Liberal vs. Conservative Difference on Gun Debate

[Richard G]

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 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!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy!"

What do Texan Liberals do?

(I thought that was friendlier than calling you a troll...)

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by sundog
What do Texan Liberals do?



That was the liberal Texan, in a conservative family everyone would have opened fire.

[Gregor]

Answer: They get forcibly relocated to Berkley.

Originally posted by Gregor
Answer: They get forcibly relocated to Berkley.

Come and try. :D :D :D

[Smalso]

In some jurisdictions you would be prosecuted because you used more force than was necessary to stop the attack; and it's entirely possible you would spend time in prison and face a wrongful death suit.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
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 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!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy!"


An interesting question, especially in light of statistics that show that 95% of homicides against unarmed, white, middle class people are exactly as described in this scenario. This is exactly why so many people are armed with concealed weapons, and the morgues are full of hundreds of homicidal maniacs armed with knives at the end of every week.

The question that needs to be asked, since this is such a common problem, and the cost of replenishing ammunition is so high, and it such a bummer when you forget to carry your gun, is "where do all these homicidal maniacs come from, and why haven't they learn't to sneak up silently from behind."

My guess is they are being bred by aliens.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G
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 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Libertarian answer:

Show him that you're armed because that's usually a deterrent. Shoot him only if he continues to charge at you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Smalso
In some jurisdictions you would be prosecuted because you used more force than was necessary to stop the attack; and it's entirely possible you would spend time in prison and face a wrongful death suit.

This is what really gets me. If it were a police officer, the fellow officers would be all supportive, saying theirs is a dangerous job and he did what he had to do. So why are ordinary citizens held to a higher standard than those who are trained to deal with this kind of situation?

[Richard G]

This is what really gets me. If it were a police officer, the fellow officers would be all supportive, saying theirs is a dangerous job and he did what he had to do. So why are ordinary citizens held to a higher standard than those who are trained to deal with this kind of situation?

If you've ever seen video of five to ten officers stoppping an armed and dangerous man, they ALL empty their magazines. Thats 30-40 rounds they expend, and not a word of mention is said about that. (and it shouldn't be).

[crackmonkey]

Word, Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G


If you've ever seen video of five to ten officers stoppping an armed and dangerous man, they ALL empty their magazines. Thats 30-40 rounds they expend, and not a word of mention is said about that. (and it shouldn't be).

Sure, but why is it whenever an armed citizen faces an armed and dangerous man there's all this questioning over whether or not they used more force than necessary? Don't citizens have as much of a right to defend themselves as the police?

[Richard G]

Sure, but why is it whenever an armed citizen faces an armed and dangerous man there's all this questioning over whether or not they used more force than necessary? Don't citizens have as much of a right to defend themselves as the police?

Absolutely, and your preaching to the choir with me. The fact is, a policemans **** doesn't stink many times in a jury trial, or to his fellow police officers who do the actual investigating. A lowly citizen however is heavily scrutinized, both by the police, and jury.

A very good point has been made in the gun owner communities I frequent that if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself on trial for a just incident of self defense, you would fair better if you used your daddys shotgun, and not a perfectly legal AR-15, or mini-14. Then the "bad bad gun" itself is put on trial, and waved around the court room by the prosecutor because of its exotic design. Nevermind the fact the the "country bumpkin" shotgun can take a mans head clean off.

There is no law against shooting a perpetrator "too manytimes", but a prosecutor can certainly try to use that against you with a dumbed down jury. Realisticly, I'm shooting until they stop and drop, or flee, whichever comes first.

[corplinx]

Wow, I live in Tennessee where most self-defense shootings never make it into court. Usually dismissed. Even my brother who was carrying without a permit didn't step foot in a courtroom. The possession charge was dismissed since he would have been dead without it. He was jumped by 3 thugs who after kicking him until his left hand was mashed and his kidneys were bruised, pulled out a shotgun. He drew and fired at the shotgun wielder and killed him.

Mind you, this is by the book self-defense with a firearm. If he had fired on any of them while they were unarmed he would have been prosecuted.

[gnome]

I don't think you can paint all liberals with the same brush on this issue. In fact, if any liberal I met responded as Richard G suggests, I would conclude that the major source of their opinion was their stupidity and not their liberal viewpoint.

My response, and I feel it is perfectly compatible with liberal philosophy, is substantially the same as Shanek's. Show the gun, if he doesn't stop, shoot him. If he's too close, I wouldn't worry too much about the showing.

I would not expect to be prosecuted for this, either. And if I was, I would fight it as vigorously as any other false accusation.

are there jurisdictions where you are denied the right to respond to an assault with a deadly weapon, with deadly force?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by gnome
My response, and I feel it is perfectly compatible with liberal philosophy, is substantially the same as Shanek's. Show the gun, if he doesn't stop, shoot him.


One problem with this. This is a wild man running at you with a knife. Now, if you have been _trained_ to use a pistol then you know you do not pull unless you are going to fire. Now, the man _might_ turn around in the 2 seconds it takes you to draw. In which case you would not pull the trigger. Once the agressor has disengaged and your life is no longer threatened, you no longer have a legal protection for firing on him.

However, you do not just stand there and pull up your jacket and flash the gun at him. Flashing a gun like this in public is considered a threat. He can ditch the knife in a dumpster and call the cops and say you flashed a gun at him.

This is why when you draw, you draw to fire. Hopefully so fast that the attacker cannot turn around :) .

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx



One problem with this. This is a wild man running at you with a knife. Now, if you have been _trained_ to use a pistol then you know you do not pull unless you are going to fire. Now, the man _might_ turn around in the 2 seconds it takes you to draw. In which case you would not pull the trigger. Once the agressor has disengaged and your life is no longer threatened, you no longer have a legal protection for firing on him.

However, you do not just stand there and pull up your jacket and flash the gun at him. Flashing a gun like this in public is considered a threat. He can ditch the knife in a dumpster and call the cops and say you flashed a gun at him.

This is why when you draw, you draw to fire. Hopefully so fast that the attacker cannot turn around :) .

With a smiley? well shanek, when you draw, do you draw to fire?

[gnome]

Originally posted by corplinx
One problem with this. This is a wild man running at you with a knife. Now, if you have been _trained_ to use a pistol then you know you do not pull unless you are going to fire. Now, the man _might_ turn around in the 2 seconds it takes you to draw. In which case you would not pull the trigger. Once the agressor has disengaged and your life is no longer threatened, you no longer have a legal protection for firing on him.

However, you do not just stand there and pull up your jacket and flash the gun at him. Flashing a gun like this in public is considered a threat. He can ditch the knife in a dumpster and call the cops and say you flashed a gun at him.

This is why when you draw, you draw to fire. Hopefully so fast that the attacker cannot turn around :) .

I'm not talking about flashing the gun, I'm talking about drawing it and aiming it. If he's still half a block away, I might wait a moment to see if he stops. If he's on top of me, I'd just fire.

But this is a minor detail. I think my position is sufficiently different from what Richard G would attribute to me, yes?

[shecky]

Originally posted by corplinx



One problem with this. This is a wild man running at you with a knife. Now, if you have been _trained_ to use a pistol then you know you do not pull unless you are going to fire. Now, the man _might_ turn around in the 2 seconds it takes you to draw. In which case you would not pull the trigger. Once the agressor has disengaged and your life is no longer threatened, you no longer have a legal protection for firing on him.

You have the scenario all wrong. You thought he was a wild man. However, he was actually a undercover cop chasing the drug cartel kingpin that was right behind you (who thought he'd just terminated the cop after finding out he'd been double crossed). The drug cartel kingpin had two pistols on his person, his own and the cop's (he took it before he set the pit bulls on him) and was walking casually away from the incident when said wild man (really, a undercover cop fresh from a dog mauling in which he prevailed by grabbing the knife absentmindedly left by one of the kinpin's henchmen and using it to slit the dog's throats), bent on revenge, comes around the corner, mutters "This time it's personal..." and lunges in your direction not at you or your family, but at the man who ruthlessly exterminates anyone who gets between him and the millions to be made selling cocaine to Americans. Drug cartel kingpin hears the distress of your family as you pull out your firearm, turns around seeing the cop bloodied but still alive with a fire in his eyes, pulls out both pistols from his sharkskin suit and empties both magazines in your direction toward the cop, holding a gun in each hand sideways, managing to blow away your wife and one child, seriously wound you while your other child miraculously evades the bullets. The cop is seriously wounded, bleeding profusely in a pile of carnage, as the drug cartel kingpin approaches, picks up the up the knife he dropped, ready to finish off the lot when the cop, lying on top of your pistol, lifts his head up to see the smiling, knife wielding killer, and with blood pouring down his face mutters, "Vaya con Dios, bastard!" pulls up your pistol and puts a hole straight between the eyes of the drug cartel kingpin.

That is why gun control debates should be decided by ridiulous hypothetical scenarios.
:rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
well shanek, when you draw, do you draw to fire?

Not personally owning a gun prohibits me from answering the question as posed. I will, however, reiterate that the vast majority of successful gun defenses in this country simply involves showing the gun to the would-be attacker.

[shanek]

Originally posted by shecky
That is why gun control debates should be decided by ridiulous hypothetical scenarios.
:rolleyes:

How about a real-life scenario: Ruby Ridge?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by gnome


I'm not talking about flashing the gun, I'm talking about drawing it and aiming it. If he's still half a block away, I might wait a moment to see if he stops. If he's on top of me, I'd just fire.



If the man is half a block away then you are not in immediate peril. Ergo, you have no business drawing and aiming. He can toss the knife, call the cops, and you have one less gun.

[gnome]

Originally posted by corplinx
If the man is half a block away then you are not in immediate peril. Ergo, you have no business drawing and aiming. He can toss the knife, call the cops, and you have one less gun.

Are you splitting this hair, or are you insisting that I do?

The description of the dilemma has my own personal peril as a given.

[Roadtoad]

At risk of sounding like a Right Wing nut, I don't think I'd waste any time with the showing regardless of how far away any knife wielding head case was from me and my wife and kids. If I can get them to safety, great. If not, Hasta la vista, *******.

[Doctor X]

Got directed here by Richard G from a debate on Iraq.

It reminds me of a column by Mike Ryoko years ago. To my recollection, he ranted about a situation in NYC. Apparently, some guy took a knife to an old Jewish man. Old Jewish man called for help and the neighborhood opened up with a bunch of old Jewish men who preceded to beat the schmuck into the hospital.

What Ryoko ranted about was the reaction from the NYC press condemning this "vigilantism"--as he put it, "the same city that watched Kitty Genovese die." [Woman raped and killed while neighbors watched and never phoned for police.--Ed.]

At the end of his rant he noted:

"As far as I am concerned, you take a knife to an old Jewish man, you take your life into your own hands."

--J.D.

[Smalso]

Good one. LMAO!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



An interesting question, especially in light of statistics that show that 95% of homicides against unarmed, white, middle class people are exactly as described in this scenario. This is exactly why so many people are armed with concealed weapons, and the morgues are full of hundreds of homicidal maniacs armed with knives at the end of every week.

The question that needs to be asked, since this is such a common problem, and the cost of replenishing ammunition is so high, and it such a bummer when you forget to carry your gun, is "where do all these homicidal maniacs come from, and why haven't they learn't to sneak up silently from behind."

My guess is they are being bred by aliens.

A dude with a knife is 'unarmed'? Well, only in America I guess.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Richard G
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 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!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy!"

A very well-considered scenario.

Why, just last night, while walking down a deserted street, I was immediately attacked by a homicidal knife-wielding maniac. Because guns aren't readily available in Australia (well... not as readily as in the US...) I was stabbed on the spot. Never did find out a motive.

I went into my local petrol station (that's 'gas station' to you yanks) to get some bandages to staunch the wound a bit when another, completely different, knife-wielding homicidal manic charged into the station stabbing me and the attendant. I thought it might have been a robbery, but no, it was just another random stabbing in the Big City.

Unable to drive, and not able to get an ambulance, since all the ambulance drivers were busy attending to more urgent random stabbings by homicidal maniacs, I caught a bus to the local hospital. I thought I'd make it. I really did. But, just two stops away, a dangerous-looking person got on the bus with a distinctly funny look about him.

"Oh, no" I thought.

But, yes.

I won't bore you with too many more details in my story except to say that between getting off the bus and finally being seen by a scalpel-weilding homicidal doctor, I was stabbed about thirty times. That's a lot. Try stabbing yourself that many times, if you don't believe me. As I lay in the hospital bed, watching the 10 gallon bucket of blood slowly empty into my shrivelled artery, I kept thinking, "None of this would have happened to me if only I had a gun. Like one of those cool Glocks."

You yanks don't know how lucky you are.

[Soubrette]

Look on the brightside Starshark - we have to deal with mad, marauding squirrels here in the UK

and we have no guns either :eek:

It's a mad world we live in :rolleyes:

Sou

[thaiboxerken]

I'd kick the guy's ass and stab him with his own knife.

[jimlintott]

An interesting question, especially in light of statistics that show that 95% of homicides against unarmed, white, middle class people are exactly as described in this scenario.

As I had always heard that most homicide victims know their assailant I had to question this figure. I found this (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate) . From the article:
For murder victims, 45% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 15% of victims were murdered by strangers, while almost 40% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer.

The sad reality is that if the Glock 40 in question ever kills anyone, statistically the victim will most likely be the wife.

If I felt I needed to walk around with a firearm I probably think everyone is dangerous.

Now this is only my opinion and not a fact. When firearms are used properly things end up dead. The reason I don't own a firearm is because I have no desire to kill anything. I question the sanity of anyone who does. (This is my opinion, you may attempt to change it with coherent arguments.) I don't usually speak out against guns because the people who love them, I consider to be armed and dangerous.

I really really hate guns.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I really really hate guns.

I happen to like them, but at present, I don't own one, not even a toy gun. I have kids, and one of the things I know about kids is that they are curious. For that reason, I took part in the Eddie Eagle program sponsored by the NRA, and simply made sure there were no guns in my home for the kids to be playing with in the first place.

I figure my manhood remains intact. I don't need a surrogate penis, mine works fine.

BTW: Starshark, when and where did you challenge JK? He's on my ignore list, and I'd like to see the evidence that he served, too. If JacKass was a member of the U.S. military, I'd like to know what sort of a record he had. Couldn't be that good, given his attitude.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Richard G
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.

Hmmm....

HHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHA!

JK

[Skeptic]

Well, the problem is that you can ALWAYS make the scenario more complicated to change the "right" answer. Reminds me of the scene from "The Naked Gun":

Police Chief: "You know I had to suspend you after that incident. It's my job."

Hero: "Well, chief, when I see a group of people stab an unarmed man on public grounds, I shoot them. That's MY job."

Police Chief: "Those were 'Shakespeare in the Park' actors performing 'Julius Ceaser', you moron! You killed five actors! Good ones!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by jimlintott
When firearms are used properly things end up dead.

Similar scenarios to the following are played out every day in America:

A man rushes up and attacks a woman to rape her. The woman, or a passerby, is armed and pulls out the gun, holding the would-be rapist until the police arrive and arrest him.

So, who has ended up dead in this scenario? Especially if the alternative is the woman being raped and beaten to death?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Similar scenarios to the following are played out every day in America:

A man rushes up and attacks a woman to rape her. The woman, or a passerby, is armed and pulls out the gun, holding the would-be rapist until the police arrive and arrest him.

So, who has ended up dead in this scenario? Especially if the alternative is the woman being raped and beaten to death?

america must be a strange place, as most rapes in australia are nothing like this.

[a_unique_person]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jimlintott
[B]

As I had always heard that most homicide victims know their assailant I had to question this figure. I found this (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate) . From the article:

sorry jim, you will have to get used to my sarcasm.

[The Fool]

Its simple. If everyone in the world carried a handgun 24/7 there would be less deaths. People would be safer, crime would virtually disappear. We could close down 75% of our hospitals and prisons saving taxpayers a fortune. We would live in paradise. The only rule I would set is no hollow point ammunition until you are over 16. oh yea...only .22 for pre-schoolers, I forgot that thier little hands find it hard to pull over the action of a large centrefire revolver..

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
america must be a strange place, as most rapes in australia are nothing like this.

Actually, I didn't make it up. The exact same thing happened to a woman who, ironically enough, was returning home from the Million Mom March. Now she's against gun control. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Its simple. If everyone in the world carried a handgun 24/7 there would be less deaths.

It wouldn't have to be everyone. Even a small percentage would be a deterrent because the criminals would have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't. This is why areas that pass concealed carry laws consistently see their crime levels drop as a result.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by shanek
It wouldn't have to be everyone. Even a small percentage would be a deterrent because the criminals would have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't. This is why areas that pass concealed carry laws consistently see their crime levels drop as a result.

You know what? Even if by using this logic you justify the idea of allowing one gun per person, you still haven't justified the ludicrous idea of not having the gun-owner wait for a month or so before getting their gun. Or that they can buy as many weapons as they want; guns which tend to be stolen or resold. How many hands do they have, how many different assailants do they expect to have to face at the same time?

No, these American gun-laws are simply ludicrous, and all they help (like the death penalty) is perpetuate the society of violence.

I can accept the idea of a licenced and registered rifle at home. What I cannot accept is the idea of more than one such weapons, freely bought and resold and passed around like candy, easy to be acquired by the next madman who wants to hold a safari at the nearest highschool.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, I didn't make it up. The exact same thing happened to a woman who, ironically enough, was returning home from the Million Mom March. Now she's against gun control. ;)

like i said, it must be a pretty strange place. most rapes do not occur in such circumstances. sources?

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I happen to like them, but at present, I don't own one, not even a toy gun. I have kids, and one of the things I know about kids is that they are curious. For that reason, I took part in the Eddie Eagle program sponsored by the NRA, and simply made sure there were no guns in my home for the kids to be playing with in the first place.

I figure my manhood remains intact. I don't need a surrogate penis, mine works fine.

BTW: Starshark, when and where did you challenge JK? He's on my ignore list, and I'd like to see the evidence that he served, too. If JacKass was a member of the U.S. military, I'd like to know what sort of a record he had. Couldn't be that good, given his attitude.

It was on the 'would you fight for your country' thread. I challenged him to come up with an anecdote during his time in Panama that isn't on the 'net or in a magazine, newsletter, etc. Then he just had to provide the names of three people he served with to verify the story. The story didn't have to involve him directly. The three people didn't have to be friends of his. He's ignored it. I think I'll just ignore him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
Even if by using this logic you justify the idea of allowing one gun per person, you still haven't justified the ludicrous idea of not having the gun-owner wait for a month or so before getting their gun.

Many times people want guns for specific protection—like an abusive spouse who thinks nothing of violating a restraining order—and that waiting period ends up being a death sentence.

Or that they can buy as many weapons as they want; guns which tend to be stolen or resold.

If your car is stolen and used as the getaway car in a robbery, how is that your fault? Should we restrict access to cars because of this?

No, these American gun-laws are simply ludicrous, and all they help (like the death penalty) is perpetuate the society of violence.

Provide even the tiniest fragment of evidence for this.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by shanek

Many times people want guns for specific protection—like an abusive spouse who thinks nothing of violating a restraining order—and that waiting period ends up being a death sentence.


Then how about they have to atleast write down such an immediate self-defense reason for their immense hurry? They can get the gun immediately, but the reason is then investigated and if it turns out to be bogus -- persecution under the law for false statements.

This btw again at least prevents a person buying more than one gun for claimed "self-defense".

If your car is stolen and used as the getaway car in a robbery, how is that your fault?

Cars are more exposed to theft and less inherently dangerous per use. Someone stealing your gun... *snort*, well congratulations! Your lack of responsibility over the object that was supposed to make you more secure, just helped make everyone in the world *less* safe!

Should we restrict access to cars because of this?
Compare statistically the number of legal vs. illegal uses of cars, compared to the legal vs. illegal uses of guns.

Provide even the tiniest fragment of evidence for this.]

What is there to prove? When I walk down the street, I don't expect to have to deal out violence, nor protect myself from such. Nor would I want to live in a place where carrying a concealed weapon would be necessary for my protection.

I wonder if most the crimes you think are preventable by carrying a concealed weapon wouldn't be just as (and more) preventable by better lighting of the streets and more frequent police patrols.

[Skeptic]

Its simple. If everyone in the world carried a handgun 24/7 there would be less deaths. People would be safer, crime would virtually disappear.

I doubt it. It is quite true that SOME crimes will go down--such as strangers who attack other people to rob them. But on the other hand some crimes will go way up--for example, murder/suicide of a couple that had a serious argument and one of them snaps and takes out the gun. Also, I know from reliable sources that one of the main factors in suicide is the availability of a method for killing yourself, so it is likely suicides will also vastly increase. Finally, there is the issue of accidents. Guns are, after all, dangerous; unless one is meticulous with gun safety, you risk shooting yourself or someone else, let alone the nightmare of your child finding the gun by mistake and playing with it.

Owning a gun has benefits--but also risks. I am all for having the RIGHT to own a gun, since taking this right away is usually the starting point for dictatorships, and furthermore, if criminals know guns are illegal they will more easily commit crimes. But whether or not to actually EXCERCISE this right depends on your specific situation. It isn't always a good idea!

(Yes, I know you are somewhat sarcastic, to say the least, but still.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
Then how about they have to atleast write down such an immediate self-defense reason for their immense hurry? They can get the gun immediately, but the reason is then investigated and if it turns out to be bogus -- persecution under the law for false statements.

Do you think through any of these suggestions? This would put the gun owner in the position of having to defend his purchase to the state! Leaving aside the fact that the state has no right to restrict how we should be able to defend ourselves, the burden should at least be on the state to prove that no such reason exists, not the other way around!

This btw again at least prevents a person buying more than one gun for claimed "self-defense".

Which opens the system up to so much corruption it would be disastrous.

It's also completely unnecessary, as guns save far more lives than they take.

Cars are more exposed to theft and less inherently dangerous per use. Someone stealing your gun... *snort*, well congratulations! Your lack of responsibility over the object that was supposed to make you more secure, just helped make everyone in the world *less* safe!

The same could be said of your steak knives. So what? How are you responsible for someone stealing your property and using it to commit a crime? Please answer the question.

Compare statistically the number of legal vs. illegal uses of cars, compared to the legal vs. illegal uses of guns.

Why?

What is there to prove? When I walk down the street, I don't expect to have to deal out violence, nor protect myself from such. Nor would I want to live in a place where carrying a concealed weapon would be necessary for my protection.

Blah blah blah. Mindless platitudes. The real question is, what right do you have to force this view onto others?

I wonder if most the crimes you think are preventable by carrying a concealed weapon wouldn't be just as (and more) preventable by better lighting of the streets and more frequent police patrols.

That is completely naïve. The police are under no mandate whatsoever to protect us. They can only mop up once it's all over. The Supreme Court has said that more than once.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I doubt it. It is quite true that SOME crimes will go down--such as strangers who attack other people to rob them. But on the other hand some crimes will go way up--for example, murder/suicide of a couple that had a serious argument and one of them snaps and takes out the gun.

People keep claiming this, but I have yet to see one iota of support for it and plenty of support for the converse.

Also, I know from reliable sources that one of the main factors in suicide is the availability of a method for killing yourself, so it is likely suicides will also vastly increase.

But is still statistically not anywhere near the number of lives saved.

Finally, there is the issue of accidents. Guns are, after all, dangerous; unless one is meticulous with gun safety, you risk shooting yourself or someone else, let alone the nightmare of your child finding the gun by mistake and playing with it.

Again, a very rare occurence compared to the number of lives saved.

You are right, though: it should be up to the individual to weigh the benefits vs. the risks based on their particular situation. But then, the same is true of absolutely everything else.

[John Harrison]

Also, I know from reliable sources that one of the main factors in suicide is the availability of a method for killing yourself, so it is likely suicides will also vastly increase.

I'm not so sure about that, since the suicide rate hasn't changed much even though the gun supply has increased.

Finally, there is the issue of accidents. Guns are, after all, dangerous; unless one is meticulous with gun safety, you risk shooting yourself or someone else, let alone the nightmare of your child finding the gun by mistake and playing with it.

Gun accidents have been dropping for years, despite the increased gun supply.

Owning a gun has benefits--but also risks. I am all for having the RIGHT to own a gun, since taking this right away is usually the starting point for dictatorships, and furthermore, if criminals know guns are illegal they will more easily commit crimes. But whether or not to actually EXCERCISE this right depends on your specific situation. It isn't always a good idea!

Well said. I agree.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by shanek
Do you think through any of these suggestions? This would put the gun owner in the position of having to defend his purchase to the state!


No, only the gun owner who is in such a damn rush to get a weapon, in such a rush that he/she isn't willing to wait for background checks!

This btw again at least prevents a person buying more than one gun for claimed "self-defense".
Which opens the system up to so much corruption it would be disastrous.


Really?! How so? Won't the normal person who only wants to defend himself only want to get only one weapon?

And the criminals who violate this... one more way to find them and arrest them before they commit any other crimes.

It's also completely unnecessary, as guns save far more lives than they take.

Do you have any anecdotes of a person needing a *second* gun to defend himself, the first one not being enough?

Personally I doubt it.

Over here, a terrorist group had to raid a poorly guarded military warehouse to arm itself. In America... it'd arm itself to the teeth and it'd actually be legal.

So what? How are you responsible for someone stealing your property and using it to commit a crime? Please answer the question.

I thought I answered it, implicitly. Through negligence and lack of responsibility you let a criminal get your weapon.

If you'd let your child pick a weapon and shoot his brother, that'd also be criminal negligence.

The police are under no mandate whatsoever to protect us. They can only mop up once it's all over. The Supreme Court has said that more than once.

What the hell do I care what your Supreme Court said? I very happily don't live anywhere near where your Supreme Court has power. You might just as well tell me what Saddam Hussein thinks about the subject - I'd care just as little.

And the police definitely has the task of upholding the law and protecting the life and property of the citizens!

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Gregor
Answer: They get forcibly relocated to Berkley.
Durn straight! Finally, they'll know the rapture of really good Indian food. And that's "Berkeley".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
No, only the gun owner who is in such a damn rush to get a weapon, in such a rush that he/she isn't willing to wait for background checks!

And you want to put that person in the position of proving that his fears are warrated! That's been tried before, and it's always lead to more dead bodies.

Really?! How so? Won't the normal person who only wants to defend himself only want to get only one weapon?

Why? Are they only going to get attacked in one place? Why do police need backup weapons?

And the criminals who violate this... one more way to find them and arrest them before they commit any other crimes.

Sorry, but that's not how justice works. You have to actually commit (or at least attempt) a crime before you can be arrested. Cooking up a new made-up crime, then arresting people who break that crime and saying, "See? We got them off the street before they committed any other crimes!" just doesn't hold any water.

Over here, a terrorist group had to raid a poorly guarded military warehouse to arm itself. In America... it'd arm itself to the teeth and it'd actually be legal.

But they'd also be facing armed opposition. As opposed to 9/11, when they took down two of the world's tallest buildings and over 3,000 lives with a pair of freakin' box cutters!

Through negligence and lack of responsibility you let a criminal get your weapon.

Then why doesn't the same apply to getaway cars?

What the hell do I care what your Supreme Court said?

Maybe because it happens to be true, no matter where you are? All the police, anywhere, can really do is mop up after a crime has happened. Sure, they can patrol and catch some crimes in the act, but there's really no way they can effectively do that in any great amount of the time. Most of the time, you are on your own.

And the police definitely has the task of upholding the law and protecting the life and property of the citizens!

Evidence?

[Victor Danilchenko]

You know, I always found interesting the idea that rather than restrict individuals' rights WRT guns, we should impose gun manufacture restrictions -- mandate that each gun come with biometric controls, similar to how we mandate that each car come with seatbelts.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by shanek
And you want to put that person in the position of proving that his fears are warrated! That's been tried before, and it's always lead to more dead bodies.


Proving? Where did I ever say anything about proving? Have him write down a reason.

Why? Are they only going to get attacked in one place?

You know, there's not much a point in a discussion if you are not going to take this seriously. I've already asked you to give me a description of an event where a citizen needed a second gun to stop a crime from taking place.

Sorry, but that's not how justice works. You have to actually commit (or at least attempt) a crime before you can be arrested. Cooking up a new made-up crime, then arresting people who break that crime and saying, "See? We got them off the street before they committed any other crimes!" just doesn't hold any water.

So never heard of being convincted for possession of drugs, did you?

But they'd also be facing armed opposition. As opposed to 9/11, when they took down two of the world's tallest buildings and over 3,000 lives with a pair of freakin' box cutters!

Yeah, except that if guns are allowed for all passengers, terrorists would also have guns and easily make a battlefield out of each single plane. And when a plane is turned into a battlefield, the plane goes *down*.

There goes a hundred passengers for each small (half-dozen perhaps?) group of terrorists that are willing to make statement as suicide bombers want to do.

Of course you could do the *reasonable* thing, and ask that a policeman or two be stationed on each plane. But you don't want to do that! You want to allow *everyone* to carry weapons on board!

Now please tell me who the hell would be willing get in a flight which also happens to carry a dozen gun-wielding Palestinians or Saudis? Especially if the flight belongs to an Israeli airline?

All the police, anywhere, can really do is mop up after a crime has happened. Sure, they can patrol and catch some crimes in the act, but there's really no way they can effectively do that in
any great amount of the time.

And since you are already convinced there's "no way" for them to do that, you are not going to even try by, say, suggesting that flights be escorted by armed guards/policemen, rather than a hundred armed citizens, a quarter of which may actually *want* the plane to go down...

Thanks, but no thanks. That's a religion you have there, not an argument.

[quote]And the police definitely has the task of upholding the law and protecting the life and property of the citizens[quote]
Evidence? [/B]

What do you mean, "evidence"! That's it's *job*. That's what we pay it to try to do.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Aris Katsaris

So never heard of being convincted for possession of drugs, did you?Drug possession convictions don't hold water either.

Reminds me of an old joke. A couple go on a vacation to the lakes, the husband being a big fishing enthusiast. While the husband is taking a nap, the wife takes the boat out for some quiet reading on the lake -- and anchors it in a no-fishing zone. A fish and game warden comes by.

"Ma'm, I will have to cite you for illegal fishing".
"But sir, i didn't actually fish!"
"You do have the equipment to do so, however"
"Fine; but then I will charge you with rape."
"But madam, I didn't actually do it!"
"You do have the equipment for it, however..."

What do you mean, "evidence"! That's it's *job*. That's what we pay it to try to do.No, it's not. Police's job is to protect society as a whole -- courts have repeatedly ruled that police has absolutely no obligation to protect individual citizens. There have been numerous cases where citizens charged police with not responding to emergency calls fast enough, and police always won -- it's not their job to protect individuals.

[glee]

Liberal vs. Conservative Difference on Gun Debate

Question: You're walking down a rich neighbourhood with your rifle and two small handguns. Suddenly, a 'out of place' man with a black skin comes around the corner and looks at you while muttering something. In your hand is a Glock 40 and you are an expert shot. You have ample time before he reaches you. What do you do?

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)

Passerby: "He looks like he's still moving, what do you think?"

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Passerby: "Nice grouping!"

Democracy was not free. It was won by allowing blacks to vote despite Southern whites trying to stop them with the threat of a gun.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
Proving? Where did I ever say anything about proving? Have him write down a reason.

And if the government doesn't like the reason, or if they can't verify the reason, throw them in jail. You said that.

You know, there's not much a point in a discussion if you are not going to take this seriously.

How is pointing out flaws in your argument not taking you seriously?

I've already asked you to give me a description of an event where a citizen needed a second gun to stop a crime from taking place./quote]

I've given several. It happens all the time.

[quote]So never heard of being convincted for possession of drugs, did you?

Yes, I have, and that's another example of what I was talking about. Government bullying achieves nothing.

Yeah, except that if guns are allowed for all passengers, terrorists would also have guns and easily make a battlefield out of each single plane.

Guns were available to all passengers before 1973. The number of hijackings increased after that, and no one has been able to point out to me one single example of a passenger misusing his gun.

Of course you could do the *reasonable* thing, and ask that a policeman or two be stationed on each plane. But you don't want to do that!

Blatant lie. I've endorsed the idea of air marshals here in the past. But the problem is it may not be economically feasible to hire personnel explicitly for that purpose. Arming the pilots is better, since they already have training. Giving the flight attendands firearms and firearm training is also a cheaper alternative.

You want to allow *everyone* to carry weapons on board!

Why not? They could before 1973 and there were no problems.

Now please tell me who the hell would be willing get in a flight which also happens to carry a dozen gun-wielding Palestinians or Saudis?

Anyone who flew before 1973?

And since you are already convinced there's "no way" for them to do that, you are not going to even try

Another lie. I presented evidence. You insulted the source.

Thanks, but no thanks. That's a religion you have there, not an argument.

Your ad hominem has been noted.

What do you mean, "evidence"!

I mean, support your bulls**t statement.

That's it's *job*. That's what we pay it to try to do.

No, it isn't. I've presented evidence for my claim; why don't you try presenting evidence for yours?

[shanek]

Originally posted by glee
Democracy was not free. It was won by allowing blacks to vote despite Southern whites trying to stop them with the threat of a gun.

If you think this was limited to the south, you're deluded.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by shanek
And if the government doesn't like the reason, or if they can't verify the reason, throw them in jail. You said that.


I said "throw them into jail" ? I used that expression? I don't think so. But perhaps even "prosecute them" was too strong an expression.

And I'm sure that the police can verify of whether the person in question has communicated with them that they feel their life is in danger.

Criminals wouldn't want to attract much attention to themselves, so they wouldn't have communicated such a thing. Law-abiding citizens would have.

And if the month (or duration chosen) passes without incident, the person in question can atleast go and confirm that he hasn't resold his/her gun.

Yes, I have, and that's another example of what I was talking about. Government bullying achieves nothing.

I'm also against banning adults from using drugs.

But frankly the whole war on Iraq is about them having weapons we don't feel they ought to have. I assume you are against the war?


Blatant lie. I've endorsed the idea of air marshals here in the past.
Sorry. Not a lie, a bad assumption on my part, since you didn't mention it in this thread.

Why not? They could before 1973 and there were no problems.

I'm under the impression that incidents of suicide bomibers/terrorists weren't much around before 1973. Statistics can't always circumvent common sense you know, especially when circumstances have changed.

Israel has been trying to combat suicide bombers for years. Does Israel permit guns among the Arab passengers of its airlines?

If that's indeed the case, then I'll shut up and agree I was wrong.

No, it isn't. I've presented evidence for my claim; why don't you try presenting evidence for yours?

Here you go: http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/BlueBook/BlueBook/english/bbepolrol.html

"Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duty imposed on them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession"

That's pretty much what I said - they have the job to protect all persons against illegal acts.

[Richard G]

Yeah, except that if guns are allowed for all passengers, terrorists would also have guns and easily make a battlefield out of each single plane. And when a plane is turned into a battlefield, the plane goes *down*.

We see what happens when absolutely no one on the plane is armed. On 9/11, four planes went down. If no one is armed, the plane is going down anyway. One person with a firearm would have prevented all of these attacks. When terrorists are targeting civilians, civilians need to be armed.

Of course you could do the *reasonable* thing, and ask that a policeman or two be stationed on each plane. But you don't want to do that! You want to allow *everyone* to carry weapons on board!

Thats not reasonable when the goverment is unwilling, and unable to do it, and I have the same right, and ability to defend myself as said police officer.

Now please tell me who the hell would be willing get in a flight which also happens to carry a dozen gun-wielding Palestinians or Saudis? Especially if the flight belongs to an Israeli airline?

The law simply does not allow this situation to develope. It is illegal in the U.S. to have or purchase a firearm if you are not a citizen. So no Saudis, or Palestinians are getting aboard with a firearm. A simple ID check solves that problem. And if that doesn't, the other 50 law abiding people onboard who are armed will.

The mentality that only the "proper authorities" should at any time be armed is a pathetic testament to the sub serviant, lazy dependence that people have come to rely on their goverments for protection. Who better to defend and protect myself than me?

(Of course, being free to protect oneself is attributed to truly free nations. Those of you who rely on a communistic or socialistic goverment promise of protection, by choice or dictate, were never free to begin with.)

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by Richard G
We see what happens when absolutely no one on the plane is armed. On 9/11, four planes went down. If no one is armed, the plane is going down anyway. One person with a firearm would have prevented all of these attacks. When terrorists are targeting civilians, civilians need to be armed.


One person with a firearm would be quickly shot by the equally well-armed terrorists. *Many* people with firearms, or one *specifically appointed person* (policeman) would do the job. And it'd release others from the worry and anxiety of having to look around them for signs of trouble.

Thats not reasonable when the goverment is unwilling, and unable to do it, and I have the same right, and ability to defend myself as said police officer.

In democratic societies you (plural) *are* the government.

Same right and ability? Perhaps. But will you accept the responsibility of defending those who *don't* have the same ability?

What if a flight is packed full with nuns and only one terrorist with a gun? I suppose you'll tell me it's the nuns fault for not arming themselves?

The law simply does not allow this situation to develope. It is illegal in the U.S. to have or purchase a firearm if you are not a citizen. So no Saudis, or Palestinians are getting aboard with a firearm.
Again with the American parochialism! Have you forgotten the pesky little detail of international flights? Think of a flight from Saudi Arabia to America. No *Americans* will get aboard with a firearm in that scenario.

And since the flight would still be coming to America, your twin towers wouldn't be that safe either. What would you do with *that* scenario?

The mentality that only the "proper authorities" should at any time be armed is a pathetic testament to the sub serviant, lazy dependence that people have come to rely on their goverments for protection. Who better to defend and protect myself than me?

That's not the question. The question is who is there to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves?

The answer is: The ones who have been trained and accepted and are paid for that responsibilty.

(Of course, being free to protect oneself is attributed to truly free nations. Those of you who rely on a communistic or socialistic goverment promise of protection, by choice or dictate, were never free to begin with.) [/B]

Yeah, yeah, "the government is our enemy", etc, etc, I have heard that religious doctrine before.

But freedom from fear is a freedom I have in the streets of Athens, much more than I think I'd have in the armed streets of New York.

[Richard G]

One person with a firearm would be quickly shot by the equally well-armed terrorists. *Many* people with firearms, or one *specifically appointed person* (policeman) would do the job.

A well armed terrorist wouldn't be able to take out one policeman either eh? Cops aren't supermen, they are only armed people with power of arrest.

Same right and ability? Perhaps. But will you accept the responsibility of defending those who *don't* have the same ability?

Absolutely. The law is very clear in this regard also, it is the same law that applies to police. Use of deadly force is only justified when the life of yourself, or that of another, is in immediate danger. Would your concious allow you to standby while someone was being violently victimized before your eyes, and you had the means to stop it?

Think of a flight from Saudi Arabia to America. No *Americans* will get aboard with a firearm in that scenario.

Solution to that is simple. I would ban all flights from Saudi Arabia. Seriously though, that is a flight I would never be on, so it is of no concern to me. If it is a U.S. chartered plane, the pilots at bare minimum should be armed.

That's not the question. The question is who is there to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves? The answer is: The ones who have been trained and accepted and are paid for that responsibilty.


Which begs the question of what happens when those hired people aren't there? 270 million Americans have an average of 1 cop per 10,000 population. They can't protect everyone, everywhere, all the time. If that were true, we would never see any crime being commited. Anyone not willing to arm themselves for defense of themselves and their families is irresponsible, and foolish.

But freedom from fear is a freedom I have in the streets of Athens, much more than I think I'd have in the armed streets of New York.

The streets of New York are not armed. In their great wisdom, the socialist city goverment there has made it illegal for law abiding citizens to carry outside of their homes. In fact, they require registration of firearms one keeps in their home.

As a result, the city is no safer because of it. (criminals happily disregard these laws.)

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by Richard G A well armed terrorist wouldn't be able to take out one policeman either eh?

You misunderstand me. He would be an *unarmed* terrorist versus an *armed* policeman (or pilot or whatever) since that's the scenario *I* am advocating, not allowing passengers to have guns.

Which begs the question of what happens when those hired people aren't there? 270 million Americans have an average of 1 cop per 10,000 population. They can't protect everyone, everywhere, all the time. If that were true, we would never see any crime being commited. Anyone not willing to arm themselves for defense of themselves and their families is irresponsible, and foolish. [/B]

Which is why I accepted the idea that one (note: one!) gun per household, registered and licenced, is indeed a rather sane choice. What's the use of five or ten guns though? Othen than reselling them or having them stolen and thus *increasing* danger to society?

Ofcourse I, living in a flat, personally still don't feel I need even one gun, since burglars over here are hardly ever armed with anything more than knives from what I hear (after all if they carry a gun, cops are more likely to shoot them) - nor do they tend to kill. But I understand the situation can be different in a countryside with the possibility of roaming criminals/fugitives.

Sidenote: Even then in almost all cases I've heard of someone killed by criminals is when the owner of house wakes up, gets up with a rifle to shoot at the criminals, and is then shot himself -- I tend to think that in some such cases having a gun at home can be much more dangerous than the opposite scenario; that if the burglars hadn't seen that poor old guy with a rifle they'd have been content to knock him unconscious (possibly still fatally, I concede) or tie him up or even just flee the spot...

But I'd definitely allow power of personal choice here. If they want to risk life in favour of property, their call. *My* aged relatives, I'd advise to lock their bedroom's door and call the cops, and then just sit tight instead...

[Victor Danilchenko]

Aris Katsaris

Which is why I accepted the idea that one (note: one!) gun per household, registered and licenced, is indeed a rather sane choice. What's the use of five or ten guns though?Well, the question i would ask is -- what is the problem with forbidding people to have more than one gun per household? When framed this way, th eproblem is obvious: abridgement of individual freedom. You may not think they need more than one gun, but you also may not think that they need more than one car, yet this is not a valid reason for legislative intervention.

This is why I like more and more the manufacturer-side solution: don't restrict the individuals, but mandate that all new guns come with biometric controls.

Sidenote: Even then in almost all cases I've heard of someone killed by criminals is when the owner of house wakes up, gets up with a rifle to shoot at the criminals, and is then shot himself -- I tend to think that in some such cases having a gun at home can be much more dangerous than the opposite scenario; that if the burglars hadn't seen that poor old guy with a rifle they'd have been content to knock him unconscious (possibly still fatally, I concede) or tie him up or even just flee the spot...Dolores Ibarruri once said; "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". It's about freedom, dude -- and "freedom from fear" is not really freedom, any more than "freedom from offensive speech" is a freedom.

But I'd definitely allow power of personal choice here. If they want to risk life in favour of property, their call.Absolutely.

[Richard G]

Thats a cowardly attitude you have on life there. What is mine is mine, that includes life and property. Spinelessly appeasing a criminal by rolling over and playing dead, giving them what they want, and allowing them to simply "knock me unconcious", further emboldens more criminals to do the same, knowing full well the passivistic attitude of easy targets. I dare say its the antithesis of the American spirit and attitude.

There is a reason police stations don't get robbed. The more people there are willing to stand there ground and fight, the more you will see the criminal element have second thoughts before commiting their next act.

To prove my point, those cities in my country with the most restrictive gun laws have outrageous amounts of violent crime.

Go to any other place in the country where citizens are free to defend their life and property, and the criminals know it, and you will find the violent crime rate goes down considerably. Not to mention the many cases of innocent people saving their own lives and property in the process.

Firearms registration does nothing but put an unwanted burden on law abiding citizens. Criminals do not, and will not register their firearms. That being said, what does registration accomplish? Nothing.

[Aris Katsaris]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
[b]Aris Katsaris

Well, the question i would ask is -- what is the problem with forbidding people to have more than one gun per household?


Namely, that you don't know people will actually keep those weapons. They are just as likely to be resold to criminals, and then you use the fact that criminals have guns to support issuing even *more* guns to citizens...

The gun industry must absolutely *love* this cycle.

This is why I like more and more the manufacturer-side solution: don't restrict the individuals, but mandate that all new guns come with biometric controls.

*shrug*. That'd be a possible solution. Is it doable however, with present-day available technology?

Thats a cowardly attitude you have on life there. What is mine is mine, that includes life and property. Spinelessly appeasing a criminal by rolling over and playing dead, giving them what they want, and allowing them to simply "knock me unconcious", further emboldens more criminals to do the same, knowing full well the passivistic attitude of easy targets.

I'd never, *ever* kill just to defend my property. And when you shoot someone, you can't know it won't kill them, so I'd never shoot someone just to defend property.

Is this cowardice? Frankly, I think it's basic decency. Placing a human life higher than you place your property's worth.

I *would* be willing to kill to defend the life of my family, of course - but what criminal would come intentionally in another man's home to kill or rape? One in a million? One in a ten million?

Should I get a gun just because of that one-in-ten-million chance? Thanks, but no thanks.

Dolores Ibarruri once said; "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". It's about freedom, dude -- and "freedom from fear" is not really freedom, any more than "freedom from offensive speech" is a freedom.

Freedom from fear is the most basic freedom there is. Freedom from fear of imprisonment and unjust prosecution. (I'm not afraid of my government - it's democratic and the judicial system works
Freedom from fear of criminals or violence. (crime rates are low). Freedom to speak my mind and live my life as I want it. All captivity tends to arise from fear.

You think you need your guns to constantly defend those freedoms -- and yet your constant worry about what criminals shall do to you if you didn't have those guns... bleh! You might as well leave in a totalitarian state and be fighting in the mountains for all the ease of mind you guys seem to have.

I don't need your guns.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
I said "throw them into jail" ? I used that expression? I don't think so. But perhaps even "prosecute them" was too strong an expression.

Well, "prosecute them" does pretty much lead to jail if found guilty; or at least probation and/or time served.

I'm also against banning adults from using drugs.

So what's the beef with guns? Are people responsible for their own actions or not?

But frankly the whole war on Iraq is about them having weapons we don't feel they ought to have. I assume you are against the war?

That's true.

Sorry. Not a lie, a bad assumption on my part, since you didn't mention it in this thread.

Okay, that's fine then. Mistakes happen.

I'm under the impression that incidents of suicide bomibers/terrorists weren't much around before 1973.

Hijackers were. And I've posted at least one incident here in the past where a hijacker was foiled by an armed pilot.

Statistics can't always circumvent common sense you know, especially when circumstances have changed.

Except that "common sense," all too often, is neither common nor sense. Common sense once told us that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun, planets, and stars went around it.

Here you go: http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/BlueBook/BlueBook/english/bbepolrol.html

"Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duty imposed on them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession"

Pretty words, but what happens in effect?

Look at Janet Lancaster, for example. She was beaten by her husband so much she felt the need to draw up a will. Her husband actually pled guilty and was given 18 months probation, and when the threats continued, the police sat on the arrest warrant for 13 days. During this time, he shot and killed her (despite the fact that the laws forbade him to possess a weapon). Then he killed himself. The judge called the 13-day delay "normal."

How about a very famous case, Warren vs. District of Columbia? Two women heard their roommate being assaulted downstairs and called the police. They showed up, but left without even entering the building. Despite repeated calls, the police didn't show up again for 14 hours, during which time the assailant assaulted all three women. They sued the city, but the court dismissed their claims, saying that government has "no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Same in Riss vs. City of New York. A woman was being beaten by her boyfriend, and the police ignored her call. Her boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinded her in one eye, damaged the other one, and permanently scarred her face. The city denied responsibility, and the courts agreed. One dissenting judge said, "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, [the plaintiff] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

No, they have no real, effective duty to protect individual citizens.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
One person with a firearm would be quickly shot by the equally well-armed terrorists. *Many* people with firearms, or one *specifically appointed person* (policeman) would do the job.

Why would the one specifically appointed person be able to do the job while one unappointed person would be quickly shot? If anything, the terrorists would very quickly shoot the one they knew to be armed, which would be the person specifically appointed for that purpose.

What if a flight is packed full with nuns and only one terrorist with a gun? I suppose you'll tell me it's the nuns fault for not arming themselves?

I'd love to know where you got that conclusion from.

And since the flight would still be coming to America, your twin towers wouldn't be that safe either. What would you do with *that* scenario?

Those weren't international flights. They nabbed long flights shortly after takeoff to make sure there was lots of nice, flammable fuel on board. An international flight coming in might not even have enough fuel to make it to wherever their target is.

The answer is: The ones who have been trained and accepted and are paid for that responsibilty.

And where are these people? Where were they on 9/11?

Yeah, yeah, "the government is our enemy", etc, etc, I have heard that religious doctrine before.

Yeah, so have I...in a little piece of "religious dogma" called the US Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
You misunderstand me. He would be an *unarmed* terrorist versus an *armed* policeman (or pilot or whatever) since that's the scenario *I* am advocating, not allowing passengers to have guns.

Ah, but the terrorists would know that ahead of time and plan for it. I'm sure they wouldn't mind sacrificing one or two a bit early to take down the one lone armed man so the rest of them can hijack the plane.

Which is why I accepted the idea that one (note: one!) gun per household, registered and licenced, is indeed a rather sane choice.

What if there's more than one person in the house? What if the gun is stolen, or siezed by the burglar? Why shouldn't someone have backup?

What's the use of five or ten guns though? Othen than reselling them or having them stolen and thus *increasing* danger to society?

Please provide support for the assertion that those who buy multiple guns do so expressly for the purpose of reseeling them (i.e., straw purchase). Please provide support that a house with multiple guns is more likely to have them stolen than a house with a single gun.

Ofcourse I, living in a flat, personally still don't feel I need even one gun, since burglars over here are hardly ever armed with anything more than knives from what I hear (after all if they carry a gun, cops are more likely to shoot them) - nor do they tend to kill. But I understand the situation can be different in a countryside with the possibility of roaming criminals/fugitives.

And what if the times change? Do you really trust the government to be flexible enough to change with it in a timely fashion?

Sidenote: Even then in almost all cases I've heard of someone killed by criminals is when the owner of house wakes up, gets up with a rifle to shoot at the criminals, and is then shot himself

Support this please.

And one more point: Even if you have the perfect system set up in your head of how gun control could work, you aren't going to be the one making the decision. The decision will be made by politicians—and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but they neither care what you think nor will work for your well-being. It will be a political decision, based on political expedience. And even if it is implemented in exactly the fashion you'd like, what makes you think it'll stay like that for any length of time? Any time politicians get a little bit of power, any time they can get a foot in the door, they use every excuse in the book to expand and grab more power for themselves.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aris Katsaris
The gun industry must absolutely *love* this cycle.

Why would they? Are they evil villains who twirl their moustaches, laughing at all of the lives taken by criminals using stolen weapons?

Do car dealers love the fact that criminals steal cars? This makes absolutely no sense.

*shrug*. That'd be a possible solution. Is it doable however, with present-day available technology?

Not yet, but they're working on it. Once again, the free market is providing a solution where government fails. (Of course, I have little doubt government will step in and regulate it once it does happen, and take all the credit for it. After all, that's exactly what they did with seat belts.)

I'd never, *ever* kill just to defend my property. And when you shoot someone, you can't know it won't kill them, so I'd never shoot someone just to defend property.

When an intruder's in your home, how can you tell if they're just after your property or if they mean to claim your life if discovered? That's not a chance I'd like to take.

I *would* be willing to kill to defend the life of my family, of course - but what criminal would come intentionally in another man's home to kill or rape? One in a million? One in a ten million?

Look at the murder rates. It's a lot more than that.

Freedom from fear is the most basic freedom there is.

"Those who would give up their liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

And I'd love to know where you get the idea that we all live in constant fear.

I don't need your guns.

Bully for you. That's your choice. But you have no right to force that choice onto others.

[DoctorWho]

Hi,
I am new here to the forum, and I have been following this thread for a while now.
I was in law enforcement, and still am currently Certified as a firearms Instructor.
I also have a license to carry a concealed firearm.
In the past, I have been attacked, both in My Official capacity, and as a regular Civilian, at home and on the street.

I have prevented attacks on Women as well.
I lived in New York City for many years, the average Joe, that is not a Police Officer of some type is hard pressed to obtain a license, as "Need" must be proved first.
That need, consists of carrying large sums of money,
Odd since most people are killed for less than $100 cash, or forced to go to an ATM machine.

A Police Officer will not always be there to serve and protect, and calling 911 will sometimes result in a busy signal.
People that have firearms sometimes buy a safe,
I have one in My home.
I have years of training.
I will help train anyone that wants training and is Law abiding.

Criminals do not obey the Law, that is why they are called Criminals.
Ceasar Beccare, an Italian Statesman wrote essays on Criminology said that Laws that forbid the carrying of Arms are a false security,
If the Criminal will not obey a Law against murder, why will he obey a Law against carrying arms, when that Law is easily broken ?

I saw this many times as a Police Officer, an Elderly Man, walking home after cashing His social security check, is attacked and robbed, more than once, and has to:
1. recuperate from a beating(s)
2. borrow money
3. pay hospital and Ambulance bills

Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter and never try to rob Him again, even the neighborhood toughs move to one side at the small mini grocery store now.

While it may be true that Criminals in other Countries are not as violent, there is no guarantee either, Rapes of Women and Children do occur, and such an attack is as bad as being shot, and can cause death as the danger of contracting an STD such as Aids is real enough and can kill as can a bullet of knife.

[TobiasTheViking]

this thread is more than 3 years old, why revive it?

[DoctorWho]

Dunno,
I just got here and wanted to make some sense of things.
Now more than ever, responsible People are realizing that We as private Citizens are are part of the solution to things.

It is not enough to pay for more Police, Milltary and Government and hope things will be OK, it starts at home, and with personal responsibilty in all matters.

[Bjorn]

I will help train anyone that wants training and is Law abiding.Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.Just curious: Was he abiding the law when he got the gun?

While it may be true that Criminals in other Countries are not as violent, there is no guarantee either, Rapes of Women and Children do occur, and such an attack is as bad as being shot, and can cause death as the danger of contracting an STD such as Aids is real enough and can kill as can a bullet of knife.I'm not sure if I understand you - do you feel that law abiding people in other countries should arm themselves to the degree that Americans have? If so, should they abide the applicable gun laws in the countries they live in?

[RandFan]

Welcome Dr. Who,

I really think you should have started a new thread. Perhaps you can split off a new one.

JMO

[DoctorWho]

Just curious: Was he abiding the law when he got the gun?
Yes.

I'm not sure if I understand you - do you feel that law abiding people in other countries should arm themselves to the degree that Americans have? If so, should they abide the applicable gun laws in the countries they live in?
I only said that getting attacked by an unarmed rapist can be as bad as being attacked by a man with a gun, both can result in death to the one attacked.

As far as being armed, that is up to the Government to allow it, the people to want it, and see a need for it.
The Police are not the answer to everything, as I saw when I was a Police Officer.

[Kopji]

Oh, another gun thread.

A local teacher shot and killed an unarmed man who was out walking some dogs in the woods. The dogs scared him so he fired off some warning shots. The unarmed man ran toward him yelling not to kill the dogs. Three shots to the chest put him down.

Turns out that the dead man had a history of mental illness, so it was probably good that he was not armed. A lot of people would think it is good that he's dead too.

The teacher was found guilty of manslaughter. He will probably appeal but fact of the matter is an innocent person is dead and the teacher's life is pretty screwed up now.

Sorry, this is just another point of view. Admittedly an unpopular one. Insane people tend to scare good folks, and when the 'good folks' are armed they can act on those fears. Hard to tell the difference between them and the criminals sometimes.

[gumboot]

I found the original post really funny...true or not, it was amusing.

BUT

I feel sorry for Americans...

I can't imagine living in a country where I am so afraid of my government and my fellow citizens that I feel I need to carry an unregistered deadly weapon around to feel safe...

Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I like the fact that I can trust my government not to oppress me (what's the point of living in a democracy if you can't trust your government???). I like the fact that there's no guns here. I especially like the fact that our police don't need to carry guns. And funnily enough, we have far less crime - per capita. Despite lacking the "protection" of guns.

-Andrew

P.S. 50% of murder victims are killed by people they live with. So by killing everyone else in your house you can automatically halve your chances of being murdered... ;)

[Mephisto]

If you've ever seen video of five to ten officers stoppping an armed and dangerous man, they ALL empty their magazines. Thats 30-40 rounds they expend, and not a word of mention is said about that. (and it shouldn't be).

You're absolutely right! For example the video of the Keehoe brothers, white supremicists who got into a POINT BLANK shootout with two policemen - neither was hit! The same is true of the two notorious AK-47 wielding bank robbers in L.A. - thousands upon thousands of rounds fired at them with negligible results (it was obvious to me they were wearing body armor - I wonder why no one thought to shoot them in the head?).

For the record, I'm a staunch liberal, yet I'm also a disabled veteran sharpshooter and am a staunch supporter of the rights of law-abiding citizens to own legal firearms (i.e. NOT full-automatic weapons, NOT sawed-off shotguns, NOT zip guns or pipe guns or explosive rounds . . . ). I think it's absolutely hilarious that five to ten policemen "spray & pray" when it comes to armed combat, and often without results at all.

Now THAT'S an anomaly, a self-confessed liberal gun-nut saying the police (some police) can't shoot!

[Bandersnatch]

Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter and never try to rob Him again, even the neighborhood toughs move to one side at the small mini grocery store now.


Alternitive:
Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter, but regroup afterwards with an illegally obtained arm. The old man continues walking in the same route the next day, but is this time shot and killed from behind. The robbers then steal both the money and the revolver.

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

[luchog]

Alternitive:
Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter, but regroup afterwards with an illegally obtained arm. The old man continues walking in the same route the next day, but is this time shot and killed from behind. The robbers then steal both the money and the revolver.
Not plausible since 1) a criminal who is inclined to use a firearm will have one already, and will have used it already; and 2) a criminal who attacks soft targests like the Elderly Man is not the sort who will kill his victim and is unlikely to carry a firearm, and in the future will simply avoid the Elderly Man and seek out another soft target. This sort of escalation is highly unlikely, as criminals tend to pick a pattern and stick with it.

[Bandersnatch]

Not plausible since 1) a criminal who is inclined to use a firearm will have one already, and will have used it already; and 2) a criminal who attacks soft targests like the Elderly Man is not the sort who will kill his victim and is unlikely to carry a firearm, and in the future will simply avoid the Elderly Man and seek out another soft target. This sort of escalation is highly unlikely, as criminals tend to pick a pattern and stick with it.


Now, I'll be honest and say I know nothing of the criminal mind and admit that your scenario is more likely, but the hypothetical criminals have already beaten up the elderly man before. Isn't it possible that the criminals would "graduate" to a higher crime?

[Huntster]

...I won't bore you with too many more details in my story except to say that between getting off the bus and finally being seen by a scalpel-weilding homicidal doctor, I was stabbed about thirty times.....

You yanks don't know how lucky you are.

Some of us do. But there are always zealots trying to take away our rights.

I'd move out of that place, if you can.

[Huntster]

....I feel sorry for Americans...

I can't imagine living in a country where I am so afraid of my government and my fellow citizens that I feel I need to carry an unregistered deadly weapon around to feel safe...

Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I like the fact that I can trust my government not to oppress me (what's the point of living in a democracy if you can't trust your government???)....

You can "trust your government?"

[Ranb]

.....For the record, I'm a staunch liberal, yet I'm also a disabled veteran sharpshooter and am a staunch supporter of the rights of law-abiding citizens to own legal firearms (i.e. NOT full-automatic weapons, NOT sawed-off shotguns, .....

Do you have a problem with Americans owning legal NFA weapons?

Ranb

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by DoctorWho :
Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter and never try to rob Him again, even the neighborhood toughs move to one side at the small mini grocery store now.

Alternitive:
Same Elderly Man is given an antique S&W Revolver as a gift, and a box of cartridges and a holster.
Next week, the same villians try to rob Him and He pulls out His antique and fires a shot into the ground.
The villians scatter, but regroup afterwards with an illegally obtained arm. The old man continues walking in the same route the next day, but is this time shot and killed from behind. The robbers then steal both the money and the revolver.

Moral of the alternative story:

The bad guys can always win, so there's no use in standing up to evil. Always surrender so the bad guys can't get the gun you're not morally supposed to have.

[Ladewig]

! The same is true of the two notorious AK-47 wielding bank robbers in L.A. - thousands upon thousands of rounds fired at them with negligible results (it was obvious to me they were wearing body armor - I wonder why no one thought to shoot them in the head?).



When I read the story back then, I found a source that said that L.A.P.D. policy was not to shoot people in the head.

Thinking back, I wonder why I wasn't skeptical enough to investigate the claim.

[Bandersnatch]

Moral of the alternative story:

The bad guys can always win, so there's no use in standing up to evil. Always surrender so the bad guys can't get the gun you're not morally supposed to have.


Oh, you'd have so much fun in Black Rock City!

You could shoot them all.
Or keep anthrax in your pocket; MAD is the way to go!

[Huntster]

Moral of the alternative story:

The bad guys can always win, so there's no use in standing up to evil. Always surrender so the bad guys can't get the gun you're not morally supposed to have.
Oh, you'd have so much fun in Black Rock City!

Where is Black Rock City?

You could shoot them all.

Lesson #1 when studying lethal force:

Avoid all places where it might be necessary.

Or keep anthrax in your pocket; MAD is the way to go!

I'm not a big fan of poisons, chemicals, and radiation, but I'm very impressed with smaller explosive ordnance and rockets.

A hand grenade can be a wonderful thing, when needed. So can Claymore mines (when setting up a defensive position) and a shoulder-fired rocket (when dealing with thugs in vehicles).

With the new phenomenon of young thugs fleeing police in high-speed vehicular chases, I'm of the opinion that police should now carry rockets (along with center-fire rifles) in the trunks of their police cruisers. Blowing up a few of these miscreants, and having that shown on the news, might slow the trend down a bit.

[Dcdrac]

UK has some of the the tightest gun control laws in the world and a lower murder rate than the US hmmmm no connection there then is there.......

[DoctorWho]

Sorry to disapoint old boy,

The Elderly Man in this true account lived the rest of His days in
Peace and was never robbed again, the local hoods and toughs actually treated Him with respect after the incident and thought He was "Cool",
He died of mere old age.

Millions of People now have licenses to carry concealed firearms in the U.S. now.
The Criminals do not know who is armed and who is not armed, so it makes it harder on the poor Criminals.

[DoctorWho]

"UK has some of the the tightest gun control laws in the world and a lower murder rate than the US hmmmm no connection there then is there......."

That is not true.
Internal sourses in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite.
Crime are not being commited by most People in England or the U.K.,
They are commited by a small number of villians, many of them immigrants with a low level of skills and education and only able to do menial low wage labor.

People in the U.K. are robbed and killed, but self defense is considered as taking the Law into ones own hands.
Here in the U.S. many States are now passing Laws that allow a person to stand their ground if attacked and not have to run.

That is good, I can't run any way, and I would rather not die, because some young Kid decides He needs My money to buy drugs and tries to punch My head off with His bare fists.
He could kill Me very easily that way, and I could not stop a strong young Man from doing that.
But now I can defend Myself from such an attack.

[Dcdrac]

[QUOTE=DoctorWho;1749158]"UK has some of the the tightest gun control laws in the world and a lower murder rate than the US hmmmm no connection there then is there......."

That is not true.
Internal sourses in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite.


And you have access to these internal sources do you? if so please share them.

[Darat]

"UK has some of the the tightest gun control laws in the world and a lower murder rate than the US hmmmm no connection there then is there......."

That is not true.
Internal sourses in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite.


Evidence?


Crime are not being commited by most People in England or the U.K.,


Well I would hope this is the case. :)


They are commited by a small number of villians, many of them immigrants with a low level of skills and education and only able to do menial low wage labor.


Evidence?


People in the U.K. are robbed and killed, but self defense is considered as taking the Law into ones own hands.

..snip...


Not true - self defence is an accepted defence even if you kill someone who is attacking you.

[Beerina]

Sure, but why is it whenever an armed citizen faces an armed and dangerous man there's all this questioning over whether or not they used more force than necessary? Don't citizens have as much of a right to defend themselves as the police?

If you're defending your life, why should you use less than the whole hog in defending it? The attacker has 0% right to not be injured or destroyed since he is comitting the violation. You need not take on any additional risk whatsoever just to make someone sitting safely in a room somewhere happy with your actions.

It's the kind of attitude that is spawning all this "you don't have to back down" legislation because people are tired of it.

[richardm]

They are commited by a small number of villians, many of them immigrants with a low level of skills and education and only able to do menial low wage labor.

I didn't even know you could get the Daily Mail in America.

[The Don]

I remember the gool old days when villans were proper villans and only killed their own kind. Poper gents they were too. Gawd bless the Krays.

These modern criminals are all foreign types, kill you as soon as look at you, would melt down their grandmothers for the silver in their hair. I blame Tony Blair !!!!

[Lothian]

Sorry to disapoint old boy,

The Elderly Man in this true account lived the rest of His days in
Peace and was never robbed again, the local hoods and toughs actually treated Him with respect after the incident and thought He was "Cool",
This sad story illustrates the current problem with weapons and children. Until people learn that having a gun or knife is not “cool” there will always be accidents.

Killing someone or scaring someone is not cool.

[Bandersnatch]

Sorry to disapoint old boy,

The Elderly Man in this true account lived the rest of His days in
Peace and was never robbed again, the local hoods and toughs actually treated Him with respect after the incident and thought He was "Cool",
He died of mere old age.

Millions of People now have licenses to carry concealed firearms in the U.S. now.
The Criminals do not know who is armed and who is not armed, so it makes it harder on the poor Criminals.


A-mazing. I must get a rock, er, gun so that I may keep away tigers, er, villians!

Out of curiousity, is this an anicdote, or hypothetical? Since either way seems to not be evidence.

[Dcdrac]

[QUOTE=Darat;1749655]Evidence?



Well I would hope this is the case. :)



Evidence?


I am going to put in a FOI request and phone up my contacts in the Home Office from my law enforcement days.

[Ryokan]

What does the law say about this situation?

Since this is how 'liberals' think, can I assume 'conservatives' think the opposite? Or disregard the law entirely?

[Ryokan]

Some of us do. But there are always zealots trying to take away our rights.

I'd move out of that place, if you can.

Well, I live in a country where the gun laws are pretty strict, not even the police carry guns.

And yet, it's the country with the lowest crime and murder rate in Europe. Go figure.

[Bikewer]

I can speak from experience (30+ years in law enforcement) that criminals are remarkably creatures of habit. In some cases, so much so that you begin to think it's rather fetishistic.
Armed robbers are the worst, they very frequently follow an exact scenario, and often get flustered (sometimes dangerously) when things go wrong.

A couple of illustrations: Years ago we were plagued by a male-female robbery team who would hold up (now defunct) Hart's bread stores. (sort of a pre-7-11) They would always walk in, announce the holdup, display a sawed-off shotgun, and make their escape in an elderly pink American Motors sedan.
Never changed cars or MO.
One day, one of our detectives walked out of headquarters to see a similar vehicle driving by. "couldn't be...", he thought, but followed the car for a couple of miles in his unmarked vehicle till he could hook up with a marked unit.
Sure enough, it was them. Sawed-off under the seat, merchandise from various Hart's stores as well.

Another brain trust at my current job pulled off several armed robberies. He always worked near the engineering complex, and though he used several different weapons he was always wearing a Cubs jacket. This is in St. Louis, of course, and anyone wearing arch-rival Cubs gear stands out like a sore thumb. We put a couple of guys undercover in the area, and sure enough, here comes junior walking out of a building with a briefcase, wearing the Cubs jacket. The briefcase belonged to one of our professors...

Regarding the effect of concealed carry/armed citizens on crime rate, it's essentially nil. At least according to studies released last year, after Missouri allowed concealed carry.
Almost all the states that allow CC show little or no effect on crime rates.

[Bjorn]

Well, I live in a country where the gun laws are pretty strict, not even the police carry guns.

And yet, it's the country with the lowest crime and murder rate in Europe. Go figure.That is not true.
Internal sources in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite. So, there. ;)

[DoctorWho]

A-mazing. I must get a rock, er, gun so that I may keep away tigers, er, villians!

Out of curiousity, is this an anicdote, or hypothetical? Since either way seems to not be evidence.

This was a true account,
The Man in question was My uncle.

[DoctorWho]

Regarding the effect of concealed carry/armed citizens on crime rate, it's essentially nil. At least according to studies released last year, after Missouri allowed concealed carry.
Almost all the states that allow CC show little or no effect on crime rates.[/QUOTE]

I have been following the rates in Florida since the start of CCW there,
Seems to have gone down over the years.

I also think the legislation allowing current and retired Police Officers to carry in other States was something long needed.

But exact figures are not in question, the truth is law abiding people that are licensed to carry, do thwart criminals daily.

Optional Question, are You above the Rank of Captain - Chief of Dept. ?

[DoctorWho]

Well, I live in a country where the gun laws are pretty strict, not even the police carry guns.

And yet, it's the country with the lowest crime and murder rate in Europe. Go figure.

The People of Norway also happen to be some of the nicest Folks on the planet, is it any wonder crime is low there ? no.
If they had guns everywhere, crime would still be low, and the guns would rust away.

It is not the lack of guns that makes Norways People good.
They were good to start with.

[Bikewer]

Hehe- I am the lowliest of patrolmen, though I did sergeant for a while.

One should not, I think, dismiss the idea of self-defense too lightly. Any police officer will agree that "we" do a great job on catching and prosecuting various sorts of criminals, but it's almost always after the fact. Very seldom are police in a position to defend someone from criminal activity.
The responsibility for defense falls on the individual.

Years ago, I subscribed to the organ of the National Rifle Association (1960s), the American Rifleman. Pretty good shooting rag, with lots of technical advice.
Anyway, each issue featured an "armed citizen" column, which had news clippings of firearms self-defense situations from all over the country. (with citations, if you wanted to look 'em up)
Each month they would publish 25-30 clippings. Not an enormous number for the entire country, but this was pre-internet and easy access to news feeds.

There is also the fact that unknown numbers of self-defense situations may go unreported. Many people are hesitant to make formal police reports, as they don't want to have to go to court, view lineups, or be exposed to the criminal or his compadres.
So, if junior walks into a convenience store and brandishes a knife, and the proprietor pulls out a pistol and says "hit the road", there may well be no report.
Impossible to say how often such things may occur.

[Huntster]

....These modern criminals are all foreign types, kill you as soon as look at you, would melt down their grandmothers for the silver in their hair. I blame Tony Blair !!!!

Why not blame the "modern criminal?"

[Huntster]

Well, I live in a country where the gun laws are pretty strict, not even the police carry guns.

And yet, it's the country with the lowest crime and murder rate in Europe. Go figure.

Okay.

I "figure" since you don't have any criminals, you don't need police with guns.

Congratulations. No guns for you.

[Tricky]

Years ago, I subscribed to the organ of the National Rifle Association (1960s), the American Rifleman. Pretty good shooting rag, with lots of technical advice.
Anyway, each issue featured an "armed citizen" column, which had news clippings of firearms self-defense situations from all over the country. (with citations, if you wanted to look 'em up).

Each month they would publish 25-30 clippings. Not an enormous number for the entire country, but this was pre-internet and easy access to news feeds.

I can provide that many clippings of murders by handguns each month and never have to look at anything but the Houston paper. And a great number of them are so-called "crimes of passion", usually meaning a bar fight, though drug deals are probably the most numerous. Often, you don't even know, they just find somebody dead in their car with a bullet hole in their head.

Here's one (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4029690.html).
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4029426.html)
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4028188.html)
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4027299.html)

That's four in one city in one day.

So don't try the "I can cite examples" strategy for defending gun use. It will backfire.

There is also the fact that unknown numbers of self-defense situations may go unreported. Many people are hesitant to make formal police reports, as they don't want to have to go to court, view lineups, or be exposed to the criminal or his compadres.
So, if junior walks into a convenience store and brandishes a knife, and the proprietor pulls out a pistol and says "hit the road", there may well be no report.
Impossible to say how often such things may occur.
There is also the fact that unknown numbers of times guns are used in criminal situations that also aren't reported. Sometimes people are afraid to go to the cops for fear of vengance, or because they themselves have something to hide. I'll bet this kind of underreporting happens at least as often as defensive underreporting.

So if junior robs a guy who he knows has pot in his house then the pot-head doesn't dare report him for fear of being busted. Impossible to say how often such things may occur.

I actually had a kind of situation like that. I was driving in heavy traffic and there was one car that was trying very hard to weave through it. He came upon a car that wouldn't move out of "his" lane and I saw a hand holding a gun come out of the car and threaten the "slow" driver. I didn't get a good enough look at car to report it, and I don't know for sure that anyone else did.

[DoctorWho]

All I know is this,
I have lots of training, and experience,
I know how to take care of Myself.

All the arguements against firearms are based on an Emotional response and lots of unrelated facts and criminal behavior.
Law Abiding folks are not the ones pointing guns at others on the road.
They are not the ones holding up liquor stores.
And to use the drug dealers and drug addicts out there as an excuse to take Law abiding peoples firearms away, does not make sense.

In the bible, Cain was the first recorded murderer, what Gun did Cain use ?
Because according to many, no Guns = No murder or Crime.
In the U.K. now, they are collecting knives, in great lots. Why ?
They took handguns away from all the Law Abiding Brits, why didn't crime disappear ?
Maybe because the average British male is not a criminal.
The Criminals did not give up their guns, or the desire to commit crime.
Therein lies the problem,
Not in objects, but in people, a good person with a firearm does not become a criminal.
Crime origininates in the mind first, then the act is perpetrated, and the criminal picks the tools of the trade. It would be nice and tidy to be able to blame crime on objects, but that is just childish and untrue.

[Huntster]

......Sorry, this is just another point of view. Admittedly an unpopular one. Insane people tend to scare good folks, and when the 'good folks' are armed they can act on those fears. Hard to tell the difference between them and the criminals sometimes.

Yup. That's life.

And death.

[Huntster]

I can provide that many clippings of murders by handguns each month and never have to look at anything but the Houston paper. And a great number of them are so-called "crimes of passion", usually meaning a bar fight, though drug deals are probably the most numerous. Often, you don't even know, they just find somebody dead in their car with a bullet hole in their head.

Here's one (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4029690.html).
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4029426.html)
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4028188.html)
Here's another. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4027299.html)

That's four in one city in one day.

So don't try the "I can cite examples" strategy for defending gun use. It will backfire....

How does it backfire on me?

I'm not dead.

There is also the fact that unknown numbers of times guns are used in criminal situations that also aren't reported.

Oh, yes, indeed.

Sometimes people are afraid to go to the cops for fear of vengance, or because they themselves have something to hide.

Yup.

I'll bet this kind of underreporting happens at least as often as defensive underreporting.

More.

So if junior robs a guy who he knows has pot in his house then the pot-head doesn't dare report him for fear of being busted. Impossible to say how often such things may occur.

Who gives a damn about the guy getting robbed of his pot?

The police sure don't give much of a damn. Why do you?

I actually had a kind of situation like that.

Oh. I guess "I should have known."

I was driving in heavy traffic and there was one car that was trying very hard to weave through it. He came upon a car that wouldn't move out of "his" lane and I saw a hand holding a gun come out of the car and threaten the "slow" driver. I didn't get a good enough look at car to report it, and I don't know for sure that anyone else did.

That isn't "a kind of situation like that".

The slower car is breaking no law.

[Darat]

All I know is this,
I have lots of training, and experience,
I know how to take care of Myself.

All the arguements against firearms are based on an Emotional response and lots of unrelated facts and criminal behavior.


No they aren't here is one that isn't:

If there was no firearms then there would be no deaths by firearms.


Law Abiding folks are not the ones pointing guns at others on the road.
They are not the ones holding up liquor stores.
And to use the drug dealers and drug addicts out there as an excuse to take Law abiding peoples firearms away, does not make sense.


Yes it does - see the argument I used above - if no-one had any guns there would be no hold-ups with guns.


In the bible, Cain was the first recorded murderer, what Gun did Cain use ?


Again whether someone can be killed by other means is not always relevant (but it may be).

Because according to many, no Guns = No murder or Crime.


Please provide evidence that at least one of these "many" you claim hold this opinion actualy exist. In almost 5 years of discussing gun crime/control etc. on this forum I have never ever read anyone saying that no guns would mean no muders and/or crime.


In the U.K. now, they are collecting knives, in great lots. Why ?


To remove some illegal knives from general availability.


They took handguns away from all the Law Abiding Brits, why didn't crime disappear ?

...snip...


The particular crime that was the cause of that silly legislation hasn't been repeated in the UK which was the stated reason for passing that legislation.

Many people in the UK believe that legislation was over the top and other much less restrictive legislation could have safeguarded people just as effectively. However in the UK "we" as in the general public have no desire to be able to carry loaded handguns etc. it is just not part of our culture so further restrictions on gun ownership is more likely to gain a political party votes then lose them.

(As an aside to understand the lack of interest in guns the latest gun control laws in the UK reduced the total of legally owned guns by only 160,000 and the number of people affected by the law was around 50,000-60,000. And as another FYI the number of legally owned guns in the UK is approximately 3,200,000.)

[Lothian]

All the arguements against firearms are based on an Emotional response and lots of unrelated facts and criminal behavior.I don't think emotional statements like this help a reasoned debate.

In the U.K. now, they are collecting knives, in great lots. Why ?Evidence offences under the Knives act have fallen 80% in the last 6 years (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/100years.xls)
They took handguns away from all the Law Abiding Brits, why didn't crime disappear ?I don't think crime will ever disappear. Do you think a gun crime rate of 0.14 per 100,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg)is high ? If America had that rate is there are argument that it had all but disappeared.

[Tricky]

How does it backfire on me?
If one wants to quote clippings where guns were used defensively, then one must also accept the legitimacy of clippings where guns were used in the commission of crimes (of which there are a lot more). So if a gun supporter wants to play "dueling anecdotes", he will lose that battle. That is what I meant by "backfire". I'm hoping you understood that when I said it the first time and are just being petulant.

Who gives a damn about the guy getting robbed of his pot? The police sure don't give much of a damn. Why do you?
I didn't say he got robbed of his pot, only that this was a reason for not reporting the crime. Crimes against potheads are still crimes, Huntster. I actually care when crimes are committed. Why don't you?


That isn't "a kind of situation like that". The slower car is breaking no law.I really do hope you are just being intentionally obtuse and not that you are truly unable to understand what I was saying. But just in case it was the latter, I'll explain a little more.

The car driving slow was breaking no law. The guy in the speeding car who waved a gun at the slower car was breaking a law (he assaulted the driver of the other car), but I doubt it was reported. Or maybe it was, but we never saw it because it only makes the news if someone is actually shot or robbed. That is why I say that gun crimes are just as likely to be underreported as legitimate defensive gun use.

[Dcdrac]

I am still awaitng the sources of Doctor Whos claim about the Home Office and its "Hidden Data" I wnat them to show me first before I bother my old contacts and take the time to or do a Freedom of Information request.

[brodski]

I am still awaitng the sources of Doctor Whos claim about the Home Office and its "Hidden Data" I wnat them to show me first before I bother my old contacts and take the time to or do a Freedom of Information request.
I would be interested to see this as well, seeing as murder is probably the least underreported of crimes, and some of the easiest data to check, the Home Office must be doing a bloody good job to keep these data secret, and I think claiming that the HO is doing a bloody good job at the moment is somewhat of an extraordinary claim in itself.

[Dcdrac]

I would be interested to see this as well, seeing as murder is probably the least underreported of crimes, and some of the easiest data to check, the Home Office must be doing a bloody good job to keep these data secret, and I think claiming that the HO is doing a bloody good job at the moment is somewhat of an extraordinary claim in itself.

I still know people in the HO it would not take me long to find out. And I know sveral Metropolitan Police officers too I could ask as well.

I just want to see Doc Whos evidence first.

[Elind]

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 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Why would the liberal be carrying the gun then?

[brodski]

I just want to see Doc Whos evidence first. If I where you I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Dcdrac]

Why would the liberal be carrying the gun then?


how do you know he is n't a butcher on his way to work, or like my brother who used to carry tools between sites like axes?

And what kind of nutcase takes his family for a walk carrying a Glock in the first place?

That would worry me more than anything else if I was their neighbour.

Wasn;t there a story doing the round afew years ago about some japanese tourists lsot in one of the US cities knocking on a door to ask for instructions and then getting shot dead by the house owner?

[Elind]

Yes, but my point was, the description given of the "lilly livered" liberal's agonizing about what to do with the gun when attacked is obviously that of someone who would never carry a gun in the first place.

This is just more macho posturing by "them" versus "us".

If you have to live in a neighborhood where it really makes sense be armed, then I sympathize and wish you the best. Otherwise you might as well walk around with a lightning protector hat on your head and air bags on your waist, oh, and a helmet with tin foil inside too. The gun is more likely to shoot you accidentally than save your life.

[DoctorWho]

Yes, but my point was, the description given of the "lilly livered" liberal's agonizing about what to do with the gun when attacked is obviously that of someone who would never carry a gun in the first place.

This is just more macho posturing by "them" versus "us".

If you have to live in a neighborhood where it really makes sense be armed, then I sympathize and wish you the best. Otherwise you might as well walk around with a lightning protector hat on your head and air bags on your waist, oh, and a helmet with tin foil inside too. The gun is more likely to shoot you accidentally than save your life.

And just where do You get the evidence of that gem ?
Are you an expert on guns ?
how does a gun shoot you ?
At least I attended Police training schools and still am currently a certified firearms Instructor.

[Elind]

[/u]

And just where do You get the evidence of that gem ?
Are you an expert on guns ?
how does a gun shoot you ?
At least I attended Police training schools and still am currently a certified firearms Instructor.

Good for you. :clap:

You are probably reasonably safe from a gun in your hands, although given that chip on your shoulder I have some doubts about someone like me who might seem to give you a dirty look.

Seriously though, you missed my point. Not that it was that major, but it was a point that tried to say that the original example given was contrived for effect and had little relevance to anything else. The liberal described would never have been carrying a gun in the first place, so the whole issue was dumb, unless I missed the joke smilie in which case I apologize.

[Dcdrac]

Yes, but my point was, the description given of the "lilly livered" liberal's agonizing about what to do with the gun when attacked is obviously that of someone who would never carry a gun in the first place.

This is just more macho posturing by "them" versus "us".

If you have to live in a neighborhood where it really makes sense be armed, then I sympathize and wish you the best. Otherwise you might as well walk around with a lightning protector hat on your head and air bags on your waist, oh, and a helmet with tin foil inside too. The gun is more likely to shoot you accidentally than save your life.

Ilive in an inner city area of London called Finsbury Park, it is somewhat dodgy but it would not be helped by having loads of peopel wandering around armed with guns, in fact it would be insane.

And far from being "lilly livered" msot liberals i know are tougher and have stronger persoanlities than any conservative i have met yet you tend to be arm chair gung ho types, this is from personal experience mind, who when the chips are down are the first to run.

[DoctorWho]

Actually, that sounds more like a Homer Simpson cartoon,
A dirt look ? someone that is angry looking perhaps ?
I see that all the time.
Crazy People too, it is part of life in: "The Big City".
You do not get all bent out of shape every time you see a weirded beardo
Walking towards You, it could be a college professor. :jaw-dropp

My funniest incident was as a Kid, I saw a man being chased by a Uniformed
Police Officer, and it was obvious the PO was not going to catch this Perp,
as the Guy ran past Me, I stuck out my foot, and the Guy whomped into the sidewalk, He fall down and go boom,:) Awwwwww, poor baby....:(

A month ago, two Teens tried to rob Me as I waited for a bus, and I convinced them it was a poor idea, it was almost laughable these two
Skinny puppies, trying to scare Me with cheap clasp knives.
They ran away really fast.
I simply offered to break them in half, and that was enough to make them drop the knives and run like heck.

[Dcdrac]

Last time someone tried to mug me was on Walworth road i was heading back to the Elephant and Castle to get the tube, this big guy comes up to me tries to grab me, i ducked and he went right over me, fell on the floor said oh F**k you and ran off.

In an earlier pre transec life i was a commissioned customres officer and had been tauight a few tricks.

[DoctorWho]

"And far from being "lilly livered" msot liberals i know are tougher and have stronger persoanlities than any conservative i have met yet you tend to be arm chair gung ho types, this is from personal experience mind, who when the chips are down are the first to run."

You must be hanging around with a strange lot, very odd indeed.

[DoctorWho]

Last time someone tried to mug me was on Walworth road i was heading back to the Elephant and Castle to get the tube, this big guy comes up to me tries to grab me, i ducked and he went right over me, fell on the floor said oh F**k you and ran off.

In an earlier pre transec life i was a commissioned customres officer and had been tauight a few tricks.

I am glad You are ok,
A stout walking stick is a good defense too.

[Dcdrac]

once and only time it hashappened to me,, i guess i still stomp around like a customs officer, maybe once you put a uniform on it never really leaves you.

[DoctorWho]

Very true,
That is indeed a fact.

Oh My, it is time for a cup of Earl grey !!! :rolleyes:

[Ryokan]

Very true,
That is indeed a fact.

Oh My, it is time for a cup of Earl grey !!! :rolleyes:

I'll have mine with two lumps and a bit of lemon, please. And hold the guns.

[Dcdrac]

i would like the bog standard Nick canteen tea please complete with slightly dodgy digestive from the bottom of the tin

[DoctorWho]

I fully understand the concept of non-violence, and pacifism, and spirituality,
Good will and all that sort of thing.
But there are People out there that do not, there are some really horrible People in the World, People like the ones that flew two planes into the World Trade center on 9/11/2001, I was there at Ground Zero and saw the devastation first hand.

There are People that only have hate for others, not love.
Many times I have met those that relish taking life, I have heard People boast about killing cats for instance, they think it is funny.
I don't, I have a Cat and I get angry to think someone would kill My sweet little Cat just for fun.

I do not like violence, but I am ready to defend Myself from those horrible monsters out there that think hurting another Person is fun.

I have been to many Countries, I think most People are actually good, with some exceptions, but not every place is so nice.
You go to Africa for instance, or Haiti, or Mexico, and it is not so safe as Mayfair or even London.

Many of these People go to nicer Countries and bring a bad element to those Countries.
That is the danger.

[Dcdrac]

But most of the people who go to live in other countries are peace loving, hard working and just want to be left in peace like everyone else. I will not blame a whole group of people for the actiosn of a handful.

Take a pub on Friday night in any town UK, there will be a bunch of people casuing trouble does that mean that everyone in there was guilty no it does not.

The majority of people i nicked when i worked for customs were from the north of England does that mean that people in the north are inherently criminal? no i just encoutnere the tiny handful that are.

[Bjorn]

What happened to that evidence? Did anyone see it fly by?

[DoctorWho]

What happened to that evidence? Did anyone see it fly by?

I am way too lazy to put together anything like that for an Unpaid consultation.
As an expert witness, I get paid quite well.
Want to see evidence ?
Google the phrase, the truth about Armed self defence,
Also look up two freinds of mine, Nancy Bittle, and Paxton Quigley, both have web sites and links to valuable information on the subject.

Many People concentrate on crime that occurs in slums and ghettos, drug dealers shooting other people in tenaments, this has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
But there are some that believe it is necessary to turn a Country into a controlled society because of the few bad People in it.
Far from it, put the bad People in jail and leave the good People alone.

[Bjorn]

I am way too lazy to put together anything like that for an Unpaid consultation.
As an expert witness, I get paid quite well.Here's the statement you commented on:

UK has some of the the tightest gun control laws in the world and a lower murder rate than the US hmmmm no connection there then is there.......You answered:

That is not true.
Internal sourses in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite.So, I take it you have no evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Or, to make it easier for you: If you have the evidence, please post it. If you don't, we'll assume you just made it up. :rolleyes:

[DoctorWho]

You can assume anything You want,
the truth is available, look it up,
I am not going to waste time, and have You call anything I post a forgery.
Truth is, it is not that big a deal to Me to need to prove Myself to anyone.
The truth is on the Internet, look it up or not.
It is up to You if You want to go on believing the numbers cooked up by the proponents of gun control or the truth.

[DoctorWho]

My Cat insisted I post this.

http://feeds.thelondonnews.net/?rid=83ed4ada034c1969&cat=415361b06433ee08&f=1

London Organized Crime `Out of Control,' Police Officer Says

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- The head of London Metropolitan Police's organized-crime unit said criminal gangs are ``out of control'' in the U.K. capital, and the government needs to provide more resources for law enforcement.

Gangs that deal in crimes such as fraud, fake passports and trafficking women for prostitution are thriving, Bob Murrill, head of the department's Operation Maxim squad told the British Broadcasting Corp. The squad's successes, including 150 arrests since 2004, have been ``the tip of the iceberg,'' he said.

``We don't have -- as a society, the police, politicians or law enforcement in general -- full control over what's going on,'' Murrill said. ``In fact, I'd say it's out of control.''

Crime in London, which has 7.4 million residents, fell 3 percent in the year through April, according to the Metropolitan Police Web site. Robbery, burglary and gun crimes all rose, however. Multinational gangs are posing a challenge to U.K. police, Britain's Home Office said on April 3, when the government introduced a new national organized crime agency.


Operation Maxim, made up of police and the U.K. Immigration Service, was set up to fight crime gangs after 58 Chinese migrants were found dead in a truck trailer at the Dover, England port in 2000.

Murrill and Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said London police need more resources to reduce organized crime.

``There's a danger of us getting into a spiral of decline -- large-scale contamination of communities,'' Ghaffur told the BBC. ``This is an area, given the changes that are taking place in the nature of London, that we should invest in.''

In November, the Metropolitan Police arrested 17 men and a woman in connection with a ring that moved people illegally between Turkey and the U.K., according to the department's Web site. That same month, five men were jailed for running a ring that controlled Lithuanian women at seven west London brothels. In August, the force seized 60 counterfeit passports and arrested two Nigerians.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Brian Lysaght in London at blysaght@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 25, 2006 10:17 EDT

[Bjorn]

You can assume anything You want,
the truth is available, look it up,
I am not going to waste time, and have You call anything I post a forgery.
Truth is, it is not that big a deal to Me to need to prove Myself to anyone.
The truth is on the Internet, look it up or not.
It is up to You if You want to go on believing the numbers cooked up by the proponents of gun control or the truth.So you just made it up. I thought so. :rolleyes:

[DoctorWho]

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604

Gun Control in the U.K.

The United Kingdom banned privately owned handguns in 1997, but the number of crimes involving guns has steadily increased. The Fraser Institute of Vancouver, British Columbia, reported that gun crime in England and Wales jumped by 35 percent in 2002. It was the fourth consecutive year it increased.

(SOURCE: The Fraser Institute)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm


David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has said that UK gun laws are to be tightened as a result of an unacceptable increase in "flagrant gun use".

[DoctorWho]

How old are You ?

10 ? You sure act like it.

[Elind]

Ilive in an inner city area of London called Finsbury Park, it is somewhat dodgy but it would not be helped by having loads of peopel wandering around armed with guns, in fact it would be insane.

And far from being "lilly livered" msot liberals i know are tougher and have stronger persoanlities than any conservative i have met yet you tend to be arm chair gung ho types, this is from personal experience mind, who when the chips are down are the first to run.

I don't think I was the one who made that description of a "liberal", I just responded to it, for the record.

[Bjorn]

How old are You ?

10 ? You sure act like it.Hehe.

I usually can't be bothered to be the one posting this - and usually someone twice as clever as me will do it anyhow - but here we go: Most people on this board are skeptics, and they will ask for evidence for claims put forward.

Better people than you and I have been ridiculed for not being able to come up with such evidence.

In this case you claim that the Home Office and the Police have some kind of secret statistics showing the opposite of the official numbers. The only possible answer is: Evidence, please.

Your inability to come up with it, and your childish "too lazy to put together anything like that for an Unpaid consultation" proves beyond doubt that you made it up. 99% of the members know that by now.

[DoctorWho]

I did post evidence, in print, and links.
Read it.
There is enough in print to prove I am right.

[DoctorWho]

"Crime in London, which has 7.4 million residents, fell 3 percent in the year through April, according to the Metropolitan Police Web site. Robbery, burglary and gun crimes all rose, however. Multinational gangs are posing a challenge to U.K. police, Britain's Home Office said on April 3, when the government introduced a new national organized crime agency."

[DoctorWho]

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/

London Metropolitan Police Web Site

"On 1st April 2004, the MPS made some revisions in the way they categorise certain crimes. Changes have been made to reflect national Home Office categories and so that the MPS falls in line with national performance targets that have been set in the Policing Performance Assessment Framework. Specifically: robbery replaces street crime; motor vehicle crime and gun enabled crime have been redefined. Click here for crime prevention advice."

That is a fancy way of saying they cook the numbers to look better.
Every Major Police Department in the World does that, so it is no surprise.

[Dcdrac]

Multinational gangs like Multinational companies are posing a challenge to the uK then, it is not foreigner per se, it is the nature of the world we live in now. Ad i bet there are UK cits born here working for these outfits too.

[Dcdrac]

The company i work npw, sonce leaving the public sector, is a multinatioanl, I was born here and have a UK passport for instance.

[Dcdrac]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2260747,00.html

Lets not forget this episode.

[DoctorWho]

What about Coloumbine ?
Did You know those boys were on controversial psychotropic medications that have since proved to have the very side effects that were the very root of their emotional instability ?

[luchog]

What about Coloumbine ?
Did You know those boys were on controversial psychotropic medications that have since proved to have the very side effects that were the very root of their emotional instability ?
Not to mention that 1) their firearms were not legally obtained, and 2) the firearms were only secondary weapons intended for use if their primary weapons, illegally-constructed bombs, failed (which, fortunately, was the case).

[Lothian]

My Cat insisted I post this.

http://feeds.thelondonnews.net/?rid=83ed4ada034c1969&cat=415361b06433ee08&f=1

London Organized Crime `Out of Control,' Police Officer Says

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- The head of London Metropolitan Police's organized-crime unit said criminal gangs are ``out of control'' in the U.K. capital, and the government needs to provide more resources for law enforcement.

Gangs that deal in crimes such as fraud, fake passports and trafficking women for prostitution are thriving, Bob Murrill, head of the department's Operation Maxim squad told the British Broadcasting Corp. The squad's successes, including 150 arrests since 2004, have been ``the tip of the iceberg,'' he said.

``We don't have -- as a society, the police, politicians or law enforcement in general -- full control over what's going on,'' Murrill said. ``In fact, I'd say it's out of control.''
Fascinating. but I am at a loss to understand what has it got to do with this debate. Please can you explain how arming the British public will rid ourselves of fraud, fake passports and prostitution.


Crime in London, which has 7.4 million residents, fell 3 percent in the year through April, according to the Metropolitan Police Web site. Robbery, burglary and gun crimes all rose, however. Multinational gangs are posing a challenge to U.K. police, Britain's Home Office said on April 3, when the government introduced a new national organized crime agency.
Ok, I think see where you are going. Despite crime falling gun crimes are up. Can you provide details. Are they up from one in the capital all year to two ?
Do you have further details on the crimes? Are they people possessing fire arms without a licence or are they armed robbery or are they threatening behaviour with possession of an imitation firearm ?
So what level is gun crime at? It is at a level which would be reduced if we armed the public ?

Operation Maxim, made up of police and the U.K. Immigration Service, was set up to fight crime gangs after 58 Chinese migrants were found dead in a truck trailer at the Dover, England port in 2000.

Murrill and Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said London police need more resources to reduce organized crime.

``There's a danger of us getting into a spiral of decline -- large-scale contamination of communities,'' Ghaffur told the BBC. ``This is an area, given the changes that are taking place in the nature of London, that we should invest in.''

In November, the Metropolitan Police arrested 17 men and a woman in connection with a ring that moved people illegally between Turkey and the U.K., according to the department's Web site. That same month, five men were jailed for running a ring that controlled Lithuanian women at seven west London brothels. In August, the force seized 60 counterfeit passports and arrested two Nigerians. You have lost me again. Please explain how arming the public would stop prostitution.

Gun Control in the U.K.

The United Kingdom banned privately owned handguns in 1997, but the number of crimes involving guns has steadily increased. The Fraser Institute of Vancouver, British Columbia, reported that gun crime in England and Wales jumped by 35 percent in 2002. It was the fourth consecutive year it increased.

(SOURCE: The Fraser Institute)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm I followed the link. It described the killing of two girls three years ago. It was a huge story at the time, as are nearly all gun crimes. When you have so few, they all make big news. I don’t see the point of the link though. If it was an example to the problem you should try to pick one that doesn’t have as the lead key story “London gun crime drops.”

"Crime in London, which has 7.4 million residents, fell 3 percent in the year through April, according to the Metropolitan Police Web site. Robbery, burglary and gun crimes all rose, however. Multinational gangs are posing a challenge to U.K. police, Britain's Home Office said on April 3, when the government introduced a new national organized crime agency."What effect has SOCA had ? Should we let them do their job or should we go for a knee jerk public arming program so the public can take on the role of fighting drug trafficking, prostitution, illegal labour and smuggling?

What about Coloumbine ?
Did You know those boys were on controversial psychotropic medications that have since proved to have the very side effects that were the very root of their emotional instability ?I didn’t. I know little about them but you raise an excellent point.

How did boys on such medication get arms ? Would it have been harder for them to get arms if they were in a different country, UK for example ? What measures are in place in the US to remove arms from people prescribes controversial psychotropic medication ? I am talking about people who legally hold licenced weapons before diagnosis ?

[richardm]

I simply offered to break them in half, and that was enough to make them drop the knives and run like heck.

They dropped the knives? By this do you mean that they stopped pointing them at you, or that they actually dropped them?

[Bandersnatch]

My Cat insisted I post this.


Marquis?

[Bandersnatch]

Internal sourses in the Home Office and the Police have statistics not released to the public that show just the opposite.


...news reports...


I did post evidence, in print, and links.
Read it.
There is enough in print to prove I am right.


So, you were mistaken, and the stats were realesed, as shown by the newspaper reports?


What about Coloumbine ?
Did You know those boys were on controversial psychotropic medications that have since proved to have the very side effects that were the very root of their emotional instability ?


What about Columbine? What has that to do with the topic at hand? What about the Montreal Massacre? As an aside, I did not know that, do you have a site for this?

[DoctorWho]

They dropped the knives? By this do you mean that they stopped pointing them at you, or that they actually dropped them?

They actually dropped them on the ground, they ran away,
I picked them up so a child would not find them and get hurt.

[Tricky]

They actually dropped them on the ground, they ran away,
I picked them up so a child would not find them and get hurt.
Your story is becoming more and more interesting. Unfortunately, it is not becoming more and more believable.

[DoctorWho]

Yeah, I could see where a Tick Fan might have trouble with the truth.
But the truth is punks like that want an easy victim,
And I was not one.
Plus the fact that I do not scare easy.
I am not a big Guy, and I am not very strong, but I am not going to be cowed by every little teen punk with a knife and an attitude.

[Bandersnatch]

Yeah, I could see where a Tick Fan might have trouble with the truth.


...What?

Also, do you have an answer to my questions?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And, once again, a gun thread devolves into nothing more than showcasing cultural differences on each side of the pond, and differing views on how societies should operate. Looking at crime/murder rates is dangerous ground. The number of factors affectings such things is numerous, and trying to isolate firearms as being the only factor is probably going to fail, no matter which side of the debate you fall upon.

The US was founded, in part, on the idea of taking away the things that are "bad", not giving the things that are "good". For much of its history, firearms have been viewed as "good", or at least not "bad" and the general populace had/has access to them. In recent decades the debate has grown over whether they are "good" or "bad" for the general populace; and that is fine. It is good to critically examine the pros and cons of the role of firearms in society; but that debate can not be isolated from the context of the society and its other factors that it takes place within.

imho, if you want to reduce gun crime, reduce the factors that lead to the crime being committed. If you want to reduce gun accidents, reduce the factors that lead to the accident occuring. Disarming the people who are not under the influence of the factors that cause gun crime will not reduce gun crime. Disarming the people who do not allow circumstances that lead to gun accidents to occur will not reduce gun accidents.

[Huntster]

......The US was founded, in part, on the idea of taking away the things that are "bad", not giving the things that are "good"........

Huh?

[ZirconBlue]

And, once again, a gun thread devolves into nothing more than showcasing cultural differences on each side of the pond, and differing views on how societies should operate. Looking at crime/murder rates is dangerous ground. The number of factors affectings such things is numerous, and trying to isolate firearms as being the only factor is probably going to fail, no matter which side of the debate you fall upon.

The US was founded, in part, on the idea of taking away the things that are "bad", not giving the things that are "good". For much of its history, firearms have been viewed as "good", or at least not "bad" and the general populace had/has access to them. In recent decades the debate has grown over whether they are "good" or "bad" for the general populace; and that is fine. It is good to critically examine the pros and cons of the role of firearms in society; but that debate can not be isolated from the context of the society and its other factors that it takes place within.

imho, if you want to reduce gun crime, reduce the factors that lead to the crime being committed. If you want to reduce gun accidents, reduce the factors that lead to the accident occuring. Disarming the people who are not under the influence of the factors that cause gun crime will not reduce gun crime. Disarming the people who do not allow circumstances that lead to gun accidents to occur will not reduce gun accidents.

Hey, now! Logic has no place in a Gun debate! You should know better.

[DoctorWho]

I just think it is amazing that in the UK, it is thought that to remove anything that could be used in a crime, is of value.
It makes no sense.
If illegal drugs are brought into Countries, so can illegal guns and ammo.
Bans do not work, neither did Prohibition of Alcohol in the U.S.,
More People consumed Alcohol during that period than ever before.
Prohibition actually produced more crime than not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Huh?
What? The Constitution is founded on what the gov't can't do to its populace, not what the populace is allowed to do. We don't need cars that can go 120 MPH, but there is no compelling reason for cars to not be able to go 120 MPH. We don't need XXX rated movies, but there is no compelling reason for them to not be available. We don't needHummers, but (if you can afford the gas prices) you can drive them. This is not to say that firearms are completely superfluous, but rather that an overwhelming, compelling reason to revoke the populaces access to them has not been demostrated in such a way as to achieve an overall change in the laws.

[Huntster]

...The Constitution is founded on what the gov't can't do to its populace, not what the populace is allowed to do....

Okay. Explained like that, I can agree.

I hope it stays that way.

[Lothian]

I just think it is amazing that in the UK, it is thought that to remove anything that could be used in a crime, is of value.
It makes no sense.
If illegal drugs are brought into Countries, so can illegal guns and ammo.
Bans do not work, neither did Prohibition of Alcohol in the U.S.,
More People consumed Alcohol during that period than ever before.
Prohibition actually produced more crime than not.If your logic is correct nothing should be banned.

If you can see why there are legitimate reasons why anything should be banned then you should see why your argument is tripe.


Arkan,

Yes, you are quite right. There are huge differences between countries and there is no real meaningful comparison between rates. That does not mean, however, that DoctorWho should not be challenged on things (gun crime in the UK) that he clearly knows nothing about. I would have expected far more from a time lord.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If your logic is correct nothing should be banned.

If you can see why there are legitimate reasons why anything should be banned then you should see why your argument is tripe.

It does bring up the question of legalized, but regulated though.


Arkan,

Yes, you are quite right. There are huge differences between countries and there is no real meaningful comparison between rates. That does not mean, however, that DoctorWho should not be challenged on things (gun crime in the UK) that he clearly knows nothing about. I would have expected far more from a time lord.
I don't disagree. The statisticals may not be of much (any) value, but if they are going to be bandied about, they should at least be verifiably correct.

[Bjorn]

.... it is not becoming more and more believable.;) That's an extremely polite way of saying it.

[Tricky]

Yeah, I could see where a Tick Fan might have trouble with the truth.
But the truth is punks like that want an easy victim,
And I was not one.
Plus the fact that I do not scare easy.
I am not a big Guy, and I am not very strong, but I am not going to be cowed by every little teen punk with a knife and an attitude.
LOL. What are you talking about? Everyone knows The Tick stands for Truth, Justice and the Arthropodian Way!

But really, Doc, your story would be a great plot for a cartoon. Little guy stands up to punks and scares them so bad they drop their knives and run. Mind if I borrow it for my comeback series?

[DoctorWho]

LOL. What are you talking about? Everyone knows The Tick stands for Truth, Justice and the Arthropodian Way!

But really, Doc, your story would be a great plot for a cartoon. Little guy stands up to punks and scares them so bad they drop their knives and run. Mind if I borrow it for my comeback series?

If making fun of Me makes You feel good, have at it then, it is better to make People happy or laugh, than to make Them sad or cry.
It does Me no harm in any case. :)

[Roadtoad]

And, once again, a gun thread devolves into nothing more than showcasing cultural differences on each side of the pond, and differing views on how societies should operate. Looking at crime/murder rates is dangerous ground. The number of factors affectings such things is numerous, and trying to isolate firearms as being the only factor is probably going to fail, no matter which side of the debate you fall upon.

The US was founded, in part, on the idea of taking away the things that are "bad", not giving the things that are "good". For much of its history, firearms have been viewed as "good", or at least not "bad" and the general populace had/has access to them. In recent decades the debate has grown over whether they are "good" or "bad" for the general populace; and that is fine. It is good to critically examine the pros and cons of the role of firearms in society; but that debate can not be isolated from the context of the society and its other factors that it takes place within.

imho, if you want to reduce gun crime, reduce the factors that lead to the crime being committed. If you want to reduce gun accidents, reduce the factors that lead to the accident occuring. Disarming the people who are not under the influence of the factors that cause gun crime will not reduce gun crime. Disarming the people who do not allow circumstances that lead to gun accidents to occur will not reduce gun accidents.

We tried reducing poverty with government handouts. The handouts were cashed in, and people used the money to buy guns.

The lie is that poverty is one causality for crime. The reality, from what I've observed, is far different. A poor man might use a club or a knife to commit a crime, but we're seeing that with the rich, they simply use different weapons. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers used phony books, and I'm sure Rikzilla can point out more.

People commit crimes because they think they can get away with it. Enforce the laws that are already on the books, and you can begin to get a handle on violence.