PDA

View Full Version : Gun control. social engineering?



oly
11-15-2009, 11:31 AM
Has anyone ever noticed that there's statistic on gun violence and I don't see any statistics on other violent crimes?

I see alot of social engineering on this subject.

Rick
11-15-2009, 11:35 AM
Oly, there are statistics on all violent and non-violent crimes. It's broken down into age, sex, geography, urban vs. rural and a few other ways. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is chartered to keep track of data like that.

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

You can also view similar data in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

This is from the Bureau of Justice Statics and is based on 2005, which is the latest available.

Weapon use
In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 12:01 PM
If it makes you feel any better, I think the whole world has gone mad.:sneaky2:


A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

Sourdough
11-15-2009, 12:15 PM
If it makes you feel any better, I think the whole world has gone mad.:sneaky2:



This is a good thing. It was a predictable result. If one can stand back far enough to see.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 12:40 PM
It does appear, that there is a glimmer of hope, in the world.


OTTAWA - The national debate over gun control that many Canadians thought had been resolved a decade ago has roared back to life after the House of Commons voted in principle Wednesday to end the long-gun registry.http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/Vote-to-kill-gun-registry-wins-approval-in-principle-with-help-of-Liberals_-NDP.html

Stony
11-15-2009, 12:44 PM
don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.
a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms,
issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors.
national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.
anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.

so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 12:49 PM
The country would be safer, if everyone was armed.

NCO
11-15-2009, 01:14 PM
Or no one.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 01:17 PM
Or no one.

Regardless of laws, someone will always be armed.

NCO
11-15-2009, 01:18 PM
Wouldn't it then be better to minimize the amount of armed people.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 01:26 PM
Wouldn't it then be better to minimize the amount of armed people.

Not in my opinion. I think that would just create a target rich environment.(For the bad guys)

We have a saying, over here....."If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have them."

I have never seen a study, that says that gun control has reduced crime. In fact, here, the cities with the strictest gun control laws, have the highest crime rates.

Old GI
11-15-2009, 02:06 PM
You might call it - Victim Creation Program.

Modern history is resplendent with factual accounts of what an armed citizenry can do and what happens when that is not the case. Example, when the state of Florida created the concealed carry program, crime dropped dramatically (has be verified).

Rick
11-15-2009, 03:22 PM
don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.
a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms,
issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors.
national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.
anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.

so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.

Indeed. It's worked very well to date with automobiles. Strict licensing, training and registration has dropped the death rate associated with them to ... oh, wait ... no it hasn't. Sorry, my bad.

Forgive me, perhaps I'm wrong, but every weapon has a serial number and each number is recorded (at least in my state) when it's sold. That hasn't stopped the sale of weapons to undesirables and it never will. Those sales are generated through stolen weapons so a registry simply doesn't work.

BENESSE
11-15-2009, 06:07 PM
For a start we need to enforce gun laws that are on the books now.
Mandatory background checks, sufficient waiting time for licensing, serious prosecution of unlawful weapons posession.
Obviously, people with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to own a gun at all and neither should those who have a record of mental instability.

Yeah, criminals will always be able to obtain guns because they are criminals.
And drug addicts will always find a way to get drugs. That's no excuse for getting lax.

Maybe we won't save enough lives to suit some of you but if one of those lives lost belonged to your loved one you'd sing a different tune.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 06:22 PM
For a start we need to enforce gun laws that are on the books now.
Mandatory background checks, sufficient waiting time for licensing, serious prosecution of unlawful weapons posession.
Obviously, people with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to own a gun at all and neither should those who have a record of mental instability.

Yeah, criminals will always be able to obtain guns because they are criminals.
And drug addicts will always find a way to get drugs. That's no excuse for getting lax.

Maybe we won't save enough lives to suit some of you but if one of those lives lost belonged to your loved one you'd sing a different tune.

We would save a lot more "loved ones" if we would not let true criminals loose on society.

BTW, saving one life is great, but not if the policies used to do it, cost hundreds of lives.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 06:26 PM
Obviously, people with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to own a gun at all and neither should those who have a record of mental instability.



I'm pretty sure that we all agree with that....but on the other hand, if they are a danger to the public, why are they on the street?

BENESSE
11-15-2009, 08:20 PM
We would save a lot more "loved ones" if we would not let true criminals loose on society.

BTW, saving one life is great, but not if the policies used to do it, cost hundreds of lives.


Agree about criminals loose in society. But that's an entirely different issue.

There are many whose first criminal act involved a gun--Columbine killers, John Hinckley, Virginia Tech killer, Mark David Chapman, The Maryland snipers, etc., etc. These people obviously shouldn't have had access to guns in the first place.

As far as your second point, what's your point?

When people call for stricter gun control laws they are not talking about people like Rick, Crash or Sarge. Thy are talking about unpredictable nuts. Can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 08:37 PM
Agree about criminals loose in society. But that's an entirely different issue.

There are many whose first criminal act involved a gun--Columbine killers, John Hinckley, Virginia Tech killer, Mark David Chapman, The Maryland snipers, etc., etc. These people obviously shouldn't have had access to guns in the first place.

As far as your second point, what's your point?

When people call for stricter gun control laws they are not talking about people like Rick, Crash or Sarge. Thy are talking about unpredictable nuts. Can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

How do you know who will, in the future, commit a crime? Imposing more laws, on buying guns, makes it harder for crash, rick, me, etc., to buy a gun. It does not make it any harder for a criminal, to get one. He is already getting it illegally.
If it is harder for me, crash, etc, to get a gun, then you raise the chance of someone not having one, that may have, other wise, been able to save lives.(My second point.) A lot of lives are saved,each year, by lawful gun owners. Why make it harder on them?

I don't know about all your examples, but the columbine killers, stole those guns. The Va. Tech killer, bought those guns legally. (Yeah, he passed the back ground check.)

NightShade
11-15-2009, 08:38 PM
don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.
a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms,
issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors.
national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.
anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.

so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.

gangbangers and criminals don't typically buy their guns legally anyways friend... just more hurdles for us law-abiders.... 2dumb is right.. we would be safer if everyone was armed

Rick
11-15-2009, 08:39 PM
You're right Benesse. And...you'll find that some had been declared incompetent, which should have precluded them from acquiring guns and some "borrowed" guns from relatives.

There are more than enough laws on the books today to deal with folks that should not receive weapons. In fact, a few too many in my book.

NightShade
11-15-2009, 08:42 PM
illegal to own guns in D.C. = murder capital of the world


sure.... take guns away... that'll do it

Rick
11-15-2009, 08:44 PM
And the same can be said for Chicago. There was no decrease in crime when guns were outlawed.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 09:13 PM
Yet when I get off work, in Va., and go to one of many gun shops, in Va., I can't buy a handgun, because I live 30 miles away, on the other side of the N.C. state line. Mind you, I have passed more than enough background checks, and I have a C.C. Permit, which makes it legal for me to carry a concealed handgun, in Va.

BTW, If I were a Va. resident, I could only buy one handgun, per month.

Do you think any Virginians are safer, because of these laws?

BENESSE
11-15-2009, 09:26 PM
You're right Benesse. And...you'll find that some had been declared incompetent, which should have precluded them from acquiring guns and some "borrowed" guns from relatives.

There are more than enough laws on the books today to deal with folks that should not receive weapons. In fact, a few too many in my book.


That's why I said in my first sentence that we should enforce all the laws that are on the books now. If that's the only thing we do and nothing else, it would be a huge improvement.
Unfortunately, sometimes innocent, law-abiding people have to suffer because of the few bad apples (we seem to have more than our share--what's up with that?!)
I get bent out of shape for example when the comedy channel bleeps out bad words on the off chance there might be children watching.(and I don't even have kids)
Why am I being punished because there are parents who don't supervise their kids?
Don't get me started.

crashdive123
11-15-2009, 09:30 PM
That's why I said in my first sentence that we should enforce all the laws that are on the books now. If that's the only thing we do and nothing else, it would be a huge improvement.
Unfortunately, sometimes innocent, law-abiding people have to suffer because of the few bad apples (we seem to have more than our share--what's up with that?!)
I get bent out of shape for example when the comedy channel bleeps out bad words on the off chance there might be children watching.(and I don't even have kids)
Why am I being punished because there are parents who don't supervise their kids?
Don't get me started.

Kind of interesting that you picked that as an example. Seems that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are under assault.

2dumb2kwit
11-15-2009, 09:30 PM
Why am I being punished because there are parents who don't supervise their kids?
Don't get me started.

Yep....that's pretty much how I feel about a lot of the gun laws.

Ole WV Coot
11-15-2009, 11:02 PM
I will personally cut a nice stump in either WV or KY for anyone who wants to tell us poor backward Rednecks the "sin" of owning guns. You won't mind if the stump is next to a tall tree with a short rope will you? Open invitation, just give me a few minutes to get a crowd.

Beo
11-16-2009, 08:58 AM
"A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year."

I am a former soldier too, but I am smart enough to know that you cannot bring any weapon into any courthouse anywhere in the U.S. even if you have a CCW permit, it is illegal to do so. He may have been a former soldier doesn't male him the sharpest pencil in the box. If he found it outside he should've stayed with it and had someone go inside and get the police, or went in himself after checking to make sure it was unloaded.
Beo,

Now after reading the entire article, hmmm, I feel sorry for the guy. He found it (says he) in his garden and took it to the police, a good thing to get it off the street, he might have been questioned but to arrest him and lock him up makes no sense to me now. But ignorance of the law is no excuse so he got f**ked in the end for doing a good deed. What a mess.

pocomoonskyeyes
11-17-2009, 12:30 AM
Laws don't stop criminals.... Cops do. Instead of making more laws why not make more cops? Your money would be better spent. Criminals are criminals because they don't care about laws. You can make 14 gazillion laws, not a single one will stop a criminal, not even those that carry the death penalty. By making more laws all you are doing is making more prisons, Criminals eventually get out of those. It has been proven that all Prisons are is a means for criminals to get a better criminal education. Think of prison as Criminal College. All you have to do to be accepted is break a law,resulting in better trained harder to catch Felons. Is THAT what you REALLY want???

Anyone who is against an armed populace needs to check out Kennesaw, Ga. It boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. All Citizens of this city MUST own a GUN. Since Felons can't legally own a gun, you won't find any there. Reduce the criminal population and crime rates PLUMMET. Funny how that works huh? Like the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The gun is just an instrument of intent. Take away that instrument and another will take it's place. Eventually we will all be forced to resort to sticks and stones, A "New" Stone Age. Now does that really sound like progress? Next on the "chopping block" will be knives, Bows and arrows. Followed by Hammers,screwdrivers,and lead pipes,and so on and so on.

As morbid as this will sound, I would rather be shot to death than beat to death, stabbed, or strangled. If "they" are going to kill me, at least let it be quick. Because if their intent is to kill me then they will find a way. It won't matter what "tool" you leave them to do it with.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 10:13 AM
Anyone who is against an armed populace needs to check out Kennesaw, Ga. It boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. All Citizens of this city MUST own a GUN.

Maybe that's the thing to do in the rest of the country since nothing else seems to work. But I can't help wondering...

How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?
How will it affect road rage situations?
What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?
How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?

This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.

NightShade
11-17-2009, 10:21 AM
Personally, I think we'd have a politer, more patient society.....

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 10:32 AM
Personally, I think we'd have a politer, more patient society.....

Yes sir, have a nice day!

pocomoonskyeyes
11-17-2009, 12:24 PM
Criminals are criminals because they don't care about laws. You can make 14 gazillion laws, not a single one will stop a criminal, not even those that carry the death penalty.
^This is basically the definition of what a Criminal is^
Anyone who is against an armed populace needs to check out Kennesaw, Ga. It boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. All Citizens of this city MUST own a GUN. Since Felons can't legally own a gun, you won't find any there. Reduce the criminal population and crime rates PLUMMET.
^ This is the ONLY SOLUTION that WILL work, Reducing the Criminal population, or criminal mentality. This is the only way to really Solve this dilemma. How this can be achieved, I do not know.
As morbid as this will sound, I would rather be shot to death than beat to death, stabbed, or strangled. If "they" are going to kill me, at least let it be quick. Because if their intent is to kill me then they will find a way. It won't matter what "tool" you leave them to do it with.
This is how I really honestly feel. If someone has the intent to kill another human being, they WILL find SOME way to do it. This is no different than if you feel you have to go across town, you WILL find a way. This argument against guns is no different than saying drunk drivers don't kill innocents, Cars do. Therefore all cars must be more regulated with tougher laws. Naw, Drunk Drivers aren't to blame. I know let's make it harder to get a car, that will solve the dilemma.



This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.

If passionate feelings about my beliefs is emotional, then I am Guilty as charged. Try telling this to the Lawmakers who have heated Arguments and call them discussions. I'm not Spock(the Vulcan, not the baby psychologist). LOL

Some of my analogies above(like cars and Drunk Drivers) are sarcastic I know. The rationale is the same though, inanimate objects are NOT the cause of our troubles. We are the cause of our troubles. People not things. Changing "things" does not solve the problem, Changing peoples thoughts and the way we treat each other,IS the solution. In the end result this is the only one that will really and truly work. Whatever "Object" we are talking about is irrelevant, the heart of the problem lies with people. Only by changing peoples ways of treating and reacting to each other,will this Dilemma be solved.

Look there is already enough regulation. We can argue about who is and is not capable of owning a firearm. Rick and Crash are very stable examples already used in this thread(whom I have met AND trust to own firearms). There is nothing saying that either one doesn't fall, get a nasty bump on the head and become unstable. Or develop a brain tumor and become the next shooter in the Texas Campus Tower.(Heaven forbid that happens to anyone!! But it could) Trying to determine who is and is not WORTHY of gun ownership is trying to play God. We are not Omniscient and things will still happen no matter how much regulation is emplaced AND enforced.

Adding laws only bogs down an already sluggish system, by placing even More work on those that are already tasked to enforce laws that are current. No one is going to increase the forces tasked to enforce the existing laws,adding More laws only makes their jobs harder. Making their jobs harder only means that more criminals will get away,which means more of what no one wants... More crime and more criminals. As surely as some people see current criminals "getting away with it", They too will turn to criminal activities. This does not reduce the criminal population, it increases it. This means more people screaming for more laws to deal with the increasing criminal population,creating a Never-ending cycle. STOP making new laws for things that already have laws governing them! It makes matters worse not better. Sure clarify a law if it is not clear, but don't go making more!

This is a case where I feel "Less is more". Less laws for enforcement personnel to enforce, means better quality of the enforcement of those laws. Otherwise Cops are going to have to have a doctorate to be street beat cops,just to keep up with what laws they are supposed to enforce. It's like asking some one to memorize the complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Can you do it? I know I can't. I don't think we should expect LEO's to do that either.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 12:52 PM
So Poco, how do you address some of the questions I've raised such as:

How would have Ft. Hood played out differently? (everyone was licensed and had a weapon...just not on their body at the time of the shooting)

Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)

Where does LE come in, as a referee?

Some things will have to be figured out ahead of time whether you like it or not. If you don't want to call it another law, call it common sense, whatever. Unlike folks on this forum (you keep preaching to the choir) the rest of the population doesn't have the first clue about handling firearms.
Can't just pass out guns to everyone and say, "have at it folks."

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 01:00 PM
Oh, and another thing.

Call me naive, but firearms and emotions don't mix.
Rational thinking and a cool head, yes.
(At least that's what the NRA instructor at the firing range tells me.)

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm far from a spokesman, but I'll try to answer, a few.


Maybe that's the thing to do in the rest of the country since nothing else seems to work. But I can't help wondering...

How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?

Just like it would anywhere else. It's still illegal for criminals to have guns.(But you have to remember, that they have them now.) I also think criminals would be a lot less likely to attack an innocent person, if they thought they may be armed.

How will it affect road rage situations?

There are two ways of looking at this.
1.If your unstable enough to kill, over bad driving, you can use your car....it's a deadly weapon.
2.If you are a bully, and get ticked off at someone driving, aren't you less likely to do something stupid, if you think they are armed, and can defend themselves?
What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?

None! All those laws are already on the books.

How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?

That just depends on the people that were there, and what they could/would have done.

Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?

It would be just like it is now. Why would it be different? If you have a fire extinguisher, does that negate the need for firemen?

This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.

And you are correct about the emotion, but there is plenty of info,(Stat's, studies, etc.) than can be seen on the web, if you want more info.

pocomoonskyeyes
11-17-2009, 01:22 PM
So Poco, how do you address some of the questions I've raised such as:

How would have Ft. Hood played out differently? (everyone was licensed and had a weapon...just not on their body at the time of the shooting)
From what I have seen on TV,This is a case of one that "slipped through the cracks". If those that were licensed to carry had been carrying less lives would have been lost. I was once in the military. At one time we were EXPECTING a terrorist attack on our housing area. The Military with all it's intelligence "armed" us with unloaded weapons and bayonets. I thought this was supremely stupid so I armed myself,with 2 9mm pistols and extra magazines. Never fired a shot. But as we have often heard here - Better to have it and not need it,than to need it and not have it.
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid) Do we charge people for not driving? We can't make anyone do anything. But yeah if something happened and they weren't carrying it would be their problem. No different than if they were in an accident and didn't have insurance.

Where does LE come in, as a referee?
I think you missed my whole point about Kennesaw,Ga. It has nothing to do with requiring citizens to own a firearm. But by requiring them to own one, Felons CANNOT live there, thus reducing the crime in an unusual way... by eliminating the criminal population.

In actuality it would be no different than if you as a person who is legally allowed to CCW and shoot someone. You will be charged. Sorry but that is the way it happens. A CCW does not absolve you of any culpability in a shooting. You are not absolved of wrong-doing just because you have a CCW. Having a CCW is NOT a "license to kill". LE would do their job same as always. Just from a slightly different angle in a "justified shooting". Hey even LE has to go through an investigation, so would those with a CCW. This is another of my points. We all have to abide by the law or face the fiddler.
Some things will have to be figured out ahead of time whether you like it or not. If you don't want to call it another law, call it common sense, whatever. Unlike folks on this forum (you keep preaching to the choir) the rest of the population doesn't have the first clue about handling firearms.
Can't just pass out guns to everyone and say, "have at it folks."
You are so right!! Common Sense should PRECEDE Every law. I'm not preaching to anyone really. I'm sure there are some here who are on both sides of the fence of this issue. Like a Lot of things today, a lot of people just don't want to get involved. They think "What's the point? There are people from both sides arguing there views, what can I say?"
While some out there will NEVER carry a firearm. Some will. It doesn't matter what the law says. That's just the way it is. Even if it's legal AND encouraged, Some people just won't carry or even own one. If it's illegal there are those that will own one and carry...Once again it doesn't matter what the law says.(Think of terrorists in countries where it is illegal)

You are right we can't "just pass guns out to the populace and expect what is right from them." That is the current situation anyway. If you want a CCW you have to go through a process. Nothing would or should change there. You want one, go through the process. It all seems so simple to me.

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 01:31 PM
You know....I kinda like the gun is like a fire extinguisher, thingy!
I'm gonna have to use that one.

LOL...I can see it now...why would you want a fire extinguisher....Doesn't you town have a fire dept?

Are you expecting a fire? No. Then why would you have a fire extinguisher, in the house.

Fire extinguishers should be locked away, and only used by professionals. A child could set one of those things off in a closet, and suffocate.

I'm having tooooo much fun, with this!:innocent:

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 01:35 PM
And you are correct about the emotion, but there is plenty of info,(Stat's, studies, etc.) than can be seen on the web, if you want more info.

This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 01:36 PM
Oh, and another thing.

Call me naive, but firearms and emotions don't mix.
Rational thinking and a cool head, yes.
(At least that's what the NRA instructor at the firing range tells me.)

Agreed 100%!
It's called responsibility!

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 01:42 PM
This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.

Actually, I didn't mean you, getting emotional, I meant us. I was saying that you could get info, from sources, without our emotion. LOL:innocent:

I guess the short version, of my view, is that people make to big a fuss about the tool, and don't deal (well enough.) with the people that use them illegally.

pocomoonskyeyes
11-17-2009, 01:46 PM
Oh, and another thing.

Call me naive, but firearms and emotions don't mix.
Rational thinking and a cool head, yes.
(At least that's what the NRA instructor at the firing range tells me.)

Call me "old school" but I would rather "duke it out" than shoot someone. I would rather use necessary force to subdue a situation. That is what the military taught me (Guard duty). You only use ENOUGH force to stop the situation. Use of Deadly Force (a Firearm) is a LAST resort. It is used only when all other options are exhausted. This could be a rather fast paced decision making process(thinking in a split second). And the ensuing investigation would uncover that.
But I don't CCW, IF I carry it is in plain sight. I don't want anyone to underestimate(or overestimate) what the possibilities are. But currently I do not even own a firearm... none. I do carry a knife in plain sight well within my states laws. Make no mistake I WILL use it if a situation calls for it.
I know a LOT of people say that bringing a knife to a gun fight is stupid. But MOST altercations occur in rather close quarters when a gun is as much a danger to you as to your opponent. A knife does not have the same lethality or liabilities as a gun in this situation. That Is also why I prefer a knife to a gun. Even LEO's know that it is stupid to ALLOW a person wielding a knife within 20 ft of them. That is quite a distance when you think about it. Even when mortally wounded and dieing a knife wielding opponent can still manage to kill the shooter.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 02:07 PM
I guess the short version, of my view, is that people make to big a fuss about the tool, and don't deal (well enough.) with the people that use them illegally.

I definitely agree! Not nearly enough people get bent out of shape over that.

trax
11-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Well the long gun registry that 2d2k quoted in post #5 really just punished people who are serious about hunting. Handgun crime is on the rise all over urban Canada unfortunately.

It's kind of like a comedian was saying about the law "you see two pot-bellied middle aged fellas wearing blaze orange with Saskatchewan plates on the back of their '76 Ford pickup and a couple of rifles mounted in the back window and they happen to be cruising through downtown Winnipeg. H*ll yeah, pull 'em in officer! You just know they plan on bustin' a cap in someone's a$$"

Ole WV Coot
11-17-2009, 05:25 PM
I carry a handgun. I can use it very well. I have never drawn it in the USA. I can still stop your clock with most things that aren't considered weapons. I prefer a walking stick because I can carry it anywhere. Underestimate me and I can still do you in with my hands or feet, I learned well. Guns, big deal. Just another tool to keep civilization civilized. I never learned how to be politically correct when it came to self defense. You push me or my family you're paid for. Break in my house, you're dead. I don't see anything complicated about anything I read. It's really very simple to me, now if everyone was like me you wouldn't need to worry who carries what, and I wasn't taught to "duke it out", only finish.

finallyME
11-17-2009, 06:42 PM
Maybe that's the thing to do in the rest of the country since nothing else seems to work. But I can't help wondering...

How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?
How will it affect road rage situations?
What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?
How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?

This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.

I saw that 2d answered this first. I might repeat, so sorry if I do.


How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?
Lower crime. There are less victims.


How will it affect road rage situations?
Less road rage. How would you act if the other driver "might" be armed?


What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?
Actually we would just repeal certain laws and make no new ones.


How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?
He would have been shot either before he shot anyone, or after only shooting a one or two.


Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
NO! Free country. Free to carry, free not to.


Where does LE come in, as a referee?
How is that different from right now?

finallyME
11-17-2009, 06:45 PM
But currently I do not even own a firearm... none.

Me too.....all mine were stolen.

finallyME
11-17-2009, 06:58 PM
don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?

Of course. The problem is how. Criminals generally don't buy guns at gun shops.


if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.

It never has. In fact, it has always risen.


a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms, issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors. national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.

This is a serious subject, so I won't laugh. How would a national registration curb illegal sale? Illegal sale means they went around the legal registration process. Criminal will ALWAYS have guns. If they can't buy them, they can easily make them. In fact, if you make them harder to get, their street price goes up, giving criminals a larger profit when they manufacture them.


anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.

This is no threat to a criminal who can easily get a weapon illegally.


so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.

Safer for who?

NightShade
11-17-2009, 07:02 PM
Safer for who?

I must say,well put!

finallyME
11-17-2009, 07:04 PM
This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.

Good point. Me too.

pocomoonskyeyes
11-17-2009, 07:57 PM
The only Model I really need to look at is feudal Japan. When it was made illegal for anyone but samurai to own a sword. As soon as this was done other weapons popped up - Nunchaku which was a flail for rice, Sai which was used as a quick disconnect pin between the tree and wagon,...I think everyone can see where this leads. If you use the comparison of Samurai to soldiers/police and guns/sword. I think we can see where this leads, and the end result. This has always been my position on Gun Control laws. There are always other alternatives out there. Like OWVC and his walking stick.
My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 07:58 PM
So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 08:02 PM
My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.

Amen, brother!

crashdive123
11-17-2009, 08:04 PM
The only Model I really need to look at is feudal Japan. When it was made illegal for anyone but samurai to own a sword. As soon as this was done other weapons popped up - Nunchaku which was a flail for rice, Sai which was used as a quick disconnect pin between the tree and wagon,...I think everyone can see where this leads. If you use the comparison of Samurai to soldiers/police and guns/sword. I think we can see where this leads, and the end result. This has always been my position on Gun Control laws. There are always other alternatives out there. Like OWVC and his walking stick.
My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.

Honestly the only model I really look at is the Constitution of the United States. I understand that not all forum members are US citizens, but I am, and that is what I look at.

crashdive123
11-17-2009, 08:14 PM
So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.

BENESSE - it has not happened to me personally. I am an activist to make sure that it dose not happen to me. Sadly, if it weren't for a law, a terrible tragedy MAY have been averted in Kileen, Texas in 1991. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2383442/posts


From Article: Among the dead at Luby's that day were Al and Ursula Gratia. Their daughter, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, was with them when the restaurant was attacked while they were eating. But for a Texas law that required that she leave her personal pistol outside in her car, that forbade her from carrying it into the restaurant, Dr. Hupp would have had the ability to defend her parents, herself and the others from the erratic but deadly attack by George Hennard in the second-worst shooting rampage in American history.
Dr. Hupp, reacting instinctively to the first shots, reached into her purse for her pistol.
It was not there.

There are many other examples, none of which happened to me personally, but did (possibly) because of laws cause a needless waste of life. A mall shooting a few years back - shootings at VA Tech - Columbine (what if teachers were allowed to carry), etc.

Rick
11-17-2009, 08:34 PM
Every month the NRA publishes The Armed Citizen inside each of their magazines. Whether you agree with the NRA or not is not germane. The stories told within the article are true and testimony to the power of legally protecting yourself when someone seems he11 bent on doing you harm.

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 08:37 PM
So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.

Never.

(Sorry, I can't stick to the question.)
I have also never needed to use a fire extinguisher......but I still know that it is a good idea for me to have one in my house, my shop, my office, my equipment, my truck.......

I have also never needed to perform CPR....but I know how, and think others should, too.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 08:44 PM
BENESSE - it has not happened to me personally. I am an activist to make sure that it dose not happen to me. Sadly, if it weren't for a law, a terrible tragedy MAY have been averted in Kileen, Texas in 1991. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2383442/posts

Totally get this and agree.

There are many other examples, none of which happened to me personally, but did (possibly) because of laws cause a needless waste of life. A mall shooting a few years back - shootings at VA Tech - Columbine (what if teachers were allowed to carry), etc.

True enough about these examples as well.
However, what I'm not hearing loud enough and often enough is the outrage about poor parental supervision (Columbine) and granting gun permits to mentally unstable people with a record (for anyone to check) of mental instability. (VA Tech)

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 08:48 PM
I have also never needed to use a fire extinguisher......but I still know that it is a good idea for me to have one in my house, my shop, my office, my equipment, my truck.......

A bit of a stretch to prove a point, I think.

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 08:48 PM
True enough about these examples as well.
However, what I'm not hearing loud enough and often enough is the outrage about poor parental supervision (Columbine) and granting gun permits to mentally unstable people with a record (for anyone to check) of mental instability. (VA Tech)


I thought the reason that the "Va. Tech Guy" fell through the cracks, was that his mental problems were not reported, because of PC/privacy stuff.

...and don't get me started, on the PC stuff!:innocent:

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 08:52 PM
Every month the NRA publishes The Armed Citizen inside each of their magazines. Whether you agree with the NRA or not is not germane. The stories told within the article are true and testimony to the power of legally protecting yourself when someone seems he11 bent on doing you harm.

I'm all for the right to legally protect myself. No arguments there.

crashdive123
11-17-2009, 08:58 PM
I'm all for the right to legally protect myself. No arguments there.

That is the problem with many of the laws. They take away that right in certain situations that the lawmakers determine the following: 1 - they know better than us, 2 - Constitution need not apply here.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 09:00 PM
I thought the reason that the "Va. Tech Guy" fell through the cracks, was that his mental problems were not reported, because of PC/privacy stuff.

No that was our Army Major Malik Hasan.
I am yet to read that SOMEone here holds the Army responsible for dropping the ball on this one.

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 09:07 PM
No that was our Army Major Malik Hasan.
I am yet to read that SOMEone here holds the Army responsible for dropping the ball on this one.

OK, that makes two. (I think the Va. Tech guy, had actually been treated for mental problems. There were some issues.....I can't remember the details.)

If what I have read about Major Sicko, is correct, the Army, and possibly the FBI need to have their feet held to the fire. The problem is....I don't know, for sure, what to believe. I've heard/read conflicting stories.

Rick
11-17-2009, 09:14 PM
Hey! Let's knock off talking about sickos all right? My doctor said it's hard on my self esteem.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 09:18 PM
Hey! Let's knock off talking about sickos all right? My doctor said it's hard on my self esteem.

Perhaps psychologically challenged?

2dumb2kwit
11-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Hey! Let's knock off talking about sickos all right? My doctor said it's hard on my self esteem.

It's OK, Rick, you're entertainingly crazy.....that's different.:innocent:

crashdive123
11-17-2009, 09:19 PM
Nah - I've seen that picture. Sicko is about right.

BENESSE
11-17-2009, 09:26 PM
Nah - I've seen that picture. Sicko is about right.

For Hasan or Rick?

oly
11-17-2009, 11:48 PM
I would like to thank you for your opinions and here is mine.
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto ...
I personally feel that the right to bear arms is over 1/2 of our national defence.
Sorry rick but I don't believe in statistics that can be altered for a goal.
Ben I think that a criminal is like a predator, It only seeks out the weak or easy targets. People will kill people and you don't need a gun to get er done, it has been recorded from the beginning of time.
Now for the reason I started this is that I hear more of violet crime that isn't publicised but if a person even banishes a weapon in self defence its all over the news. Hmmmmmm.

Rick
11-18-2009, 08:18 AM
Sorry rick but I don't believe in statistics that can be altered for a goal.

And what goal would that be? And if not their numbers, who's would be accurate?

finallyME
11-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Benesse I think we can agree on a few things.

We don't want bad guys to have guns.
We want a safe, peaceful society.

Were we differ is that I don't think it is possible to take guns away from bad guys. So, the premise of my argument is that since bad guys will always have guns, what do we do from there?

Rick
11-18-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm sure I'll get in trouble once more but here goes.

Many years ago the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinios had several (3 if I remember) gaurds killed. The prison went on lock down and, to my knowledge, has been so ever since. The prisoners are allowed out of their cells 1 hour per day, their beds are a concrete pad with a mattress, they have no power weights, no running tracks, no television. They get to sit in their cells and contemplate what they did. In my mind, that's how it's supposed to be. Prison should not present a better environment than that which you had on the outside. Otherwise, what incintive is there to stay out of prison?

BENESSE
11-18-2009, 11:52 AM
Benesse I think we can agree on a few things.

We don't want bad guys to have guns.
We want a safe, peaceful society.

Were we differ is that I don't think it is possible to take guns away from bad guys. So, the premise of my argument is that since bad guys will always have guns, what do we do from there?

Actually, I don't think we even differ there.

Bad guys will always find a way to get guns illegally, so we should have the right to own them legally.
At the same time (pursuing parallel paths here) we need to judiciously perform background checks to make sure some nut doesn't fall through the cracks and gets a hold of one on our watch.
Will he be able to get a gun illegally if he really wants to?
Yeah, we can't help that.
But why not try to do everything that is in our power to prevent it from happening?
That's ALL I am advocating and of course strict enforcement of the laws already on the books.:)

BENESSE
11-18-2009, 11:57 AM
I'm sure I'll get in trouble once more but here goes.

Many years ago the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinios had several (3 if I remember) gaurds killed. The prison went on lock down and, to my knowledge, has been so ever since. The prisoners are allowed out of their cells 1 hour per day, their beds are a concrete pad with a mattress, they have no power weights, no running tracks, no television. They get to sit in their cells and contemplate what they did. In my mind, that's how it's supposed to be. Prison should not present a better environment than that which you had on the outside. Otherwise, what incintive is there to stay out of prison?

Why on earth would you get in trouble for that? You are right, of course.
I'd like to go a step further though and find a way to make them useful.
Whatever happened to chain gangs?

Rick
11-18-2009, 12:00 PM
We saw them a lot when I was a kid. Cleaning the right of way or working on community projects. Preventing cruel and unusual should be reserved for victims IMHO.

2dumb2kwit
11-18-2009, 12:24 PM
I'm still liking the way Sheriff Joe, handles things.:innocent:
(Actually, I think we (as a people) hold him back, too much.)

BENESSE
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
I'm still liking the way Sheriff Joe, handles things.:innocent:
(Actually, I think we (as a people) hold him back, too much.)


Sheriff Joe is my personal hero!!!
That should be our blue-print on how to handle criminals country wide.

Rick
11-18-2009, 01:55 PM
Good ole green bologna.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YknmixhjxmQ/SAJCRuKGa0I/AAAAAAAAADk/dbEv_l8ITwY/s320/Green_Bologna.png

Batch
11-27-2009, 06:51 PM
Firearms routinely are confiscated in prisons. Some are smuggled in and in some cases by crooked LEO. Many more are manufactured in prisons.

A firearm is just a tube, a projectile, a propellant and some sort of trigger. In fact every type of criminal enterprise continues in side prison walls. Under close supervision of LEOs. Its simpler in their too. The profile is that everyone is a criminal...

To many recordings exist on line where 911 documented the final fearful pleas of an unarmed person and their loved ones. Police investigate crimes. There is little they can do to prevent crimes. That is something we must do by making the risks out weigh the reward...