ensure my kids would never get their hands on the gun, but kids are pretty clever and sneaky sometimes. One of my shipmates lost one of his kids that way. His young 8 year old son shot and killed his 6 year old daughter while playing around with a shotgun they found.

If I did own a gun, and then a law was passed that said I must turn it in, I would be in quite the moral dilemma. But you can be sure I would support a political candidate who sought to overturn that law.

That is about where I stand.

Kodiak

28th February 2003, 08:23 AM

The last part of Stossel's e-mail, which Shanek (accidentally, I'm sure) failed to post, is the point I think Stossel is trying to make:

"Dixon has also been arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon." He's threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.

Prosecutors want to put him in Riker's Island — the same jail where the burglar was sent. Head prosecutor Charles Hynes wouldn't talk to 20/20 but said of Dixon's case, "You get caught with a [unlicensed] gun in Brooklyn, you're going to do jail time."

Dixon will fight that in court March 11.

At the same time that New York Gov. George Pataki, to save money, plans to let criminals out of jail, prosecutors are trying to put Ron Dixon in? When the career criminal, who was in Dixon's house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time. But Dixon has to go to jail?

Give me a break!"

Tmy

28th February 2003, 08:26 AM

I think people are being distracted by the burgler part. Thats irrelevent, its not like the guy is being charged for assualt or attempted murder cause he shot the guy. Hes being charged for having an unlicenced gun. The police only found out about it cause they showed up to deal with the burgler.

I thought it was common knowledge that when you move to a new state you need to get a new gun licence. Especially if your moving to the Nth east.

Pro gunners bitch that the govt should enforce the gun laws. Thats what NY is doing. I doubt this guy isnt goingto see any jail time.

Kodiak

28th February 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
How do you define "well regulated" ???

That is part of the justification clause and has no direct bearing on the actual right to keep and bear arms.

Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Looks like I have both State and Federal backing me up... :)

Thanz

28th February 2003, 08:34 AM

First, I guess I'd better put my potential biases on the table. I'm Canadian, do not believe in a fundamental right to own a gun, have no problem with gun registration, and think that a lot of people who think they need a gun for personal protection are simply paranoid. I don't, however, think that guns are the root of all evil. My uncle owns several pistols, used exclusively for marksmanship competitions.

As to the specifics of the example given here. Given the raging debates over gun control, it is disingenuous at best to refer to the gun control laws as "obscure". Also, I don't know how long they have been in effect, or whether they have been challenged in court. I am relying on LukeT when he says that the Supreme Court has ruled such registration laws to be constitutional. If that is the case, all those arguing that it is not do not have a leg to stand on.

Having said all that, if this guy was actually in the process of registering (and not just "well, I was gonna register next week" but actually had a form in the system) he should be given a break. The law should have some transitional provisions regarding people moving from other states. This can't be a unique situation. I'd like to know what those transitional provisions are, and whether they were complied with here. If the law is not set up to deal with people moving from other states, it is incredibly poorly drafted.

Andalyn

28th February 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Andalyn, I am curious to know whether this guy you say who owns some tanks also has the necessary tank rounds and ammunition to make his tanks actual battle-ready weapons.
And yes, I do know what a mini-gun is. Does he also have the ammo for that?

Before we go any further, I should probably clarify where I stand on gun control. Up to this point, I have been only arguing about the law.

First, if someone enters another persons house illegally, then as far as I'm concerned, their life is forfeit. However, the law says that the homeowner must feel his life is in danger before he is allowed to use lethal force. I can understand that. And there are plenty of organizations that can teach you how to make a statement to the police that covers your backside if you happen to kill an intruder.

"I illuminated the trespasser. I informed him I was armed. He came at me. I felt afraid for my life and/or the lives of my family. So I shot him in the center of mass in the front, etc."

I believe every sane, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to possess a firearm. And we can't choose which laws it is okay to abide by, and which ones are okay to break. If we don't like a law, we must take it to the voting booth.

I do not believe everyone should be able to have a fully operational .50 caliber weapon, with 5 million rounds in the garage. Or a tank.

I am undecided on M-16s, AK-47s, and other fully automatic weapons.

I don't buy the argument that the citzenry must be armed in case it is necessary to start a revolution or take on a rogue government. I have a heck of a lot more faith in America than that!

I grew up in the depths of the Cold War, and served in the military for 20 years, so the idea of having to register your gun with the government does not sit well with me. Even though I don't see some other country taking over ours, and confiscating all of our guns using those records, I do have a small amount of fear that our own people might one day decide to confiscate all of our guns and melt them down into pro-choice buttons. Irony intended.

I do not own a firearm. I would like to, but my wife is very much against it, especially now that we have kids. She feels the danger of the kids harming themselves is greater than the danger of a mad burglar-rapist-drug-crazed-murderer. I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, but I suspect she is right.

I would take great pains to ensure my kids would never get their hands on the gun, but kids are pretty clever and sneaky sometimes. One of my shipmates lost one of his kids that way. His young 8 year old son shot and killed his 6 year old daughter while playing around with a shotgun they found.

If I did own a gun, and then a law was passed that said I must turn it in, I would be in quite the moral dilemma. But you can be sure I would support a political candidate who sought to overturn that law.

That is about where I stand.

Crap... edited because I replied without typing. Anyway... reply below:

I'm not sure what shells he has for the tank. It would not surprise me that he has shells. I'm would guess he probably doesn't have depleted uranium shells...

I believe he has ammo for the minigun, which BTW he currently has set up on top of a Hummvee. (It's cool to look at.) I'm not sure what caliber the minigun is.

.50 caliber rifles are for sale right now. They are no big deal, and do not require any special licensing.

I don't understand why you want to limit ammunition. I would suppose that only those that could afford to have 5 million rounds in the garage would actually have 5 million rounds. Not a common concern.

To own a fully automatic weapon, you MUST register with the federal government and pay special fees and taxes. ALSO, you must have a letter of reference from the top law enforcement official in your county. SO, most people don't legally own fully auto weapons anyway. But you are able to, if you wish to go through the effort.

I am against general gun registration also.

Perhaps you could get an electronic gun safe, with the pop up door / chamber. Push button entry? They only cost you about $100 - keep your weapon secure and out of your kids hands, but you also have relatively quick access. Something to think about.

Ladewig

28th February 2003, 09:04 AM

A quick aside: what kind of burglar looks for valuables in the drawers of an infant's room?

As for the main topic, I am going to save my indignation until I learn what penalty or sentence is given to the homeowner.

28th February 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

That is part of the justification clause and has no direct bearing on the actual right to keep and bear arms.

Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Looks like I have both State and Federal backing me up... :)

Don't take this wrong Kodiak, but surely you guys can see how the Bible can have several different interpretations when a document that is only a couple of pages has several different interpretations.

Obviously, the point of the right to bear arms was so that we could have a well regulated militia. How we define "well regulated" and "militia" certainly has a bearing on who can have exactly what kind of arms.

Is the guy who has a tank in his garage a member of a militia? Is that why he has the tank?

Supercharts

28th February 2003, 09:48 AM

The primary differences between points of view in the liberal and
conservative "Debate" over the war on terrorism might be exemplified
by the following:

Question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 caliber pistol and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texas Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click... (sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed).

A little girl speaks: "Nice grouping Daddy!!!"

28th February 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Andalyn

To own a fully automatic weapon, you MUST register with the federal government and pay special fees and taxes. ALSO, you must have a letter of reference from the top law enforcement official in your county. SO, most people don't legally own fully auto weapons anyway. But you are able to, if you wish to go through the effort.

I am against general gun registration also.

Are you against having to register the tank and minigun?

Perhaps you could get an electronic gun safe, with the pop up door / chamber. Push button entry? They only cost you about $100 - keep your weapon secure and out of your kids hands, but you also have relatively quick access. Something to think about.

I have thought about and mentioned those things to my wife. But it when it comes to guns and kids, it only takes one momentary careless mistake for a tragedy to occur.

At least I have a big dog with big teeth. And he barks at anything that makes the smallest sound in the neighborhood. :D

Thanz

28th February 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Supercharts
The primary differences between points of view in the liberal and
conservative "Debate" over the war on terrorism might be exemplified
by the following:

Question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 caliber pistol and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texas Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click... (sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed).

A little girl speaks: "Nice grouping Daddy!!!"

There's a reason the Strawman sings "if I only had a brain".... :rolleyes:

How about the Bush administration answer:
Shoot the homeless guy to the left who tried to hurt your daddy 10 years ago, and now he might have a knife..or a fork... or maybe a shoe that might hurt you, and he doesn't seem to want to empty his pockets for the police. The guy rushing at you with the knife? Well, let's just ignore him for now... The real threat is this homeless dude! :p

shanek

28th February 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Mr. Dixon chose not to register his gun.

That is a flat-out lie! He was in the process of going through all the bureaucratic red tape necessary to register his gun.

Or do you somehow believe that the registering of his gun, or the not registering of his gun, would have changed the events of the universe to cause the burglar to come to his house?

The gun control people seem to think so.

The Constitution does not set up states' rights.

Read the 10th Amendment.

This is open to a lot of interpretation, as our law history shows.

No; our history merely shows that it has been interpreted. The Constitution used the plain and strong language, "shall not be infringed," and allows for no exceptions.

How do you define "well regulated" ???

Regulated does not necessarily mean regulated by the government, and if you read both the Amendment and the historical debate around its creation you'll see that our founding fathers clearly did not mean government regulation!

shanek

28th February 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
what are the odds that for the one robbery that was interrupted by a gun owner, there were just as many injuries caused by guns being misused.

According to statistics that have been presented to you many, many, many times, almost zero.

scotth

28th February 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
At least I have a big dog with big teeth. And he barks at anything that makes the smallest sound in the neighborhood. :D

A gun would almost certainly be safer than a large dog.

Guns are not known for attacking people on their own.

I do not mean to imply that I am against dog ownership.

Bentspoon

28th February 2003, 10:59 AM

No. Not at all. He used a gun in a responsible manner to defend his family against an intruder whom the government had already convicted but released early on parole to make room for nonviolent offenders, like those who have weapons they don't like or petty drug offenders.

Defending his home from intruders is not at issue here. Not with me and apparently not with the law - with a gun or without. And I have never advocated gun banning - therefore I am not against the right to bear arms.

But I do support compliance with the laws and it is irresponsible not to do so.

Bentspoon

shanek

28th February 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I know some people think it will be used for self-defense(never mind it empowers the offense as well) but the idea seems laughable.

Yet it happens every 13 seconds somewhere in the US.

Kodiak

28th February 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

Don't take this wrong Kodiak, but surely you guys can see how the Bible can have several different interpretations when a document that is only a couple of pages has several different interpretations.

Yes I can, but there is a preponderance of evidence...

Originally posted by LukeT

Obviously, the point of the right to bear arms was so that we could have a well regulated militia. How we define "well regulated" and "militia" certainly has a bearing on who can have exactly what kind of arms.

Not obviously...

Originally posted by LukeT

Is the guy who has a tank in his garage a member of a militia? Is that why he has the tank?

Good questions, but they have little bearing on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and the bearing they do have, if any, seems counter-intuitive to me...

"Amendment II --

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia was just a reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

shanek

28th February 2003, 04:59 PM

Just our founders giving us advice and warnings from beyond the veil of time:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." —James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." —George Washington

EDIT: Ignore the above Washington quote. As Mahatma Kane Jeeves showed below, it is apparently bogus.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." —Thomas Jefferson

Yes, it's perfectly clear what they meant when they passed the Second Amendment.

28th February 2003, 05:49 PM

shanek, if you were In Charge, would you prevent me from owning a nuclear weapon?

I'm not trying to set a trap. I honestly just want to know.

edited to add:

It doesn't jostle your sensibilities to imagine everyone owning whatever firearm they want? I'm sure the idea that every criminal would be a little more nervous if everybody had arms is pleasing to you. It is to me, too.

But, we aren't exactly the same society we were two hundred years ago. And the firepower that is available is certainly more catastrophic in its potential. Criminals would not be the only ones who were more nervous if everybody could own an AK-47, or a tank, or a nuclear weapon.

28th February 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by shanek

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." —Thomas Jefferson

He coulda saved time if he just said, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns." :D

subgenius

1st March 2003, 07:47 AM

"The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/stossel_gmabburglar030228.html
Oh, I noticed he happens to be African-American.

subgenius

1st March 2003, 07:49 AM

John Stossel: "Prosecutors are allowed discretion."
My previous point.

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

1st March 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by shanek
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." —George Washington

False Quotations and Other Misinformation (http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/false_quotations_and_other_misin.htm)
This quotation is usually cited as George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress. However, this statement does not appear in that address, nor has it ever been documented that Pres. Washington ever made this statement. It should therefore be considered a hoax and not relied upon

shanek

1st March 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

False Quotations and Other Misinformation (http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/false_quotations_and_other_misin.htm)

Thank you for the correction.

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

1st March 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Thank you for the correction.

No problem.

I don't mean to pile on, but the Jefferson quote is a little misleading also. He was quoting someone else in his "Commonplace Book" (a notebook to jot down thoughts, quotes from readings etc.) (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764) (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_jefferson.htm)

You can browse two of Jefferson's Commonplace books at the Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser5.html) (but not the one containing the quote).

subgenius

1st March 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

No problem.

I don't mean to pile on, but the Jefferson quote is a little misleading also. He was quoting someone else in his "Commonplace Book" (a notebook to jot down thoughts, quotes from readings etc.) (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764) (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_jefferson.htm)

You can browse two of Jefferson's Commonplace books at the Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser5.html) (but not the one containing the quote).
Boy thanks for the wake-up call on what a great resource our Library of Congress can be. Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time there.
(Self-deprecating "duh")

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

1st March 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

Boy thanks for the wake-up call on what a great resource our Library of Congress can be. Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time there.
(Self-deprecating "duh")

I love the American Memory Collection (http://memory.loc.gov/). But notice I said "browse" the Commonplace Books. If you can read Jefferson's chicken-scratches, I salute you. I haven't found a text equivalent online.

tedly

1st March 2003, 11:47 AM

I'm a Canadian, and a pistol shooter. All my pistols have been registered, and I have moved within the country. In Canada, when moving you must contact the registrar in your new province, and register your change of address before moving the 'firearm' - a legal term meaning a pistol, revolver or other form of restricted gun. That said, I have usually thrown the thing in the van and sorted it out once I got there. I can understand why he might have been charged with illegal -something - of a firearm, but this seems to be 'criminal' possession. Is there a difference in the US or just a distinction?

Second, does the law in the US say anything about 'reasonable force'? Here, given the report , the homeowner would probably have been charged with some kind of homicide. He would have to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear for his or someone's life. Homicide is not justifiable to protect property. (That's the law, not my personal philosophy.) The intruder turning toward him might have been enough of a threat to persuade him that his life was in danger, and an unarmed man could easily be a threat to the life of an infant or child so there is a good chance of him being acquitted. But rest assured he would have been charged. Further, since he shot a man that may (the report makes no mention) not have been visibly armed, he would need to demonstrate that this was the minimum level of force that a 'reasonable man' would use in this situation.
You can see from the complexities involved here in a 'shoot-don't shoot', situation, and the chance of me, in my normal waking stupor, shooting one of my own, convince me to leave my weapons clean, oiled, and stored apart under lock and key.

billydkid

1st March 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ok, I do believe that people should have the right to own firearms, and to defend their property and family.

But, my question...

Did he possess the firearm legally? (What it purchased and stored, in accordance with the laws of the state he was in?)

I know it's "the law", just like seatbelts are the "law" in NY, but, you have to ask yourself whether the state has any business whatsoever (is that one word) deciding whether a law abiding citizen owns a gun legally or illegally. Why is the state in a position decide some law abiding citizens own their guns "legally" or "Illegal". The state has no business passing laws on the legality of gun ownership. People have to be held accountable for what they actually DO to other people, not for what they own, say or believe. I have no idea how anyone ever conceived the concept of a "victimless crime". I'm sorry, without a victim, there can not be a crime. Mere ownership of a gun .....or even a cannon, or even a tank, in no way harms another person. Furthermore, punishing people for what they concievably could do (say, with a gun, or a tank, or a cannon.) tends to diminish personal responsibility for the bad things that people actually do do. Owning a gun is in no way comparable committing an assault with a gun.

billydkid

1st March 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by tedly
I'm a Canadian, and a pistol shooter. All my pistols have been registered, and I have moved within the country. In Canada, when moving you must contact the registrar in your new province, and register your change of address before moving the 'firearm' - a legal term meaning a pistol, revolver or other form of restricted gun. That said, I have usually thrown the thing in the van and sorted it out once I got there. I can understand why he might have been charged with illegal -something - of a firearm, but this seems to be 'criminal' possession. Is there a difference in the US or just a distinction?

Second, does the law in the US say anything about 'reasonable force'? Here, given the report , the homeowner would probably have been charged with some kind of homicide. He would have to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear for his or someone's life. Homicide is not justifiable to protect property. (That's the law, not my personal philosophy.) The intruder turning toward him might have been enough of a threat to persuade him that his life was in danger, and an unarmed man could easily be a threat to the life of an infant or child so there is a good chance of him being acquitted. But rest assured he would have been charged. Further, since he shot a man that may (the report makes no mention) not have been visibly armed, he would need to demonstrate that this was the minimum level of force that a 'reasonable man' would use in this situation.
You can see from the complexities involved here in a 'shoot-don't shoot', situation, and the chance of me, in my normal waking stupor, shooting one of my own, convince me to leave my weapons clean, oiled, and stored apart under lock and key.

Puleeeeze..... Reasonable force? You must be joking. To hold the home owner in any way whatsoever for what happened is simply grotesque. Should he have said to the burglar "Are you planning on smashing my young, sleeping son's head in, or just checking out what he has to steal?"? And, of course, the criminal, being an honest criminal, would never lie about a think like that. Maybe he would have said "Well yes sir, I am planning on killing your son and then raping your wife, so you might want to get that firearm ready." Of course, even in that case, the homeowner would have had the other option of calling 911, in which case the police would have had a headstart in investigating the triple homicide.

I just, simply, hate this apologist attitude for criminals, for people break into other peoples houses, steal what they have worked for, violate their existance and if you are unlucky, physically harm you. People have an absolute right to defend their lives and property. Lets get this straight, the friggin criminal who broke into the home IS THE BAD GUY.

Now, I hope and pray it doesn't happen to you. You will be hard pressed to defend yourself with you gun all broken down and oiled and locked away.

Brooklyn Dodger

1st March 2003, 04:34 PM

I watched Stossel last night on 20/20. One point he made was that in the registration process he went to a guy to expedite the process through, and, if I heard right, paid him $500. The guy went out of business soon after, before completing his registration.

$500 to get a handgun registered? How did we come to this? I have several handguns, and I have yet to pay that much for one. But New York has the unmitigated nerve to make the system so complex and expensive that people will willingly pay expediters $500 to register a gun? This is criminal!

tedly

2nd March 2003, 05:48 AM

billydkid.

I'm not arguing for the rights of criminals. I am saying that here in Canada we don't have an "absolute" right to defend property. If you are not in a reasonable fear of your life you cannot use lethal force, without being hauled up in court. Do you in the US have that right? If you're going to play the game you need to make damn sure of the rules.
I don't think that you are saying that you can shoot anyone you find on your property, but let's take it elsewhere.
You are mugged on the street, hit over the head, and you disable your opponent by striking him about the head and ears using your years of martial arts training. This is a response with reasonable force. Can you now take out the pistol you are carrying and shoot him, justifiably, since you are the victim of a criminal attack? He is after all the bad guy.
Here in Canada, the answer is no. You are not in fear of your life, he has been disabled.
If I lived in a society where I legitimately feared armed break-ins I assure you I would not be using a pistol for home defense, and not my rather specialised small caliber target pistols.

Richard G

2nd March 2003, 06:01 AM

Obviously, the point of the right to bear arms was so that we could have a well regulated militia. How we define "well regulated" and "militia" certainly has a bearing on who can have exactly what kind of arms.

Very good. Lets not speculate what the militia is. Lets see how Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 of the U.S. Federal Code defines militia:

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

There you are. The militia is everyone who is able bodied, who is not in the armed forces, or National Guard. And "regulated" means trained in old English, not controlled.

The issue here is Mr. Dixon has the right to keep, and bear a firearm, a right protected under the Bill of Rights. He doesn't need to register with the state to excercise his rights. N.Y. would outright ban firearms if they could get away with it. Their registration scheme is an attempt to do just that by inconviniencing people.

Next.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 06:23 AM

How about if there is only one armed robber? or two?

Okay, odds still against you superman. I mean come on, is he Wyatt Erp or something?

how about the fact that the said suburbanite actually knows the layout of his house, and thus would be far more effective?

Yes knowing the "terrain" of his house would be sooo advantageous. He could for example duck behind a couch... and leap over chairs. Not like the crook has to just point and shoot someone who is trying to pull off fancy moves and its not like the layout of a house is hard to learn, with like, a glance.

No, in normal (i.e. not stupidly contrived to make a ridiculous pioint) circumstances, our Bob would actually have good odds of defending his home successfully.

Sure he would. Armed fat men beat down gansters all the time.

As important, if not more important, is the point that wide-spread possession of firearms would be a great deterrent.

Not really. The criminals will simply come more prepared and armed themselves. Or they may see your firearms as an oppurtunity to get more of their own.

A would-be professional burglar can't afford to risk his or her life at even 50% odds with each robbery; and if they were stupid enough to do so, we would have a lot fewer robbers very, very fast.

Yeah and well, a lot fewer civilians in general too. The fact is some burglars are willing to do this and if they know most houses are armed, they will merely come armed themselves. Turning each robbery into a hostage situation very fast. Is it really worth risking yours and your families life in order to save a few possesions? Is that your solution to crime....vigilantiaism?

First of all, think urban warfare. You know, the nooks'n'crannies and stuff.

Where enemy soldiers can hide too...

Also think of the tank the guy stole in San Diego....and how effective the police with their firearms were against it. Now imagine that tank in the subrurbs and instead of the police its hicks on trucks toting shotguns. Tell you what, if the situation comes...you go first. ;)

More importantly, think as a soldier in such situation. if the rebels are unarmed, you simply go in, beat them up with the rifle butt, and go away. if they are armed, you have to shoot and kill your own people while getting shot at in return.

Or basically just shoot the hell out of them, then beat them up and then go away. You're presuming the civilians will present much of a challenge, I don't think they would. If the soldiers are really that concerned about casualties they will simply call in heavier units or artillery. Then you can leave your children orphans and your wife a widow in order to serve as cannon fodder. And this assumes they do not retaliate against the community.

This isn't Rambo my friend. In realy life all a rebelion would do is cause needless deaths and suffering.

No, i am not saying that the rebellion will happen, or that it should happen, What I am saying is that widespread possession of firearms is not useless if your concern is state oppression.[/quote[

OK, absoultely not useless. But damn near, and they cause more harm then good.

[quote] There was a paintball game organized in my area some time ago, a bunch of soldiers against a bunch of local hunters. The redneck paunched suburbanite armed civilian types slaughtered the soldier boys.

I really doubt this. Seriously, everytime I hear of this I hear the opposite. Your reasoning stinks of "one southerner can whip twenty yankees" type thinking. I imagine for every time this happens there are dozens of times when civilians get butchered. Besides a paintball game does not reflect real warfare.

Well then, good thing that vast majority of the army is your plain generic infantry, and not the elite units that you mentioned, eh?

idiot...

Ah yes mr.genius, most are regular units but you don't think if push came to shove or to make an example they'd hold back from sending in elite units? I can see it in the case of a rather large riot.....and what then hot shot?

Only if they are untrained; and only if their attitude is like yours.

Most people don't have time to just train all day long and I doubt an opressive government would just stand by and let you....and I also doubt the training would be anywhere near army level.And training isn't the only factor:

-there is the matter of supplies.
-communications
-morale
-spy networks
-organization
-superior equipment

To name but a few.

The only sure way to lose, is to not try to win.

Well the Taliban had a pretty positive attitude i.e. fanaticism and they lost pretty damn badly. Sorry but while postive attitudes and faith may move mountains, dynamite works better.

Your point neglects the fact that one can lose more by trying to win. I may try to win at a flying contest....but is it really worth it? I mean flying would probably be pretty damn fun but the fall may hurt a lot...

it's also an army drawn from the same population from which our hypothetical rebels would be drawn.

Yeah which is wy I listed military rebelion as a potential factor....notice this would have nothing to do with personal firearms.

There is a big difference between acting as police (against unarmed citizens) and having to shoot your own people. being forced into actual combat against the civilian population would surely cause a lot of soldiers to desert or disobey or join the rebels

That is pure speculation and in any case, if the army is already at the point where it would block out any other means of reform via violent means(protests and such) i.e. shoot unarmed civilians, what makes you think they would back down in the face of armed civilians?

Tiananmen square should serve as an example of how unwilling an opressive army is to shoot civilians when ordered to do so.

But hey maybe it will be like "Red Dawn" with teenagers who are able to take on well armed,well trained and well funded militaries. Yeah maybe, but then again maybe aliens will come down and shoot the opressive army as well....I wouldn't put much faith in either.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 06:27 AM

Also I don't people realize the constitution isn't absolute. I mean the founding fathers when they amde it, did so during a certain very different time period then we have today.

A lot has changed since the 18th century and one cannot reasonably expect to effectively govern a 21st century state by strict,unbending adherence to 18th century laws.

Richard G

2nd March 2003, 06:38 AM

Two criminals with a rifle almost shut an entire city down, with every law enforcement agency, both local and Federal unable to stop them. Only one of these men had any firearm training, but he didn't do the shooting, the untrained one did. (Washington D.C. Sniper).

Multiply that times roughly 90 million gun owners in the country, fighting a guerila war, and I think you can get an idea of what an armed militia (the people) could do. No modern army could withstand it. Take into consideration the entire U.S. military numbers only 1 million, with most of that being reservists, they are outnumbers 90-1.

The militia is just as relevant, and potent today as it ever was.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 07:21 AM

And they did so much to destroy government infrustructure too by killing random civilians.

The fact is their operation was covert as well.

Another fact is it was handled by internal police forces, not the army.

It's kinda hard to conduct a covert op with 90 million people.....

The militia is impotent. Look at what happened to rebels that opposed Saddam after Desert Storm without US aid. You are living in a fantasy.

The fact is 90 million people wouldn't be able to organize themselves enough to fight. Not like any would have to worry about feeding their families, or would turn traitor. And I'm sure they'd all have enough time to turn their car into a sniper mobile, and practice snping....I'm also very sure many people wouldn't be supporting the government. Believe me if that many people were against it, in such a strong organized manner, you wouldn't need guns because the economy would shut down. However what you are talking about is very unlikely. You couldn't organize an nation wide strike let alone a nation wide armed rebelion.

I'm sorry but if overthrowing an unpopular government was that easy there would be no Iraq, China or many south american dictatorships.

Your "snipers did lots of damage" is extremely pointless and amounts to mere terrorist action, which rarely ever works to overthrow a government.

Troll

2nd March 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And they did so much to destroy government infrustructure too by killing random civilians.

The fact is their operation was covert as well.

Another fact is it was handled by internal police forces, not the army.

It's kinda hard to conduct a covert op with 90 million people.....

The militia is impotent. Look at what happened to rebels that opposed Saddam after Desert Storm without US aid. You are living in a fantasy.

The fact is 90 million people wouldn't be able to organize themselves enough to fight. Not like any would have to worry about feeding their families, or would turn traitor. And I'm sure they'd all have enough time to turn their car into a sniper mobile, and practice snping....I'm also very sure many people wouldn't be supporting the government. Believe me if that many people were against it, in such a strong organized manner, you wouldn't need guns because the economy would shut down. However what you are talking about is very unlikely. You couldn't organize an nation wide strike let alone a nation wide armed rebelion.

I'm sorry but if overthrowing an unpopular government was that easy there would be no Iraq, China or many south american dictatorships.

Your "snipers did lots of damage" is extremely pointless and amounts to mere terrorist action, which rarely ever works to overthrow a government.

I'm sorry but in this case, in this particular subject, you cannot compare the US to other countries. If you continue to try then you're going to have to compare all aspects of each nation, crime, punishment, population control, liberties, etc.,etc,

Richard G

2nd March 2003, 07:44 AM

The militia is impotent. Look at what happened to rebels that opposed Saddam after Desert Storm without US aid. You are living in a fantasy.

Sorry, you cannot compare the two. U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, and millions excercise it. The same is not true with the Kurds, or the Chinese people. One cannot fight a goverment when one is not armed.

The fact is 90 million people wouldn't be able to organize themselves enough to fight.

There is no need to organize. A handfull of men here and there will wreck havock with hit and run tactics. It was in this very manner the early Revolutionary soldiers adapted to fighting a standing British army, which at the time was far better trained, and equiped than any Revolutionary soldier was. I would put one seasoned hunter against a company of regular trained soldiers any day.

I'm sorry but if overthrowing an unpopular government was that easy there would be no Iraq, China or many south american dictatorships.

Again, firearms are prohibited for "ordinary" citizens in these countries. Not easy to fight against an armed goverment when you are not. Perfect examples of succesfull gun control and gun bans are evident in your observation of those dictatoral countries.

I suspect your assumption that most Americans will not fight for their beliefs, and against tyrany are indicative of your own guttless attitude about freedom. You underestimate your fellow Americans my friend. Many are well armed, and well "trained". It is every Americans responsibility, and duty to be.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 08:14 AM

Sorry, you cannot compare the two. U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, and millions excercise it. The same is not true with the Kurds, or the Chinese people. One cannot fight a goverment when one is not armed.

But they had arms and still got beat down. As do rebel groups in south america....and its not even effective with small governments.

There is no need to organize. A handfull of men here and there will wreck havock with hit and run tactics.

I really doubt it. Those men will be cut off from mainstream society, they will have no refuge, no supply lines, no communications. They would be isolated,circled and destroyed.

It was in this very manner the early Revolutionary soldiers adapted to fighting a standing British army, which at the time was far better trained, and equiped than any Revolutionary soldier was.

-This was the 18th century.
-Their wasn't a big difference in civilian vs military weaponry back then,
-The enemy government was an ocean away, the soldiers in the US were at home with popular support.
-The British government existence wasn't at stake. The loss of the colonies was very minor in fact.
-The French were helping us out.

A battle with our own government would be a very different thing indeed.

I would put one seasoned hunter against a company of regular trained soldiers any day.

And on that day you will see your little hunter eat led and concrete.

Again, firearms are prohibited for "ordinary" citizens in these countries.

Yes but when the rebels get acess to them, like in South America where in some places I think it legal, they still do next to nil.

Not easy to fight against an armed goverment when you are not. Perfect examples of succesfull gun control and gun bans are evident in your observation of those dictatoral countries.

As they are in the UK,Japan, Germany, and France as well.....with no dictatorhsips present.

I suspect your assumption that most Americans will not fight for their beliefs, and against tyrany are indicative of your own guttless attitude about freedom.

Yes, I give most americans either too much brains or too little in terms of conviction for this. Most would not even fight Britain during the revolutionary war. What makes you think they'd fight their own government?

You underestimate your fellow Americans my friend.

No, I'm realistic about their willingness and capaibilities. Your head is too full of hollywood rebelions and visions of glory my friend.

Many are well armed, and well "trained". It is every Americans responsibility, and duty to be.

Perhaps a right but not a duty and certainly not many. Nobody I know in fact.

If anything your the one that underestimates my friend, you underestimate the effectiveness of the US army and government. You underestimate the reuthlessness and strength of an authoritarian regime.

Perhaps you should realize any armed resistence against a modern day government fails. As was the case in Nazi Germany:

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/resist.htm

All they managed to do, with aid of Stalin, was disrupt powerlines and such. And the Nazi army is nowhere near as strong as the modern US army. The resistence fighters couldn't even feed themselves much of the time.

In fact if you read 1984 you would notice a major theme is how impossible it is to fight totalitrarian or opressive governments from the inside is.

Also let us keep in mind that violent revolutions, usually just end up establishing a more opressive system then the one that was overthrown.

shanek

2nd March 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
$500 to get a handgun registered? How did we come to this? I have several handguns, and I have yet to pay that much for one. But New York has the unmitigated nerve to make the system so complex and expensive that people will willingly pay expediters $500 to register a gun? This is criminal!

Not only that, but he paid the $500 and the gun didn't even end up being registered!!!

Andalyn

2nd March 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by LukeT

Are you against having to register the tank and minigun?

Sorry, I guess my post was unclear. My fault.

I am against general registration. Although I agree that Class 3 weapons (minigun, tank, full auto weapons etc.) registration is a slippery slope - I don't necessarily have a problem with registering them. You can still own them, but they must be registered. There are few Class 3 weapons owned by the public anyway.

Weapons that are generally regarded as defense weapons (pistols, semi auto rifles) are not Class 3 and I am not in favor of registering. Non Class 3 weapons would encompass the majority of weapons owned by the public.

So no, I am not against registering the tank and minigun. I am sure the person I speak of has them registered, as he is well known around here for his "toys", and has the money to do so.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 05:30 PM

Weapons that are generally regarded as defense weapons (pistols, semi auto rifles) are not Class 3 and I am not in favor of registering

That's good. So when a cocain addict breaks out of prison he can easily get his gun for "self-defense" without having to register it....

Likewise I wonder why it is, if guns are such a strong deterent, countries with tighter gun laws have less rates of violence crime. Like Japan, much of Europe, Britain, even China.

Richard G

2nd March 2003, 05:50 PM

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

The weapon in question in this case was a sawed off shotgun, which the court deemed illegal because it had no usefull military purpose for a militia on a field of battle. Ironicly today, weapons that are of great military value, such as auto firing rifles and machineguns have been outlawed, BEACAUSE THEY ARE EFFECTIVE MILITARY WEAPONS!.

You see the state of hypocracy we are living in today? I would call it stupidity, and slow, incrimenatl gun control.

That's good. So when a cocain addict breaks out of prison he can easily get his gun for "self-defense" without having to register it....

Silly statement. It is illegal for a convicted criminal to poses, let alone register a firearm.

The level of crime at any one time, in any given country or state is not a pre-requisite for firearm ownership (a right). Everyone is entitled, and has a right to self defense, even if that right is never excercised because of a low crime rate.

Our rights exist because we are free, not because of the fluctuating crime rate.

DialecticMaterialist

2nd March 2003, 06:00 PM

Ah, so to make a weapon effective for military use, it would have to be as strong as lets say a machine gun. (So much for the armed militia vs army idea).

However for some odd reason, I'd rather not see a machine available to psychopaths. red necks and gangsters. Call me odd but the thought of seeing Scarface or Jethro with a minigun sounds a tad disturbing.

J3K

2nd March 2003, 06:14 PM

I only read up until the end of the first page, and I am responding becaue I think LukeT made a good point. And up until then, I was against this man being charged, but no I agree with it. He was breaking the law before the burgler, so he should be charged because of that. But with the fact that he was in the act of regeristering the gun, I don't believe he should be charged, and if he is charged, it should be lenyent(spelling?)

Richard G

2nd March 2003, 06:30 PM

You care to define "red neck"? Equal protection under the law applies to us all. I would like to know what class of people in society you group into the "red neck" class, and how we should brand them for easy identification to all who wish to deny them their rights.

Your bordering on bigotry.

shanek

2nd March 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That's good. So when a cocain addict breaks out of prison he can easily get his gun for "self-defense" without having to register it....

And gun control will stop it, how? A criminal who has busted out of jail and is now a fugitive isn't going to think, "Oh, gosh golly gee willikers, I'd better not get a gun 'cause that'd be against the law..."

However, without gun control, he might think twice about mugging or raping those ladies in case they or someone nearby has a gun.

Likewise I wonder why it is, if guns are such a strong deterent, countries with tighter gun laws have less rates of violence crime. Like Japan, much of Europe, Britain, even China.

Uh, Switzerland? Doncha just love how these gun control types select their data? Not to mention the oft-repeated (but ignored by the same gun control types) point that cross-cultural comparisons are all but worthless.

Andalyn

3rd March 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

That's good. So when a cocain addict breaks out of prison he can easily get his gun for "self-defense" without having to register it....

Sorry, I don't usually get nasty on the forum, but that is probably one of the most moronic statements I've seen in quite a while.

Why would a cocaine addict, who just broke out of jail register a firearm, for any reason? Think about that for a while. Maybe you'll understand.

Richard G

3rd March 2003, 09:52 AM

I wasn't going to address this, but let me show you some of my friends down in Kentucky....

http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main/BigGunDay2.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main/DayFlameThrowing.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main/DynamiteExplosion.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main/G3withFlameOk.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main2/nightcannon.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main2/LineUpFlame.jpg
http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/main2/VulcanGun.jpg
Those are all Americans, and we have a shoot out twice a year. Come on down if your not too "uncomfortable".

Those are the teeth of liberty. You think the terrosts will want to wade into that rainbow orgy of brass? Knobcreek is safer than the Presidents jockstrap while we're there.

Victor Danilchenko

3rd March 2003, 01:01 PM

DialecticMaterialist

Okay, odds still against you superman. I mean come on, is he Wyatt Erp or something? Why would he need to be, given that he is faced with non-Wyatt-Earp-like opponents? Or are you deliberately contriving stupid objections?

Yes knowing the "terrain" of his house would be sooo advantageous. He could for example duck behind a couch... and leap over chairs.Not at all. The suburbanite sits in his bedroom, aware of the intruder. He hears a creak, and knows that the intruder is in the middle of the staircase to the second floot. the master bedroom door is at the top of the staircase, on the side, with the hinges on the side away from the strairs, opening inwards -- so the suburbanite eases the door open a little. The intruder cannot see this unfortunate (for them) layout, but the suburbanite now has full view of the landing on top of the stairs, without being exposed -- the bedroom is dark, but the landing is faintly lit by the lights coming in through the window. The moment the intruder steps onto the top stair, the suburbanite will be able to see him and shoot him, without the intruder even being aware of the "ambush".

What I described above the layout of my house. I don't own a gun, but had i had one, I would most certainly be able to use my knowledge of the layout to spring an effective ambush. Hell yes, I would have a good chance against the intruder.

Not like the crook has to just point and shoot someone who is trying to pull off fancy moves and its not like the layout of a house is hard to learn, with like, a glance.You see what happens when you don't think? You start sounding like a parody of the archetypical whiny gun-grabber.

Sure he would. Armed fat men beat down gansters all the time.they wouldn't have to beat them down -- shooting first from concealment is much better.

Not really. The criminals will simply come more prepared and armed themselves. Or they may see your firearms as an oppurtunity to get more of their own.they can't afford the risk, you idiot. A criminal can't take even a 10% chance of death with each piddling residential robbery, as they have to pull off a whole lot of such piddling residential robbering to make ends meet.

Yeah and well, a lot fewer civilians in general too. The fact is some burglars are willing to do this and if they know most houses are armed, they will merely come armed themselves.or will not come at all; and if they still do, they will be at a disadvantage due to the creaking stairs and the ignorance of the floor plan...

Turning each robbery into a hostage situation very fast.Do the *********** math, will you, idiot?

Is it really worth risking yours and your families life in order to save a few possesions? Is that your solution to crime....vigilantiaism?responsibility is my solution to crime. Police is fine, but courts have repeatedly ruled that they are not responsible for defending individuals. If each individual took responsibility for defending themselves, there would be a whole lot less crime around. As it is, you are advocating taking the game-theoretic "free-rider" position; not only cowardly and irresponsible, but also immoral.

Where enemy soldiers can hide too...but guess who knows the lay of the land better?

I come from a country with a history of highly successfulk guerilla warfare -- USSR "partisany" inflicted a whole lotta damage on nazis during WWII; and that was with general population unarmed. Finns, with general population armed, kicked USSR's ass in 1938. Yeah, the guerillas can be damn effective against a regimented army...

This isn't Rambo my friend. In realy life all a rebelion would do is cause needless deaths and suffering.How about the needless deaths and suffering which the rebellion was started to avert? or should Russians in 1941, or Finns in 1938, just rolled over under onslaught from a better-armed and better-trained opponent?

You disgust me, you *********** coward.

I really doubt this. Seriously, everytime I hear of this I hear the opposite. Your reasoning stinks of "one southerner can whip twenty yankees" type thinking.not only coward, but a moron as well...

I am a Green liberal, foreigner, and I live in an ultra-liberal area of new England; I am not pro-gun -- i am pro-freedom, and I know what I am talking about, because I came from a country where freedoms were few and far between. The paintball match I mentioned took place a couple of years ago, and I personally know some people who participated in it.

Besides a paintball game does not reflect real warfare.No; but it does prove the falsehood of your contention that the civilians are like sheep before the guns of trained soldiers.

Ah yes mr.genius, most are regular units but you don't think if push came to shove or to make an example they'd hold back from sending in elite units?Ah yes, mr.moron, do you know why they are called 'elite"? Not just because they are better, but also because they are few. There's not enough of such units to throw them into your run-of-the-mill combat.

-there is the matter of supplies.
-communications
-morale
-spy networks
-organization
-superior equipment

To name but a few.Half of there are inapplicable to guerilla warfare, and most of the rest can be easily solved with modern consumer-grade technology.

Enough of this idiocy. it's obvious that you are more interested in making excuses that in reasoning out the actual factors involved.

Tmy

3rd March 2003, 01:12 PM

I feel the 2nd amendment is a freedom. I dont own a gun but I still believe in freedom. I also don't own a newspaper but still believe in the freedom of press. why woudl you wantto lose a freedom?

Is the self protection argument so foriegn to some people? The police cant be everywhere, and if you've lived out in the sticks there's the concearn over wildlife and such.

Gun's are worth keeping around just for the peace of mind it creates.

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 07:11 AM

And gun control will stop it, how? A criminal who has busted out of jail and is now a fugitive isn't going to think, "Oh, gosh golly gee willikers, I'd better not get a gun 'cause that'd be against the law..."

Well its not like they could walk into a walmart and get one...

However, without gun control, he might think twice about mugging or raping those ladies in case they or someone nearby has a gun.

Sure cause you know gramma's packing heat....and the lil lady is oh so effective at using a gun....

Uh, Switzerland? Doncha just love how these gun control types select their data?

Ah yes one very small country. Got me there. :rolleyes:

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 07:12 AM

Those are the teeth of liberty. You think the terrosts will want to wade into that rainbow orgy of brass?

Hmm, would a terrorist want to walk into a gun show where high powered weapons are readily available? Naw....

shanek

4th March 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well its not like they could walk into a walmart and get one...

Let me ask you this: Do you think he'd have any problems getting drugs? I mean, it's not like he could walk to WalMart and buy them...

Criminals aren't deterred by legalities.

Sure cause you know gramma's packing heat....and the lil lady is oh so effective at using a gun....

Uh-huh. Your only response is sarcasm. But it happens, no matter how much people like you want their heads stuck in the sand. Many women carry for their own protection, and it works.

Ah yes one very small country. Got me there. :rolleyes:

Which is armed even more than the US with a mcuh lower crime rate of anywhere in Europe. I only needed one to refute your insanity.

scotth

4th March 2003, 07:43 AM

DialecticMaterialist,

There are alot of pretty reasonable anti-gun arguements out there, but you seem to be missing all of them.

Did you lose your playbook or something?

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 07:48 AM

Why would he need to be, given that he is faced with non-Wyatt-Earp-like opponents? Or are you deliberately contriving stupid objections?

They may not be Wyatt Erps but I imagine professional and reckless criminals who have the advantage of surprise are still a coupple steps ahead of our hero.

Not at all. The suburbanite sits in his bedroom, aware of the intruder. He hears a creak, and knows that the intruder is in the middle of the staircase to the second floot.
the master bedroom door is at the top of the staircase, on the side, with the hinges on the side away from the strairs, opening inwards -- so the suburbanite eases the door open a little. The intruder cannot see this unfortunate (for them) layout, but the suburbanite now has full view of the landing on top of the stairs, without being exposed -- the bedroom is dark, but the landing is faintly lit by the lights coming in through the window. The moment the intruder steps onto the top stair, the suburbanite will be able to see him and shoot him, without the intruder even being aware of the "ambush".

Oh yes very plausible, And I presume nothing could go wrong there....

What I described above the layout of my house. I don't own a gun, but had i had one, I would most certainly be able to use my knowledge of the layout to spring an effective ambush. Hell yes, I would have a good chance against the intruder.

In your imagination pal. Seriously your ego is inflated and your sense of mortatility deficient.

You see what happens when you don't think? You start sounding like a parody of the archetypical whiny gun-grabber.

Ah yes and my parody is so much less realistic and logical then your idea of civilians facing off against professional armies and armed intruders....

quote:Sure he would. Armed fat men beat down gansters all the time.they wouldn't have to beat them down -- shooting first from concealment is much better.

they can't afford the risk, you idiot.

How do you know? Do you doubt there are depserate criminals or some too dumb to care about the risks?

And can the typical man afford the risk? Is it really worth risking your's and your families life to save some household products?

A criminal can't take even a 10% chance of death with each piddling residential robbery, as they have to pull off a whole lot of such piddling residential robbering to make ends meet.

Well then they plan it out better. Problem solved. Also it depends on each house they hit and what they take. Also a lot of times they go after houses for guns, that to me seems like owning a gun would increase your chance of getting robbed, not decrease.

or will not come at all; and if they still do, they will be at a disadvantage due to the creaking stairs and the ignorance of the floor plan...

Yeah in how many cases? And what makes you think they wouldn't hear the creaking themselves?

Also some criminals, believe or not, are desperate and/or reckless. They will come whether they risk their life or not, in fact they do.

Do the *********** math, will you, idiot?

Ah nice objection. I can tell how this issue for you is driven by objective,logical analysis and not blind passion....

responsibility is my solution to crime.

i.e. vigilantaism.

Police is fine, but courts have repeatedly ruled that they are not responsible for defending individuals.

That's bull.

If each individual took responsibility for defending themselves, there would be a whole lot less crime around.

Unwarranted speculation which does not explain why there was such a lack of crime in the wild west. Or why there is so much crime in China, England,Japan,France and Germany.

I mean according to you the criminals should be stealing guns and hitting a dozen houses a day since they can "afford the risk" I wonder why they ain't.

As it is, you are advocating taking the game-theoretic "free-rider" position; not only cowardly and irresponsible, but also immoral.

Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: right-wing extremism. If I am not willing to pick up a gun a join you, I am an immoral. free-riding,coward who is against you.

but guess who knows the lay of the land better?

I'd say the soldiers. Most civilians do not study the local geography. Armies have spies, intel agencies and spy sattelites.

I come from a country with a history of highly successfulk guerilla warfare -- USSR "partisany" inflicted a whole lotta damage on nazis during WWII; and that was with general population unarmed. Finns, with general population armed, kicked USSR's ass in 1938. Yeah, the guerillas can be damn effective against a regimented army...

Yes but again for every success there are dozens of failures.Your statement is also misleading and I will get to it in a bit.

Most of what I read about history state that guerillas did little to nothing against the Nazis.

How about the needless deaths and suffering which the rebellion was started to avert ?

Would it avert it? I doubt that.

or should Russians in 1941, or Finns in 1938, just rolled over under onslaught from a better-armed and better-trained opponent?

The Russians had a government backing them against the Nazis, as well as US aid.

As for your statement concerning Finland, it was hardly some isolated guerillas fighting of the Soviet Army but an actual war. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/f/finnishr1.asp

Note that Finland had assistance in terms of supplies from France and Germany, and volunteers from Swededn and Norway and Finland still lost.

To quote the article: Finally, however, small Finland was no match for the USSR. Air bombardments and well-prepared frontal attacks (Feb., 1940) on the Karelian Isthmus brought Finnish resistance to the verge of collapse. In the peace treaty signed on Mar. 12, Finland ceded part of the Karelian Isthmus, Vyborg (Viipuri), and several border territories to the USSR.

Bold text is added.

You disgust me, you *********** coward.

Behold the rationality and moral decency of the pro-gun lobby!

not only coward, but a moron as well...

Ah so since this debate started I am a "***********" coward, immoral,moron,idiot, and "free-rider".

I am a Green liberal, foreigner, and I live in an ultra-liberal area of new England; I am not pro-gun -- i am pro-freedom ,

SO anyone against gun control is then anti-freedom? Your stance stinks of extremism.

and I know what I am talking about, because I came from a country where freedoms were few and far between.

So did Ayn Rand....

The paintball match I mentioned took place a couple of years ago, and I personally know some people who participated in it.

Still an anecdote.

No; but it does prove the falsehood of your contention that the civilians are like sheep before the guns of trained soldiers.

How so if it doesn't reflect real war conditions?

Ah yes, mr.moron, do you know why they are called 'elite"? Not just because they are better, but also because they are few. There's not enough of such units to throw them into your run-of-the-mill combat.

Enough I imagine to take out your run-of-the-mill militia I imagine.

Also you know another reason why they are called elite? Because they are damn good. You don't need as much of them to take out a large group of people as you would other troops.

These "elite" make mince meat out of ordinary troops, what do you think will happen to civilians in the face of such men?

Half of there are inapplicable to guerilla warfare,

Actually guerillas need to worry about high-tech weaponry,supplies,spying,etc. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

and most of the rest can be easily solved with modern consumer-grade technology.

Yes, which is why Afghanistan and Iraq fair so well against the US army....

Enough of this idiocy. it's obvious that you are more interested in making excuses that in reasoning out the actual factors involved.

Why? Have I been using the extremist language and incorrect accounts of history? No...that was you.

Your obviously too involved in your right-wing realities to see objectively on the issue but unlike you I am willing to continue the debate of course in a half-way civil manner. That's what being open minded and critical is all about.

4th March 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Finns, with general population armed, kicked USSR's ass in 1938. Yeah, the guerillas can be damn effective against a regimented army...
I think that I've once promised to stay away of all gun control threads but since military history in general and Finnish military history in particular is one of my hobbies, I think I should give some more information on this point.

First, Finns had two wars against Soviet Union during WWII, first 1939-40 and second 1941-44. Your comments fit better in the context of Winter War (the earlier one).

It is rather misleading to state that it was a guerilla war. Almost all Finns who participated in it were part of regular military forces, and most major battles (Summa, Taipale, Muolaa, Kollaa, Viipuri Bay, Tammisuo, etc.) were WWI-syle Soviet frontal attacks against prepared defences. The most famous (and succesful) guerilla actions (Suomussalmi and Raate road) were against Soviet divisions who had been tied to a single road and whose advance had been stopped by relatively small defending forces. Then, small (platoon or two at first) units started to raid Soviet flanks. These attacks culminated in encirclements where roughly batallion-sized forces cut the roads behind the main bulk of Soviet divisions and dug in. At Suomussalmi the 169th Infantry Division managed to save its manpower by retreating over a frozen lake (they lost all heavy equipment, though) but the 44th Mechanized Division was almost completely destroyed along Raate road. [The commander of 44th Division was sentenced to death by a military tribunal headed by Lev Mehlis. According to a persistent legend the official reason was that "he lost 38 field kitchens to the enemy."]

The pre-war Finnish society had definitely much more weapons than we currently have. Most people lived in rural areas and hunting was a common hobby. I don't remember seeing any hard data on the number of privately owned weapons, though, so I can't say whether we can say that Finland had generally armed population or not.

However, I believe that a more important fact was the existence of the Suojeluskunta ("Protection Guard") that was a patriotic organization that gave voluntary military training for roughly 65000 men before the war.
Suojeluskunta members formed a well-trained and well-motivated core of most infantry companies.

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 07:52 AM

Let me ask you this: Do you think he'd have any problems getting drugs? I mean, it's not like he could walk to WalMart and buy them...

Ah yes but guns are so much harder to grow in your back yard....

Criminals aren't deterred by legalities.

But they are by availability, which is determined by legalities.

Uh-huh. Your only response is sarcasm. But it happens, no matter how much people like you want their heads stuck in the sand. Many women carry for their own protection, and it works.

I really doubt this.

So do you have statsistics showing there is more rape in britain and japan then in the US?

Which is armed even more than the US with a mcuh lower crime rate of anywhere in Europe. I only needed one to refute your insanity

They are also much smaller and I imagine have less economic problems.

scotth

4th March 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Ah yes but guns are so much harder to grow in your back yard....

But they are by availability, which is determined by legalities.

They are also much smaller and I imagine have less economic problems.

I guess meth, heroin, x, and cocaine grow in your backyard then?

Do you think that most criminals purchase firearms legally?

We are supposed to be the richest nation in the world. Wouldn't anywhere else have more economic problems by definition?

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 08:04 AM

I guess meth, heroin, x, and cocaine grow in your backyard then?

Can be smuggled in far easier from south america then guns I imagine. As there is more demand and profit in it.

Do you think that most criminals purchase firearms legally?

Probably not.

We are supposed to be the richest nation in the world. Wouldn't anywhere else have more economic problems by definition?

Actually no. We are also bigger then other countries (which explains a lot) and money is not spread out evenly but on a hiearchal and regional basis. Also we have a denser population.

scotth

4th March 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Can be smuggled in far easier from south america then guns I imagine. As there is more demand and profit in it.

Actually no. We are also bigger then other countries (which explains a lot) and money is not spread out evenly but on a hiearchal and regional basis. Also we have a denser population.

There is plenty of demand and profit in illegal weapons. That is why there is a weapons black market.

The percentage of people living in poverty in the US is close to if not the lowest in the world. We most certainly do no have a denser population than average.

poverty cite - Couldn't find a source that even had the U.S. on the list when looking at the percentage of population living in poverty.

population density cite - http://www.mrdowling.com/800density.html

shanek

4th March 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Oh yes very plausible, And I presume nothing could go wrong there....

It usually doesn't. Look at the statistics. Once every 13 seconds, it goes right. Two and a half million times a year.

Ah yes and my parody is so much less realistic and logical then your idea of civilians facing off against professional armies and armed intruders....

Yes, it is. Read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

And can the typical man afford the risk? Is it really worth risking your's and your families life to save some household products?

We're talking about saving your and your family's life from a violent criminal whose intentions are unknown.

"Household products"...That has to be the most moronic thing I've heard a gun control proponent say!

Also a lot of times they go after houses for guns,

That assertion is not borne out by the evidence.

i.e. vigilantaism.

Self-defense is viginaltism?

That's bull.

What a sound and cogent rebuttal. You are a credit to skeptics everywhere. :rolleyes:

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kasler-protection.html
http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html
http://www.surviveall.net/police_have_no_duty_to_protect_i.htm

Case after case after case. Now stick your fingers in your ears and sing really loudly so you don't have to hear anything else that contradicts your precious delusions.

Unwarranted speculation which does not explain why there was such a lack of crime in the wild west.

There was an almost complete lack of crime in the so-called "Wild West." Usually when there was a problem, it was due to police and marshals trying to impose gun control, which is exactly what happened at the OK Corral.

Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: right-wing extremism.

Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: name-calling. And what's pathetic is that you apparently have no idea how clueless this makes you look.

Yes but again for every success there are dozens of failures.

Provide evidence for this.

That's what being open minded and critical is all about.

You have shown no indication whatsoever that you are being in any was open-minded anbd critical. All you have are assertions, and your only rebuttals are steadfast denial and name-calling.

shanek

4th March 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ah yes but guns are so much harder to grow in your back yard....

Crack grows in your backyard? Meth grows in your backyard? X grows in your backyard? :rolleyes:

But they are by availability, which is determined by legalities.

Then explain why cocaine, heroin, etc. are so much more available now, especially in large quantities, since they were made illegal.

So do you have statsistics showing there is more rape in britain and japan then in the US?

I do not claim that there is more rape in the UK and Japan. That's your own blathering. Cross-cultural comparisons are all but worthless. The UK has never had high amounts of crime, even when weapons were readily available.

They are also much smaller and I imagine have less economic problems.

So, I guess then, that the UK and Japan, being much, much smaller than the US, would see the same effect (and the same lower crime rate) as a result?

Man, I've seen gun control advocates put nails in their own coffin before, but you put yours in the ground and performed the service!

shanek

4th March 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Can be smuggled in far easier from south america then guns I imagine. As there is more demand and profit in it.

You don't think there would be more demand and profit in a black market of guns if they were banned?

For crying out loud, we have a black market in toilets in this country!

Probably not.

So how would they be stopped by gun legislation?

Actually no. We are also bigger then other countries (which explains a lot) and money is not spread out evenly but on a hiearchal and regional basis. Also we have a denser population.

Now, wait a minute—above you said that Switzerland had a lower crime rate than the rest of Europe because it was smaller (thereby explaining away the fact that they're armed to the teeth); now you're saying we should have a lower crime rate (presumably if not for the guns) because we're bigger??? You can't have it both ways.

scotth

4th March 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by shanek

There was an almost complete lack of crime in the so-called "Wild West." Usually when there was a problem, it was due to police and marshals trying to impose gun control, which is exactly what happened at the OK Corral.

Even though I agree with your conclusions, I would like to see some information backing all of this.

shanek

4th March 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by scotth

Even though I agree with your conclusions, I would like to see some information backing all of this.

Here's a good paper on the general concept:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Victor Danilchenko

4th March 2003, 10:34 AM

shanek ,

You did a fine job of rebutting DialecticMaterialist's BS. This one piece amused me greatly, though:

DialecticMaterialist (writing to me): Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: right-wing extremism.

Shanek: [...] what's pathetic is that you apparently have no idea how clueless this makes you look.That was funny. Accusing me of right-wing extremism, of all things, has got to be the funniest and stupidest thing I have seen around here has done in a while... I may have many faults, but being a right-wing extremist is not one of them.

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 01:58 PM

There is plenty of demand and profit in illegal weapons. That is why there is a weapons black market.

Yes but are they doing well in England and France as drug pushers? I doubt it.

The percentage of people living in poverty in the US is close to if not the lowest in the world. We most certainly do no have a denser population than average.

Even in LA and New York where crime is highest?

poverty cite - Couldn't find a source that even had the U.S. on the list when looking at the percentage of population living in poverty.

Did I say highest in the world or just high compared to switzerland?

and If you couldn't find any stats-you obviously didn't look too hard.

I found three rather quickly-

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...2/cb02-124.html

Shows US poverty rates:

http://www.childpolicyintl.org/sipoverty/table323.pdf

Comprative study that places US poverty line as higher then other industrailized nations.

CIA fact book says US citizens in poverty is 12.7 percent.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

In switzerland its so low its listed as N/A:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sz.html

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 04:29 PM

Re: Post

It usually doesn't. Look at the statistics. Once every 13 seconds, it goes right. Two and a half million times a year.

A link please?

Yes, it is. Read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

Proof surrogate from a biased source I imagine.

We're talking about saving your and your family's life from a violent criminal whose intentions are unknown.

http://160.133.207.103/atzp/dle/gen...onal_safety.htm

To quote the article:

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that with a gun in your home you are eight times more likely to be killed or lose a family member due to gun accidents, domestic situations and suicide.

The article makes a good point about what happens when the police come and you are waiting to shoot a criminal with your gun....

The Colorado Association for Robbery Investigations says:

Try to stay calm. Don't make any sudden movements to upset the robber.

Do exactly as you are told. DO NOT RESIST!

Activate your alarm ONLY if you can do so secretly.

Tell the robber about anything that might surprise him, such as someone who is expected to arrive soon.

If you have to move or reach, tell the robber what you are going to do and why.

Try to get a good look at the robber so you can describe him later.

Don't be a hero. It's better to lose your money than your life.

Give the robber time to leave.
Note his direction of travel when he leaves.

Try to get a description of his vehicle ONLY if you can do so without exposing yourself to harm.
-

On tips on how to survive the robbery. Note: do not resist. http://www.co-asn-rob.org/CrimeInfo...Tips/during.htm

Another police site concurs: http://www.peelpolice.on.ca/prevention/robbery.htm

adding: Robbers are desperate people. Drugs and alcohol are often factors in robberies. Desperation, intoxication and weapons make a volatile combination

i.e. your little "they can't afford the risk" scenerio does not apply.

Another site concurs:http://www.mcpa.on.ca/resources/000075.htm

Adding:

Do not resist. Do not argue. Do not fight. Do not use anything as a weapon. Do not follow a robber out of the store. You will be safe after he is gone.

Studies by the New England Journal of Medicine, also show that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of homocide by 2.7 percent.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

From the article:

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

That assertion is not borne out by the evidence.

BJS study says: BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually
involved firearm thefts.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

Self-defense is viginaltism?

To an extent yes, and I don't think its the proper solution to crime.

What a sound and cogent rebuttal. You are a credit to skeptics everywhere.

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firear...protection.html
http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html
http://www.surviveall.net/police_ha...o_protect_i.htm

Case after case after case. Now stick your fingers in your ears and sing really loudly so you don't have to hear anything else that contradicts your precious delusions.

Basically you have some editorials in which a guy says a police man's job isn't to protect citizens....

The Police strangely enough disagree:

Values
The principles upon which we base our policing are:

Human Life - The protection of human life is our highest priority.

Ethics - We will demonstrate integrity and honor in all our actions.

Crime Fighting - Our efforts to address neighborhood problems will be based on a Partnership with the community.

Valuing People - We will treat each other with dignity and respect, protecting the rights and well-being of all individuals.

http://www.sannet.gov/police/about/mission.shtml

There was an almost complete lack of crime in the so-called "Wild West." Usually when there was a problem, it was due to police and marshals trying to impose gun control, which is exactly what happened at the OK Corral.

Oh yes the paper titled(I kid you not) "The American Expiriment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The not so Wild,Wild West." From the "Journal of Libertarian Studies".

Do I even have to comment on this?

Ah yes the true nature of your arguments: name-calling. And what's pathetic is that you apparently have no idea how clueless this makes you look.

Well seeing as I was called moron,idiot,coward and immoral I hardly think the pro-gun lobby has room to talk on this issue....

You have shown no indication whatsoever that you are being in any was open-minded anbd critical. All you have are assertions, and your only rebuttals are steadfast denial and name-calling.

Gee that's so different then the pro-gun advocates who have called me everything from a "*********** coward" to a "free-rider".

I would like to lastly point out that while gun laws have gotten tighter, crime has actually gone down in the US:

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

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/s219/s219a.html

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 04:37 PM

Now, wait a minute—above you said that Switzerland had a lower crime rate than the rest of Europe because it was smaller (thereby explaining away the fact that they're armed to the teeth); now you're saying we should have a lower crime rate (presumably if not for the guns) because we're bigger??? You can't have it both ways.

And you have no clue as to what you are talking about. I was saying that the US is of course going to have more money overall then smaller nations like Britain,France and Japan. That comes by sheer size. Thus the US may be the overall wealthiest country on earth, with its people each having less wealth on average then a person in lets say, switzerland.

I in no way ever said we have a lower crime rate because we are bigger. I do believe however that higher population densities do produce more crime though and I imagine the US has a higher density then Switzerland.

The US does not have a lower crime rate then Europe, I never said it did. Seriously you should actually pay attention to what I write before commenting on it.

shanek

4th March 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes but are they doing well in England and France as drug pushers? I doubt it.

Again: different culture, so invalid comparison. (And yes, there is a black market for guns in those countries, but any subjective claim of whether or not they're "doing well" is immaterial.)

Even in LA and New York where crime is highest?

You mean LA and NY, which have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country?

shanek

4th March 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
A link please?

How about a book? Or is that too much trouble for you?

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology at FSU. The figure is from the National Firearms Defensive Use Survey, Spring, 1993.

Proof surrogate from a biased source I imagine.

Y'know, real skeptics actually check the source to see instead of making baldfaced assertions about it. But FYI, when Lott started the study, he was in favor of gun control. OOPS!!!

The article makes a good point about what happens when the police come and you are waiting to shoot a criminal with your gun....

The Colorado Association for Robbery Investigations says:

This is the thoroughly debunked Kellerman "data" again.

Just one link in a Google search of the many sites that point out how bad Kellerman's numbers are:

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm

Do exactly as you are told. DO NOT RESIST!

More people are injured doing this than confronting the burglar with a gun.

Studies by the New England Journal of Medicine, also show that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of homocide by 2.7 percent.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

Geez...it's like a creationist pulling out Paluxy River...This is more bogus Kellerman data.

To an extent yes, and I don't think its the proper solution to crime.

Self-defense is no solution??? You, sir, are an IDIOT!!!!! :mad:

Basically you have some editorials in which a guy says a police man's job isn't to protect citizens....

YOU FSCKING LIAR!!!! THEY CITED COURT CASES!!!!!! The "Sharon P." case; Riss v. City of New York; Janice Lancaster...did you actually bother to read it? Or is that too much for your pathetic little brain to let in information that just may possibly diagree with your delusions???

You make me SICK!!!

The Police strangely enough disagree:

Then explain why police pretty much everywhere are in favor of concealed carry.

http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/most_police_personnel_favor_gun_.htm

A 1992 poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police demonstrated overwhelming support for private firearms ownership. They resoundingly rejected gun control as effective crime control. A more recent survey of San Diego's rank-and-file officers emphatically mirrored these results, as did an even more comprehensive study in Pennsylvania.

Do I even have to comment on this?

Why? You haven't commented on anything else, except to call it names. But people like you can't argue the data, because you'll lose, so you insult the sources.

I would like to lastly point out that while gun laws have gotten tighter,

More BS. Firearm ownership has risen in the US over the last several years.

shanek

4th March 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The US does not have a lower crime rate then Europe, I never said it did. Seriously you should actually pay attention to what I write before commenting on it.

Why don't YOU pay attention to what I wrote??? You've blatantly misrepresented me here, possibly because you know you're caught. I didn't say you claimed that, but showed that your logic with Switzerland would conclude that about the US!!! But no, you misrepresent my views and claim that it was me who wasn't paying attention. Sheesh... :rolleyes:

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 06:01 PM

You mean LA and NY, which have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country?

Maybe they do so for a reason?

shanek

4th March 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Maybe they do so for a reason?

Backpedal again, DM. And ignore every other single point I made while you're at it.

You're just a woo-woo. You assert one thing, until it's refuted, then you assert the exact opposite to cover for it.

Pyrrho

4th March 2003, 08:25 PM

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2017427/detail.html

Police said that two men committed an armed robbery at about 8:30 a.m. at the Food Liner, located at 1950 E. 5th Ave. As the suspects ran from the North Side convenience store, the clerk grabbed a gun that he stores and opened fire on the pair.

Yes, folks, armed robbery is a dangerous profession.

shanek

4th March 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2017427/detail.html

Yes, folks, armed robbery is a dangerous profession.

Of course:

There is no word on whether any charges would be filed against Jalaq.

In a free society, this shouldn't even be a question.

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 09:36 PM

Backpedal again, DM. And ignore every other single point I made while you're at it.

Did it ever occur to you that I may simply not have gotten around to it?

Looks like you are jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

You're just a woo-woo.

Well shoot, a woo-woo? Haven't been called that since the third grade....

You assert one thing, until it's refuted, then you assert the exact opposite to cover for it.

Evidence?

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 11:00 PM

How about a book? Or is that too much trouble for you?

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology at FSU. The figure is from the National Firearms Defensive Use Survey, Spring, 1993.

Well I could go out, buy a book, spend a couple days reading through finding your proof for you or you could stop using proof surrogates and give me a link....

Y'know, real skeptics actually check the source to see instead of making baldfaced assertions about it. But FYI, when Lott started the study, he was in favor of gun control. OOPS!!!

Yes just like certain creationists claim they adhered to evolution....just like cetain spiritualists claimed they were "skeptical at first".

Not like this would be the first pro-gun lobyist that slanted the data.

This is the thoroughly debunked Kellerman "data" again.

Just one link in a Google search of the many sites that point out how bad Kellermann's numbers are:

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm

Hardly what I would call a thorough debunking. The man does not really refute anything but commit perfectionist either/or fallacies. I.e. Kellermann's data cannot show gun avaliability to increase suicide rates because there are other plausible causes. This ignores the fact that Kellermann is not saying that gun availability is the only cause and the pro-gun lobbyist is thus saying: either guns are the sole cause or no cause at all. Lastly pointing to other cultures with higher suicide rates also avoids the issue, as culture can play a part too.

Besides, the article was irrelevant to the issue anyways. The issue was on the statements made by the Colorado Association for Robbery Investigations about what to do if a robber comes in, an article about Kellerman doesn't even apply.

And I hope you are not applying it to the article I presented By Kellermann, because it wasn't saying there is an increase in suicides in a home with guns, but an increase in homocide. Thus either way your response is a non seq.

More people are injured doing this than confronting the burglar with a gun.

So I guess the police department is lying about it....

Geez...it's like a creationist pulling out Paluxy River...This is more bogus Kellerman data.

Yes that you've fail to show as bogus. (what was that someone said about dismissing sources beforehand?). Published in a prestidgious Medical Journal....was Paluxy published in a prestigious biological or scientific journal?

Self-defense is no solution??? You, sir, are an IDIOT!!!!!

LOL. Calm down tiger.

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

YOU FSCKING LIAR!!!! THEY CITED COURT CASES!!!!!! The "Sharon P." case; Riss v. City of New York; Janice Lancaster...did you actually bother to read it? Or is that too much for your pathetic little brain to let in information that just may possibly diagree with your delusions???

ROFL. Well there goes radicalism....

You make me SICK!!!

Well hopefully that doesn't get me shot. ;)

Then explain why police pretty much everywhere are in favor of concealed carry.

http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/most..._favor_gun_.htm
A 1992 poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police demonstrated overwhelming support for private firearms ownership. They resoundingly rejected gun control as effective crime control. A more recent survey of San Diego's rank-and-file officers emphatically mirrored these results, as did an even more comprehensive study in Pennsylvania.

So Dr.Kellermann is not reliable but "guntruths.com" is?

Why? You haven't commented on anything else, except to call it names. But people like you can't argue the data, because you'll lose, so you insult the sources.

Well I'm sorry but I don't really consider a "study" by the "Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled: "Anarcho-Capitalism" in reference to the wild west, to be a reliable historical source.

More BS. Firearm ownership has risen in the US over the last several years.

Well it couldn't be because there are simply more people now could it?

Actually if we are going by percentages, the data shows the opposite: http://www.norc.org/online/guns01.pdf

Page 9.

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

In 2000 a total of 28,663 people died from firearm injuries.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 50. No. 15, September 16, 2002.

A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self defense.
Kellerman, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. The Journal of Trauma; Injury, Infection and Critical Care. Vol. 45, no. 2

The firearms industry is virtually the only manufacturer of a consumer product not required to meet basic product safety standards - in fact, toy guns are more regulated for safety than are real guns.
Consumer Federation of America Foundation. ?Which One is More Regulated?? Brochure printed 2000.

Over 57% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 50. No. 15, September 16, 2002.

Cut/stab wounds killed 1,743 Americans in 2000; gunshots killed 28,663 the same year.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. ?Crime in the United States 2000.? Uniform Crime Reports. October 2001.

In 1999, for homicides in which the weapon could be identified, 53% of female victims were shot and killed with guns - more than 63% were shot by male intimates. The number of females shot and killed by their intimate acquaintance was more than 4 times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined. When Men Murder Women, October 2001. Analysis of 1999 Federal Bureau of Investigation Supplementary Homicide Report data. Analysis conducted by Violence Policy Center.

A child or a teenager commits 55% of all unintentional shootings.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Parents, Kids, & Guns: A Nationwide Survey. 1998. Data collected by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. .Survey conducted from October 31 to November 4, 1998.

One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home.
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation, 1996

Only 30% of parents ask the parents of their children?s friends if they keep a gun in the home.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Parents, Kids, & Guns: A Nationwide Survey. 1998. Data collected by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Survey conducted from October 31 to November 4, 1998.

In a 1998 study, 80% of clinicians stated that they should counsel on firearm safety, but only 30% do so. Of those clinicians who currently counsel, only 20% counsel more than 10% of their patient families.
Barkin, et al. The smoking gun: Do clinicians follow guidelines on firearm safety counseling? Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 1998;152:749-756

http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_2/Gun_stats_US_data.doc

And in the case of homicides, the industry ignores the fact that the majority of firearm homicides are perpetrated not by dangerous strangers, but by people known to their assailants-relatives, intimate partners, or acquaintances-usually as the result of a dispute.

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available.

http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=risks_gun_ownership

shanek

5th March 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Evidence?

THE VERY THING I WAS REPLYING TO!!!!! You inferred that LA and NY have higher than normal crime rates because of gun ownership, and when I pointed out that they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, you said that maybe they had to because of the large crime rates!

You can't have it both ways!

shanek

5th March 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I could go out, buy a book, spend a couple days reading through finding your proof for you or you could stop using proof surrogates and give me a link....

What are you blabbering about? Finding my proof for me? I FOUND THE PROOF!!! YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO READ IT!!!

Again, you're just like the woo-woos. Whenever you insist that they educate themselves on the matter, they say, "I can't be bothered to do your homework for you!"

Yes just like certain creationists claim they adhered to evolution....just like cetain spiritualists claimed they were "skeptical at first".

Except that Lott's prior opinions are on record.

Not like this would be the first pro-gun lobyist that slanted the data.

This is hilarious, coming from someone who just got through citing Kellerman.

Hardly what I would call a thorough debunking.

That was just one. You want more?

http://sarahbradycampaign.org/ama6.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/myths.htm
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331

On and on and on...it's bad science and bad data.

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

ROFL. Well there goes radicalism....

Pointing out how you LIED is radicalism???

Well I'm sorry but I don't really consider a "study" by the "Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled: "Anarcho-Capitalism" in reference to the wild west, to be a reliable historical source.

Oh, but you will accept as gospel the FLAWED data by someone who ADMITS THAT HE'S OUT TO PROVE GUN CONTROL IS NECESSARY???

Well it couldn't be because there are simply more people now could it?

Not the per capita figures; that's what "per capita" means.

Actually if we are going by percentages, the data shows the opposite: http://www.norc.org/online/guns01.pdf

Huh. Looks like you're lying again—those figures only go to 1997. Besides, it comes right out and says that the reason for this is largely due to the decline in household size.

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

More completely refuted data from a source with an admitted bias and agenda. A simple perusal of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports easily debunks their figures.

Richard G

5th March 2003, 10:33 AM

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Your relying on doctors to give you expert advice on firearms? Do you likewise go to the gunshop for expert advice on medicine and disease?

DialecticMaterialist

6th March 2003, 08:00 AM

Shanek: Mere denial of a strong, peer reviewed article that apeared in a prestigious medical journal does not count as a valid refutation. The FBI uniform report is compatible with this data, as it gathered self-evluative information from survivors of armed robberies and such, obviously if they survived what they did helped them We are talking about people who did not though and thet obviously couldn't give the FBI a report of what happened to them.

All the debunking cites you listed are not the equivalent to a medical journal but are political cites made to promote political agendas more then the evidence. "righttobeararms.com"/"guncite". Do you have anything equivalent to the testimony of physicians or a medical journal? Apparently not.

Lastly physicians do know about hazards and mortality, hence they are proper experts to turn to when discussing whether or not owning a gun is dangerous.

shanek

6th March 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Shanek: Mere denial of a strong, peer reviewed article that apeared in a prestigious medical journal does not count as a valid refutation. The FBI uniform report is compatible with this data,

No, it isn't. The claim was:

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Forgiving the fact that there are no statistics on what people would have done had it not been for a certain condition, the claim depends on more than 50% of shootings being crimes of passion.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-14.xls

According to the crime reports, there were 13,752 murders (only 8,719 of which, FYI, were with a firearm, or 63%) in 2001. Comparing the breakdown of crimes which could in some cases be heat of passion (Rape, other sex offenses, romantic triangle, brawls due to influence of alcohol or narcotics, arguments over money or property, and other arguments) the total of these comes to 4,191, or only 30%. If we get really generous and consider that all of the 1,832 unspecified murders were crimes of passion, then the total rises to 6,023, still only 43%. And not all of those were committed with a firearm. So, even being overly generous to the point of absurdity, it still isn't true that "most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people."

All the debunking cites you listed are not the equivalent to a medical journal but are political cites made to promote political agendas more then the evidence. "righttobeararms.com"/"guncite".

You're resorting to argument by authority. Probably because you know you can't argue the data.

Do you have anything equivalent to the testimony of physicians or a medical journal?

Doctors are not criminologists. Lott and Kleck are. And yes, their works were peer-reviewed.

shanek

6th March 2003, 12:17 PM

Actually, I just found a better table for making my point:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-13.xls

Here, I can use the same circumstances above but only consider the firearm murders, since that's what you were referring to. Now, using the same generous reasoning as above, we get 2,438 murders which could potentially be heat of passion out of 8,719 total firearms murders, or only 27%. And when we get absurdly generous and incude all of the unspecifieds, we get 3,531, or 40%.

And both of these figures are less than the proportion of crimes which could potentially be heat of passion overall!

So that seems to make munchy-meat out of your claims.

John Harrison

6th March 2003, 01:27 PM

And I hope you are not applying it to the article I presented By Kellermann, because it wasn't saying there is an increase in suicides in a home with guns, but an increase in homocide. Thus either way your response is a non seq.

Just a couple of notes about the Kellerman study:

Did you notice that the study found a stronger correlation between "living alone" and being killed, and "renting a residence" and being killed, than it did between "owning a firearm" and being killed. If the study's conclusions are meaningful, banks should be using it to sell mortgages; they'd have a stronger case than gun control advocates.

Of those included in Kellermann's study, about half weren't even killed with a firearm. If someone can tell me how owning a gun makes it more likely that I'll be bludgeoned to death, I'd sure like to hear it.

John Harrison

6th March 2003, 01:33 PM

Regarding police protection...

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

"A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." -- Warren v. District of Columbia (1979)

Here are some other court cases that say the same thing:
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

Richard G

6th March 2003, 06:54 PM

Excellent reference Mr. Harrison. Once I made this clear, and showed the proof, to an anti-gun aquaintance of mine, she rushed out to the local gun shop to make a purchase that very weekend.

Reality is quite sobering when you get used to it.

DialecticMaterialist

6th March 2003, 09:24 PM

hat are you blabbering about? Finding my proof for me? I FOUND THE PROOF!!! YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO READ IT!!!

So you have a book I'm suppose to read before I make a critique? Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Provide a link. Can you not provide a link?

Again, you're just like the woo-woos.

What is this baby talk?

Whenever you insist that they educate themselves on the matter, they say, "I can't be bothered to do your homework for you!"

Well basically because we are not supposed to. If you knew basic critical thinking skills you would know that is a proof surrogate i.e. evidence claimed to exist but not presented. Hence the evidence might or might not exist. The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim, not me to disprove you.

Except that Lott's prior opinions are on record.

Where?

This is hilarious, coming from someone who just got through citing Kellerman.

Yeah you dismiss the guy a lot but are yet to bring a solid refutation of him....

That was just one. You want more?

http://sarahbradycampaign.org/ama6.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/myths.htm
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firear...an-buckner.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/info...tem.asp?ID=2331

On and on and on...it's bad science and bad data.

Describing yourself? you already presented those sites btw.

And I said they are not equivalent to a peer reviewed medical journal. Sorry but "right to keep and bear arms .com" is not a serious source. You seem to be under the impression that you can put up any piece of rubbish as a source and expect me to take it seriously: sorry but some sources are more reliable then others. Expert testimony of physicians and those who write in journals is reliable, editorials on right-wing opinion sites are not.

Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

Alas, there goes vigilantiaism.

Pointing out how you LIED is radicalism???

Because you didn't. You only "YELLED" it over and over like a maniac, as if yelling something out makes it true...

Oh, but you will accept as gospel the FLAWED data by someone who ADMITS THAT HE'S OUT TO PROVE GUN CONTROL IS NECESSARY???

Again get it through your thick head:because his data was in a prestigious medical journal. You seem to think that "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" is a valid historical journal, sorry but it isn't. You seem to likewise dismiss a medical journal, well, on the basis of some obscure ideological sites.

Sorry but in reality the "Journal for Libertarian Studies" is not on par with the New England Journal of Medicine.

Not the per capita figures; that's what "per capita" means.

Your point? You didn't give per capita figures bud.

Huh. Looks like you're lying again?those figures only go to 1997. Besides, it comes right out and says that the reason for this is largely due to the decline in household size.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Now it is you who is lying pal. To quote the study:

Similiary the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high 51% in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001

The study also said this decline was partly due to a decrease in household size. Exagerating the truth now are we?

Anyone who doesn't believe me can look at page nine of the study for themselves.

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? Accusing me of lying while you lie your ass off? Are you so desperate to argue for your case that you will lie?

More completely refuted data from a source with an admitted bias and agenda. A simple perusal of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports easily debunks their figures.

Yeah and I already refuted this claim in a previous post. The FBI report is based on self-evelauted data from victims, obviously dead/murdered people will not be able to participate in such a study. So the FBI report is not necessarily at odds with Kellermann's report.

DialecticMaterialist

6th March 2003, 09:36 PM

No, it isn't. The claim was:

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Forgiving the fact that there are no statistics on what people would have done had it not been for a certain condition, the claim depends on more than 50% of shootings being crimes of passion.

Well first off your link didn't work. Very conveniant for you. And I used three different word programs to try and open the file.....

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-14.xls

According to the crime reports, there were 13,752 murders (only 8,719 of which, FYI, were with a firearm, or 63%) in 2001. Comparing the breakdown of crimes which could in some cases be heat of passion (Rape, other sex offenses, romantic triangle, brawls due to influence of alcohol or narcotics, arguments over money or property, and other arguments) the total of these comes to 4,191, or only 30%. If we get really generous and consider that all of the 1,832 unspecified murders were crimes of passion, then the total rises to 6,023, still only 43%. And not all of those were committed with a firearm. So, even being overly generous to the point of absurdity, it still isn't true that "most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people."

Well maybe I could verify this if your link actually worked. Why do you waste my time with bad links? Are you purposely stalling for time or something?

You're resorting to argument by authority. Probably because you know you can't argue the data.

Umm actually no. I'm responding to your pseudorefutation of expert data based on the presentation of non experts as experts.

Doctors are not criminologists. Lott and Kleck are. And yes, their works were peer-reviewed.

Well present links to them then.

And so what if they are not crimonologists? They are still experts who's testimony is relevant to this discussion of public safety.

shanek

7th March 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So you have a book I'm suppose to read before I make a critique?

Yes, I expect you to actually read a book before criticizing it. Silly me.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it.

Your malfunction, not mine.

Well basically because we are not supposed to. If you knew basic critical thinking skills you would know that is a proof surrogate i.e. evidence claimed to exist but not presented.

Except that I have presented the evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

Yeah you dismiss the guy a lot but are yet to bring a solid refutation of him....

I presented numerous very solid refutations of the bogus Kellerman data. I even gave you the links you lust for.

Describing yourself? you already presented those sites btw.

And I'll keep presenting them until you refute them.

[more ad hominems and appeals to authority deleted]

Because you didn't.

Yes, I did, and now you're compounding your lie by denying it. I pointed out the very court cases the cite mentioned—after you said it was nothing more than an editorial. YOU LIED.

Again get it through your thick head:because his data was in a prestigious medical journal.

And that makes him an expert in criminology, how?

Your point? You didn't give per capita figures bud.

Yes, I did. You're lying again.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Now it is you who is lying pal.

Oh, am I? From the page 9 of the link, in the top paragraph, the fifth sentence reads:

These declines are partly the result of a decrease in household size.

Now who's lying?

Yeah and I already refuted this claim in a previous post.

No, you invalidly dismissed the data. You did not provide a refutation.

shanek

7th March 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well first off your link didn't work. Very conveniant for you.

There you go lying again. The link works perfectly. I just tried it again to be sure, and I didn't edit the post. The link works.

And I used three different word programs to try and open the file.....

Well, that's not likely to work considering IT'S AN EXCEL FILE!!!! :rolleyes:

Well maybe I could verify this if your link actually worked. Why do you waste my time with bad links? Are you purposely stalling for time or something?

It's a good link, as anyone else here can verify. You're just desperate because you know you're losing.

Umm actually no. I'm responding to your pseudorefutation of expert data based on the presentation of non experts as experts.

You're the one citing experts outside their field. I cited actual criminologists, in fact two of the most respected criminologists in the world, whose findings—despite your LIES to the contrary—were peer-reviewed.

Well present links to them then.

I gave you the citations. See, publishers don't like putting books they're trying to sell on the web to download for free; they're funny that way.

Besides, seems like when I do provide a link, you lie and say it's a bad link. I'm sick and tired of playing this game with you.

And so what if they are not crimonologists?

Then they're outside their field of expertise. You're the one claiming their experts; but if they're not criminologists, then they're not experts on this subject.

WMT1

7th March 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yeah and well, a lot fewer civilians in general too. The fact is some burglars are willing to do this and if they know most houses are armed, they will merely come armed themselves. Turning each robbery into a hostage situation very fast. Is it really worth risking yours and your families life in order to save a few possesions? Is that your solution to crime....vigilantiaism?

...

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

...

Originally posted by shanek
Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Alas, there goes vigilantiaism.

Sorry, just gotta ask. Where did you ever get the idea that self defense equates to vigilantism?

John Harrison

7th March 2003, 10:46 AM

Oops, missed this nugget:
i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Ah, the more guns equals more crime argument. I've posted this before, but apparently it needs to be repeated.

In this report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ there were 12,740,000 pre-purchase handgun checks between 1994 and 1998 of which 312,000 were rejected for all causes. This would mean that the number of handguns in circulation in the U.S. increased by 12,428,000 over that five year period. In the United States there are approx. one million firearms of all types confiscated every year of which ~65% are handguns or 3,250,000 in the five year period. That would mean that the approx. overall increase in the number of handguns in the United States would be 9,178,000 for the five year period.

It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%. In the same period, homicide rates dropped 2.7%. Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3

Accidents:

1994 1,356
1995 1,225
1996 1,134
1997 981
1998 866
Suicides:

1994 18,765
1995 18,503
1996 18.166
1997 17,566
1998 17,424

Quick example of Florida:
CCW law was passed in 1987. By 1999 Florida had issued 551,000 permits.

Firearm homicide rates from 94 thru 99 (Couldn't find numbers quickly for earlier than 94, but these should work) Florida Crime Statistics

Firearm homicide rate changes from previous year (All are negative):
1994 -20.8%
1995 -8.7%
1996 -2.7%
1997 -5.0%
1998 -7.0%
1999 -21.9% (I did find that there were 26,807 new permits between 1998 and 1999)

So, we have the gun supply increasing, along with more citizens carrying concealed handguns (ie more readily available guns), and the homicide, accident and suicide rates continue to decrease. Hmmm...