|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/5/2008 5:32:10 PM | You certainly won't get any flack from me. Great post! Finally someone is making some sense about the whole gun control issue.  | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/5/2008 5:35:54 PM | "obviously anyone who joins a gang or commits crimes does NOT have a desire for a better life"
Wrong....You need to get a reality check on why kids joins gangs instead of making false assumptions...Putting your middle class spin on it doesnt make it true.. Its easy to sit back and judge what the poor should do in your safe, warm home where no one beats you and you have plenty to eat......Kids join gangs for many reasons: protection, having a father figure, support, acceptance from others, safety from a group,. For SURVIVAL....Those ARE examples of people trying to better their lives...What you dont seem to understand here is that kids have to work with what they have..Gangs may be the only source of father/parental support available to them...I dont notice large numbers of single men volunteering to be Big Brothers for these boys....You dont live in their world so your choices and ideas on what it means to better oneself is different than for them...Open your mind here..The rest of the world doesnt have your protected life experience or revolves around your values . You arent growing up as a kid in the inner city today so you are pretty clueless about whats that really like...Its pointless to say your life experience as a child was "worse" than theirs..This isnt a pissing contest..Deal with the problem with solutions and actions, not petty comparisons and judging others as inferior by your own sheltered middle class bias... | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:55:27 AM | The taking of another person's life should be the very last option to be exercised, in a criminal confrontation. I've heard it said, very recently, that in the US a gun is used an average of 6,850 times each day to prevent a crime, stop a crime in progress, or save an innocent person's life. I was really surprised by that number.
I looked up the Dealy Force law where I presently live, and was surprised to find that we also have an implied retreat clause in the law governing the use of Deadly Force. For those interested, I live in a Southern state, with rather relaxed gun control laws; we can still buy machine guns, and suppressors (silencers) here. Personally, I find any provision for retreat, in any Self Defense provision to be rather offensive to the whole idea of Self Defense.
When a retreat clause is spelled out, or implied, in any Self Defense Statute, such a clause leaves a lot to interpretation by those who will later judge someone defending themselves, or another.
A case in point, which I spoke of before, was when an undercover raid went wrong on a suspect's house. The man, who was known to police, had a registered handgun - a 357 Magnum. He'd moved, and had not changed the address for that weapon.
When the police broke in , he thought he was being robbed.
He shot one of the undercover policemen dead with a head shot, and a short gun battle broke out.
Quite amazingly, he got bail, which surprised a lot of people here.
So, even in THIS case, where an officer was killed, the court showed some leniency. The trial hasn't started yet, so no one knows what might occur during it.
Given past experience with Courts, I feel as if I can hazard a guess as to how this man's trial is going to go.
The things that will be brought up, and likely hammered to death in this trial, are; (1) the man on trial had a handgun, and he failed to notify Police of his change of address and, (2) he shot, and killed, a Police Officer with that "illegal" handgun. The Crown will very likely place great emphasis on that "illegal" handgun, and use this point as a means of convicting this man for killing a Police Officer.
The guy who thought he was being robbed is going to say that he thought it was a home invasion robbery, and he was just defending himself. He knew he was supposed to change the address for his handgun, when he moved. He'd forgotten, or hadn't had the time to get it done; whatever plausible excuse he thinks he can get the jury to buy off on. In retrospect, he's sorry that a Police Officer is dead. But, he was only defending himself against people he didn't know, who did not identify themselves as Police Officers, were not wearing uniforms, and were pointing guns at him. Once one of the Police Officers identified themselves; he put his gun down, and complied with their instructions.
The fact of the matter is this: The Police Officers were very likely serving what is commonly known as a "No Knock Warrant." Thus, there was no requirement that they Knock on the door, and identify themselves as Police Officers, BEFORE crashing into this man's home.
These Police Officers, crash down this man's door, without knocking, or identifying themselves as Police Officers. This guy is awakened from a deep sleep, with several armed men in his home, pointing guns at him and barking some kind of orders that he doesn't understand, because he's just woken up, and all of these men are talking at one time. This man's survival instincts kick in, all he knows is that his life is being threatened. He can't retreat, as he's in bed. Being cornered, he gets his gun, and defends himself against those he believes to be criminals who are going to kill him. It is only AFTER one of the Police Officers identifies themselves as such, that the shooting stops.
Bottom line: The Police Officers involved used extremely poor judgment in serving this warrant. When serving a "No Knock Warrant" ALL persons making the entry need to be wearing Distinctive Uniforms, with markings identifying them as POLICE. It is a very dangerous thing to serve a "No Knock Warrant," and one should only be served by those who are properly trained to do so. Only after the situation is well under control, should those who are not wearing uniforms should be allowed entry into the house.
Trials are a real crap shoot; this guy may walk, or he may be convicted of murdering a Police Officer. From what has been posted here, and knowing only that much, I'd say this guy should be fined, or whatever the appropriate punishment is, for not changing the address on his handgun license.
This case, in Canada, is a prime example of why Americans, for the very large part, do not want any kind of Gun Control, that even remotely resembles the Gun Control in Canada.
In another thread, a similar situation is being discussed. The difference is that the other situation happened in the US, and it was a SWAT Team that crashed in a man's door. The man is Hmong, and likely doesn't understand English. The Police likely didn't identify themselves, the man thought his home was being invaded by criminals, and he picked up a shotgun to protect his family. Thankfully, the two officers who were shot, were wearing body armor, and weren't seriously injured.
The man wasn't arrested, nor has he been charged.
What happened in the incident in the US? The Police were acting on bad information, and served the warrant on the wrong house.
My guess is that in both instances, established Police procedures, to ensure the safety of all persons invovled, Police and civilians alike, were not followed. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 4:17:30 AM | Deal with the problem with solutions and actions, not petty comparisons and judging others as inferior by your own sheltered middle class bias...
Just a quibble with a post I otherwise entirely agree with. His bias isn't a middle-class bias. It's a working-class perspective.
In saying that, I don't want to imply that one perspective is better than another. They both have different advantages and disadvantages. CGG, yours is a middle-class bias and mine probably is too.
People from a working-class background know that a person who isn't pulling her/his weight on the crew is worthless to the crew, and perhaps even worse, a safety hazard. Only middle-class people, whose immediate safety isn't put at risk by loafers, can afford to take a longer view of a person's potential worth.
I'm going to have to take back some of the harsh things I said! However, I do agree with the "voilence porn" idea. Stimuli that produce an adrenaline rush impair a person's judgement just as much as alcohol and drugs do. That's how despots get otherwise reasonable people to go along with their crazy agendas. First they scare 'em, then the get 'em mad. When the adrenaline level starts to fade and they start thinking for themselves again, time for another scare tactic followed by a finger pointed at the next scapegoat. Whatever happened to our all-out-manhunt to capture bin-Laden?
Whenever there's a seemingly intractible conflict, the solution lies at a deeper level of understanding than that at which the debate is taking place. I believe that it was Einstein who pointed that out. The only way people can reach that deeper level is to look at it from their "antagonist's" point of view for the sake of understanding. When people on both "sides" start to do that, the truth of the situation emerges in a way that everyone can see.
No, it's not a pissing contest, even if I do get pissy at times! LOL!!! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 8:55:59 AM |
Wrong....You need to get a reality check on why kids joins gangs instead of making false assumptions...Putting your middle class spin on it doesnt make it true.. Its easy to sit back and judge what the poor should do in your safe, warm home where no one beats you and you have plenty to eat......Kids join gangs for many reasons: protection, having a father figure, support, acceptance from others, safety from a group,. For SURVIVAL....Those ARE examples of people trying to better their lives...What you dont seem to understand here is that kids have to work with what they have..Gangs may be the only source of father/parental support available to them...I dont notice large numbers of single men volunteering to be Big Brothers for these boys....You dont live in their world so your choices and ideas on what it means to better oneself is different than for them...Open your mind here..The rest of the world doesnt have your protected life experience or revolves around your values . You arent growing up as a kid in the inner city today so you are pretty clueless about whats that really like...Its pointless to say your life experience as a child was "worse" than theirs..This isnt a pissing contest..Deal with the problem with solutions and actions, not petty comparisons and judging others as inferior by your own sheltered middle class bias...
there is no one that would deny that a lot of kids in the inner city do not have the benefits others do. it is caused in large measure by worthless men knocking up ten women, and not supporting the kids. obviously, for the most part, this isn't a bad thing for the kid because trash like that certainly are NOT the father figures that the kids need. too many women aren't any better, spreading their legs for the trash.
guess what? there are two REAL black leaders in this country, bill cosby and alvin poussaint. they have been preaching the ONLY correct message for years. what happens? do the trash listen to the only people who have it right? nope. all they want to do is hang onto imbeciles like al and jesse who simply whine about how bad things are because their great-great grandfathers were sold to the white man by their brothers. of course, the two charlatans conveniently leave out the reality that it was blacks who created slavery by selling their relatives to the white to begin with. it is so much easier to cry about your grandparents being poor than it is to accept responsibility for what you do. it's even easier when you have people doing the stupid guilt trip thing and encouraging the fools to keep it up through successive generations.
bill and alvin are the only ones who truly care about the inner city folks. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 9:02:45 AM | [I looked up the Dealy Force law where I presently live, and was surprised to find that we also have an implied retreat clause in the law governing the use of Deadly Force. For those interested, I live in a Southern state, with rather relaxed gun control laws; we can still buy machine guns, and suppressors (silencers) here. Personally, I find any provision for retreat, in any Self Defense provision to be rather offensive to the whole idea of Self Defense.
When a retreat clause is spelled out, or implied, in any Self Defense Statute, such a clause leaves a lot to interpretation by those who will later judge someone defending themselves, or another.
obviously, your state needs to come out of the stone age and join civilization. texas was actually the first state to get rid of the imperically moronic retreat laws. more and more states are gradually coming into reality. the entire premise of a retreat clause is imbecillic on it's face and is based on the ridiculous notion that an individual should allow a criminal free reign. it won't be long until sanity prevails and you will be able to protect your family everywhere in the country | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 9:18:20 AM |
Imagine her surprise, when later that day, I showed my fiance' that I could, in fact, hit a moving target, quite handily, with handgun, rifle, and shotgun. When I drew the wild dog's attention from my fiance's daughter, and she was able to get out of harm's way, it looked directly at me, as if it knew what was about to happen. The immediate threat had been avoided, and deadly force wasn't necessary. The fact of the matter is that I didn't "miss" the wild dog. I'd been shooting right behind it, because all I wanted to do was run it off. To the best of my knowledge, that dog has either not been back, or has returned, only to be run off by my dogs.
THAT makes you a real person. that makes you a man. there was no rational reason for killing the dog. i would NEVER shoot an animal unless there was just no way out.
however, i would have no qualms about killing a homo sapien who was threatening someone. if a piece of shyt breaks into my house, again, it is HIS choice that i shoot him. the dog did not form the conscious intent to do wrong, and unlike the punk, did nothing to deserve to die.
you're right about the smell of blood and death though. you never do forget it. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 2:19:40 PM |
the entire premise of a retreat clause is imbecillic on it's face and is based on the ridiculous notion that an individual should allow a criminal free reign.
I don't agree.
It's based on a consideration of human life being important, and of taking someone's life only when your life is in danger.
If one can avoid doing so, by any means, then I believe you have a moral obligation to do so - if the opportunity presents itself, and you are not endangered by such an action.
If a human life is worth more than a TV set, or a car, then madness has finally overcome all of us.
Indeed, by considering people in large groups as "trash" to begin with - you've already embarked on that road. Deciding you are judge, jury, and executioner at your whim turns society upside down. If one starts to see human beings as worthless, then it becomes easier to pull the trigger, doesn't it ?
I see some people here, gun owners, who can seemingly be totally enraged by the simple act of talking with strangers on the internet on a subject. It makes me wonder if such a personality is the type to have a loaded weapon nearby ready to pick up and discharge. If exchanging thoughts with a stranger who disagrees with them on a topic can provoke such a reaction - what happens in real life when disagreements exist ? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 2:53:24 PM | Wow IJ! Maybe I'd better not take back some of those harsh things. As you have pointed out, when there is a market, people will supply it. All those white people in the supply chain for black slaves played no part in creating the institution? All those white people who took advantage of the slaves were somehow worthwhile despite their criminality and brutality in systematically depriving those black people of their rights? The people who keep raising the issues that there are _still_to_this_day_ white people who would go back to a system of race-based slavery in a heartbeat if they could get away with it are all charlatans and have gotten it all wrong?
Bill has a good message. That's for sure. I don't know about the other gentleman you mention but if his message is similar, good for him and those who listen to him.
It is so much easier to cry about how innocent your grandparents were than to accept responsibility for the advantages the criminal behavior of the whites in their day have conferred upon you. Kids whose ancestral identity is that of enslavement have a big handicap to deal with--one that simply does not get in your way or cloud your judgment. Of course people from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to make more bad choices. Despair leads to bad judgment. But so does contempt.
Just as you choose to own guns and identify with a majority that looks like you in order to avoid feeling like a victim, disadvantaged kids with bad parents choose to join gangs and own guns for the very same reasons. Just like you, they conclude that members of other gangs are worthless and therefore fair game if they cross into "their" territory. Just like you they claim their right to defend themselves and their turf. Just like you, they will claim that they work hard and take risks and are therefore entitled to their profits/property. And if they interpret their turf and property differently than you do, or if they break the laws of _your_ gang, well, your gang of self-righteous law-abiding citizens once backed 400+ years of slavery and 100+ years of Jim Crow after that! So why should they respect your laws at all?
Personally, I think that we all can do better than that. Those of us who value human life above personal gain need to be clear about what is really important. When you state clearly that you believe the only appropriate use of deadly force is to put a stop to violence, I'll believe your claims to be a person who's chosen to become something worthwhile.
Until then, is there anything that distinguishes you from any other would-be gang-banger?
ps. I hope it's clear that I'm playing devils advocate here. I believe that you would do well to think again about what you've been saying and believing because I believe you're better than that.
I must say though, that your classification of "worthwhile" vs. "worthless" people really ticks me off. If it was likely to do anyone any good I wouldn't mind it so much. But all it does is make it more likely that people will get shot. Your line of thinking makes it easier for a criminal government to crack down. Just label a group as "worthless," and away they go!
Resisting tyranny has to start long before the goon squad breaks down your own door. Wouldn't you agree? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:17:33 PM | Yes, rid the world of guns! then we can go back to like medevel times and the criminals can hack thier victims with swords, bludgeon them with maces and clubs, and maybe shoot a few arrows into thier bodies.
Humans have always been very adept at killing one another, they did quite well before guns ever were even invented. I think it is ludicrous the way the anti gunners think you can wave somemagic wand and *poof* okay, all guns are gone! Now mankind can walk arm in arm through the daisys like a scene in sound of music. Cmon! Guns are just a tool. It doesn't have a brian, so let's stop blaming guns and go to the root of the problem..... the criminal element. Not the guns. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 3:35:49 PM | That's a straw-man argument. Yes, there are some on the extreme who delude themselves that way. But then there are those at the other extreme who delude themselves with the convenient lie that guns aren't inherently dangerous and don't require the safe handling procedures we'd expect from any other power equipment--including being secured from ready access by burglars and those who have diminished capacity to exercise good judgment.
Is the guy who shoots up his family and then offs himself identifiable beforehand in any way as a criminal? Criminals aren't the only aspect of the problem.
Then there are the children who get hold of them, play with them, and get shot.
Gun control isn't just about hitting the target, it's about making sure that nothing else gets hit. It's simply brainless to blame the "criminals" when the rest of us don't know or observe safe practices.
How do all those criminals get access to guns in the first place? They either buy them from corrupt but "legitimate" sources or they steal them. Where do they steal them? From legitimate owners who don't keep them properly secured against theft.
You can't call your "opposition" brainless when your line of reasoning shows so little thought. In light of the persistent refusal of gun owners to properly secure them, some people conclude that the only effective safety precaution is to ban them. If people are the problem, why put temptation in their path?
I'm not saying I completely agree with that line of reasoning, but you have to admit there is some logic to it. Don't you. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 5:53:33 PM | Uhm, don't think I called anyone brainless, I said the gun doesn't have a brain. The media makes it sounds like the gun and not the person pulling the trigger is the culprit.
And the point I was trying to make before you went off is that killings and crime is not going to be solved by gun control. You could make every gun in the world dissappear, do you think crime will stop? No way.
Yes, guns should be controlled. Guns should be stored in a locked cabinet where kids shouldn't have acess to them. The way some kids get thier hands on guns is because the parents are negligent about the way they secure them.
Well, what's next? Many people lose thier lives to hit and run drivers, drunk drivers, people talking on thier cell phones, etc. Are we going to get rid of cars next? how about cell phones? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/6/2008 8:27:25 PM | | jumbo...Women "spread their legs for trash" when they have been sexually abused as children. They equate love with abuse since thats all they have ever known in their lives....Men grow up joining gangs and comitting violence because they were physically abused as children.If you want to get rid of so called worthless people, get rid of child abuse and quite complaining about the fallout of that years later..People pass on what they know to their kids...If you want to stop that, end the cycle by supporting help for families and children who need it rather than being passive and reactionary by calling them worthless....What are earth is that fixing or accomplishing??..NOTHING...What you still dont seem to get is decent behavior is TAUGHT...It doesnt just pop into the heads of kids magically and automatically without adult modeling | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 4:56:05 AM | Unfortunately, retreat clauses have been used by overzealous prosecutors to convict otherwise innocent persons, who believed they were defending themselves, of crimes when the person convicted had no criminal intent. In effect, retreat clauses have been used to make criminals out of otherwise innocent persons who believed they were defending themselves.
Removal of retreat clauses does not take away the value of human life, not in any way, when it comes to the use of deadly force. In Texas, the last I knew, the deadly force statute stated that a person may use deadly force when that person is in imminent fear of their life, or the life of a third person. In practice, heavy emphasis was placed on the "imminent fear" part of the statute.
I agree, that if another option is available, one should not use of deadly force. However, in practice, when there is a retreat clause in a deadly force statute, the very first thing to be considered, when someone does use deadly force, is whether that person had a means of escape, to avoid the confrontation. Where I live there is no deadly force statute. The use of dealy force is governed by case law interpretation of the English Common Law, which provides:
1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life; and
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.
Deadly force situtations happen in the moment. Even after having been in situations that clearly warranted the use of deadly force, I cannot foresee going down a laundry list, to ensure all of the "elements" of the deadly force statute have been satisifed, before pulling the trigger. Even after having satisfied all of the elements above, all a criminal would have to do, is point a gun at someone else, and the elements for the use of deadly force have been removed; even though another person's life has been placed in imminent peril.
Obviously, no material thing, or retaining possession of any material thing, is worth a human life. However, in my view, there are some things that should stand inviolate, by those with any kind of criminal intent; in particular, someone's home. However, criminals do not limit their activities to invading someone's home. Criminals also engage in their activities in parking lots, car jacking (which has become common in some places), and a litany of other places.
A much more simplified, and straight forward, statute would be the Texas statute. The Texas statute only requires that someone be in imminent fear of their life, or the life of a third person, before they may use deadly force.
Indeed, by considering people in large groups as "trash" to begin with - you've already embarked on that road. Deciding you are judge, jury, and executioner at your whim turns society upside down. If one starts to see human beings as worthless, then it becomes easier to pull the trigger, doesn't it ?
I agree. The one thing that should be treasured most by all, is the life of another human being. The taking of any life, be it the life of an animal, or another human being, should never be done without due consideration.
I look forward to the day when I can hunt on my own property, as well as teach both my fiance' and her daughter to hunt as well. Those lessons have already begun, in that I have taught them that if you kill a game animal, you're going to be eating it. Otherwise, don't shoot. We have a problem around here with wild dogs, and poisonous snakes. I have yet to kill a wild dog, or a snake; I've done my best to make being here uncomfortable for both of them. My hope is that I can avoid a confrontation with both of them.
The right to keep and bear arms, while an inherent right, has always been intended to be exercised by those who were a peaceful people; not rogue killers. Those who kill without having given due consideration to the taking of a life are criminals.
I see some people here, gun owners, who can seemingly be totally enraged by the simple act of talking with strangers on the internet on a subject. It makes me wonder if such a personality is the type to have a loaded weapon nearby ready to pick up and discharge. If exchanging thoughts with a stranger who disagrees with them on a topic can provoke such a reaction - what happens in real life when disagreements exist ?
For gun owners in the US, discussing the right to keep and bear arms is not a "simple act of talking with strangers on the internet on a subject." The issue of Gun Control has been raging in the US for as long as I can recall. In the US, a great many of us have seen "reasonable restrictions" go from limitations on the private ownership of machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and suppressors (silencers), to guns no longer being able to be sold through the mails, to seemingly execssive waiting periods (in some states as much as 60 days), to a complete ban on Assault Weapons (which is based upon a gun's appearance alone), to restrictions on magazine capacities. What a great many of us have seen, is an erosion of one of the foundational pillars upon which the US was formed.
To some, myself included, an attack upon the right to keep and bear arms is an attack on the very foundation upon which society in the US is based. An attack upon one of the foundational rights of any society should provoke a visceral reaction in every member of that society. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 7:11:44 AM | And the point I was trying to make before you went off is that killings and crime is not going to be solved by gun control. You could make every gun in the world dissappear, do you think crime will stop? No way.
Well, I do get impatient when people dismiss the danger involved with guns. I don't think it does any good to minimize the dangers that guns pose. If we're going to exercise the right to own guns responsibly, and if we're going to demand of others that they do the same--which we have a right to do insofar as their negligence threatens our safety--then it would be nice to find a pro-gun person who actually thinks seriously about the issues.
Of course crime won't stop. However, random deaths from drive-by shootings might well be reduced significantly. So might classroom shootings, murder-suicides, and accidental shootings by children. Such incidents are virtually unheard of in countries where guns are tightly controlled.
Understand, I also get irritated with the people who just want to ban them, because they conveniently dismiss the threat of government tyranny against an unarmed populace. That is also idiocy.
You have a right to own a gun. Your right to own that gun stops when you neglect to keep it safely stored so that it won't become a threat to my safety.
Because your right to own a gun comes into conflict with my right not to be threatened by it, I have a legitimate claim to _require_ you to keep it safely. And when the rightful interests of two individual come into conflict like that, it is the job of the legislature to make appropriate laws to resolve the conflict. Their doing so does not infringe upon your right in any way, while their failure to do so would infringe upon mine. If I can't get satisfaction from the legislature, or if the laws are not appropriately enforced, then I have recourse to the courts to get a ruling, which also would not infringe upon your right.
This is all basic stuff. Why do pro-gun people have so much trouble with it? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 7:29:34 AM | Obviously, no material thing, or retaining possession of any material thing, is worth a human life. However, in my view, there are some things that should stand inviolate, by those with any kind of criminal intent; in particular, someone's home. However, criminals do not limit their activities to invading someone's home. Criminals also engage in their activities in parking lots, car jacking (which has become common in some places), and a litany of other places.
In California, a person can make a citizen's arrest and use all necessary force to hold a person in place until the police arrive. If someone breaks into your home and has your TV in his arms, you can arrest him, point the gun at him, force him to lie on the ground spread-eagled, and call 911. Only if he makes a threatening move can you legally shoot him (or morally do so for that matter), and only because you believe he poses an imminent threat to your safety. For example, if he tries to get up while you're dialing the phone and won't stop when warned, he's resisting arrest and therefore an immediate threat to your safety.
That all seems reasonable to me. Mere theft is not a justification for murder. Neither is mere trespassing. Nor is "worthlessness." I must say, though, that if a person catches me sleeping and I'm not sure what he's doing in my home I might not have the luxury to make a citizen's arrest. Trespass and a failure to immediately comply with an order to leave or a citizen's arrest creates a real threat, with no further hesitation required for the use of deadly force.
A basic understanding of when and how guns may be legally discharged should be part of everone's education. Gun owners who display a blatant ignorance of what's right and wrong when it comes to the use and safekeeping of their guns do nothing to help the cause. That's what irritates me the most.
I have a right to be safe from a corrupt government. I also have a right to be safe from adrenaline junkies who don't take proper care of their guns! Show me that you understand the responsibilities involved in owning a gun, and that you are willing to undertake them, and I'll be more than happy to trust you with a gun. I have no concerns at all about Lostcauz and his gun-collector friends--or anyone else who advocates responsible gun ownership.
And don't give me that nonsense that the 2nd Amendment means you don't have to be accountable to the rest of us for your competence or your negligence when it comes to gun ownership. The "well-regulated militia" clause obviates that so-called argument, which is nonsense in any case. We are all accountable in the exercise of our rights not to infringe upon the rights of others. So quit telling me that guns are here to stay, which only begs the question anyway, and tell me what you think should be done to ensure that gun owners exerecise their right in a way that doesn't threaten my safety.
OK? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 8:10:55 AM | Ace: One again, you pose honest issues that require thought. I'll do my best, such as it is, to address the issues raised.
Well, I do get impatient when people dismiss the danger involved with guns.
While there have been some rather blatantly cavalier statements made where guns are concerned; no one has dismissed, nor should anyone dissmiss, the danger of an irresponsible person having control of a loaded gun. There are laws, long standing, governing the manufacture, purchase, possession, and use, of guns.
I don't think it does any good to minimize the dangers that guns pose.
Guns, in and of themselves, do not pose any more inherent danger to anyone, than any other inanimate object.
If we're going to exercise the right to own guns responsibly, and if we're going to demand of others that they do the same--which we have a right to do insofar as their negligence threatens our safety--then it would be nice to find a pro-gun person who actually thinks seriously about the issues.
Every pro-gun person, with the exception of a very limited few, who have no business with anything that might even conceivable be used as a weapon, thinks seriously about the issues of safety where a firearm is concerned. Go to a Gun Show, or a firing range, and see for yourself, just how many safety measures are in place. You might just be surprised.
Of course crime won't stop.
Despite all of the laws governing criminal conduct. Imagine that.
However, random deaths from drive-by shootings might well be reduced significantly. So might classroom shootings, murder-suicides, and accidental shootings by children.
How, pray tell, would passing yet another law, that would only be adhered to by the already law abiding, stop criminals from engaging in criminal conduct?
Such incidents are virtually unheard of in countries where guns are tightly controlled.
This statement reminds me of something my Mother used to ask. If everyone jumped off of a cliff, would you follow them?
While incidents of shootings may be virtually unheard of in countries where firearms are tightly controlled, criminals still commit crimes of violence against the law abiding. The only thing that is different, is the manner, method, or weapon, of perpetration.
In the US, we have an inherent, one not granted by the US Constitution, the government, or any other authority, to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms, referred to in the US Constitution is an inherent one; the Second Amendment to the US Constitution only ensures that right, in that it provides that the people's right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the view of a great many people, who are not firearms enthusiasts, but Constitutional scholars, the already existing "reasonable regulations" governing the private possession of firearms in the US act as a de facto infringement of that right.
You have a right to own a gun. Your right to own that gun stops when you neglect to keep it safely stored so that it won't become a threat to my safety.
Thumb through one of the many codes that govern the conduct of people in modern day society, and you will find a litany of laws governing all kinds of conduct. The most commonly know is the vehicle code. More people are kiled by vehicles ever year, than there are people killed by mishandling of firearms; yet, there are no severe restrictions on the private ownership of vehicles.
Because your right to own a gun comes into conflict with my right not to be threatened by it, I have a legitimate claim to _require_ you to keep it safely.
There are any number of laws, existing today, that address this very issue.
And when the rightful interests of two individual come into conflict like that, it is the job of the legislature to make appropriate laws to resolve the conflict.
The job of the legislature is to act in the interests of society as a whole. No gun, in and of itself, poses no more danger to society than any other inanimate object.
If I can't get satisfaction from the legislature, or if the laws are not appropriately enforced, then I have recourse to the courts to get a ruling, which also would not infringe upon your right.
This is the course the pro-gun people have finally taken. Bit, by bit, the right to keep and bear arms has slowly been taken away by those who would seek to disarm society. What were once an inherent right, has been infringed to the point that those who disagree have been left with no other option, but, to turn to the Courts to seek redress.
This is all basic stuff. Why do pro-gun people have so much trouble with it?
While all basic stuff, those who would see private gun ownership as a thing of the past have been very vocal in their pursuit. While pro-gun people, who are generally more soft spoken, and reserved, have quietly complied with what have been termed "reasonable restrictions." What has happened, is that those who would disarm private gun owners, have pushed the issue one step too far, and found that those soft spoken, reserved, gun owners, left no other choice, will fight.
Problem is, that the gun owners are not only capable of fighting, the law is on their side; and the gun owners have the means to resist too.
Imagine that, the private citizens, the very basis upon which the US was founded, actually have the means by which to resist tyranny brough about by a few. What a novel idea. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 9:55:26 AM | Thank Lostcauz,
You make some good points. However, I do have some quibbles with your position.
While there have been some rather blatantly cavalier statements made where guns are concerned; no one has dismissed, nor should anyone dissmiss, the danger of an irresponsible person having control of a loaded gun.
Unless it's been the persons themselves, such as the individual who claimed that a burglary was an invitation to get shot. It's a dumb move, certainly, and it's certainly an invitation to become subject to an enfored citizen's arrest, but it's no justification for murder.
Guns, in and of themselves, do not pose any more inherent danger to anyone, than any other inanimate object.
Why does a gasoline can have to be red? Why does it have to have a warning? Why can't you mail high explosives? Because those things pose dangers based on their inherent properties. Guns have properties that make them inherently dangerous. If they didn't, they wouldn't need a _safety_ mechanism.
Please don't undercut your position with such an obviously fallacious argument again!
In the US, we have an inherent, one not granted by the US Constitution, the government, or any other authority, to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms, referred to in the US Constitution is an inherent one; the Second Amendment to the US Constitution only ensures that right, in that it provides that the people's right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In the view of a great many people, who are not firearms enthusiasts, but Constitutional scholars, the already existing "reasonable regulations" governing the private possession of firearms in the US act as a de facto infringement of that right
Reasonable regulation is about balancing the inherent right to own--which I support--against public safety--which I also think is rather important. If the debate were framed in terms of whether or not we've got the balance right, I'd be a lot happier. As long as it's framed in terms of, "there's no problem 'cuz guns aren't dangerous, vs. OMG guns are so dangerous we just have to get rid of them all," our policies will continue to be both unreasonable and unenforceable.
Thumb through one of the many codes that govern the conduct of people in modern day society, and you will find a litany of laws governing all kinds of conduct. The most commonly know is the vehicle code. More people are kiled by vehicles ever year, than there are people killed by mishandling of firearms; yet, there are no severe restrictions on the private ownership of vehicles.
That's right. However, there is a requirement that anyone who operates a motor vehicle receive training in safe operation, proper maintenance, and safe storage. When 2nd-Amendment zealots claim that they cannot be required to demonstrate competence and willingness to be safe before purchasing a gun, I say "nonsense."
What else can I say in response to a nutball claim like that?
"Sure, leave your gun out for the kids to play with because it's no more dangerous than a teddy bear?" Give me a break. You, of all people, know better.
"Sure, brag to everyone in the neighborhood about your unlocked collection of pistols so that would-be burglars know exactly where to find them." As far as I'm concerned, anyone who keeps a gun unlocked so that he can more easily murder a would-be burglar is a criminal and therefore shouldn't have a gun. I believe you expressed a similar opinion in another post.
"Sure, brag to us all about that RPG in your closet so that the government knows exactly which house to hit first." Personally, if you're clever enough to have one of those things and competent to operate it, I'll be more than happy to help you keep your secret against the day it's needed.
People who see guns as dangerous are not the fools that many pro-gun zealots would like to think. Stop regarding them that way and address your rebuttals to their actual safety concerns if you don't want them to continue to whittle away at the rights your slogans simply cannot defend.
What were once an inherent right [to own guns], has been infringed to the point that those who disagree have been left with no other option, but, to turn to the Courts to seek redress.
Good for you! I think you're well within your rights to do so! More power to you! Just don't try the "no inherent danger" argument on a judge if you want to be taken seriously.
| |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 11:39:22 AM | | All I hear is people talking crap. As a Firearm Instructor & law abiding firearm owner I can tell you that law abiding firearm owners are NOT trigger happy psycho's that we are made out to be. Whats next? Somebody getting hurt by someone driving a Ford, are they gonna sue Ford motor company? Get real people. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 12:29:13 PM | | Gun control is like the AIDS virus. It doesn't kill you by itself. It just takes away your ability to defend yourself so other things can. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 12:49:28 PM |
While there have been some rather blatantly cavalier statements made where guns are concerned; no one has dismissed, nor should anyone dissmiss, the danger of an irresponsible person having control of a loaded gun.
Unless it's been the persons themselves, such as the individual who claimed that a burglary was an invitation to get shot. It's a dumb move, certainly, and it's certainly an invitation to become subject to an enfored citizen's arrest, but it's no justification for murder.
Home invasion has become the stylish crime of late. Home invasion is a crime of violence, lots and lots of violence, on the part of the perpetrators, in order to ensure compliance on the part of the victims. While I certainly do not advocate shooting someone for simply breaking into your home; I am also not one who will cower in the face of a home invader.
I do not subscribe to, nor do I suffer, the mind set of some pro-gun advocates. That is my right, just as it is the right of those to express their pre-disposition to shoot anyone entering their home uninvited, or unannouced. The difference in those two positions is that my right is exercised in accordance with the law. Absent some very specific circumstances, shooting, and likely killing, someone who enters your home uninvited, or unannounced, is a violation of the law governing one's possession and use of a firearm. As I have previously stated, no one, including the most ardent gun enthusiast, wants a loaded gun placed in the hands of someone who is irresponsible. Anyone having a pre-disposition of shooting another human being, in my humble opinion, has no business with a weapon of any kind.
Why does a gasoline can have to be red? Why does it have to have a warning? Why can't you mail high explosives? Because those things pose dangers based on their inherent properties. Guns have properties that make them inherently dangerous. If they didn't, they wouldn't need a _safety_ mechanism.
Please don't undercut your position with such an obviously fallacious argument again!
In order for a gun to pose a danger to anyone, some other elements have to come into play. First, and foremost, there must be a human being manipulate the gun in the proper way to load it, with the proper ammunition; ammunition is specific to each caliber, and type of, gun. For instance, you can't load a 38 super with 38 special ammunition; it won't fit. After it the gun has been loaded, a human being has to work the mechanism in the proper way, in order to make it fire. Even if the gun were already loaded, it would still have to have human intervention to be fired. Modern day firearms do not fire themselves; they are purposely designed not to.
Just as a point of education for those who are not familiar with firearms, there are guns out there, that do not have safeties, and to my knowledge, are still manufactured today, without safeties. They are the most common handgun out there today; they are double action revolvers; like the ones most law enforcement agencies carried for a great many years. That's right, they do NOT have safeties on them. They didn't need safeties, because it required human intervention to make them dangerous to begin with.
Please educate yourself on the workings of firearms. You simply cannot pick a gun up; some of them even if they are loaded, and make it fire. Modern day semi automatic pistols won't fire, even if there is a round in the chamber, and the hammer is****d, without a magazine inserted. Modern day firearms are purposely designed, and purpose built, with safety in mind. It's commonly referred to as trying to make them idiot proof.
there is a requirement that anyone who operates a motor vehicle receive training in safe operation, proper maintenance, and safe storage. When 2nd-Amendment zealots claim that they cannot be required to demonstrate competence and willingness to be safe before purchasing a gun, I say "nonsense."
What else can I say in response to a nutball claim like that?
My response to such a ludicrous claim would be that I hope they only shoot themselves with their new gun, and not some innocent. I have been a firearms enthusiast for a long time, I've been in a lot of gun stores, and around a lot of gun owners. I have yet to meet, see, talk to, or hear of, any firearms enthusiast that has ever expressed anything other than a deep rooted respect for firearms of all kinds.
"Sure, leave your gun out for the kids to play with because it's no more dangerous than a teddy bear?" Give me a break. You, of all people, know better.
An empty gun, other than being substantially heavier, and harder, than a teddy bear, poses no more danger to anyone than a teddy bear. Once the steam stops rolling out of your ears, read that sentence a second time; I said "empty" gun.
Everyone, other than the pro-gun advocates, keep presuming that every gun out there is loaded,****d, safety off, and ready to fire, at all times. Ever hear the term "shot empty," or "that gun is cleared and empty?" Anyone who has ever been on a range has heard commands to that effect from the Range Master. The way I was taught, there is no such thing as an "unloaded" gun; it is either "loaded", or "empty."
"Sure, brag to everyone in the neighborhood about your unlocked collection of pistols so that would-be burglars know exactly where to find them." As far as I'm concerned, anyone who keeps a gun unlocked so that he can more easily murder a would-be burglar is a criminal and therefore shouldn't have a gun. I believe you expressed a similar opinion in another post.
Keeping a gun for home defense is just that; keeping a gun for home defense. This means that should there be an intruder, or some other confrontation arise, the home owner is prepared, nothing more.
Keeping a gun for home defense, is no more offensive to the law abiding than a monitored alarm system; both measures are defensive in nature. Absent some threat to the home, they are simply inanimate objects. It is only after someone has done something to set the alarm off, or alert the homeowner of an imminent threat of life, that either one of these things is engaged.
As I have said before, should someone enter my home, they will have to get past a monitored alarm system, which will notify the Sheriff's Office. Assuming the noise doesn't scare the criminal off, and they continue, they will be greeted by two large, very angry, dogs who do not know what fear is. Assuming they get past the dogs, they will be met by me, who will be armed. Once that far, it would be obvious to most anyone that whoever it is, is intent on doing me, and/or my family, serious harm. I would automatically be in fear of my life, or the lives of my family members. Thus, whoever it was that entered my home, will be sporting OOO buckshot as part of their ensemble when they are taken to the morgue.
Being prepared, is merely that, being prepared. No one sets out to have a car accident on any given day. However, nearly every state mandates that occupants in a motor vehicle wear seatbealts.
People who see guns as dangerous are not the fools that many pro-gun zealots would like to think. Stop regarding them that way and address your rebuttals to their actual safety concerns if you don't want them to continue to whittle away at the rights your slogans simply cannot defend.
If there were any realistic concerns to address, I'd be happy to address them. Neither firearms, nor firearms enthusiasts, are inherently evil.
What most firearms enthusiasts espouse, are not merely slogans, but heartfelt beliefs, and logical statements of fact, quoting Constitutional law.
It is only after having been pushed into a very tight corner, that firearms enthusiasts, who are generally speaking, soft spoken, easy going, people, have resorted to the Courts, that Gun Control advocates have long employed as agents to advance their unConstitutional agenda. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 12:54:28 PM |
A much more simplified, and straight forward, statute would be the Texas statute. The Texas statute only requires that someone be in imminent fear of their life, or the life of a third person, before they may use deadly force.
until last september, you are partially correct. since then, it is legal in texas to use deadly force in a lot of instances, such as to prevent a thief from getting away with your property, criminal mischief at night, burglary, and a host of other things.
the lunatic idea that you should be in fear for your life before killing a piece of shyt that is committing a crime is stupid on it's face.
it's quite simple. if the punk is sitting home watching tv, he doesn't have to worry about getting killed. if he chooses to break into someone's house, he deserves to get his wish to die. it is the thief, and the thief alone, that announces that his life is not worth as much as my tv.
just simple, irrefutable reality | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 1:32:09 PM |
if the punk is sitting home watching tv, he doesn't have to worry about getting killed. if he chooses to break into someone's house, he deserves to get his wish to die. it is the thief, and the thief alone, that announces that his life is not worth as much as my tv.
If that was indeed reality, then you would see the death penalty as the punishment for the theft of your TV. 
The simple, irrefutable reality is...that it's not.
Unlike someone like Lost, you've left yourself unprepared for the situation by not having multiple levels of protection - because you are relying only on your firearm to protect you.
He's set up a defensive position, as well as a philosophical one, that will protect him far better than you have - against an intruder, against misuse of the weapon, and against any judicial examination of his actions if he's left with no other option but to take someone's life.
He's essentially covered all the bases, and even in a Canadian court of law he'd probably walk away without any problems. The judge or jury would hear of all of this forethought, and his concept of only using force when all other options were exhausted.
If I was on the jury, I'd vote to acquit him in an second, without hesitation.
Part of the OP's question was how safe you really are with a firearm.
I see someone like LC as carrying that to it's full potential, pre and post event. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 2:35:20 PM | Please Hitcher, if we might prevail upon your superior knowledge, as a firearms instructor, I'd appreciate it, if you would explain some of the more common safety practices taught to new, and experienced, firearms owners and enthusiasts.
Cocytus, if you're here, we'd all appreciate your input, as an instructor as well.
Perhaps, with input from two firearms instructors, maybe those not familiar with firearms, or firearms enthusiasts, will be able to gain some insight into the issues we have raised, and our position on the Gun Control issue. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/7/2008 2:48:41 PM |
Perhaps, with input from two firearms instructors, maybe those not familiar with firearms, or firearms enthusiasts, will be able to gain some insight into the issues we have raised, and our position on the Gun Control issue.
As an additional question to those same experts, or anyone else, does anyone think that someone walking out of a gun store with a weapon, and lacking any certifiable training or legal knowledge of what that new ownership entails, is actually a good thing ?
Could a mandatory firearms course, even if implemented by the gun industry itself, not make society better overall - at least for new owners ?
This could be done without raising any Constitutional issues, and without government regulation, independently. It would ensure that gun owners know the basic things they need to know, and increase the responsibility of ownership.
It would also allow people to actually get to know the personality of that new gun owner, and his capacity to use his right responsibly.
This would also be a huge plus in the gun control debate, for both sides. It would address the common things we all agree with - making sure guns are used properly, and treated with the respect they require. | |
|
|
| Page 67 of 93
|
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 |
|
Home
login 
