Gun Control pt.2

1001. thoughtful - 1/20/2005 4:42:45 PM

my husband was a special officer in town for over 15 years. I knew a lot of the cops back then. They were as human as anyone else, and not the brightest crayons in the box. The fact that they were armed made them more dangerous, but not brighter nor more courageous.

A few towns over there was a rash of robberies on vacant houses. Took them awhile to figure out it was the cops doing it....people would notify the cops that they would be on vacation from x to x and they'd go hit the houses. Nice, eh? Then they'd get to 'investigate' their own robbery.

1002. wonkers2 - 1/20/2005 4:47:29 PM

The same thing happened in Royal Oak, Michigan, a few years ago. While making their nightly rounds, several cops were burglarizing businesses after they had closed.

1003. robertjayb - 1/20/2005 4:57:30 PM

iiibbb,

I have some journalism (Wash Post, Detroit News, Mother Jones) on accidental shootings with Glock handguns, but I'm looking for more substantial stuff. As a Glock man, can you point me to research on the subject? Perhaps one of the accompanying links has such...

Thank you for your kind assistance. Most grateful.

1004. thoughtful - 1/20/2005 5:03:10 PM

That's one reason I stick with my snub nose .38. A revolver is far easier to deal with, less likely to go off accidentally and clear to anyone whether the thing is loaded or not.

I don't like the walther ppk because you can't always tell if there's one in the chamber...not safe in my book...though certainly more attractive.

1005. iiibbb - 1/20/2005 5:25:20 PM

Robert... I've had 2 news items in the thread somewhere about both Detroit having problems with acidental shootings... also one from Washingington DC. I was chastising the cops about breaking the basic firearms safety rules. I'd look somewhere around the 300's or so. I don't remember if it was before or after the 2nd amendment meme.

I know that the only true accidental discharge was a Canadian cop where the Glock went off while holstered due to some wierd combination of circumstances. They sued for a pretty low ammount.

I also know that NY city cops have some trigger spring options named after them (the NY1 and NY2) that raise the trigger pressure from the stock 5 lbs to approximately 8 or 10 lbs respectively. There also parts called the 'connectors' that can change the felt pressure at the trigger.

Allow me to step on the stump for one brief moment. The way I was taught... there are no 'accidental' shootings, there are 'negligent' shootings. Almost all unintentional discharges can be directly linked to user error and violations of basic firearms safety rules.

Glocks are known for their lack of a manual safety. The purpose of a safety is to keep the gun from going off if the firearm is dropped or struck... it is not meant to be part of a firing sequence. In this regard Glocks are very safe, but they demand trigger discipline. This is the reason I like them (aside from being left handed and few firearms are set up for lefties)... there is no excuse to be complacent. The manual safety for a Glock is leaving it holstered (in one that fully covers the trigger guard)... A gun shouldn't come out of the holster, and you finger shouldn't go on the trigger, unless you truly plan to shoot anyway.

If I spot any news more specific I'll let you know.

1006. iiibbb - 1/20/2005 6:33:38 PM

Here's one Jay...

and another

Most of the 'accidents' in these aren't accidents though.

1007. Marc-Albert - 1/20/2005 6:40:15 PM

That's one reason I stick with my snub nose .38. A revolver is far easier to deal with, less likely to go off accidentally and clear to anyone whether the thing is loaded or not.

I don't like the walther ppk because you can't always tell if there's one in the chamber...not safe in my book...though certainly more attractive.


I see you're enjoying your phalic tool, small-framed woman.

1008. iiibbb - 1/20/2005 6:55:35 PM

Robert... I don't know if you've read yet either. Glocks have an optional "chamber loaded" indicator you can upgrade to. I think it's on all their new pistols. They also have an optional internal key lock.

1009. wonkers2 - 1/20/2005 7:32:57 PM

You guys remind me of my old Army basic training sergeant saying "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for shooting, this is for fun!" [With appropriate hand gestures.]

1010. iiibbb - 1/20/2005 10:08:14 PM

Another Glock accident site... warning... the reports from the trenches is that the guy that runs this site has an axe to grind with Glock... notice the ads for other barrels.

Glocks are apparently no more likely to kB than other firearms, but due to their market share they're a target. kB's are usually the result of people putting reloads or lead bullets through their guns, which Glock explicitly states voids their warrantee.

1011. iiibbb - 1/20/2005 10:12:24 PM

The difference between a negligent and accidental discharge

1012. robertjayb - 1/20/2005 11:33:38 PM

Thanks, iiibbb.

I have the WaPo and Detroit News series and here is the article from Mother Jones. I'm attempting to roundup material to persuade a reporter to do a series on police shootings in general and Glock shootings in particular. They occur far too frequently. I would equip cops with revolvers and pump-action shotguns and we would all be safer for it.

I don't really disagree with your assessment of the Glock. But as a police weapon in the hands of typical cops with typical levels of training and supervision, Glocks are dangerous.

1013. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 12:00:11 AM

Based on my hunting experience, the adrernaline dump renders differences between most triggers unnoticable... so I don't know for sure.

You'll have a hard time selling revolvers back to street cops IMHO. There are full DAO automatic pistols out there which would probably work better (such as Sig Saurs). They have the long, heavy trigger of a revolver, but the capacity of a semi-auto. Problem with Sigs is they do not cater to lefties, and they are among the priciest brands.

Does the Police you look at use the NY springs? With the right combination of connector and trigger spring you can get up to a 10 lb pull I think in a Glock for a mere $15 or so. Here's one table of some spring combinations. I could have sworn there are combinations that will raise the final pressure up to 10 lbs.

Ultimately, I'll bet you find it's more of a training issue as per Message # 990. However, if I see something I will post it.

1014. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 12:03:44 AM

I'd take a Glock over a 1911 DA/SA pistol. Every pull is the same on a Glock... a 1911 the first pull is very hard, but follow up pulls are very light.

It ultimately comes down to the basic rules. If you ask me cops should be suspended when they break the basic firearms safety rules.

1015. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 12:04:28 AM

I've never seen a negligent discharge with a glock at the contests I do. I've seen 2 NDs and they were with 1911's.

1016. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 12:18:22 AM

A discussion site about "accidental" Glock discharges

General sentiment..."If you're too dumb to operate a Glock safely, you're too dumb to operate any handgun."

1017. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 12:48:21 PM

Too bad she's not famous and can afford a bodyguard.

1018. justears - 1/21/2005 3:06:02 PM

A friend of mine had the responsibility of inviting Fidel Castro to dinner. Being the egotist that he is, Fidel held forth over dinner and after about weapon preferences. This type of rifle was better for shooting people in the forest, that type of handgun was more reliable etc. In his enthusiasm for the subject, he sent one of his aides out to his limo to retrieve his favorite war-rifle. After brandishing it for a while he finally exited having appalled and bored everyone.

1019. wonkers2 - 1/21/2005 4:02:32 PM

I wonder if Fidel is a member of the National Rifle Association??

1020. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 4:16:23 PM

Cuban military, citizens drill for invasion in Bush's 2nd term: U.S. denies plans to attack nation

1021. wonkers2 - 1/21/2005 4:18:17 PM

Why wouldn't Cuba be a logical place to extend Bush's declared world freedom and liberty policy?

1022. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 4:24:52 PM

I was more impressed with the fact that they see the need for a militia... but mostly it was just a sidebar to go with Justears' story.

1023. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 4:38:19 PM

One follow-up on Michael Moore

Of course this does not negate the fact that Moore sees fit to hire guns to protect himself, while insisting that joe-average should have no real right to defend themselves (unless they're famous and rich I suppose).

1024. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 4:55:54 PM

Update on San Fran Ban

- The ban only affects residents of the city (that's how they're trying to get around the ruling that shot down the previous ban).

- It doesn't apply to former police officers (why?)

- It's already illegal to carry a pistol outside of your home... so it'll be interesting to watch this effort fail.

1025. concerned - 1/21/2005 5:21:14 PM

Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on airport gun charge.

Hypocrite

Anybody remember erstwhile hard left columnist Carl Rowan, bigtime proponent of strict gun control, who shot at and wounded with an illegal handgun a teenager who was doing some midnight skinny dipping in his swimming pool?

1026. robertjayb - 1/21/2005 5:29:29 PM

Re Message # 1017, I hope those mean and scurvy trial lawyers our Freedom Fighter President claims are ruining the country will go after Wal-Mart big-time for contributory negligence. No surveillance of the surveillance cameras. As for the evil-doer, he's a dead man. Should have kept on running.

Unless he is beyond baying-at-the-moon crazy a black man facing a kidnapping and murder rap in Tyler, Texas for the death of a young, blonde semi-attractive white girl is headed for the needle.

East Texas is all modern and civilized these days so the folks there will bother with a trial. But that fellow is a dead man walkin'.

1027. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 5:41:20 PM

I'm sure whatever happens she'll rest peacefully knowing that the trial lawyers have got her back.

1028. iiibbb - 1/21/2005 5:43:18 PM

Message # 1025

A blurb about Carl Rowen can be found among others here

1029. robertjayb - 1/21/2005 7:38:18 PM

The big news here is that a Houston area killer cop was convicted at all, not that he skated with 60-days and probation.

On a day when he was ordered to serve jail time for killing a 14-year-old boy, former Houston police officer Arthur Carbonneau was offered forgiveness by a father who lost his only child.

Although a jury had recommended only probation for the Glock-wielding former patrolman, state District Judge Mary Lou Keel ordered Carbonneau on Thursday to serve 60 days in jail for the shooting of Eli Eloy Escobar II.
.................................................

Carbonneau, who told jurors the killing was an accident, nodded as Keel explained his probation. He sniffled and wiped his nose with a tissue as bailiffs led him out of the courtroom.
.................................................

The officer testified that Escobar, who weighed more than 200 pounds, thrashed his arms and legs violently and kicked him in the groin while lying on the ground.

Carbonneau said he drew his gun, in part, because he feared Escobar had a weapon. The .40-caliber Glock automatic pistol fired accidentally, he said, when something, perhaps Escobar's hand or foot, struck his hand.

iiibbb will say, correctly, that despite the cop's weepy pleas this was no accident. But there at the bottom of the smelly pile of incompetence and ignorance is a dead kid and a Glock.

It happens much too often.

1030. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 12:00:49 AM

This story must be light on details because if a cop told me to stop where I was... I'd stop.... and I certainly wouldn't fight a cop.

That was just dumb.

1031. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 12:10:12 AM

Of course... why the cop didn't pull a taser or pepper is another question...

need more info.

1032. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 12:33:41 PM

More on the Walmart abduction murder.

Apparently he was robbing a manager at an RV park, who drew a handgun and shot him. Given that he killed one person it isn't unreasonable to conclude he would have killed the RV manager.

1033. alistairConnor - 1/22/2005 1:01:10 PM

Message # 1022 I was more impressed with the fact that they see the need for a militia

Well, they are a small country with a weak army and a powerful neighbour who makes constantly aggressive noises about them and tried to invade them thirty years ago...

Apart from that, I can't think why they would need a militia.

(footnote: if bush saw political advantage in it, e.g. to win mid-term elections, he would be perfectly capable of invading Cuba.
if he could find the troops...)

1034. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 1:35:40 PM

My post about Cuba was purposefully aloof. I don't really care all that much about Castro or Cuba... I'm certainly not on board with Bush's methods. Just because I'm pro-gun, don't get me confused with someone else on other issues.

My real feelings about Justears post is that I don't doubt that a dick like Castro would take pleasure in the vocation of shooting someone else.

Me personally, I wouldn't take any pleasure in it. My main interest is that if I have to shoot someone, that it'd work. If I do go hunting, that the deer not suffer unecessarily. I mean at a certain level you have to be interested in the effectiveness... but I wouldn't confuse the pleasure in the intellectual pursuit as pleasure in death.

Justears confessed that s/he felt regret about all the animals they killed. If s/he's a vegan I can respect this feeling althoug I don't share it. If s/he's not a vegetarian or vegan, then why doesn't s/he have a problem with killing farm animals. At least the deer get to live a deer's life. Just look at the way veal is produced... or chickens... or pigs. Deer starts to look a lot more environmentally correct.

This was one of my motivations for trying out hunting. If I am going to be a meat eater... then it's only right that I realize my place in the food chain. Plus it's hormone-free, more nutritious. Deer vs. Beef vs. Pork vs. Chicken

1035. justears - 1/22/2005 2:00:57 PM

iiibbb, For what it is worth, although I am not a vegetarian, I believe it to be the morally superior choice. Had I the courage (or is it the taste) of my convictions, I would forswear eating meat. And I agree, that if a person is going to be a carnivore, it seems morally honest to see what slaughter is all about. My grandmother showed me how to catch a chicken and wring its neck and pluck feathers on the way back to the ranch house. She was completely unsentimental about the task, clearly the way to kill as mercifully as possible. What is more upsetting is the mixture of "sport" with killing....enter cruelty...enter machismo, weapon-fetish and death.

1036. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 2:24:29 PM

I can promise I will never have an interest in trophy hunting.

There is sport in hunting, but the sport of it is the fact that most animals aren't entirely defenseless. That's what surprised me the most about hunting deer... how darn stealthy they are, and how in tune they are with their surroundings. The 'sport' (to me) is overcoming the innate advantages they have out in the woods... and even after that getting a clean shot off. I, and I think most real hunters, would rather not chase an animal for miles.

Finally, there was that 1 1/2 mile hike up the hill, then the 1 1/2 mile hike carrying an entire deer out of the woods.

I dunno. I think you read a lot into the psyche of the average hunter... although I don't doubt that some of them are cruel, macho, or fetishistic. I just don't know any (but unlikely I would associate myself with that sort on many levels).

1037. angel-five - 1/22/2005 3:28:10 PM

The issue gets clouded precisely because there are responsible hunters and there are, well, jackasses.

I was taught how to squirrel and rabbit hunt at a very young age, well before I passed the hunter safety course and got my first license. My father taught my brother and I to hunt respectfully, as extensions of nature, not intrusions into it. We were taught three basic principles; take one clean shot and make one clean kill, that hunting is not a sport, and to have respect for nature and our role in it. It is a contemplative act when done this way. Others may disagree with that, but I doubt they know enough to do so. Attuning yourself to what is going on around you and staying as silent as a footprint in December snow for hours at a time will teach you a few things about nature and your place in it.

Of course, that's not what most anti-hunting people see, because that's not what most hunters do. It's a sport to a lot of people, and entertainment for others -- in my admittedly judgmental eyes, they are as far out of balance as the anti-hunting screamers who have no problem eating stockyard beef.

1038. angel-five - 1/22/2005 3:32:58 PM

I've seen pictures of slaughterhouses. I even visited one once. (I had steak for dinner that night, too).

I have also seen shot-up deer limping through the woods pursued by frenetic rednecks and I've come across more unclaimed kills than I care to count. If you can't track or can't be bothered to, then you need to spend a few days being someone's prey.

By and large I think that a wild animal lives and dies more humanely than a cow in a stockyard but I'm not going to pretend that it's always that way, or even nearly always.

1039. iiibbb - 1/22/2005 3:42:42 PM

I can't speak to what 'most' hunters do. I know most in my state (2/3rds) fail to fill even one tag.

As to the 'sport' of it. 'Sport' has many definitions. To me, it's just as much about the mental issues you mention as the act of pulling the trigger.

No argument with what you say though.

1040. wonkers2 - 1/22/2005 4:01:18 PM

In Michigan a fair number of deer hunters head north more interested in getting drunk, watching porn flicks and getting laid than getting a deer.

1041. angel-five - 1/23/2005 12:22:48 AM

In the county where I grew up, wonkers, you can count on at least one person getting shot every year during gun season. Some of these are nothing more than vendettas being solved -- a guy I went to school with got shot twice while he was twenty feet up in a tree stand wearing nothing but hunter orange. But a lot of them happen because some dumb fuckstick shoots at movement.

It's easy to be reactionary in this debate because there are so many stupid people on either side. You have the know-nothing gun nut who just goes out into the woods to blow the fuck out of stuff because it's fun and cool, and you have the purple-hatted 'how can you kill that lovely animal' lamebrains who apparently don't think about what has to happen to their food before they eat it, or how many organisms their body annihilates every day.

I guess it's a testament to how sterile and illusory our society has become that everyday people can forget how much of life requires killing in the first place. On the one hand it is both offensive and sad that people enjoy killing for its own sake. On the other hand, at least a hunter has some real connection to the process of what has to happen before meat appears on the table.

1042. wonkers2 - 1/23/2005 12:30:19 PM

A5, I don't disagree with anything you said. My problem is not with the hunters. A deer hunter or two gets shot accidentally nearly every year in Michigan. They are big boys and assume the risks when they go into the woods. I grew up hunting ducks, pheasants and, yes, doves (very hard to hit!), but I haven't hunted in many years. On the other hand, I am not scornful of the animal rights people. They are entitled to their views. And I agree with them up to the point that our humanity requires that animals be killed as humanely as possible.

My issue is with opponents of more effective control of handguns and assault-type weapons and with the side effect on American politics of NRA lobbying (promotion, primarily, of GOP candidates).

1043. angel-five - 1/24/2005 2:32:04 AM

My issue is with opponents of more effective control of handguns and assault-type weapons and with the side effect on American politics of NRA lobbying (promotion, primarily, of GOP candidates).

Pretty much mine, too.

1044. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 10:46:55 AM

It's analogy time again folks!

Justice? I'm not sure.

How does the regulation of cars, licensing of drivers prevent an accident like this. How would banning sports cars (kind of like banning handguns or so-called-assault-weapons-but-really-just-small-caliber-rifles) prevent something like this from happening? What does this asshole driving like this in MA have to do with me driving a car in NC?

Just as much tragedy... half the outrage.

1045. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 1:37:50 PM

I'm speechless... maybe guns should be banned in CA... I mean... 2 artists shooting, or attempting to shoot themselves? WTF?

In the brief performance on Nov. 29, the student appeared to point a loaded handgun at his head and pull the trigger, a student and law enforcement officials told the Los Angeles Times.

The weapon didn't fire, but after the student left the room a noise that sounded like a gunshot was heard outside.
---------------------------
Burden did performance art in the 1970s and his best-known performance featured an assistant shooting him in the arm with a .22-caliber rifle. That work was different because the audience never felt in jeopardy, while the UCLA performance inspired "genuine fear," Watson said.

1046. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 1:45:52 PM

More...

No wonder actors/artists hate guns... they're complete dumbasses.

Yet through conversations with people familiar with the circumstances—including a student who witnessed the original incident—a picture emerges of a crisis that began on November 29, when in the course of a performance for a class taught by visiting instructor Ron Athey, a graduate student entered a classroom at UCLA's Warner building where roughly thirty other students were gathered. The student, wearing a coat and tie, produced either a gun or a convincing replica of one, put what looked like a bullet into the weapon, spun the cylinder, and held it to his head, Russian-roulette style. He pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire. The student then left the room; while he was out of view, a shot was heard, at which point he returned, now apparently unarmed. A short discussion ensued between what the witness described as the "freaked-out" performer and a room full of people who were "a little frozen and a little scared," and then the class broke up for the day.

1047. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 1:46:01 PM

or surrounded by them.

1048. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 1:48:30 PM

Chris Burden
"Shoot"
1971

1049. iiibbb - 1/24/2005 1:51:33 PM

«In this instant 1 was a sculpture.» Chris Burden means the moment his arm was pierced by a bullet from a (copperjacket) 22 long rifle. Actually, when a friend pulled the trigger on November 19, 1971 at a distance of 13 feet, the intent was only to graze the artist's arm.
«Shoot» was considered one of the most spectacular performances of the seventies, provoking journalists to ask, «Will he survive 30?» Such remarks turned Burden into a living myth but they also delineated the controversy that has always attended his work. The controversy surrounding «Shoot» was fuelled by the fantasies and fears triggered by shooting and gunshot wounds. Films like «Full Metal Jacket» or «Bultets over Broadway» indicate an enduring interest in the folkloric tradition of westerns, war and gangster movies. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, the subject matter penetrated the minds of the American public no longer as fiction but as fact in the shape of body bags, invalids and veterans from Vietnam. This exerted a significant influence on the daring of Burden's experimental piece.

(Chris Burden, Beyond the Limits, ed. by Peter Noever, MAK, Ostfildern: Cantz 1996, p. 193)

1050. robertjayb - 1/24/2005 10:31:25 PM

Blacks get heavier gun raps...Naturally...

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A study of California's weapons registration law found that blacks were far more likely to be charged with a felony than whites, who were more often charged with a misdemeanor for the same offense.

The study by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer prompted calls for changes from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the lawmaker who authored the legislation defended it.

The study examined data on how the law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2000, is being applied. The law makes it illegal for anyone to possess a gun who is not registered with the state as that firearm's owner. Offenders can be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor, a lesser count.

In 2003, less than 40 percent of whites faced felony charges under the law; more than 70 percent of blacks and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics were charged with felonies.

What do you expect from those racists down south?

Oops. Wait a mo. This is sunny, progressive California.

1051. iiibbb - 1/25/2005 11:17:20 AM

xpost speaking of California racism

Activist Accuses Feds Of Creating AIDS Virus
California AIDS Activists Says Government Created Virus To Kill Blacks

1052. iiibbb - 1/25/2005 11:40:22 AM

One child dead, and 2 children injured after being shot by Florida man

1053. iiibbb - 1/26/2005 9:10:35 AM

Criminals don't have guns and don't want to hurt you.

1054. iiibbb - 1/27/2005 11:31:56 PM

Palistine giving gun control a shot

1055. iiibbb - 1/31/2005 3:44:15 PM

Dial 911 and die

1056. thoughtful - 2/1/2005 10:04:14 AM

Interesting perspectives on the risks police officers face.

Safety: Unbelted and at Risk

More police officers die each year in patrol car crashes than at the hands of criminals, and most of the time the accidents occur when the officers are not speeding to an emergency, a new study says.

But the researchers say the number of deaths could be reduced if police departments did more to encourage officers to use seat belts. The authors of the report, in The Journal of Trauma, reviewed hundreds of police car accidents across the country from 1997 to 2001 and also found that officers involved in crashes were 2.6 times as likely to be killed if they were not wearing seat belts....

Dr. Jehle said that officers who were interviewed for the study were surprised to find that about 60 percent of the deaths occurred during routine driving. They tend to view the car as a haven. "It's their office," he said. "They're in it all the time."

1057. iiibbb - 2/7/2005 10:54:34 AM

You know you're in trouble when even the New York Times understands that gun control is not about compromise. Gun control advocates make their own beds.

First, whatever the merits of the city's gun permit process, which makes it nearly impossible for ordinary residents to own guns lawfully, it's an act of aggression against citizens of other states to try to control gun sales nationwide, as the new ordinance would do. The residents of Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Vermont happen to prefer a different balance on gun liberty, and New Yorkers have no more right to pass a law overriding their chosen policy than, say, social conservatives in Salt Lake City or Cincinnati have a right to pass a law about the sale of alcohol or indecent literature in New York - no matter how annoyed they may be that some of those products make their way into their states.

And second, again leaving aside the merits of gun control as a policy in itself, it is wrong to try to smuggle such controls in through the back door by punishing dealers for gun sales that were lawful at the time. Yet under the new ordinance, distant gun manufacturers and dealers could be made to pay damages for a shooting in New York City even if the presence of the gun here did not result from any bad acts of theirs. For example, under the new law, if a gun had been stolen in a burglary from a lawful Florida owner, the manufacturer and dealer could be legally responsible for death or injury to a person in Queens. Their only defense would be to show that they had adopted the city's stringent new guidelines, which go well beyond current federal law.

1058. iiibbb - 2/7/2005 12:19:09 PM

They let men like this out of jail... yet some insist I give up my guns.

1059. wonkers2 - 2/8/2005 7:56:27 AM

Gun Control Michigan Style Here.

1060. iiibbb - 2/11/2005 1:56:17 PM

"Castle doctorine" gets a little stronger in Florida.

1061. wonkers2 - 2/12/2005 9:58:38 AM

Typical result of ineffective handgun control Here.

1062. iiibbb - 2/12/2005 10:47:32 AM

Ineffective criminal control maybe...

1063. wonkers2 - 2/12/2005 11:15:22 AM

Criminals are easier to control if they aren't walking around with Glocks and Uzis!

1064. iiibbb - 2/12/2005 11:30:36 AM

Criminals are easier to control if they aren't walking around period.

1065. wonkers2 - 2/12/2005 12:34:52 PM

Have you seen the Chris Rock video "avoid police beating" that's making the rounds on the Net? It's one of the funniest yet. I tried but couldn't figure out how to link it on the Mote. Perhaps Wabbit or someone else can do it??

1066. PelleNilsson - 2/12/2005 12:51:03 PM

Where do you find those corny oneliners, iiibbb?

1067. wabbit - 2/12/2005 2:00:47 PM

Chris Rock has lawyers making people take that video off their websites - but eHacked.com has it - you'll need to scroll down and click on the link, then click on another link.

1068. iiibbb - 2/12/2005 3:08:51 PM

What's so corny about the idea that if the gov't is so freaking able to control every weapon on the street (if only we pass a couple of laws) that they don't just go one step further and control every criminal?

What's corny is the idea that criminals are at all affected by gun control... at least in this country.

1069. wonkers2 - 2/12/2005 3:42:17 PM

Thanks, wabbit! Moties, check out Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass kicked by the police" on the e.Hacked.com link above.

1070. PelleNilsson - 2/12/2005 4:25:39 PM

The corniness is not in the idea but in your way of expressing it.

1071. arkymalarky - 2/12/2005 5:07:26 PM

Re Rock, I'd heard it a long time ago. Wonder why it's making the rounds now, and why he would care.

1072. wonkers2 - 2/12/2005 6:02:28 PM

Maybe he's getting some flak from the Black community?? It's not exactly complimentary.

1073. arkymalarky - 2/12/2005 7:52:07 PM

True, but he's never seemed to care much about that before.

1074. iiibbb - 2/12/2005 11:57:17 PM

Not sure how gun control would help these dumbshits... you can't legislate for stupidity.

1075. iiibbb - 2/13/2005 7:11:13 PM

Gun control that works... or overkill? You think 40,000 criminals were thwarted?

1076. wonkers2 - 2/13/2005 8:04:28 PM

It works for me.

1077. wonkers2 - 2/13/2005 8:07:12 PM

The dumbshits in Hobart should be prosecuted for stupidity and lying.

1078. iiibbb - 2/13/2005 8:20:10 PM

Message # 1076

I wonder if there were other things we treated this way you wouldn't have a different opinion. We don't even confescate cars from people caught driving under the influence (with the exception that the DWI's actually have already broken the law).

1079. iiibbb - 2/13/2005 9:06:04 PM

Wonkers... you've indicated that you are fairly old... but you're attitudes about civil liberties are more in line with a growing proportion of the younger crowd.

One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.

1080. wonkers2 - 2/13/2005 9:23:42 PM

Well, I sure don't agree with the students on freedom of the press. That's a basic and very important constitutional right. Packing a gun isn't in the same ball park.

1081. iiibbb - 2/13/2005 9:27:37 PM

odd that it's in the same bill of rights... but we've been over that.

1082. iiibbb - 2/13/2005 10:20:27 PM

I suppose one answer would be to pass a law that tells this guy he can't own a weapon... assuming he'd follow it...

Tell me again why I'm paranoid. I like the part where you tell me I have no need for a weapon and that the cops are there to protect me from people like this.

1083. wonkers2 - 2/14/2005 8:53:27 AM

How many people have to be shot by lunatics with assault weapons before we do something about it?!! Latest

1084. wonkers2 - 2/14/2005 8:59:25 AM

Ex-con, addict, robber kills again with a gun Here

1085. wonkers2 - 2/14/2005 9:20:46 AM

Amazon gunslingers kill environmentalist nun. Here.

1086. iiibbb - 2/14/2005 9:34:53 AM

So lock them up. On average we let these people out of prison within a decade. That's crap.

You want to do something about it? Leave them in jail would seem to me to be the more obvious first step. See Message # 1048... from this New York story throngs will say "see" we need more gun control. The amount of outrage over letting these POS's out of jail seems fairly minimal.

Screwed up priorities if you ask me.

1087. iiibbb - 2/14/2005 9:58:53 AM

I'll note that probably all of these home defense weapons were not stored in ways that would muster the Australian law. 40,000 people rendered defenseless. There are a couple of robberies that were thwarted but they wouldn't have been in NY where you can't carry one.

Home surveillance system clears man in shooting of brother-in-law

Homeowner shoots alleged burglar in self defense

Elderly homeowner had enough of robber

Police: Burlington resident shoots home invasion suspect

Clues lead to robbery suspect

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-7/110767662055620.xml

Former NYC fireman stops kidnapping in AZ

Clerk Shoots Knife-Wielding Robber

People minding their own business...

...of course... we could use MA's model

Man shoots would-be robber; is arrested on gun charges

...arrested someone defending their own home... that's utter BS.

1088. iiibbb - 2/14/2005 10:06:27 AM

Let's review the MA case

A would-be robber became a victim of his own crime last week after he was shot in the stomach by a Brighton man he was trying to rob, police said.
Police arrested Sean E. Roisten, 29, of 833 Jette Court, and charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm and assault and battery with a deadly weapon on a robber who was holding Roisten's wife at gunpoint.
----------------------
"He's got a gun!" Roisten told police he heard his wife scream as she was pushed up the stairs. Roisten told police he ran up to the third floor, retrieved his silver Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun and took cover behind a kitchen wall. When Roisten peeked around the hallway corner, he saw the robber emerge from the stairs holding his wife in a choke hold and pointing a black handgun at her head, police said.
The armed robber demanded money. Roisten said he had no money, but told the robber he could take anything from the house if he freed his wife, according to police.
The second ski mask-clad man then called up to the gunman that it was time to leave. The gunman began descending the stairs with Roisten's wife, police said. Roisten told police he rushed the stairs, slid down the railing, bent the suspect's right wrist and took possession of the gun.
----------------------------
Police found that Roisten's license to carry a gun expired last August and arrested him. Police took custody of Roisten's gun and the black Colt .45 handgun that Roisten claimed he took from the suspect.



Yeah... that's justice...

1089. iiibbb - 2/14/2005 10:46:24 AM

That's also what registration gets you... arrests of people who shouldn't otherwise be criminals.

1090. iiibbb - 2/15/2005 8:30:43 AM

Someone with surprisingly similar sentiments to mine... mAss backwards.

1091. iiibbb - 2/15/2005 8:59:29 AM

The police are there to protect you


Police fail to break into apartment where woman was killed

Police are investigating whether officers acted appropriately when they failed to break into an apartment where a 24-year-old woman was later found strangled.

San-dee King, who lived alone in an apartment house in the Frankford section of the city, was found dead under a pile of clothes that had been set on fire.

Police were called to the building about 1:45 p.m. Jan. 21 after neighbors reported a fire in the apartment. No arrests have been made.

Police had gone to the building earlier after someone using King's cell phone sent text messages to her friend, saying that King was in trouble. The friend alerted police and officers were dispatched to the apartment, investigators familiar with the case told The Philadelphia Inquirer.

King's father, Eugene King, who also had been alerted of the text messages by King's friend, headed to the apartment and asked police for help in forcing open the apartment door. He was told by police that they could not do that because his daughter was an adult, the Inquirer said.

The officers left, and the fire broke out shortly thereafter.

"The Homicide Division began an investigation, and during their investigation ... it became apparent that there was some concern regarding the manner and the way the officers initially responded," Police Inspector William Colarulo said Thursday.

The case is drawing parallels to the murder of 23-year-old Wharton student Shannon Schieber in 1998. In that case, two officers called to investigate screaming coming from Schieber's apartment decided not to break down her door. Schieber's body was discovered inside the apartment the next morning.

Her parents sued police, but an appeals court dismissed the case in 2003.

Note to self: The police are not there to protect you.

1092. iiibbb - 2/17/2005 8:29:46 AM

Fremont, CA it's time to arm yourselves

FREMONT Burglar-alarm policy prompts call to arms - Resident urges purchase of guns, mayoral recall

Janine DeFao, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 11, 2005

With his city's police force poised to become the first in California to stop responding to most burglar alarms, Fremont insurance salesman Dennis Wolfe is urging his fellow citizens to arm themselves.

"I absolutely believe everybody should own a gun in Fremont now," Wolfe said Thursday. "If the police aren't going to protect us, we have to protect ourselves."

Wolfe, 52, said he has been deluged with support since he began distributing a series of letters and flyers earlier this week urging residents to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, suggesting how to shoot an intruder and have it ruled self-defense, and calling for a recall of Mayor Bob Wasserman if he doesn't rescind the policy, which takes effect Feb 18.

Wasserman has battled Wolfe before over the city's proposed utility tax, rejected by voters in November.

"Mr. Wolfe has a long history of being opportunistic and taking advantage of anything that might be a controversy to spread his venom," Wasserman said.

Fremont Police Chief Craig Steckler announced the policy last month, saying more than 98 percent of Fremont's 7,000 annual alarm calls turn out to be false alarms. That costs $600,000 in staffing, tying up police officers who could be dealing with other crimes, he said.

Under the new plan, officers will respond only to alarms that have been verified by a witness or surveillance system.

Police spokesman Detective Bill Veteran called Wolfe's suggestions "absolutely ridiculous."


Note to self: The police are not there to protect you... even if you have an alarm system.

1093. iiibbb - 2/17/2005 8:32:27 AM

Interesting that the police chief thinks it 'rediculous' even in light of the fact that they aren't going to respond to alarms. So unless you are physically able to pick up a phone, they're not coming.

Sucks to be you if you're counting on that alarm to save you.

1094. iiibbb - 2/17/2005 8:36:46 AM

Of course maybe it's just an irresponsible insurance salesman. It's not right for the citizens to take the law into their own hands. Most criminals are just misunderstood and if you got to know them, they are usually decent people who have just fallen on hard times. They probably just need a hug... Well... maybe the hard lives and deprived childhoods they've had require a little more than a hug. Your money and valuables, and a few minutes alone with your 12 year old daughter are a little more in line with what they need to validate their own self-worth.

1095. Macnas - 2/18/2005 3:33:37 AM

iiibbb,

You fool me into thinking you are a reasonable fellow, and then you trot out the likes of the above few posts.

Bad people exist, and yes, maybe some of them need shooting, they might just be that dangerous. But you are creating monsters and bogeymen, and arranging in your own mind some kind of post apocalyptic world where its a man (and his guns) against the world, where he can count on nobody but himself (and his guns), and where he must fight to survive (hence the guns).

I find your use of the imagery of threat to children to be offensive. Unlike your good self, I do have a daughter, and you seem to be making out that if I am not prepared to shoot someone who is trying to rob my "valuables" I am some kind of delusional fool. Like I've said before, I am "armed", I do keep guns in my house, but using them on someone else is the last thing I hope to ever have to do. I've managed to protect my family just fine so far, without having to shoot anyone, as did my parents and those before them and every single person I know.

You seem totally paranoid, as in worse now than when you started the thread. You are going to have a heart attack/stroke due to self-imposed stress if you get any older. Or you are going to shoot someone, hell you seem more than ready to do that.

1096. iiibbb - 2/18/2005 8:34:27 AM

I was being tounge in cheek... sorry. Please ignore 1094 as it was probably overzealous and in poor taste. The source of the sentiment is that I get irritated with a side that seems to at the same time vilify me for owning a gun... or even a system that is set up so that someone defending their home is turned into a criminal (Message # 1088). Yet the same system seems geared toward taking as much blame away from the real enemy... blaming gun manufacturers... blaming guns... blaming anything but the criminal.

I really got ticked off about the Massachusetts thing...

So I'm sorry for being offensive.

1097. iiibbb - 2/18/2005 8:44:27 AM

I don't really think it's fair of you to call me paranoid because I'm willing to argue a hypothetical that is based in reality though. The examples I give do in fact happen to people. The system cannot just ignore these people...

I understand that band things will happen people are going to suffer either way we go in terms of gun control. My goal would be to keep as much of the decision making in the hands of the individual.

So again... please forgive me if I went a little too far.

Let the news items in 1088, 1091 and 1092 speak for themselves.

1098. Macnas - 2/18/2005 8:46:08 AM

Fair enough.

I was in a foul mood this morning anyways, hence my tetchiness.

1099. wonkers2 - 2/18/2005 9:14:26 AM

If not paranoid, how about preoccupied?

1100. PelleNilsson - 2/18/2005 9:39:12 AM

Or obsessed?

1101. Macnas - 2/18/2005 10:03:50 AM

Well, in all fairness, I could be considered to be obsessed with guns myself. I shoot a lot, and love to work on and repair old guns. It takes up a fair amount of my spare time, and I shoot at least once a week weather permitting.

I could be a gun nut.

1102. iiibbb - 2/18/2005 10:30:21 AM

People... my friends? ... if you think this thread defines andy significant aspect of my personality or my life then you are more addicted to the internet than you ought to be.

There is alot more to me... most of which you only get snapshots of... but you guys do not have enough information to assign proportions to them.

You'll note that the topic is 'gun control'... I am even the host... so my posts might seem a little slanted toward the subject. And the only reason I chose to come here and argue about it is 1) this is a place where I will meet opposing viewpoints (for what is the point about arguing against guncontrol at a pro-gun site?) 2) this is a relatively small group who normally know how to keep the flames down and discuss a subject.

Truth be told that I have argued my liberal sentiments on more conservative sites because that's where I'll find the opposing viewpoint.

So this is as much about challenging my own beliefs as anything (without pissing off the people I spend time with in real life).

1103. iiibbb - 2/18/2005 12:27:36 PM

Humanizing gun nuts

Eric Dzinski

If there’s a gun in a scene, an old writer’s adage says, it had better go off. As that bit of advice suggests, there are few symbols more powerful than guns. They can represent liberation from oppression or serve as a weighty physical reminder of a lurking existential threat. No matter the association, the powerful emotional responses that guns elicit are largely responsible for the stagnant and vitriolic nature of the current gun control debate.
-------------------
The omission may stem from the typical attitude toward guns among academics, which Kohn addresses in her preface. From “public health” articles proposing gun control as a cure for the “epidemic” of gun violence to highly regarded sociologists who argue that gun research should be informed by “moral principles” rather than hard facts, she confesses her surprise at the ill-informed and often tendentious research conducted by academics. Kohn’s own research for Shooters, some of which appeared in this magazine (“Their Aim Is True,” May 2001), elicited predictable responses. One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.
-----------------------
It is here that Kohn’s work takes its most interesting turn. The women and minorities in Kohn’s book are acutely aware of the link between gun ownership and citizenship in the United States. Several of her subjects point to historical periods when certain segments of the population—blacks in the post–Civil War South, for example—were disarmed and enjoyed fewer rights and liberties than whites who had guns. That guns can and have been used by the oppressed to ward off their oppressors suggests that they can be a tool
for equality as well as freedom.

Even today, gun control has a disproportionate impact on poor people and minorities. Laws that target inexpensive guns (supposedly used more often in crimes) unfairly disarm people without the means to afford more costly firearms. Poor people are also disproportionately the victims of gun violence, meaning they have a greater stake in the right to self-defense.

The alternative that some anti-gun activists have suggested is reliance on the police, rather than guns, for protection. Shooters and gun scholars alike note that this solution is promoted by white middle-class gun critics for whom violence is not a daily reality and for whom the police are polite and responsive rather than menacing. They also note that in times of crisis, the minutes a police officer may take to respond could mean the difference between life and death. Shooters prefer the independence and reliability of self-defense.
-------------------------------
The chief weakness in this otherwise excellent book is Kohn’s ambitious linking of ideas. Describing a shooter who thinks the world of gun enthusiasm is not demarcated by color, class, or gender, she writes, “This belief in the inherent diversity of gun enthusiasm as it’s practiced is interesting for several reasons.” Here and elsewhere, she uses the word inherent to link one belief held by a shooter to a wider, more abstract idea about shooting
in general. The problem is that in the world of ideas (and certainly in the world of anthropology) there is no such thing as inherent connections.
------------------------
Although Shooters is supposed to be an ethnographic study of a particular subculture, near the end Kohn leaps to conclusions about the broader gun control debate. She argues that both sides of the debate must be willing to give up some fundamental assumptions and tactics in order to make gun legislation work for everyone.


She emphasizes, for example, that guns have been an integral part of American culture at least since the nation’s founding and that no amount of gun control will ever bring about the fundamental change its proponents imagine. On the other side, she argues that gun enthusiasts must give up the belief that gun control has no effect on crime, citing laws that prohibit felons from owning firearms as an example of effective gun control. (She fails to mention that those same felons can still get guns illegally.)

Although Kohn’s conclusions are thought-provoking and display a wealth of research about the subject, they depart substantially from her avowed purpose. They frame a discussion more suited to a general debate about the merits of gun control than to a targeted study of gun enthusiasm.

Those weaknesses aside, Kohn paints a fascinating portrait of gun enthusiasts. Studying people who are often maligned as racist, jingoistic troglodytes, she portrays a lively and diverse group brought together by common interests in history, mechanics, and liberty. Her colleagues in academia should take her insights to heart, replacing their blind disgust with a more dispassionate understanding of citizens who see a gun as a tool, not a menace.

1104. iiibbb - 3/3/2005 4:31:13 PM

latest ironic twist

'Poster Mom' for Gun Control Arrested on Gun Charges
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
March 02, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The president of the Springfield, Ill., chapter of the Million Mom March faces charges of having drugs and an illegal handgun in her home. Press reports said the gun's serial number had been scratched off.

Annette Stevens became a gun control activist after her son was shot to death several years ago. She told a newspaper the gun belonged to her late son, and when she found it, she didn't know what to do with it, so she put it in a drawer.

1105. iiibbb - 3/3/2005 4:33:17 PM

Good Samaritan Gun Use

Seems like pretty standard media coverage. But what makes this case different is that 21 percent of the news stories actually mentioned that a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon used his gun to try and help stop the attack.

The citizen, 50 year old Mark Wilson, was one of the two people murdered. As CNN reported, “Everyone here agrees, Wilson saved lives.” Fox News' website quoted the sheriff as saying "if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson, [Arroyo's son] would be dead."

Wilson, a licensed concealed handgun permit holder, heard Arroyo’s shots and saw the commotion from his apartment window. He grabbed a handgun and headed toward the attacker. Arroyo had already wounded several police officers and there was no one left to prevent his rampage.

1106. iiibbb - 3/3/2005 4:37:48 PM

Judge's family slain, judges call for greater protection.

My G/F's mom is a federal judge... she doesn't like guns very much...

1107. wonkers2 - 3/8/2005 8:52:49 AM

Gun control loopholes allow terrorists to buy assault rifles or whatever they want. Here.

1108. iiibbb - 3/8/2005 9:37:22 AM

I don't know if it's a loophole exactly. A loophole implies there's a policy in place they are getting around. This is an easy fix, make the watchlist part of the background checks. Of course, we know that the no-fly list has been criticized for false positives. Of course, civil libertarians are up in arms about people not being allowed to board an airplane because they share a name with a terrorist; just to make flying "safer".

My question is... if we can certify that a known terrorist suspect has purchased a firearm... why haven't we arrested them yet? Are we even trying?

And what law do you think could be passed that would prevent a terrorist from getting their hands on a weapon if they really wanted one?

1109. alistairconnor - 3/8/2005 10:14:38 AM

Not loopholes, W2... Civil liberties.

Why on earth should a "suspected terrorist" be deprived of their constitutional right to bear arms?

I'm serious. After all, these are people who have not been convicted, or even charged with anything.

Reading the article carefully, it turns out that FBI vigilance had led to certain suspected terrorists being denied weapon purchases on the grounds that they were illegal immigrants or mentally defective.

The implication is that, without this additional FBI watch list, illegal immigrants or mentally defective people are regularly able to buy weapons...

1110. alistairconnor - 3/8/2005 10:25:28 AM

The British take their civil liberties seriously :
Blair's anti-terrorism legislation defeated

In the biggest defeat in the Lords for the current government on a whipped vote, peers insisted that only the judiciary, and not the home secretary, should impose control orders, including electronic tagging. [...] The government accepted that a judge should grant control orders only if convinced on the balance of probabilities, rather than simple suspicion, that a detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

1111. iiibbb - 3/8/2005 3:14:48 PM

some rights must be repealed

Some country or countries might or do have WMD's, and might use them. Conclusions: We're totally out of line disarming that threat.

Terrorists 'might' or do have small arms in this country. Conclusion: Forget the constitution, all citizens must be disarmed!!!


I wonder how many unarmed civilians have been killed by their own governments in the past century.

1112. wonkers2 - 3/8/2005 3:27:04 PM

alistaire, There is no agreed Constitutional right to bear arms. They do have the right to bear arms consistent with federal, state and local laws which are riddled with loopholes and poorly enforced.

1113. jayackroyd - 3/8/2005 3:59:27 PM

Terrorists 'might' or do have small arms in this country. Conclusion: Forget the constitution, all citizens must be disarmed!!!


Nobody said anything like that. It is a good question. Where is NRA on this? Under this provision anyone could be denied a gun purchase on the grounds of FBI "suspicion."

1114. iiibbb - 3/8/2005 4:15:11 PM

Message # 113

Umm... the linked article totally is about disarming the public and one justification is to fight homeland terror.

I think I can guess where the NRA maintaining records after a purchase. I don't pay much attention to the NRA. As a component of background checks I don't think the NRA would be opposed to people on a potential terrorist list would be barred from ownership; however, such a policy should give any true civil libertarian pause. You are essentially declaring something guilty of wrongdoing before they've committed any crime, and without a chance to challenge government curtailment of their rights.

I mean if you're ok with putting people on a list and preventing them from owning a firearm because they might be a terrorist... then you shouldn't have a problem with just deporting them outright because they might be a terrorist. Certainly a terrorist doesn't need a gun... they could just as easily take a SUV around a park running people over.

1115. iiibbb - 3/8/2005 4:28:14 PM

**WARNING** very large file. Right click and save file as.

Just another example of how idiotic "professionals" are with guns and why I don't blindly accept the notion that "law enforcement" is any more qualified than I am to handle a weapon.

News item of same.

"Accident" my ass.

1116. jexster - 3/9/2005 6:13:21 AM

WASHINGTON - More than 40 terror suspects were able to buy firearms in the United States last year because background checks showed they had no felony convictions and weren't illegal immigrants, according to a government report released Tuesday.



Gun control advocates cited the Government Accountability Office's study, "Gun Control and Terrorism," as evidence that stricter laws are needed to prevent terror suspects from buying firearms. The GAO said the FBI (news - web sites) could do a better job overseeing checks involving terror suspects.


The report indicated that from Feb. 3 through June 20 last year, 35 known or suspected terrorists purchased guns in the United States. From July 1 to Oct. 31 last year, 12 more were allowed to buy firearms.

1117. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 6:55:11 AM

Terrorists are entitled to protect themselves just like everybody else!

1118. alistairconnor - 3/9/2005 7:15:35 AM

I wonder how many unarmed civilians have been killed by their own governments in the past century.

An interesting question.

I suppose, in your mind, iii, the corollary is : how many people might have survived if they had been armed and had fought back against their government?

Impossible to verify of course, but my guess is : precious few. Heroic fantasy aside...


Exactly what sort of scenario do you have in mind, with respect to armed civilians defending themselves against their government? Do you have any real-world examples?


The examples I can think of, with respect to armed civilians and tyrannical governments, don't exactly fit your heroic scenario :
How about Iraq? Very high rate of gun ownership. Did that help civilians resist their corrupt, tyrannical government?
Come to think of it, did it help them resist foreign invasion?
How about Palestine? Same questions.

1119. Macnas - 3/9/2005 8:08:23 AM

Silly fellow, haven't you seen the film "Red Dawn"??

1120. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 12:15:43 PM

The point is not whether fighting would be successful... it's an example of why surrendering all power to government isn't such a hot idea.

The "resistance is futile" argument is as stupid as the Red Dawn scenario.

1121. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 1:49:36 PM

Police Power = Caprice Power

OPINION - All this exposition brings me back to my main point about the rule of law and gun-control and police power as caprice power.

The legal term police power is an ancient concept, one that under girds the primary and most important reason for government, that of the responsibility to promulgate law necessary for the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the populace.
------------------------------------

In the Quilici vs. Morton Grove decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took the most expansive interpretation possible of the phrase "police power" in Article I, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution and said that the right to keep and bear arms is what any particular unit of government says it is under the home rule provisions of the Illinois Constitution.

The court held that Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual's liberty or property.
--------------------------------
The founding fathers were probably the most astute observers of governmental theories that have ever been gathered at one time in one place in all of history. They were quite aware of the police power provision of English common law, but they did not intend that the police power would modify the Second Amendment’s general protection of the right to keep and bear arms into a general prohibition on a whole class of firearm that are suitable for militia use.
--------------------------------
But that is hardly the case insofar as Wilmette, Chicago, Morton Grove, and the other units of government that invoke blanket prohibitions of handguns to ALL their residents, who are law abiding and peaceable.

I note that these communities are generally pretty affluent.

I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of the residents are mature adults in professions that license them to fly airplanes, practice medicine and surgery, use explosives such as dynamite in construction, design buildings and bridges, and are employed in many other occupations that involve a considerable degree of expertise and skill. It should be highly insulting to them to think that NONE of these residents are capable of using an instrument that an 18-year-old private in the military can be taught to use effectively in three days.

It is my earnest hope that discussions of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be reclaimed from the province of emotionalism, junk science, unconstitutional judicial decisions, constitutionally illiterate politicians, anti-gun news editorials, and replaced with logic, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and a respect for the citizens to whom the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is granted by natural law and protected by the 2nd Amendment.

1122. PelleNilsson - 3/9/2005 2:06:54 PM

Surrendering the right to use deadly force to the government in return for the rule of law and the right to freely elect (and remove) that government is the basic tenet of civilisation and democracy. The alternative is failed states like Congo and Somalia where life is "nasty, brutish and short" to quote Hobbes. I'm sorry you don't realise that iiibbb.

1123. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 3:34:06 PM

The US is hardly comparable to Somalia and the Congo (are they even democracies?).

As the world's oldest current democracy the US has done pretty well with armed citizens this far, so I don't know what you're talking about it being a basic tenet of 'civilisation and democracy'.

What if you vote out your government... but they refuse to leave... or refuse to let you vote in the first place?

1124. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 3:40:18 PM

Gun attitudes today are a hangover from the 18th century when the U.S. was a rural, small town agrarian society in which the problems of a modern urban industrial America had not yet manifested themselves. These concepts were fine in the days when Daniel Boone "cilled a bar," but they don't work well in today's world of drug lords, inner city crime, nut ball fascist and survivalist groups, terrorists, etc.

1125. Magoseph - 3/9/2005 3:46:52 PM

, What if you vote out your government... but they refuse to leave... or refuse to let you vote in the first place?

I suppose then you call your militias together and march on Washington. Maybe your shotgums can prevail against tanks and air power.

1126. thoughtful - 3/9/2005 3:58:24 PM

don't underestimate the power of resistance.

And as far as needing guns for the wilderness, most of america is near wilderness...just look at the population of the red states and you'll see lots of agrarian, vacant, rural and open space. If not for protection against animals, it's also good to have protection against the 2-legged ones when you can't call 911 or they can't respond quickly enough.

the folks in FL know about 'wilderness protection' after the hurricanes when they were trying to protect their own property against looters. Phones were out...couldn't even call 911 if you wanted to, so you were as on your own as daniel boone was.

But of course we've covered all of this already. Many times in fact. I don't see where there will ever be a meeting of the minds.

1127. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 4:40:33 PM

Message # 1125

Not saying you beleive the following... but it's a fair assumption that those in favor of gun-control were also against the ar in Iraq... but if our efforts in Iraq are a failure because of the insurgents... then you admit the effectiveness of small arms against this kind of power.

In addition... you assume that members of the military would be willing to fire upon its own no matter what the circumstances. Personally... if the gov't is willing to direct its power against me in order to disarm me, then I was right not to surrender my arms to begin with.

1128. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 4:43:22 PM

Not that I think it'd come to that.

Wonkers in Message # 1124 addresses my more pressing desire to remain armed. Self defense is not an anachronism of the 18th century... there are example after example after example that show this.

911 doesn't work all the time.

1129. Magoseph - 3/9/2005 5:00:55 PM

Move to Canada

I hear they don't like the French there.

1130. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 6:08:44 PM

Most of America is wilderness, but most of the people live in cities which would be better off if guns were strictly controlled. Besides we are talking about controlling handguns and assault and other military weapons which have no place in anyone's hands other than the military. We are not talking about controlling hunting shotguns or hunting or target rifles.

1131. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 6:10:20 PM

Even in the 18th century handguns in the wild west were used primarily by outlaws and by open range cattlemen to terrorize homesteaders.

1132. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 6:19:26 PM

Wonkers... I just don't agree. (1) How are you going to strictly control the weapons that criminals have? (2) What is the point of strictly controlling the weapons that law-abiding citizens have?

Message # 1131 - I don't know how you can conclude this. Handguns were primarily used for terror against homesteaders? Speculative at best... completely made up at worst.

1133. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 8:50:27 PM

"How are you going to strictly control the weapons criminals now have?"

Obviously, it won't be accomplished overnight. It may take a couple of generations. But you gotta start somewhere. I'm not an expert on gun control methods. I suppose it should start with the manufacturers--limiting what they can make and sell--specifications for the product and limits on whom they can be sold to. More stringent requirements for checks before sales. Payments to people for turning in their weapons to the police for disposal (melting or otherwise permanently disabling). Etc. Use your imagination.

1134. wonkers2 - 3/9/2005 8:51:49 PM

Limit private handgun ownership to target shooting clubs where the guns are stored under lock and key.

1135. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 9:33:39 PM

Well if I need my handgun to defend myself I'll just call "Time Out" and trot on over to the gun club.

That or just use my rifle whith a lethal range way beyond that of a handgun... and enough power to penetrate walls, bullet proof vests, among other undesirable side effects.

1136. iiibbb - 3/9/2005 9:45:24 PM

Message # 1133

How does any of this stuff control what criminals have? Considering where most criminals get their guns (read not from the local gun store), your proposals affect anyone but criminals. Why would they turn a gun into the police for money?

As far as limiting what manufacturers can make... gun control credibility was lost with the AWB by chosing to focus on cosmetic features rather than real dangers to anyone.

The ratio of guns misused to guns that are not just doesn't justify the extreme measures you propose.

1137. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 12:45:27 AM

The unlawful weapons held by criminals or other wise unlawfully would be confiscated gradually over time as they were apprehended. As I said above, I recognize that this could not be accomplished overnight.

1138. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 12:46:35 AM

Eventually, you won't need your handgun to defend yourself because nobody will be walking around with handguns.

1139. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 12:48:24 AM

Besides, your estimate of both your need to carry a handgun to protect yourself and the value of carrying a handgun for self protection are greatly overestimated.

1140. alistairconnor - 3/10/2005 6:25:03 AM

but if our efforts in Iraq are a failure because of the insurgents... then you admit the effectiveness of small arms against this kind of power.

... the vast majority of the people killed (US troops and Iraqi civilians) by the insurgents, are killed with high explosives, not with small arms. The majority of people who use small arms against US troops get killed very promptly.

1141. alistairconnor - 3/10/2005 7:00:11 AM

Message # 1120
The point is not whether fighting would be successful... it's an example of why surrendering all power to government isn't such a hot idea.

Principles are important, sure. But outcomes are important too. Anyone contemplating armed resistence against their government should keep that in mind.

i.e. armed resistance against one's government may well be a reasonable option, and a moral imperative, in times of revolution or civil war. There are times when an armed populace might well create a tipping point, when the government apparatus is in disarray or divided.

But in the general case, and especially in recent history, unjust governments have been very, very often defeated by peaceful protest and resistance on the part of the population. I can easily provide a long list, iii, and so can you.

Can you propose any examples where an unjust government has been defeated by an armed population?

I can provide another list : countries where armed resistance against an unjust government has led to long and bloody civil war, without resulting in the overthrow of the government.

1142. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 7:47:20 AM

Message # 1137 You vastly overestimate the power of the government. To accomplish this they'd have to become exactly the kind of government we don't want.

Message # 1138 That is a pipe dream. Also... who said a handgun is only for defense against a handgun. A thug can still rape and murder a woman. How's she going to defense herself if that's what she wants to do?

Message # 1139 I've stated repeatedly... the risk assessment lies with me and me alone. Who are you to tell me what I should worry about. You don't know where I live, and you don't know what constitutes a credible threat.

I don't know how you can keep devaluing the value or need of a gun for self defense... while over-emphasizeing the relative threat a gun in a criminals hands poses. Guns are used 4-10 times as often for defense as for crime. You can't get around this fact.

1143. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 7:49:51 AM

Message # 1141 I'm not going to pursue the armed revolt discussion. That is not why I own a gun. The only armed revolt I am concerned with is The US revolution. All I can say is that I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with a gun.

1144. alistairconnor - 3/10/2005 7:59:23 AM

A 12-year-old Aurora girl was charged with three felonies Wednesday after a handgun and loaded clip were found in her locker in Still Middle School, police said.

She probably needs it to defend herself against her teachers.

1145. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 8:34:06 AM

Besides we are talking about controlling handguns and assault and other military weapons which have no place in anyone's hands other than the military. We are not talking about controlling hunting shotguns or hunting or target rifles.


This is the problem with gun control. This is the problem with people who know nothing about guns making gun control legislation. One needs a handgun when hunting. And all this talk about gun control says NOTHING about ammo when anyone with any familiarity of weaponry knows the ammo is at least as important as the weapon it's fired from.

Eventually, you won't need your handgun to defend yourself because nobody will be walking around with handguns.

OK, here I am a middle aged woman at 5'4", 128 lbs. and the hefty male criminal without a gun is coming after me with a baseball bat...any suggestions wonks? My suggestion would be my trusty snub nose .38 with the hollow-points. Got a better one?

The risk assessment argument is silly. Whether I've correctly assessed the risks and benefits or not is irrelevant. In a free society, we do have the right to be wrong. Clearly I think smokers are making an incorrect risk assessment, but to the extent that their smoking doesn't interfere with my ability to breathe, they are free to pursue that choice. A citizen has the right to make the choice of how best to defend themselves so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. My gun ownership in no way threatens or interferes with you...unless you try to interfere with my or my family's life.

1146. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 8:38:21 AM

That just goes to show how ineffective the repressive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois are.

Guns are banned in most schools, but this sure shows that someone who planned to shoot up a school would be completely undeterred by such laws.

1147. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 8:45:49 AM

"One needs a handgun when hunting."

That is a completely ignorant and ridiculous statement. I hunted for many years earlier in my life, and I NEVER saw any hunter carrying a handgun. The only type of hunting I have ever heard anyone recommend carrying a handgun for is Kodiak bear hunting.

"That is the trouble with people who know nothing about huns making gun control legislation."

Just what is the basis for that statement? Mr. Brady knows quite a lot about guns. And for your information I currently own two shotguns and a rifle, and as I mentioned I was an active hunter for many years.

"Hefty male criminal coming at me."

Unless you venture into places where you have no business going the odds of you being attacked are infinitesimal and do not justify walking around with a gun which you might well accidently shoot yourself or someone else with. Or it might easily be stolen from you or provide an incentive for someone to break into your house.

There is no absolute right to be wrong in a free society. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. And your right to carry a gun is valid only so long as federal, state and local laws permit you to do so. Your risk, real or imagined, will be reduced by effective handgun controls.

1148. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 9:00:02 AM

Wonks, what do you do when you're hunting and have wounded but not killed an animal. Do you blast them with a shotgun at close range????? Certainly not my first choice. A handgun is perfectly appropriate and useful for that situation.

If you've been a hunter for years then you should be concerned about being able to hunt legally in the future as there has been much idiocy around gun legislation. The legislators don't even know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon and which if either are appropriate for hunting or not.

"Unless you venture into places where you have no business..."
Oh you mean like walking alone in a public park after dusk? Silly me to think that a taxpayer should have the right to make use of public facilities in the day or night. Nope. Rather we should relegate the parks to the criminals and lock the law-abiding up in their homes instead. Or you mean like the time my father was attacked in the daylight in the parking lot of a car parts store. Of course he had no business being there...just because he needed car parts...

Please. These arguments are just going round and round.

And as far as absolute rights, well, yes there is the ideal and the real. What those of us who are against gun control are trying to do is to keep the real as close to the ideal as possible. That a law-abiding citizen has the right to self defense. And if a law-abiding citizen does not have the right to self defense, how do any of our other rights matter?

And as far as risk assessment, your fear of my owning a handgun is really a poor risk assessment.

And as to effective gun control legislation by which I assume you mean the ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, well, despite hundreds of laws on the books controlling guns, criminals still have no trouble getting guns including the guns I as a law-abiding citizen could never own.

But as I say, we have been over all of this multiple times. Round and round.

1149. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:07:37 AM

Unless you venture into places where you have no business going the odds of you being attacked are infinitesimal and do not justify walking around with a gun

This is not born out in the examples I have frequently given.

But again... it's not up to you to define other peoples' risks. There are places that are not entirely safe that I have every business going. To pass a law just because you don't go to unsafe places does not erase the fact that some people do.

I certainly carried a handgun with me during muzzleloading season this year.

It's not up to you or the government to decide... sorry.

1150. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:09:42 AM

Unless you venture into places where you have no business going the odds of you being attacked are infinitesimal and do not justify walking around with a gun

Blame the victim...

Perhaps she should be more careful about what she wears... you know... a woman wears a sexy dress and she's just asking for it.

1151. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:15:12 AM

Wonkers... say you're in an unfamiliar city. You are trying to find a business that sells something you need. How do you know if this is a "safe place" or a "place you have no business going". I have often enough wound up on the 'wrong side of the tracks' looking for businesses in industrial areas of town. I can't help this. I'm certainly not looking to buy some crack... but if you don't think that I am a potential mark in these places you are nuts.

1152. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 9:15:50 AM

The largely imaginary risks faced by unarmed citizens must be balanced against the very real risks of crime, assassinations, suicides, accidental death, etc., of uncontrolled handgun ownership.

1153. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:20:52 AM

What are you talking about?! Imaginary risk? People defend themselves against crime 4-10 times as often as people even commit violent crime.

You are nuts.

1154. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:21:34 AM

Maybe you've just never been robbed.

1155. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:31:14 AM

One time when I was working in the woods I was out with some 2 female workers. We had carpooled to the research site. I was off doing some work elsewhere in the woods and was probably anywhere up to a mile from them.

While they were working they were noticed by a guy in a pickup truck who drove by... then drove by... then drove up and stopped and was 'talking' to them about the time I came out of the woods. Think 'deliverance' and you'll have a good feel of what this guy was like.

I trust these women when they say that they had a funny feeling about his intentions. If I had not been there... who knows what they might've been into.

But they were doing their job on private company land... so they had every business being there.

They, and I were unarmed... so if he had been... or maybe he didn't like the 3-1 odds... I guess we would have been fucked.

I don't know how you can tell me or those women we are "imagining" the risk.

1156. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 9:39:30 AM

The largely imaginary risks faced by unarmed citizens must be balanced against the very real risks of crime, assassinations, suicides, accidental death, etc., of uncontrolled handgun ownership

First, your statement contradicts itself...the unarmed citizen faces an "imaginary risk" of crime as opposed to "the very real risk of crime"...Huh?

Second, since when is the risk of suicide a risk? I suppose we could get into a whole argument about right to life and dr. kevorkian and such, which I really don't want to do, but a suicide by its very nature presents a risk only to the one who commits it.

1157. robertjayb - 3/10/2005 9:40:55 AM

It's armed cats you should worry about...

BATES TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) -- A man cooking in his kitchen was shot after one of his cats knocked his 9mm handgun onto the floor, discharging the weapon, Michigan State Police said.

Joseph Stanton, 29, of Bates Township in Iron County, was shot in his lower torso around 6 p.m. Tuesday, the state police post in Iron River reported. He was transported to Iron County Community Hospital.

Michelle Sand, a spokeswoman at the Iron River hospital, said Stanton was treated there before being transferred to Marquette General Hospital for further treatment. But Marcie Miller, a representative of the Marquette facility, said there was no record of the hospital receiving a patient by that name.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at Stanton's home.

State police said he was cooking at his stove when the cat knocked the loaded gun off the kitchen counter behind him.

Was it a Glock, iiibbb?

1158. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:46:44 AM

I doubt it unless it was defective. The glock safeties are pretty failsafe. There is a physical barrier between the striker and the primer that cannot move out of the way unless the trigger is pulled. The trigger can't be pulled unless the trigger safety is depressed. The primer is set off by a spring loaded striker. The striker spring is not compressed until the trigger is pulled all the way back and released.

Glocks have passed some of the most extreme drop tests concieved.

1159. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:52:11 AM

Glocks have passed infamous the California drop tests and is listed as an approved pistol for sale...

I think if there were any way to label it unsafe... California would find the way.

1160. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:53:32 AM

Link that may work You'll have to pick out glocks yourself.

1161. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 9:56:25 AM

The list just illustrates how rediculous 'reasonable' gun control is. The olive drab glocks have to be certified seprately. It's just a different color for cripes sake.

Reasonable gun control my ass.

1162. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 10:09:50 AM

The risk of suicide is increased by gun ownership. Think of an unhappy teenager who kills himself with his father's handgun. No handgun, possibly no more than an unsuccessful suicide attempt. I assume you have heard of cases of people who try to kill themselves with drug overdoses who saved and given treatment and eventually die of old age. This scenario is mush less likely when a gun is used.

You exerpted only part of my statement which was not contradictory. Handgun risks are not confined to crime but, as I said, to suicide and accidents. You can add terrorism.

Thoughtful, your example of needing a handgun to put animals out of their mercy is ridiculous. If it's a bird you can simply pick it up and wring it's neck. If it's an animal you can shoot it in the head with your rifle as easily as with a pistol or administer the coup de gras with a knife. No need for a pistol. By pursuing this point you are only exhibiting your ignorance of hunting.

1163. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 10:11:59 AM

coupe de grace

1164. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 10:15:39 AM

COUP DE GRACE!!! i hope Magoseph didn't see this one!

1165. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 10:52:52 AM

If suicide is a problem we should put money into help-lines. The answer to suicide is not eliminating method among a myriad of methods.

The risk of suicide for me is zero. I will not sacrifice my legitimate rights because a micro-minority of the population doesn't have a grip.

1166. Magoseph - 3/10/2005 11:15:17 AM

We are considering having a gun on the premises because we are in an area where the houses are quite distant from each other. We are most interested in a shotgun than in anything else with a relatively short barrel. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

1167. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 11:30:29 AM

I would think a .20 gauge single shot or pump would be adequate.

iiibbb, suicide is but one small reason for gun control. There are other, more important reasons which are well known and which I have recited ad nauseum.

1168. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2005 11:49:04 AM

I suggest a tripod-mounted machinegun, a modest pile of handgrenades and panzerglass windows.

1169. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 11:58:59 AM

Mago. For home defense, very little compares to a shotgun as long as you can handle it. 12-guage is the standard, but I'm sure a 20-guage would work. Most criminals when faced with a shotgun are not going to take the time to determine what it is.

Get a pump action. The sound of the action being cycled as you chamber a round is as distinctive as the rattle of a snake. The conflict will likely not progress from there unless the intruder is a maniac or deaf.

18 inch barrel is the minimum legal barrel length. Get it with a stock or folding stock. Pistol grip shotguns are exceptionally difficult to control.

Loads don't really matter at the ranges you're likely to challenge an intruder. Gun-nuts will insist on buckshot, but at the ranges self-defense occurs even the shot has really not spread out much and is still acting as a single mass. That actually makes finer shot a little more desireable because it won't penetrate barriers the way buckshot or slugs would. #5 is what I'd recommend.

I'd recommend a Mossberg 500, 590 or Remington 870. Whatever feels best. Being a lefty, I prefer the tang safety on Mossbergs.

1170. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 12:01:41 PM

iiibbb, suicide is but one small reason for gun control. There are other, more important reasons which are well known and which I have recited ad nauseum

The thing is... you don't seem to want to acknowledge any scenario I present (even if it is as rare as suicide) as a legitimate reason to have a handgun. You want to use the sum of infinitesimal reasons to ban them, but you won't allow me to use the sum of reasons to have them, and outnumbers all of your reasons put together because it's "rare".

1171. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 12:03:44 PM

wonks, I didn't say the risk of suicide was less in the presence of a gun. I said the risk of getting shot by someone committing suicide was pretty miniscle. So miniscule in fact as to not warrant a place on your list of risks. I'm talking about risks to others presented by the law-abiding gun owner.

1172. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 12:06:38 PM

mags, if this is a shotgun you intend to use, you should definitely be there at the selection to make sure it is something you feel comfortable selecting and handling.

When I was a young lady, old enough to be at home alone, dad gave me a shotgun in case I had to defend myself. Only problem was the thing was so heavy I couldn't even shut it let alone look threatening trying to point it at something. So I kept it, but kept it unloaded. This way I figured I could threaten someone with it, but if they got it away from me, the most they could do is beat me with it.

1173. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 12:09:22 PM

wonks, your wringing it's neck or slicing its throat includes the assumption that the animal is down. Maybe you wouldn't mind walking up to a well-racked stag that's wounded and asking if you could slice it's neck, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with that.

1174. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2005 12:18:13 PM

I never in my life heard of a hunter using a handgun.

1175. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2005 12:24:43 PM

I never in my life heard of a hunter using a handgun.

1176. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 1:01:56 PM

Typical elitist attitude... "[If I've never heard of it... it must not be important]".

Handgun Hunter Magazine

Handgun Hunting

Handgun hunting bear

1177. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 1:37:46 PM

so long wonks, thanks to you, I'm already dead. I've been beaten to a blood pulp by a perp with a baseball bat.

So much for your suggestions on self defense.

1178. Magoseph - 3/10/2005 2:05:05 PM

Your answers are very helpful and I thank you for them very much. I printed the information and Flexy will go on a gun shopping trip as soon as the weather permits.

1179. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:20:56 PM

You can shoot the deer again with the rifle just as easily as with a pistol. Michigan deerhunters, so far as I know, don't carry handguns. They manage to shoot each other just fine with deer rifles. Occasionally they get a deer.

1180. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:22:28 PM

Thoughtful, you are so rational on everything else. I find it hard to believe your fears of being attacked in the park. You've been reading too many King novels.

1181. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 2:24:02 PM

I think it's critical that the person using the weapon have a hand in the selection. Hubby bought me a very nice 357 and had the grips changed so it would fit my hand better, but it's still too big and bulky for my comfort so I don't use it.

1182. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:27:56 PM

Thoughtful, I was talking, not about the risk of getting shot by someone trying to commit suicide. Obviously, that risk is miniscule. I was talking about the difficulty of reviving somebody who commits suicide with a gun. They are usually more successful than those who use some other methods. The possibility of a depressed teen or spouse succeeding in killing themself is greatly increased if there is a loaded gun in the house. So is the damage in domestic violence cases. When bad things happen with a gun, they are worse than with a frying pan.

1183. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 2:36:53 PM

wonks, you are being irrational on this one. This is not about fear and paranoia. This is about individual rights and the right to self defense. This is all about principle.

I'm free to swing my arm around so long as it doesn't connect with anyone else's face.

This is all about my right to keep myself safe. This is all about my right to keep my loved ones safe. This is all about not letting you decide for me what I need to do to stay safe. This is all about my being a responsible gun owner in no way impacts your life or your safety. Therefore you have no say in it. It's not your business. If I were to use my weapon for criminal purposes, then clearly you should have a say. But for legal purposes of self-defense and self-protection..nuh-uh.

I view this the same as gay marriage. Gays choosing to marry in no way affects or impacts my life and/or my marriage. Therefore, I should have no say.

And as I said before, if you don't have the right of self defense, how do any other rights even matter?

1184. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2005 2:37:20 PM

Elitist, iiibbb? I confess my ignorance in the matter and you call me an elitist? You sure have a way with words.

I looked around a bit. Hunting with handguns (or with bow and arrow) is not allowed here which is why I hadn't heard about it.

Going into elitist mode I must say that handgun hunting of large game is nothing but a silly macho stunt.

1185. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:40:48 PM

Thoughtful, your argument makes as much sense as if you were advocating removing speed limits for cars.

1186. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:43:08 PM

Besides, I'm not saying that under no circumstances should you be allowed to carry a handgun. Rather, that you should be required to justify doing so by offering some reason why you need to do so beyond "this is my right."

1187. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:44:59 PM

You are correct, I guess, that it may be your right in some states. However, I'm advocating that you should not have that right absent special circumstances. The jury is still out, isn't it, on the interpretation or even applicability of the Constitution.

1188. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:46:31 PM

There are other ways to defend your self than by carrying a gun. Such as mace, a knife, a stout walking stick or running shoes.

1189. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 2:47:36 PM

The only time a gun should be needed is when somebody else has one. And in my world nobody would have them (handguns).

1190. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 3:26:30 PM

Besides, I'm not saying that under no circumstances should you be allowed to carry a handgun. Rather, that you should be required to justify doing so by offering some reason why you need to do so beyond "this is my right."

There are examples of the police denying permits to people only to have them killed later... because some burocrat decided the risk wasn't great enough.

Do you cry foul when HMO's decide what tests they will and won't allow? It's the same thing... since when should they be able to veto a decision made by a Dr.

People who want to carry guns in shall-issue states still have to be approved. It's just that the rule is that the gov't has to determine why you shouldn't carry rather than whether your reason is good enough... which is entirely subjective and often decided by the opinions of your sheriff.

The libertarian model... gov't stays out of your business.

1191. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 3:35:28 PM

I looked around a bit. Hunting with handguns (or with bow and arrow) is not allowed here which is why I hadn't heard about it.

Around here, the weapons the dept. of wildlife allows you to hunt with at any point in time is a way to manage the hunting pressure on the population. Bow hunting, being the shortest range and most difficult has a deer season of Oct-Jan. Muzzle-loader, 1 week before rifle season starts. Rifle season, only 2 weeks. Late muzzle-loader 2 weeks before new-years.

So it's not entirely about being 'macho'... but when have you been able to resist taking a jab at us ingrate, 100-yrs-behind-Europe, redneck Americans.

Going into elitist mode I must say that handgun hunting of large game is nothing but a silly macho stunt.

Yup... that would be pretty elitist.

1192. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 3:46:21 PM

wonks, advocating removing speed limits has concrete effects on the lives of others...the others who share the road with you. It's not a valid comparison.

What more justification should I need to make other than, "To protect my life." Why do I need 'special circumstances' to defend myself? And why should I even need to justify self defense? If you can't see that self defense a/the primary right, then there is clearly nothing else to discuss. Without life, I don't need to worry about speech or religion or assembly or any other right. Besides that, the burden of proof should be upon the govt as to why I can't have a gun...not the other way around.

There are other ways to defend your self than by carrying a gun. Such as mace, a knife, a stout walking stick or running shoes.

This is really where I have a problem with your POV because you are making huge assumptions about me. Even if I were young and fit and able to run (though I doubt even the great wonks could outrun a bullet), that is not going to be the case for my entire life...nor yours. As one vietnam vet in a wheelchair called us, we're the 'temporarily able-bodied'. But my ability to defend myself should not rely on my physical condition. Even the elderly, the weak, the infirmed, those crippled with arthritis have a right to self defense. And they have a right to define what makes their defense most comfortable and secure for them.

Your final point about nobody having guns makes huge presumptions that people are all of equal strength size and fitness level. We are not.

1193. wonkers2 - 3/10/2005 4:06:35 PM

You are taking a very self-centered view of the matter and ignoring the common good. Get a can of mace. Take karate lessons. Carry a walking stick for a club. Or don't go where you feel unsafe. Plenty of people don't fly. My wife had a friend who was afraid to ride in or drive a car across a bridge. Sometimes he had to go a long way out of his way to avoid a big bridge.

1194. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 4:29:52 PM

Wonkers... if you think karate or mace will protect you fine. I don't think it will. If I am faced with superior numbers, what good is karate or mace? I'm coordinated, but I don't have the discipline to train for a martial art. Besides, no matter how good you are, you're going to run into someone better.

I'm a good shot. I'm a sensible person. I avoid trouble when given the opportunity. I can defend myself without having to maintain any advanced level of fitness. I can defend myself without putting myself physically in a hand to hand situation with uncertain results. I can do it from range. A gun is the premier stand-off weapon. I can defend myself from multiple assailants. I can defend myself from assailants bigger than I am.

A firearm is the best choice for me. I shouldn't have to justify it with you, the gov't or anyone.

1195. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2005 4:39:22 PM

Muzzle-loaders? Can there be any justification whatsoever to allow antique or inefficient weapons like muzzle-loaders, bows and handguns as "a way to manage the hunting pressure on the population"?

1196. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 4:47:07 PM

Technologically, my muzzle-loader is modern... but it lowers hunting pressure because, there are fewer people that want to mess with it, the effective range is less, and you only get one shot.

1197. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 5:07:03 PM

Pelle, we used to allow rifle/muzzle-loading hunting of deer on our property, but we don't anymore because of the number of homes in the area now. (In the old days we easily had over 100 acres of undeveloped land around our place.) But we continue to allow bow and arrow hunting on our property. Don't mistake it for the things you see in the cowboy and indian movies. These things are very powerful and sophisticated weapons. And hunters can get quite good with them.

Clearly however in our area the hunters are not sufficient to reduce the deer population. Last year they allowed for baiting of the deer and in some areas they even hired sharpshooters to remove deer. Others have suggested a 'kill' rather than a hunt where the deer are rounded up and then shot. Others have tried baiting with deer birth control. The damage done in our area is very extensive. The deer are so hungry as to start eating plants that they would never eat before. The woods used to be dense with undergrowth and seedlings. Now there are none. It's to the point where, once the existing trees are gone, there will be none to replace them.

1198. thoughtful - 3/10/2005 5:09:01 PM

Over the other house, all the plants that aren't spiny or prickly are eaten bare up to 5' from the ground.

In the past at our house, we were able to keep the deer at bay with bars of ivory soap, but I'm beginning to worry that they're getting so hungry that even that won't work.

I think we need a dog.

1199. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 5:15:56 PM

The woods used to be dense with undergrowth and seedlings. Now there are none. It's to the point where, once the existing trees are gone, there will be none to replace them...

Well, there are things that can be done silviculturally to help establish new growth. However, there probably isn't enough economic pressure to do them yet.

Soap only works for a while... they get used to it and lose their fear.

1200. iiibbb - 3/10/2005 6:06:04 PM

Message # 1178

1178. Magoseph - 3/10/2005 9:05:05 PM

Your answers are very helpful and I thank you for them very much. I printed the information and Flexy will go on a gun shopping trip as soon as the weather permits.

I might be stating the obvious... but take a gun safety class and/or a firearms self-defense class. They will probably have information at a gun store (if that's the route you take). Of course, you can order many firearms from WalMart and save $50-100. You may save at a gun show... you will see the most price competition there.

Good luck, be safe.

1201. robertjayb - 3/10/2005 6:33:55 PM

Get a pump action. The sound of the action being cycled as you chamber a round is as distinctive as the rattle of a snake. The conflict will likely not progress from there unless the intruder is a maniac or deaf.

Good advice from iiibbb. An old south Texas police chief told me that the sound of racking a pump shotgun would often flush out a hidden suspect.

But they are a bit awkward to keep under your pillow. For this you need a small-frame revolver. Avoid automatics. You're apt to blow your ear off or your cat may shoot you.

1202. Macnas - 3/11/2005 5:50:29 AM

WRT suitable firearms for hunting large game, I'd agree to some extent with Pelle in that I would view handgun hunting (for large game) as not suitable. Likewise bow hunting.

Muzzle loaders I have no issue with. Once the projectile has the requisite amount of velocity/energy there is not a whole pile of difference between a black powder rifle and a breech loader cartridge rifle. Good rules for deer hunting state that you wait 5 or so minutes after shooting, before you go the carcass or try and find the blood spoor, so a muzzleloader has more than enough time to reload.

1203. Magoseph - 3/11/2005 6:22:29 AM

I might be stating the obvious... but take a gun safety class and/or a firearms self-defense class.
Actually, it never occurred to me taking these kinds of classes, but it did to Flexy because to him the intention of being armed now prepares me for the time when I will be alone in this house—that is when he will not be alive. Therefore, when he read your post, he said that it was an excellent idea and I should be able to talk about his eventual demise, however the topic may be distasteful to me. Thank you for helping us in this matter.

1204. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 7:07:52 AM

Purely a case of self defense. "I didn't mean to shoot him," said the shooter, who killed a teen with his licensed .357 magnum. Here.

1205. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 7:10:07 AM

I wonder how many hot heads are driving around with their loaded .357 magnmus or Glocks on the car seat beside them???
Do you keep yours handy like than iiibbb? Are you a quick draw artist?

1206. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 8:12:36 AM

Wonkers... if my plethora of legitimate defensive uses are irrelevant for being too rare... then your example of a dumbfuck doesn't mean anything at all.

Wonkers2... I don't know if you're implying that I'm a hothead ready to go off. FWIW, I don't keep it 'handy' like that. I've repeatedly said that I don't carry where I live because I don't think crime is enough of an issue in my town. I carry in the woods when I can because that's where I've had my 'encounters'.

First off, a "hothead" who's going to blast away for you cutting them off in traffic is going to have that .357 whether there are laws for it or against it.

Second, I've stated many, many times and have a link in the butter bar about the what constitutes "self defense" and the standards that any citizen must adhere to. If you read that link, and then read this situation, you could easily conclude that the shooter is not meeting those standards.

Third, please refrain from making up facts about how cowboys and badguys used handguns, and then implying that I am a 'hothead' with screws loose.

The possession and act of carrying a gun is not a crime. Nor does not mean that said person has a propensity to kill someone for no reason, or that the person doing so is unbalanced.

If you really beleive that then you are more paranoid than you claim I am.

1207. thoughtful - 3/11/2005 8:19:40 AM

I remember reading an interview a woman's magazine did of a convicted rapist. It was about why he chose who he did and what women could do to defend themselves against rapists like him. The interviewer asked him if a woman knowing judo or karate would make a difference. He said, "I doubt it, seeing as I'm a black belt myself."

1208. jayackroyd - 3/11/2005 8:27:34 AM

First off, a "hothead" who's going to blast away for you cutting them off in traffic is going to have that .357 whether there are laws for it or against it.

You've made this assertion repeatedly. But is it true? Are there millions of hotheads in Britain who own illegal handguns? Thousands? Hundreds?

1209. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 8:28:25 AM

Part of martial arts... just like carrying a gun... is not revealing that you are a blackbelt ahead of time.

I think that my g/f (a black belt) has enough dirty tricks up her sleeve to put a world of hurt on someone. The thing is to not let your adversary know what you've got. That's why it's important to conceal a gun, and why most people who do would never tell you.

Someone who brags about carrying a gun is the same as someone who brags about being a black belt is the same as someone who brags about a muscle car is the same as someone who brags about their money... or any other way they can try to extend their penis.

Wonker's problem is he wishes to judge the majority based on these asswipes, rather than compare them to someone like myself (he of course still thinks I'm nuts... but I hope one day he'll realize he's got me pegged all wrong). The vast vast majority are not anyone he's got any reason to be concerned about.

1210. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 8:31:46 AM

Message # 1208

for cripes sake, how many are really here in the US? This kind of story is rarer than suicide. You guys should be bringing up examples of more-prevalent problems rather than less-prevalent ones.

Put the fuckers in jail.

1211. thoughtful - 3/11/2005 8:42:57 AM

I've seen an estimate that in Britain in 2001 there were 300,000 illegal firearms...one for every 200 citizens. Of course I've also seen estimates that it's 3,000,000. That's the problem with this issue...a lot of emotion and not much data.

1212. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 9:08:03 AM

Cap'n Dirty sez, "Thoughtful, why not jest lie back and enjoy it?"

1213. thoughtful - 3/11/2005 9:20:09 AM

That is disgusting wonks and if it were you in prison being someone's bitch you wouldn't even think of making such a remark.

Your lack of awareness and insensitivity is appalling. The only satisfaction I'll get is as you get older and more infirmed, you'll have no choice but to become more aware of what life is like when you're less able than the thugs who intend you harm.

And remember, the less fit you are, the more likely you are to be victimized. I'm sure the guy who attacked my father chose him because he was clearly in his 80s for whom even walking was a struggle. Dad, who was very fit and powerful in his 60s, was an easy mark in his 80s.

Patience Wonks. You'll get there too.

1214. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 9:23:48 AM

Message # 1208

You've made this assertion repeatedly. But is it true?

apparently, yes

"Only 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by license holders. Florida's Licensing Division Director, John Russi, has said of the ratio, "When you compare that to the number of licenses that were issued, that's very small." The firearm crime rate among permit holders, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. (FBI)"

Of course there is this study that compares "shall-issue" to "may-issue" states. The conclude that may-issue permit holders are more law-abiding than shall-issue holders. However, their conclusion assumes that a reasonable citizen with a perfectly clean record can get a permit in a may-issue state... which is not a reasonable assumption. Your chances of getting a permit in most may-issue states is very low unless you are a cop, a politition, or you have connections that an average citizen does not.

Furthermore, it does not address the crime rates of both these groups relative to the rest of the population.

1215. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 11:22:17 AM

Store fights back - Ahmed Qasem? I wonder if he's on FBI's watch list.

- The 75-yr-old should have just used his ninja karate skills and kicked the two knife wielding thugs' asses.

Chelsea man shoots armed intruder to death after being tied - This stuff never happens.

Bar owner shoots and kills suspected burglar in parking lot - In Wokersworld his robbary would be what he gets for going to places he doesn't have any business... except he does.

In Wonkersworld he'd just have to move to a better neighborhood.

Deadly home invasion in Chesterfield

Man shot dead in Wyandanch



And from the injustice files

CT: Taxi driver gets 2 years for shooting attacker who slashed his throat.

Reasonable gun laws my ass. You can keep your 'reasonable' registration.

1216. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 11:23:07 AM

How about accidents, suicides or other unfortunate incidents?

1217. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 11:24:24 AM

How about rapes, murders, home invasions, and violent assaults?

1218. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 11:30:06 AM

How often are they victims of these crimes relative to the rest of the population.

1219. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 11:34:17 AM

Of course... I can go on and on defending my right.

You're attitude implies that if we had to justify ourselves to the government on why we should be able to have a gun, we would fail, because some beurocrat would just decree that the risk of attack to us were so small.

You say "prove to me your need is justified".

Well I have done this repeatively. Now I say "prove it is not justified". When you question my statements you imply that if I lack proof the opposite must be true. It is a false conclusion.

1220. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 11:36:15 AM

Yours is a false conclusion.

I don't need to prove to you that accidents, suicides or other unfortunate incidents are less prevalent or equal to the rest of the population.

It is incubent on you to prove that they are more prevalent.

1221. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 1:53:35 PM

All I was saying was that I recognize that there are circumstances that would warrant the granting of a permit to carry a concealed weapon. But merely saying I'm afraid of being raped or mugged wouldn't cut it.

1222. Magoseph - 3/11/2005 1:59:28 PM

I can tell you that young women have no qualms in the southern states carrying a gun in their pocketbooks. I have been shown quite of few of those guns when I lived there.

1223. Magoseph - 3/11/2005 2:02:15 PM

And if a police officer sees a gun on the car seat next to a young woman driver, chances are he won't question why it is there.

1224. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 2:39:24 PM

All I was saying was that I recognize that there are circumstances that would warrant the granting of a permit to carry a concealed weapon. But merely saying I'm afraid of being raped or mugged wouldn't cut it.

Why? If risk were knowable up front it wouldn't be risk. How do you legitimately assess the validity of someone's concerns? Hell, you won't even acknowlege my concenrn and I've been robbed before.

I'm not going to lay out my life in front of some bureaucrat and let them arbitrarily decide if my risks add up. Even if 99% of the time I don't do anything that is 'risky', there's still the 1% of the time I might due to no fault of my own. In addition there is the element that a criminal just may choose me, or choose where I live.

You can't know my true risk, a bureaucrat can't know my true risk... how the hell can you then say I should be subject to their decision about what my risk is? Statistics? Statistics only describe what's going on, they do not predict an individual observation.

Only I can determine my risk.

If someone who lives in a brick house wants to buy a fire extinguisher. I'm not going to tell them not to, even if their risk is still low.

1225. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2005 3:01:36 PM

Is a fire extinguisher a deadly weapon? Your argue like a simpleton.

1226. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 3:13:18 PM

Of course a gun is a deadly weapon. Are you missing the point of them?

You argue and comprehend as a simpleton, and one with a snotty attitude.

1227. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 3:15:04 PM

You are one judgemental SOB Pelle. You need to get a grip.

1228. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 3:20:47 PM

Pelle prefers the hollow victories achieved by denegrating one's opponent, rather than substantive points.

1229. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2005 3:28:52 PM

I'm merely adapting to your level of discourse,

1230. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2005 3:30:52 PM

ie. shallow sophistry.

1231. thoughtful - 3/11/2005 3:36:55 PM

Ah yes, the south. When I went to visit one of my company's locations in NC, there was a sign on the door to please not bring any firearms into the building. It was a bit of a surprise. Up north the signs on the outside of the building usually just announce a non-smoking facility.

1232. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 3:38:39 PM

I call bullshit Pelle. Your caricatures of me is, and has always been, completely inaccurate and unfair.

It's tedious and you offerings to this discourse are rarely constructive and really bore me.

1233. Magoseph - 3/11/2005 3:51:18 PM

Here is what I think about packing guns in this country:

It is difficult for people who live abroad to conceive of a society in which most criminal elements have guns on their persons or in their premises. The situation is so bad that one who does not have a weapon in his house for defense purpose, is considered both to be reckless and foolish and is both definitely.

The power of the NRA (National Rifle Association) is not realized in the rest of the world. Nothing resembling it exists elsewhere. The success of the Republican Party for the last twenty-five years is directly connected to the unwavering commitment of this organization to the most radical elements that exist in this society.

In view of these realities, it comes as no surprise that the potential victims have taken protective measures and will continue to do so until rationality has returned to the society they are trapped in.

1234. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 3:59:36 PM

The power of the NRA (National Rifle Association) is not realized in the rest of the world.

The power is not with the NRA... it's a bunch of people who feel strongly about this right.

As powerful lobbys go, they may be unique because of the narrowly defined cause. However, it's not as if they are alone. The AARP is also very powerful, with a highly organized and motivated membership.

In view of these realities, it comes as no surprise that the potential victims have taken protective measures and will continue to do so until rationality has returned to the society they are trapped in.

I have always said that when the gov't takes violent criminals more seriously I will begin to take them more seriously about gun control. However, gun control advocates have managed to poison the well for quite a while into the future I believe... I have no pity for them and it's their own damn fault.

1235. thoughtful - 3/11/2005 4:38:18 PM

I don't think it's the NRA either. I think it is a cultural heritage rooted in individualism and defiance of govt authority as well as being geographically a very large country with large wilderness areas that require self-reliance. I may have made this point before, but I was stunned when visiting the Brit's concept of "wilderness" which include well defined paths, fences, gates, etc. Very different from the US's wild spaces where you can drive for hours without seeing another human being. You're simply a lot further from civilization in many areas of the us than you are in any country in europe ex russia.

1236. wonkers2 - 3/11/2005 5:10:28 PM

Why do you say the government doesn't take violent criminals seriously?

1237. iiibbb - 3/11/2005 10:12:23 PM

Rapists serve on avg 5 years
Murderers serve on avg 7 years

*cited earlier in this thread*

marijuana 4 years

2 years suspended sentence for defending yourself Message # 1215

1238. jayackroyd - 3/11/2005 10:55:38 PM

"Only 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by license holders. Florida's Licensing Division Director, John Russi, has said of the ratio, "When you compare that to the number of licenses that were issued, that's very small." The firearm crime rate among permit holders, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. (FBI)"

This is not the question. The question is whether, in a place like Great Britain, where it is flat out illegal to own a handgun, are there a large number of illegal handguns in the hands of criminals? Is there a high death rate from criminals killing innocent, law-abiding, gunless citizens through the use of guns they have acquired illegally?

1239. wonkers2 - 3/12/2005 7:58:19 AM

Diminutive Police Sgt. Cynthia Hall's handgun didn't do her much good when Brian Nichols, 210-pound ex-football player overpowered her and took her semi-automatic pistol and shot her in the head with it. He then shot and killed Judge Rowland Barnes and Court reporter Julie Brandow.

1240. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 8:51:01 AM

Message # 1239

Guns don't guarantee anything. However, if given a choice between a gun and any other means of protecting myself from a set of unspecified threats; I'll take a gun.

1241. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 9:07:33 AM

Message # 1238
RE: keeping guns out

The gov't has already show how effective prohibition is at keeping drugs from being imported into this country.

RE: Crime in England

I thought we aready had a long discussion upthread about 'contact' crimes upthread.. If I have time I'll look for those.

Maybe this will tie you over... says the same thing I remember.

Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey.

Overall victimisation

The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.

Notice the worst include Enland and Australia who have recently introduced strict gun controls. It also includes Pelle's beloved Sweden (which is 150 years ahead of us in civilized behavior)

Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Again... the reason I focus on contact crime and not gun crime is because from the victim's perspective, you can not differentiate between a criminal who wants to get their money and go, and one that will try to physically harm you.

1242. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 9:20:06 AM

But your claim above was that if we ban guns then only criminals will have guns. Are you retracting that claim?

1243. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 9:28:46 AM

Absolutely not.

Why should I be the one who has to prove such an obvious outcome. Gov't bans drugs... criminals still have drugs. Gov't bans terror... terrorists still roaming the country.

As an advocate of gun control, why don't you prove to me that if we ban guns criminals won't have access to them. Why don't you show my an example of any prohibition of a popular product (as I believe is a considerable subset of the gun-owning citizenry that would cache weapons before they'd register them) that has worked.

1244. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 9:38:42 AM

Even if by some miracle we got all the guns out of criminals, a gun remains the best and most effective means to defend yourself from violent crime.

1245. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 9:39:54 AM

Assuming that the confrontation is unavoidable that is.


I'd obviously try to evade or de-escalate first.

1246. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 9:51:10 AM

Why should I be the one who has to prove such an obvious outcome. Gov't bans drugs... criminals still have drugs. Gov't bans terror... terrorists still roaming the country.


The question I asked is that in Britain, they don't permit guns. Are criminals with guns rampant in Britain?

I didn't ask you to prove an "obvious result" I asked you whether it's true that in places where law abiding citizens are not permitted to have guns, criminals have them nonetheless.


And just by the way, I don't happen to see any terrorists roaming the country. The only convictions have been of the Lackawanna seven, who didn't do anything. If you're gonna deride people who say you're paranoid, you shouldn't go off on trivial threats.

1247. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:04:50 AM

A criminal use of a handgun is different than the civilian use of one.

The contact crime statistics are the only ones that matter to me. Again... I'm not going to let you project your belief about what constitutes legitimate or trivial threats. The decision is mine, and mine alone to make this determination.

1248. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:07:53 AM

You must prove to me that gun control reduces crime in order to make a case for it. I'm already allowed to possess and carry a handgun. You're trying to make a case that I should not.

Make the case. Just remember the national acadamy of sciences already concluded that gun-control has no discernable effect. If that is the case then there is no justifcation for eroding liberties.

1249. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:10:16 AM

You need to realize that I'm not asking for your permission.

You're asking me to give up a right. You are failing to make your case.

1250. wonkers2 - 3/12/2005 10:10:38 AM

In a democratic society the individual's "right" to what he believes is an effective means of self-defense has to be balanced against the "right" of the majority not to suffer the mahem inflicted by unfettered handgun ownership. Some of our cities have become nearly uninhabitable war zones thanks to guns and drugs.

1251. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:14:52 AM

I don't disagree with your first statement Wonkers... but you are failing to make your case that it's beneficial to the majority that I be denied this right.

The cities have become unihabital war zones because of a failure to control crime and criminals... not handguns.

You keep saying that I should rely on the police for my protection. These 'war zones' are perfect examples at the inadequacy of the police as a protective entity.

1252. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:16:39 AM

The fact I was robbed in the middle of nowhere proves that the police are inadequate as a protective entity.

1253. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:19:06 AM

I asked a simple question. Are there lots of criminals with guns in Britain? You've changed the subject rather than answer the question. I thought there were not, and you've not said otherwise.

The decision is mine, and mine alone to make this determination.

That's the kind of thing psychopaths say. Any decision in a civilized society is moderated by the laws and mores of the culture and society. I've mostly stayed out of this discussion because your world-view is so completely at odds with mine.

1254. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:19:44 AM

Some of our cities have become nearly uninhabitable war zones thanks to guns and drugs.

Where would that be, wonk?

1255. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:23:02 AM

That's the kind of thing psychopaths say. Any decision in a civilized society is moderated by the laws and mores of the culture and society. I've mostly stayed out of this discussion because your world-view is so completely at odds with mine.

I did not change the subject Jay. I'm essentially saying that your question is irrelevant to why I would arm myself.

I'm telling you it's not my obligation to prove that England's gun control works... it's up to you to show that their society has benefited from those laws. Contact crimes are up there. It doesnt' seem like it's benefitting them at all.

If people don't stop questioning my mental stability I'm just going to close this thread. If simple gun ownership by someone like me bothers you... then you are the one who's paranoid... not me.

1256. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:23:21 AM

I don't need to take this shit from you people.

1257. wonkers2 - 3/12/2005 10:24:30 AM

I was mugged at 6pm on a main intersection a couple of blocks from the Hilton hotel. They got my wallet but didn't hurt me. A similar attempt in Rio failed when I yelled at the perp and threatened to beat the crap out of him. I have never had that happen to me in the U.S. Nevertheless, I feel safer in Sao Paulo than in certain parts of Detroit because guns and uncommon in Brazil but very common in Detroit. I'm not sure of the details but my impression is that guns are more tightly regulated in Brazil than the U.S.

1258. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:26:48 AM

I have been cordial. I have supported my positions with fairly unbiased sources. I certainly haven't relied exclusively on pro gun "propaganda" sites.

If you're world-view is right... then back it up. Just nitpicking my "world-view" doens't validate yours.

Furthermore... as I said earlier. If any of your judgements of me is based soley on this thread then you are a sad individuals.

1259. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:28:05 AM

sad conceited individuals.

1260. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:32:24 AM

Message # 1257

Your trust in Brazil is unfounded.

Brazil has 19 homicides per 100K... vs the US with 5.7 per 100K.

1261. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:35:03 AM

I did not change the subject Jay. I'm essentially saying that your question is irrelevant to why I would arm myself.

My question was a direct response to your assertion that if guns were illegal, criminals would nonetheless obtain guns. I don't think that's true, and I think Britain, for example, shows that this isn't true. You can say that your original assertion is irrelevant, and leave it at that.

1262. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:35:13 AM

toys.

1263. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:35:25 AM

toys again

1264. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:38:10 AM

If simple gun ownership by someone like me bothers you... then you are the one who's paranoid... not me.

It's not gun ownership that bothers me. It's your saying that it is up to you and only up to you whether you carry a devide that only has one purpose--to kill people--that bothers me. If I said that driving drunk is up to me, and only up to me, then you'd consider that a little antisocial, wouldn't you?

1265. wonkers2 - 3/12/2005 10:40:32 AM

My trust in Brazil may be unfounded. Perhaps we are both comparing apples and oranges. Poverty is widespread in Brazil and crime is rampant in the favelas and cities like Sao Paulo and Rio. A better comparison might be inner-city Detroit rather than with the entire U.S. Do you have any data on gun ownership in Brazil? My impression is that there are fewer guns there.

1266. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:47:23 AM

Message # 1261

Then prove it Jay. It's not my job to keep going out and disproving your assertations.

Failure of England Gun control

A gun "amnesty" has resulted in the surrender of about 25,000 arms, and was proclaimed a great triumph by the government. Civil-libertarian Stephen Robinson noted in the Telegraph: "The police were strangely reluctant to specify how many of the guns were handed over in inner city areas, fueling the suspicion that many of the weapons were family heirlooms. . . . Many appear to have been handed in by the elderly and law-abiding who fear becoming criminalized in a society in which private gun ownership is slowly being outlawed."

Criminals will still get guns if you ban them.. hell, they just won't bother surrendering them. Even if you made them all disappear by magic, a determined individual can pretty much get anything they want into this country, and they have shown it with numerous things that have been banned.

Mexico has pretty strict gun control. My frineds make yearly trips down there to go caving. They have been stopped by pickup loads of armed bandits multiple times.

1267. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:48:37 AM

If you're world-view is right... then back it up. Just nitpicking my "world-view" doens't validate yours.

No, it doesn't. But nothing you've posted persuades me that having a gun makes you safer, net of the danger of the gun itself. Crime is rare. Violent crime is rarer. Violent crime committed by a stranger is rarer still. Your world view focuses on extraordinary events. Mine focuses on the ordinary.

I've never carried a gun, and I've never felt threatened. My world view is colored by that. I've been told to avoid certain neighborhoods. I've gone to those neighborhoods, and never felt threatened. I live in a city that many people see as threatening and dangerous. It is neither of those things. It's a warm and friendly collection of small communities.

I'm not worried about my safety because of the guns you have. I'm worried about yours.

1268. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:51:55 AM

It's not gun ownership that bothers me. It's your saying that it is up to you and only up to you whether you carry a devide that only has one purpose--to kill people--that bothers me. If I said that driving drunk is up to me, and only up to me, then you'd consider that a little antisocial, wouldn't you?

The gun's sole purpose is not to kill people. It's to protect me, and my family. Guns successufully used in self defense actually rarely kill anyone... however, without the gun the victim would have suffered. Many times when the criminal sees that the "victim" has a gun and is determined to resist, they will leave.

If you said driving drunk is up to you I'd say your were breaking the law. Are you saying that if someone is trying to hurt me and I shoot them then I'm out of line?

1269. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:52:41 AM

Your assumption is that I desire to kill someone.

I am insulted by this unfair assessment.

1270. jayackroyd - 3/12/2005 10:56:47 AM

Are you saying that if someone is trying to hurt me and I shoot them then I'm out of line?

I'm saying that declaring that the decision to carry and use a deadly device is solely up to you is not a statement that is consistent with being a law abiding member of a civilized community.

I did not say you want to kill anybody. I said that your rejection of any regulation of a dangerous device by members of your community is anti-social. There are areas where the height of grass on lawns is regulated. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a community would want to regulate gun ownership.

(OTOH, the 2nd amendment is very clear.)

1271. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 10:58:00 AM

No, it doesn't. But nothing you've posted persuades me that having a gun makes you safer, net of the danger of the gun itself. Crime is rare. Violent crime is rarer. Violent crime committed by a stranger is rarer still. Your world view focuses on extraordinary events. Mine focuses on the ordinary.

Guns are used for self defense between 100K and 2 million times per year in this country for self defense. This is orders of magintude greater than the 'dangers' associated with gun ownership.

If you cannot even concede that this at least paints some doubt on the value of gun control then you are simply subcumbing to your own bias.

I've got not time for your bias or assuage your unfounded fears of me or gun ownership by responsible people.

1272. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:00:42 AM

Well.. as far as regulation. We have the examples from Massacusetts and Conneticutt where the only thing 'regulation' did for a citizen defending themselves was an arrest.

1273. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:03:48 AM

Since when did I say I reject any regulation anyway.

I support background checks
I support strong sentencing on crimes committed with guns
I support permitting for concealed carry
I support standards for mechanical safety

Gun bans aren't 'regulation' by the way.

1274. Marc-Albert - 3/12/2005 11:06:50 AM

You must prove to me that gun control reduces crime in order to make a case for it.

I could say that since 1976, the murder rate in Canada has been steadily going down,in parallel with the abolition of the death penalty and stricter gun control.

1275. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:08:56 AM

My expectation is that I should have access to weapons about the same level as the police. If a sidearm is the standard issue weapon, if they've determined that that's the tool that a cop can use to defend themselves, then I expect access to the same defensive technology. I don't expect full-auto... full auto is an offensive too.

A handgun is simply the most appropriate tool for most self defense applications. Rifles are too powerful for the ranges most legitimate self defense shootings would occur. Handguns are less powerful. Can you admit that this actually might be desireable, and that less powerful weapons might actually be a benefit to society?

1276. Marc-Albert - 3/12/2005 11:10:10 AM

Yours is a murderous country, because of "law-abiding citizens" like you.

1277. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:11:23 AM

Message # 1274 That's Canada. England and Austrailia the murder rates are rising. The murder rate is declining in the US as well.

Even still... the Acadamy of Science article which started this thread has shown there is no evidence that these rates are tied to gun laws.

1278. Marc-Albert - 3/12/2005 11:11:34 AM

You're not part of the solution, iiiibbb, you're part of the problem.

1279. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:13:01 AM

Message # 1276

That comment is completely out of line.

1280. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 11:13:24 AM

whatever Marc

1281. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2005 1:52:14 PM

Would you carry a gun if you lived outside US for a few years? Here in Sweden for example?

1282. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 2:44:16 PM

Well, as I've repeatedly stated, I don't carry a gun except in very, very limited circumstances.

It is unlikely I would feel any greater need or desire to carry in most places I would go in Europe, just as I don't feel a great need or desire to carry the places I presently go.

However, as I've repreatedly stated, as a social libertarian and as a law-abiding citizen, I strongly feel it is the individual's right to decide when and where they have access to a gun.

1) I have a god-given right to defend myself.
2) I'm an adult capable of making my own decisions.
3) The general public has nothing to fear from people like me.
4) Criminals will always have guns.
5) These guns are usually obtained illegally.
6) The government (police etc.) are not always there to protect my well being.
7) As a law abiding adult, I have a god-given right to defend myself, and I should be at least as well armed as the criminals.
8) There are ample legitimate uses of guns... namely sport (hunting and shooting sports) and self defense.



I'm sure Sweden is a great place. I want to visit England, Finland, and Bohemia one day because the main parts of my heritage originates from those places.

1283. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 2:47:55 PM

and for the people queazy about 'god-given' just ignore that part... substitute 'innate' or 'natural'.

God-given is just my way of emphasizing what a fundamental right I feel it is.

1284. arkymalarky - 3/12/2005 3:02:46 PM

If you defend yourself as appropriately with a gun as you have so far in here, I'm not worried.

Just like with everything else, there should be reasonable regulation and better enforcement of current laws. It wouldn't do to compare us to other countries with more gun control because guns have been so much more pervasive here for so much longer, getting them under control would be a major, and probably unsurmountable, task.

I agree with #1273, except I still have strong reservations about concealed carry permits. I'd just as soon know who around me has a weapon and think that in some way declaring you carry one in a public place, or carrying it in the open only, should be required.

1285. iiibbb - 3/12/2005 3:14:42 PM

I respect that the jury is still out on concealed carry. However... someone like me it's not going to matter the manner of carry. If a permit holder is following the rules you'll never know, and you'll never be in danger.

Bad-guys will conceal in spite of the law.

One downside of open carry is that the person with the gun becomes a target... and perhaps even a source of a weapon for a badguy. Concealed it is far less likely to wind up in the wrong hands.

But, I understand and respect what you say.

1286. arkymalarky - 3/12/2005 5:14:56 PM

If I knew the criteria for a permit were very stringent, I'd be less nervous about it. Accidents can happen to anyone, but they're more likely with people who aren't well trained, and bringing a lethal weapon amongst the masses like that makes me nervous. I remember reading of one freak accident, I think in Little Rock, where a woman dropped her purse on the sidewalk and the gun in it went off and killed someone.

1287. wonkers2 - 3/12/2005 9:33:23 PM

Deer hunters get killed every year in Michigan. Recently one broke his neck when he fell out of a tree stand after falling asleep without belting himself in. I haven't heard of anybody getting shot this year.

1288. justears - 3/13/2005 7:47:37 AM

1289. justears - 3/13/2005 7:51:27 AM

guns

1290. wonkers2 - 3/13/2005 8:00:45 AM

"He's a normal Joe, you know, he's the guy you'd never suspect to have done this."

1291. wonkers2 - 3/13/2005 9:21:51 AM

Yesterday a 4-year-old shot his 2-year-old brother in the head because the yourger brother threw a toy at him. The older brother took his mother's loaded handgun out of her purse and shot his brother in the head. Typical.

1292. Marc-Albert - 3/13/2005 10:44:16 AM

As iiibbb would say, that mother had "a god-given right" to defend herself and her children.

1293. jayackroyd - 3/13/2005 12:44:58 PM

Well, this is the heart of the problem. iiibbb certainly seems to be a responsible gun owner. But the trouble is that not all gun owners are responsible. All the arguments he uses about how the police can't protect him also apply to the inability of the police, or other arm of the state, to protect 4 year-olds from irresponsible gun owners.

But this can be addressed these days, with biometric devices on the guns ensuring that only the owner can fire the weapon. This would also address iiibbb's frequently expressed view that criminals will always have guns. They couldn't steal the guns anymore. (I can't help but note that the fact that they can steal guns is itself evidence of widespread irresponsibility in gun ownership. If the gun can be stolen, then it can be used by a four year old.) One could also, at the time of biometrically identifying the owner, obtain a ballistic fingerprint.

1294. iiibbb - 3/13/2005 7:40:18 PM

Message # 1288

I believe it's illegal in Wisconsin to take a gun into a church. It's also a no-issue state for concealed carry.

Message # 1291

This is not "typical"

Message # 1292

She also had a responsibilty to secure that gun from her children.

Message # 1293

I suppose widespread rape is indicative of irresponsbility of females to keep themselves secured. If someone wants to get a gun with a 'smart' gun technology that's fine with me. I wouldn't want one. Just something to fail or make someone think a gun is 'safe'. New Jersey has made a law that will require this technology... we'll see if it works or not... but it's pretty telling that the cops are exempt from the requirement.

Look, no system is perfect. It is a tragedy that this guy killed those people, and it's a tragedy that that kid killed his brother. Any system you set up is going to be imperfect and tragedies will happen. However, for every example you give, there's going to be examples where someone is killed or raped or whatever where a gun they might have wanted, and might have helped them, would be denied them.

I admit it sucks that people die. Life sometimes sucks. There are costs associated with a freee society. People die every day for no good reason.

You're talking about trading one tragedy for another. Well... most of you seem to deny the existance or possibility of tragedies because a gun is not there to help a victim.
----------------------
One problem as I read your responses to me is that you all emphasize certain tragedies and the lack of 'need' for guns because of the 'rarity' of crime. Then you turn around and bring up even more rare events as a reason to tighten gun control.
----------------------
Let's look at another hot-button civil libery issue, Abortion. I could formulate many arguments similar to the ones you make against guns... and you would come back as it being a woman's choice. However... does the woman 'need' an abortion to live? There are many people that can't have children and society would benefit by giving these children homes.

I personally beleive that life begins at conception... but I know not everyone beleives this. I happen to believe that I have a right to self defense... apparently not everyone shares this belief.

But if we make civil liberties contingent on 'need' rather that 'rights' then there's a lot of things that we do in this society we'd have to ban right now.

No one 'needs' alcohol... there are plenty of tragedies that occur because of the misuse of alcohol... more tragedies than caused by guns in fact.

Should we bring back prohibition... or let people be adults?

1295. jayackroyd - 3/13/2005 9:06:35 PM

I suppose widespread rape is indicative of irresponsbility of females to keep themselves secured.

Are you seriously making this argument?

IAC, are you saying that guns are routinely stolen from people who adhere to the training the NRA provides, and the gun safety advice you've advocated?

It is a tragedy that this guy killed those people, and it's a tragedy that that kid killed his brother.

But would you disagree that the brother died because the gun owner behaved irresponsibly?

1296. Marc-Albert - 3/13/2005 9:10:04 PM

No one 'needs' alcohol... there are plenty of tragedies that occur because of the misuse of alcohol... more tragedies than caused by guns in fact.

Sophism! Sophism! Careful with those from-the-hip sophisms iiibbb.

1297. iiibbb - 3/13/2005 10:36:29 PM

Message # 1295

Are you seriously making this argument?

The argument is purposefuly absurd. It makes the point that it's wrong to assign that kind of blame on a victim of a crime. If someone breaks into my home, get's into my gun locker, steals stuff, goes off and commits a crime gun...

Your instincts tell you to blame on me for the actions of another?

IAC, are you saying that guns are routinely stolen from people who adhere to the training the NRA provides, and the gun safety advice you've advocated?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

But would you disagree that the brother died because the gun owner behaved irresponsibly?

The woman was completely irresponsible. The gun was not secured.

But shit happens. For every tragedy like this, there would be one where a life would be lost because of lack of access to a gun.

You have to be aware that some of the policies you propose would interfere with someone's ability to successfully defend themselves.
------------------------
Message # 1286

How is alcohol different in this case Marc?

There are 32 alcohol related deaths per year in this country. There are 15 gun related deaths per 100,000 per year. Where's the outrage. They should be doing background checks to purchase alcohol to see if you have ever had a DUI.

245 per 100,000 die from heart disease per year. Should we check peoples' colesterol before selling them a hamburger? Weigh their kids before they get a happy meal?

1298. iiibbb - 3/13/2005 10:37:30 PM

Message # 1286

Ever heard the saying about glass houses Marc?

1299. jayackroyd - 3/13/2005 10:40:52 PM

If someone breaks into my home, get's into my gun locker, steals stuff, goes off and commits a crime gun...

The point is that if your gun locker is secure, then he can't break in and steal your gun.

As you say:
The woman was completely irresponsible. The gun was not secured.

My concern is not for thoughtful people like you. It is for irresponsbible people like her.

1300. jayackroyd - 3/13/2005 10:43:47 PM

I'm not sure I understand this question.

The question is whether gun owners do in fact behave as responsibly as you do--whether we are justified in regulating their behavior because they may act irresponsibly.

1301. iiibbb - 3/13/2005 10:54:46 PM

Message # 1300

Well... my opinion... regulation or not... a woman like that is going to be irresponsible whether you force her to buy a gun lock or not. There comes a point where trying to micromanage these things is more harmful or more invasive than the problem warrants. At some point you're just going to have to leave people alone and accept the fact that some of them are going to fuck up (just like with booze).

Smart guns are a nice idea in principle... but they've got issues. I would prefer they not be mandatory because a gun is something you have to trust implicitly. There is no time to be fucking around with some switch or thumbprint or whatever. Simplicity is what garners that kind of trust for me. What if the battery dies in your smartgun? What if someone figures out a way to electronically jam a smart gun? What if your bloody cut hand fails to unlock the gun? I think "smart" guns make people complacent and might very well lead to accidents (at least given the state of present technology).

Now... someday in the future, they might be worthy. I'll trust them when the police start buying them. Such a gun certainly would've helped save that judge in Atlanta.

1302. iiibbb - 3/13/2005 11:41:58 PM

Criminals get guns in Canada despite all of their their gun controls

People are murdered with handguns. In fact... although the murder rate using handguns is 14 times that of Canada, we have 63 times as many handguns under far less restrictions. You would think that if gun control were helping that their would be fewer murders per 100,000 handguns.

1303. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 4:27:50 AM

iii :
and for the people queazy about 'god-given' just ignore that part... substitute 'innate' or 'natural'.

God-given is just my way of emphasizing what a fundamental right I feel it is.

Not wishing to pick on you... but you're the host after all...


I think that this defines the attitude problem that you have with respect to gun policy.

A civilised society must function by consent and concensus. If you claim that there are bedrock issues which are not negotiable -- that you have allegiance to some transcendent law that supersedes the laws of your society -- then you create an intractable problem with respect to civilised society.

"God-given" is the giveaway.

1304. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 4:35:46 AM

Well... my opinion... regulation or not... a woman like that is going to be irresponsible whether you force her to buy a gun lock or not.

She would find other ways of acting irresponsibly, but her four year old would not be able to shoot her two year old dead.


Analogy : if she let her kids play in her car, and the four year old started the car and killed the two year old.
Well, such things happen, and it's sad.

But imagine : the car is a cheap, poorly-made one with a powerful motor and no brakes, and no ignition key either, just a starter button.

Many people lobby for mandatory safety requirements for all cars, such as those available on high-end models. But libertarians block all such legislation, arguing that people have a (god-given) right to own a car, and safety measures would push up the price and deprive the people who need it most.

1305. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:12:48 AM

Guns are different than cars. It doesn't matter that a car takes a minute or two to get ready to start. If it doesn't start, you can call a cab.

The most important thing a gun has to do when you need it is work. The more safeties you put in, the longer it will take to access it, and smart-gun technology has not proven its reliability yet. I don't object to creating this technology... but I do object that it should be mandatory at its present state of development.
---------------------------
Analogy : if she let her kids play in her car, and the four year old started the car and killed the two year old.
Well, such things happen, and it's sad...

...but stuff like this does have the potential to happen. This 4 yr old kid could have easily killed someone with that car. I wouldn't be surprised if a disgruntled teen could figure out a way to hack electronic countermeasures on a gun. I suppose you could make it so the gun disables itself if someone tries to hack it, but if you are trying to equal the reliability current firearms, it would have to be hackable. If you made the gun 'fry' itself if someone tampers with it, then the owner might find their gun doesn't work when they need it in an emergency.

The gun safety stuff might help some, but it will hurt others.
-----------------------
But imagine : the car is a cheap, poorly-made one with a powerful motor and no brakes, and no ignition key either, just a starter button.

You've blown your analogy with this statement. Few, if anyone, would buy the car you describe. The better analogy is to debate the value of mandatory insurance monitoring chips. Is it right to force people to buy something that will be used to spy on them? I actually race my daily driver in sanctioned, low level racing events. It's safe, I've been doing it for 6 years and there is no real danger to my car, and if something did happen I would pay for it... but with a chip like this they might dump my insurance for no real reason.

We have eroding liberties, eroding privacy... few people seem to be able to care about infringements like this when it effects them. They're happy to give up other peoples' civil liberties.

Based on your guys attitudes, maybe I'll stop being pro-choice on abortion. I'm morally opposed to it. Fuck'em if they can't control their urges enough to prevent pregnancy.

Aids... preventable... but no one wants to.


Alas... my libertarian views are too strong to butt into these peoples' lives despite the costs they impose on society just because they have rights.

1306. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:16:36 AM

A civilised society must function by consent and concensus. If you claim that there are bedrock issues which are not negotiable -- that you have allegiance to some transcendent law that supersedes the laws of your society -- then you create an intractable problem with respect to civilised society.

I disagree that this statement is universally true. The declaration of independence states them better than I. Every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... we hold these truths to be self-evident.

I do not need society's consent when it comes to self-defense.

1307. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:26:45 AM

"God-given" is the giveaway.

You act as if this is some sort of fundamental flaw in the foundation of my arguments. It must touch the nerve of a pretty strong prejudice that such an innocuous, non-specific 'god' statement has caught your attention.

1308. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 8:27:36 AM

Then, by definition, you are an outlaw. Good luck to you.

1309. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:28:56 AM

A civilised society must function by consent and concensus. If you claim that there are bedrock issues which are not negotiable -- that you have allegiance to some transcendent law that supersedes the laws of your society -- then you create an intractable problem with respect to civilised society.

I think Jefferson or Franklin said something to this effect.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a very well armed lamb."

1310. Macnas - 3/14/2005 8:32:02 AM

I suppose the question is this iiibbb:

Say that you have a 8 year old girl, and you have educated her as to the dangers of poor gun handling, firearms misuse and everything else that you should.

Now imagine that your daughter does something totally out of character, maybe to impress a peer or just one of things that kids do. You have a loaded gun (what use is it unloaded, right?) in a place where you can get at it easily.
She knows where it is, kids know these things no matter how secretive you think you might be. Hell, lets even say she comes apon it accidentally.

Anyways, she gets a hold of it and, by accident, kills herself or a friend or a sibling.
Now that is her own fault, isn't it? she's to blame, isn't she?

She ignored or forgot all you told her, for a second. All the education you invested in her went out the window, for a second.
Get it through your head, kids are kids and will do stupid things for no good reason. For that reason on its very own, the gun should be kept unloaded, and should be secure.

Screw all the other arguments, kids being kids is the reason why society makes them wait until they are in the late teens to do a shitload of other stuff. And yes, I know, you can say "never stopped me" and "dumb law, can't enforce it anyway" and whatever the hell you want, but most people obey the law, most folk do the stuff to make things safe for themselves and their kids, its the basic premise of a civilised society.

1311. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:32:45 AM

A civilised society must function by consent and concensus. If you claim that there are bedrock issues which are not negotiable -- that you have allegiance to some transcendent law that supersedes the laws of your society -- then you create an intractable problem with respect to civilised society.

The more I read this statement, the more I fundamentally disagree with it. Read the Constitution... read the Declaration of Independence. Both invoke concepts that fundamentally fail the standards you claim are what make a civilized society.

1312. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 8:42:58 AM

Message # 1310

Mancas... I do not deny that tragedies happen. I am completely aware of them, and the possibility they may happen.

It's one of the unclean, unsatisfying issues because it requires a balancing of costs to society. For every level of control the government imposes to help one, it will hurt another.

I just happen to think in a home the head of the household is the one who should decide how to balance these costs eyes-open.

The government can create standards for storage or whatever meant to prevent your example... the cost is that tragedies will occur where people are unable to retreive their gun because of these laws. In fact, clever kids will find the key that locks the gun, or discover the combination of the safe is their mom's birthday. Furthermore, there are people who don't even have children for which these laws would be completely irrelevant.

I have said before, I know my position is imperfect. The problem is that you all have convinced yourselves that yours is perfect.

Given that neither is perfect, I default to a libertarian viewpoint.

1313. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 8:48:25 AM

It must touch the nerve of a pretty strong prejudice that such an innocuous, non-specific 'god' statement has caught your attention.

Sure as hell does.

If your god gives you rights and duties that supersede your rights and duties as a citizen, then that puts you on the same level as the jihadi who tries to blow up as many Jews or Americans as he can, because that's what his god wants him to do.

The God stuff is your right, but it's private.

1314. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 8:54:51 AM

I do not need society's consent when it comes to self-defense.

There you go again. You get in a snit when anybody implies that you aren't a law-abiding, safety conscious person. But then you say things that indicate you will ignore the law if you don't like it.

1315. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 8:59:54 AM

Read the Constitution... read the Declaration of Independence. Both invoke concepts that fundamentally fail the standards you claim are what make a civilized society.

Not so. Your Constitution (note the capital letter) appears to be the bedrock of the necessary concensus that the USA functions on. There is endless litigation over it, precisely because it's the only reference that all US citizens have in common and consent to be governed by (so control over its interpretation is important). The fact that it appeals to transcendent values ("people have a right to be free" etc) merely establishes that there are general principles which people are deemed to have in common; such statements have no specific, binding value.

But it's obvious that the detail of its meaning changes over time, as the concensus of what's reasonable changes in society. For example, what is "cruel and unusual punishment"?

1316. Macnas - 3/14/2005 8:59:58 AM

No iiibbb, I do not believe that the "keep my guns safe" thing that I do is perfect.

But I know it's safer than yours. And, if I read your post correctly, please correct me if I do not, you are saying in a roundabout way that one tradgedy every now and then is to be expected if we want to maintain a certain liberty. We have to put up with the pain if we want to stay free.

Moreover, I, as the head of my household, have to make the choice on whether I want to balance the safety of my children against the freedom to keep my guns loaded and at the ready.

Listen, I suppose it's unfair to ask you to try and see through my eyes. You don't have children so you have different priorities and cares. But try and understand this, it makes for a piss-poor argument to say that you choose between a ready to go gun and the safety of someone in your care that you would not leave out on the road on their own.

I, for one, no matter how slim the chance or remote the possibility is, would hate to have to try and convince myself that I was doing the right thing in the long run by not keeping my guns unloaded and locked up, while I was burying one of my children. Sorry if it sounds like melodrama, when you have kids, thats how you feel.

1317. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:02:05 AM

Message # 1313

Your anti-God stuff is your right. You can also keep it private. Man, you are intolerant. The statement in no way requires or mandates a belief. Lighten up.

Message # 1314

I'm not implying I'm ignoring the law. I will however fight against proposed laws that would inhibit this ability.

1318. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 9:05:46 AM

The problem is that you all have convinced yourselves that yours is perfect.

This kind of assertion is detrimental to any discussion. Nobody has made that claim. In fact, Macnas' post made it very clear that there are no perfect answers.

1319. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:14:39 AM

Message # 1316

No iiibbb, I do not believe that the "keep my guns safe" thing that I do is perfect.

But I know it's safer than yours.

You have no basis for making this statement. See the end Message # 1219 Canada has quite a bit higher number of deaths per number of handgun than the US despite its strict controls on handguns.

And, if I read your post correctly, please correct me if I do not, you are saying in a roundabout way that one tradgedy every now and then is to be expected if we want to maintain a certain liberty. We have to put up with the pain if we want to stay free.

Yes... to an extent we do just have to 'put up with it' to be free.

Moreover, I, as the head of my household, have to make the choice on whether I want to balance the safety of my children against the freedom to keep my guns loaded and at the ready.

As your fellow citizen I am putting my trust in you to make the right decision for your household.

Listen, I suppose it's unfair to ask you to try and see through my eyes. You don't have children so you have different priorities and cares. But try and understand this, it makes for a piss-poor argument to say that you choose between a ready to go gun and the safety of someone in your care that you would not leave out on the road on their own.

It is not unfair. I have nephews. Children are in my not-to-distant future. I will revise my storage concept when that time comes.

However, I ask the same of you. Look at it through my eyes. Does the manner of storage appropriate for your home, apply to mine? There are no kids... it's just me.

I, for one, no matter how slim the chance or remote the possibility is, would hate to have to try and convince myself that I was doing the right thing in the long run by not keeping my guns unloaded and locked up, while I was burying one of my children. Sorry if it sounds like melodrama, when you have kids, thats how you feel.

I respect what you say. I am sensitive to what you say. I totally empathize with what you say. It's not like I haven't struggled with these questions.

When I have kids... they will be unloaded and locked up. But that paradigm doesn't apply to me now. I don't expect what's right for me at any one point in my life will be right for another.

Sorry, I just can't get around my libertarianism.

1320. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 9:15:01 AM

Man, you are intolerant.

No. What I'm saying is that "God" has no place in a policy debate. The people who disagree with this idea have a lot to answer for.

1321. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 9:19:24 AM

Your anti-God stuff is your right. You can also keep it private.

Sure, but I don't make use my atheism as justification for public policy. Your claim that your religious beliefs override laws and culture is extreme, and not sustainable in a workable society.

1322. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:23:40 AM

Message # 1315

All I know is that if you lead your argument off correcting my spelling you've already lost.

The 10 amendments outline the individual rights the people have in spite of what government (society's representative) may want to do... even over time. Therefore it fails your standard.

If society wishes to change the constitution so that they may do this so be it. The constitution is a living document as you imply. The process for changing it is quite clear. If gun control advocates want to change the law to how society 'views' guns, then they can go through the process of amending the constitution to reflect their view.

Saying that we just alter our 'inturpretation' to suit our needs... espcially on an issue like this... betrays the spirit of our government. Gun control reflects a change in the way things have been... then 'change' the constitutions (and all the state constitutions) to reflect this new idea.

1323. Macnas - 3/14/2005 9:24:16 AM

It seems that everything changes when you have kids, at least you have an eye to that iiibbb.

So, you are saying that you will keep your guns secure when you have kids of your own about the house, but you do not want to absolutly have to if you don't want to, at least not at the moment.

Well I suppose that is different. You have a point wrt to personal choice being shaped by personal circumstance. I was under the impression, from some of your other posts, that you were against secure storage of firearms full stop.

1324. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:26:05 AM

Message # 1320
Message # 1321

So both of you are saying people do not have a natural right for self defense? You are sayin there is no innate right to self defense?

You are in fact correcnt. I don't even need God to have this right.

1325. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 9:34:37 AM

I don't happen to believe in natural or god-given rights, no. There are too many human societies with too many different rules to support that idea. Pretty the only thing that is universal is marriage of some kind.

However, I do believe that the Constitution very clearly says that you have an untrammeled right to bear arms. I wish the Supreme Court had respected that language in the thirties and not permitted restrictions on sawed-off shotguns. Or nukes, for that matter. If the Court had respected the Constitution's language, we'd have amended it by now.

1326. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 9:35:20 AM

Pretty the only thing that is universal is marriage of some kind.

should have been "Pretty much"

1327. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:45:35 AM

Message # 1323

I was under the impression, from some of your other posts, that you were against secure storage of firearms full stop.

The problem with arguing on the internet is that all inflection is lost.

For instance right now every time I read a post from Marc-Albert or Alistar I can help but assign them voices that are very snide and condescending which makes me mad. They might even be nice people.



I don't happen to believe in natural or god-given rights, no.

You do not beleive that if someone attacks you, that you don't have the right to fight back? Even though every animal on earth will fight if cornered with any means at its disposal, you still don't think we have a fundamental right to save our own lives?

However, I do believe that the Constitution very clearly says that you have an untrammeled right to bear arms. I wish the Supreme Court had respected that language in the thirties and not permitted restrictions on sawed-off shotguns. Or nukes, for that matter. If the Court had respected the Constitution's language, we'd have amended it by now.

I fully agree with this paragraph. However, we as a society can ammend it at any point we wish... the Constitution clearly states the kind of majority required for society to impose it's will on individuals.

In the meantime I will not support backdoor, half-baked efforts to diminish our liberties.

1328. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 9:46:53 AM

second part of the previous post are response to Jay... not Macnas

1329. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 9:47:31 AM

Even though every animal on earth will fight if cornered with any means at its disposal, you still don't think we have a fundamental right to save our own lives?


You think animals have rights?

1330. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 10:14:14 AM

Jay... you're either fishing, or your 'world view' is inconsistant.

1331. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 10:22:11 AM

You just wrote that animals defend themselves when cornered, therefore people have rights. That struck me as an illogical argument.

1332. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 10:25:27 AM

You're saying people don't have rights... or the only right they have is 'marriage of the soul'... whatever that means.

Individuals have no other rights. Only society has rights.

This is what you are saying. Based on what you seem to be stating you would therefore support slavery... because slaves can still "marry the soul"... they did for years. You would also support plowing someones house into the ground so that a community can build a minimall to help it's economy. We are not substatively affecting the indiviudal's right to 'marry the soul'.

People are just servants of society. Society owes individuals nothing.

1333. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 10:28:29 AM

1331. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 5:22:11 PM

You just wrote that animals defend themselves when cornered, therefore people have rights. That struck me as an illogical argument.

It just 'struck you' huh? That's neat.

So your logic states what when it comes to self defense? I just can't seem to figure out what you believe when it comes to an individual's right to defend themselves or their family from harm. I want to ask where their right stops and their obligation to society begins... but you don't even seem to acknowledge this is even a right.

1334. justears - 3/14/2005 10:29:50 AM

imo the world is converging on a set of rights similar to those outlined by the United Nations declaration of human rights of 1948. I believe that we are converging on those rights because they are tied to a set of natural facts about human nature and the likeliest best outcomes for social flourishing. Naturally Bush is undermining one of the most important, namely, the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel or inhuman punishment.

1335. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 10:43:06 AM

All I know is that if you lead your argument off correcting my spelling you've already lost.

Did I correct your spelling? I certainly didn't intend to.

Sorry if I come across as snide or condescending. Not my intention : I take a pretty combative attitude with you, precisely because you are a worthy sparring partner, and because you can dish it out yourself.

The 10 amendments outline the individual rights the people have in spite of what government (society's representative) may want to do... even over time. Therefore it fails your standard.

Yes, I remember that discussion : your position is that these amendments amount to a recognition that those individual rights actually transcended the constitution. That seems a nonsensical argument to me : the very fact that people wished specific individual rights to be acknowledged in that fundamental document, speaks to the fact that they recognised the necessity of spelling out the common ground.

Now we get to the question of whether the meaning can change, 200 years or more later.

And the answer is : yes, of course it can.

1336. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 10:46:07 AM

... And the "cruel or inhuman punishment" business is an excellent illustration of that : does that include capital punishment or not?

It was deemed so, for a few years... I expect it will be deemed so again, some time in the future, but currently, it isn't.

Meaning changes.

1337. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 10:51:50 AM

Message # 1334

You don not believe in the sovereignty of governments? The UN is not a government. It's a forum.

You bringing up torture is utterly irrelevant to the issue of self-defense... if anything it only supports my view.

Where was your outrage when the Taliban was torturing the people of Afganistan? Where's your outrage that some of the members of the UN Human Rights Committee are actually purveyors of toture.

Alas... being so off topic we can't discuss it except to say it's irrelevant. The UN is not my government.

1338. justears - 3/14/2005 10:57:22 AM

alistair: value judgments about sets of facts change, more or less with the facts. As human nature changes and as people get smarter about flourishing, value judgments and the laws they are based on will change for the better. But the mere fact of change does not imply cultural relativism. Personally, I think the death penalty should be included in cruel or inhuman punishment. We see the world through a glass darkly, but we do see, and our vision will improve.

1339. alistairconnor - 3/14/2005 10:59:02 AM

You don not believe in the sovereignty of governments? The UN is not a government. It's a forum.

Looks like you've switched sides...

Justears was claiming that there are a set of natural human rights that ought to be codified. This corresponds to your description of the US constitution and its amendments.

Where's your outrage that some of the members of the UN Human Rights Committee are actually purveyors of toture.

Well, some of the states which agreed to the US constitution were slave-owning states; others not. I guess they should never have agreed to anything.

1340. justears - 3/14/2005 11:05:39 AM

iiibbb All I said was, that I thought the world is converging on a set of values, much like those outlined in the United Nations document. I have broadened the conversation a bit because you have started talking about the foundations of rights...whether they come from God, Nature, or social contract. The UN is no one's government, or everyone's. Are you upset because they didn't include the right to bear arms? i deplore torture wherever it occurs.

1341. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 11:11:47 AM

Ok... I'm getting sloppy... I have to break it off for today. I'm trying to get some paper revisions done and I need to stop peeking in here

1342. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 11:39:40 AM

Basically there is a problem with expanding the debate to things like torture etc. The right not to be totured belongs in a differnt box than the right to defend yourself. Torture, to a large degree, is either premeditated, sponsored, or institutional protections are too weak.

The right to self defense is entirely different. It is a right of an individuals to peacibly carry on their life. It's not a gov't organization (hopefully) that breaks into your home and might do you harm, it's another individual.

Lethal self-defense is only permissible in certain limited circumstances. It occurs in the heat of the momment. Society needs to be very careful about the types of things they might try to impose in an effort to regulate that momment...

Again, presently our system (the United States at least) is set up more like I would have it than you. A person retains the right and the power to protect themselves. If enough of society thinks it's wrong to have it this way, they can ammend the constitution and make it perfectly clear.

1343. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 11:39:59 AM

I have to go now... this is taking up too much time.

1344. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 12:40:55 PM

You're saying people don't have rights
Yes.
... or the only right they have is 'marriage of the soul'... whatever that means.

I never said that and have no idea what it means either. I simply said that the only universal human practice is some form of marriage. And that has nothing to do with rights.

Individuals have no other rights. Only society has rights.

No, individuals do not have rights, in my view. Chinese people don't--they don't even have the right to have children as they see fit. Soviet citizens didn't. Saudi women don't. People who live in the libertarian fantasy of a state of nature wouldn't. "Rights" are defined by a polity. The Romantic notion that we are imbued with them by a Creator is simply false. There's no creator to bestow rights. There are no rights. The "self-evident" line is always an indication that there is no logical or empirical support for a claim. If you have to say something is self-evident, it isn't.

Ask the people who have had property taken away because they were accused of a drug crime whether they have rights. Ask the people in Guantanamo about their rights. Or the Japanese WWII internees.

This is what you are saying. Based on what you seem to be stating you would therefore support slavery... because slaves can still "marry the soul"... they did for years.

The fact that there are no rights doesn't mean that I support any particular policy framework, and just compounds the lack of logical analysis that started this exchange.

And I have no idea where this "marry the soul" thing came from.

1345. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 12:44:07 PM

I believe that we are converging on those rights because they are tied to a set of natural facts about human nature and the likeliest best outcomes for social flourishing.

The idea of ending oppression and freeing individuals is a good one. But that's a policy decision, one that requires kleptocrats to give up their hoards. One indication of real progress would be the Iraqi government doing as Alaska does, distributing some oil revenue to every citizen. The Ukraine and maybe Lebanon are good harbingers. But I'm slow to believe in people willing to give up power.

1346. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 12:48:49 PM

The 10 amendments outline the individual rights the people have in spite of what government (society's representative) may want to do... even over time.

This is actually not so. It defined the limits within which the federal government could act. The states, for example, were not bound by the amendments that begin "Congress shall not." The 14th amendment gave these rights to people, denying the states ability to infringe them.

The second amendment is in fact granted to the people. But mostly the bill of rights was a statement of states' rights, not citizen rights. You can see that explicitly in the 10th.

1347. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 12:50:43 PM

The right not to be totured belongs in a differnt box than the right to defend yourself.

Why? Aren't rights rights?

1348. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 1:21:28 PM

Message # 1347

Let me take this tact since you insist that they are the same.

Why is the restrictions that popular types of gun-control place on citizens not constitute a repression of their right to defend themselves. There are people what will suffer undue harm because of such controls (more people in fact than would be helped by those controls).

1349. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 1:25:46 PM

Message # 1346

I don't think this is true. Look at wikipedia's entry for the bill of rights in the butter bar under 'controversy'

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution was originally controversial. The idea was that the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, and as such needed an addition to ensure such protection. However, many Americans at the time opposed the bill of rights: If such a bill was created, many people feared that this would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. In other words, a list of rights would be the only rights one had, and if they were interpreted narrowly, the existence of such a bill of rights could effectively constrain the liberty of the people instead of ensuring it.

And you can contiue to read Alexander Hamilton's quote.

The bill of rights is about individual rights... not state's rights.

1350. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 1:26:39 PM

Message # 1344

I don't know where the marriage of the soul stuff came earlier... my vision must be blurred.

I told you I should be working... so I've been sloppy all morning... sorry

1351. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 1:31:35 PM

Message # 1344

You ask most people on the street if the bill of rights is for them or for the state, and they're going to say it's about "their" rights.

There are no rights.

what?!!... the constitution acknowelges these rights... I don't know how you can even say their 'are no rights'

The "self-evident" line is always an indication that there is no logical or empirical support for a claim. If you have to say something is self-evident, it isn't.

Ask the people who have had property taken away because they were accused of a drug crime whether they have rights. Ask the people in Guantanamo about their rights. Or the Japanese WWII internees.

A precident for our government violating our rights in the past doesn't invalidate our rights... it just means that the government fucked up

If anything they drive home the point that we shouldn't put our entire trust in our government to do the right thing. Even more reason to not give up our rights.

1352. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 1:34:21 PM

Why is the restrictions that popular types of gun-control place on citizens not constitute a repression of their right to defend themselves. There are people what will suffer undue harm because of such controls (more people in fact than would be helped by those controls)

If there are such things as rights, then they're absolute. You don't get to stack them up and claim that this one trumps that one. That's one reason I object so strenuously to libertarians. They claim that property rights trump all other rights, arbitrarily.

1353. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 1:36:32 PM

The bill of rights is about individual rights... not state's rights.


So what was the fourteenth amendment about? And why does it say "Congress shall not abridge"? And what's the deal with States mention in the 10th? You're simply wrong here. The Civil War was fought over the issue of individual versus states rights.

1354. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 1:45:28 PM

You ask most people on the street if the bill of rights is for them or for the state, and they're going to say it's about "their" rights.

The fourteenth amendment extended those rights to them, so they're correct. But that's not what the framers intended. They intended to preserve slavery, and you couldn't really have both individual rights and slavery.

what?!!... the constitution acknowelges these rights... I don't know how you can even say their 'are no rights'

Yes, the constitution calls a collection of protections "rights" but those "rights" are not god-given, not self-evident, not universal. They are a series of limitations on what the federal government can do. They are policy decisions. The idea of "rights" is a selling point that is clearly false to fact.

A precident for our government violating our rights in the past doesn't invalidate our rights... it just means that the government fucked up.

The government defines those "rights," granting them and taking them away at will. If they were really inalienable and self-evident, then they couldn't take them away.

If anything they drive home the point that we shouldn't put our entire trust in our government to do the right thing. Even more reason to not give up our rights.

The source of these "rights" is the government. The notion that they exist inherently is a Romantic myth--else you'd have Saudi women driving cars and Rumsfeld in jail for violating the rights of several thousand people.

1355. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2005 1:56:35 PM

An item from The Economist. A bit long, but most of the site is subscription.

Guns in the office are perhaps a bad idea. But what about the car park?

IN MISSISSIPPI, the law is clear. If businesses want to keep concealed weapons off their property, they must put up a sign stating that “Carrying of a pistol or revolver is prohibited”. Vistors must also be able to read the sign from 10 feet away. If they can't, they can bring their guns in.

Other states also allow companies to ban guns from their premises. But what about car parks? Lawmakers in Oklahoma are feeling anxious. Banning guns in the office, they say, is all very well. But what about the poor fellows who want to go hunting straight after work?

.....

The debate is less frivolous than it sounds. Last month a newly fired employee of International Paper in Michigan apparently stormed back to his car, fetched his gun, and is now charged with murder. There are dozens of workplace shootings each year, sometimes with weapons retrieved from cars. Essentially, the second-amendment right to bear arms clashes with employers' rights to keep the workplace safe.

Gun nuts despise workplace bans. Erich Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, thinks people should boycott businesses that post no-gun signs—and that the signs merely make the businesses targets, anyway. Some second-amendment enthusiasts even argue that employers could be liable for banning guns in the workplace. What if there is a shootout and a worker, dutifully obeying company rules, cannot defend himself? Nonsense, scoff workplace-safety experts (not to mention insurance companies).

The brouhaha is unlikely to die down, especially in the 35 states that allow people to carry concealed weapons. Utah's Supreme Court only recently ruled that, despite a law allowing licence-holders to carry concealed weapons “without restriction”, employers can still ban guns at work. Now other fronts are opening up. Should guns be allowed on public university campuses? Or in restaurants? (Lawmakers in Georgia are circulating a bill to allow them there, in case the food's unsatisfactory.)

The entire debate may be moot, of course. Some people will do as they please, since in practice employers rarely rummage through workers' gear, or their locked cars. Just don't go out hunting with the boss straight after work.

1356. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:04:01 PM

I've wondered about this ever since I noticed the "no guns allowed" sign at the local post office. Couldn't we pull off a de facto gun ban in this country by not allowing them in office and commercial establishments?

1357. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:04:05 PM

Message # 1255

Why are you using a represive society like Saudi Arabia as evidence that there no such thing as rights?

The government defines those "rights," granting them and taking them away at will. If they were really inalienable and self-evident, then they couldn't take them away.

No... you have it backwards. The people identified the powers of the government. This is fundamental to the US system. Your failure to understand this fact is disheartening.

Message # 1353

So what was the fourteenth amendment about? And why does it say "Congress shall not abridge"? And what's the deal with States mention in the 10th? You're simply wrong here. The Civil War was fought over the issue of individual versus states rights.

The bill of rights being the orginal 10.

However look at the 10th

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

All this is that the powers of the federal government are restricted to those granted to it. It isn't about state's power over people...

1358. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:04:15 PM

The 14th ammendment

"Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

1359. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:05:32 PM

So what do you propose that the 14th implies that means that I can't have a gun... or that I don't have a right to self defense?

1360. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:08:11 PM

Message # 1352

"If there are such things as rights, then they're absolute. You don't get to stack them up and claim that this one trumps that one. That's one reason I object so strenuously to libertarians. They claim that property rights trump all other rights, arbitrarily."

The first problem is that I'm not a pure blooded libertarian.

The second problem is you seem to be saying that the 'right to safety' trumps my 'right to defend myself'

1361. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:09:57 PM

Why are you using a represive society like Saudi Arabia as evidence that there no such thing as rights?

Because Saudis are people too, and they don't have these rights you're talking about. The government hasn't granted them such rights. Therefore the things you're calling rights are not inalienable, not god-given, not self-evident.

On the Bill of Rights, I would like you to answer my questions. What does the fourteenth amendment mean? What is "States" doing in the 10th? How was slavery possible if individuals had rights?

1362. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:09:57 PM

Message # 1356

I've wondered about this ever since I noticed the "no guns allowed" sign at the local post office. Couldn't we pull off a de facto gun ban in this country by not allowing them in office and commercial establishments?

It'd be the functional equivalent of "no negros" signs.

1363. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:12:20 PM

Message # 1361

Welcome to the United States... where we recognize the rights that opprsessive governments do not.

I do not buy the idea that the fact that there is a repressive gov't out there it somehow voids my rights or the concept of rights.

You claim I make rediculous arguments.

1364. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2005 2:17:03 PM

jay

About marriage, not to nitpick, but to add something.

Yes, marriage is universal but not only marriage. All known societies, the anthropologists say, have ceremonies marking the rites of passage: birth, the coming of age, the joining of man and woman in union, and death. All known societies also have a supernatural explanation model for why we are he here and how we should conduct ourselves, ie. a religion.

1365. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:19:37 PM

Message # 1361

I suppose you've almost trapped me into saying that it's a living document or whatever.

We had it wrong when we allowed slavery. No ifs and buts about it.

However, the one thing I've got left is that we passed an ammendment to correct the mistakes of slavery... we didn't arbitrarily reinturpret the constitution to mean something it didn't.

After that I'm not a constitutional scholar. However... I do believe that if you rely on an interpretation that a layperson can't grasp, then that ain't the way it was meant to be.

Laypeople know what the 2nd ammendment means. It's only been the clever ones of late that try to assign extra meaning to it, or twist logic to mean something it doesn't.

1366. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:20:01 PM

So what do you propose that the 14th implies that means that I can't have a gun... or that I don't have a right to self defense?

No, I am simply saying that the bill of rights made a very limited grant of rights to people, and left it to the states to regulate the rights of people. That's what permitted slavery, among other things, to exist. Under the bill of rights, states could regulate free speech and religion. The Civil War (and much later, the civil rights acts) was all about the federal government enforcing citizen rights that were infringed by the states. The fourteenth amendment was necessary because people didn't have individual rights.

And, of course, the larger point is that these things you call rights are granted or taken by the state as it wills. The constitution and the bill of rights exist to make it difficult for the state to regulate citizen's lives--the founders recognized the fragility of citizen privileges.


The second problem is you seem to be saying that the 'right to safety' trumps my 'right to defend myself'

BTW, I didn't say you were a libertarian.

And, no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the policy regime associated with gun regulation does not stem from any god-given right. It stems from government action. Shouting about rights is a distraction from a discussion of the appropriate policy regime.

For example, I disagree with your idea that if you can carry in Montana you should be able to carry in New York City. It seems reasonable that there may different ways of treating weapons in a densely populated urban environment than in sparsely settled rural environment, just as traffic regulations are very different. But that disagreement is not about rights--it's about the approriate policy regime.

1367. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:20:52 PM

It'd be the functional equivalent of "no negros" signs.

Then why is it up in my post office?

1368. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:21:54 PM

All known societies, the anthropologists say, have ceremonies marking the rites of passage: birth, the coming of age, the joining of man and woman in union, and death. All known societies also have a supernatural explanation model for why we are he here and how we should conduct ourselves, ie. a religion.

Quite right. Thanks, although Europeans seem to be in the process of moving away from the supernatural.

1369. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:27:00 PM

Message # 1367

Because some dumbass actually thinks that a gun-weilding nutjob will see the sign and turn around.

1370. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:27:31 PM

I do not buy the idea that the fact that there is a repressive gov't out there it somehow voids my rights or the concept of rights.

I know that. But quite simply, you're wrong. You want rights to exist, but they don't. The notion simplifies arguments, serves as a trump card, just as calling in supernatural explanations serves as a trump card. But that doesn't make them true.

Laypeople know what the 2nd ammendment means. It's only been the clever ones of late that try to assign extra meaning to it, or twist logic to mean something it doesn't.

I happen to agree with you. But the clever ones you're talking about are Supreme Court justices who didn't have the cojones to say that the amendment says what it means. Instead they tried to permit a policy regime that they thought necessary at the time, rather than insisting on taking the constitution at its words. A mistake, in my view. They should have faced up to the fact that the right to bear arms in 20th century American society has to be infringed, and forced the nation to go through an amendment. Instead we've got a mess.

1371. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:28:51 PM

Because some dumbass actually thinks that a gun-weilding nutjob will see the sign and turn around.

The proximate reason is so they can arrest someone who is carrying a gun. But why is that sign legal, if it's the equivalent of banning black people from a lunch counter?

1372. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:32:05 PM

Message # 1366

For example, I disagree with your idea that if you can carry in Montana you should be able to carry in New York City. It seems reasonable that there may different ways of treating weapons in a densely populated urban environment than in sparsely settled rural environment, just as traffic regulations are very different. But that disagreement is not about rights--it's about the approriate policy regime.

Actually I only say that as the compromise in the face of national gun registration or gun licensing. I'm content to leave the system as it is. But, if we are going to give up privacy, then I expect a compromise to be offered. That'd be the one that I would go for.

No, I am simply saying that the bill of rights made a very limited grant of rights to people,

We're just in disagreement about this point. The Constitution does not grant us rights. We had those rights... we excercised those rights ridding ourselves of the monarchy. The concept of these reights predate the constitution in the form of the declaration of independence and the federalist papers.

1373. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 2:34:45 PM

Message # 1371

Because the 2nd ammendment explicitly states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That sign is technically unconstitutional.

One day this misudernstanding may get worked out. But like negros of yore... there is much prejudice against law-abiding people who might have a gun on their person...

1374. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:37:19 PM

But Saudis and Chinese and Russians don't have these rights? How can that be? How can they be inherent, self-evident, universal and not extant in so many places?

I know that Rousseau's and Locke's rhetoric makes those assertions, but they're simply wrong--rights are granted, not inherent, no matter how tightly you close your eyes and cross your fingers. There's no god to grant them, and they're only around as long as a government decides not to revoke them.

1375. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:38:32 PM

That sign is technically unconstitutional.

The US government has put up an unconsitutional sign?

1376. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 2:41:07 PM

Continuing the thought in 1374--

Moreover, the framers knew very well how easy it was for governments to take away privileges. The constitution is built to prevent these privileges from being taken away. It is actually a testament to the fact that what they call rights are fragile and ephemeral. And it hasn't always worked.

1377. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 3:11:35 PM

Message # 1374

There's no god to grant them, and they're only around as long as a government decides not to revoke them.

Although I have stated often enough that I am not a revolutionary sort... people keep forcing me to make these purely principled statements. So I although deep down I do have the convictions of the following statement, I am no where near feeling the need to excercise this conviction.

It's a two-way street, government can grant rights only so long as the people do not rise up against it. Even the powers of government have their limits, and at some point the people will rebel, and have rebelled. Our forefathers, in order to ensure that gov't never steps too far outside of it's cage, made sure our gun rights were preserved.

Now I predict people are going to jump up and down about resistance being futile and what have you... but you forced me to say it. It isn't the first thing I think about when I think about gun rights... but from listening to some of your respective visions about how things should be according to you, I'm beginning to appreciate the fore-fathers' wisdom.

Message # 1375

Gasp!!! This so totally invalidates everything I've said about rights... you are so right Jay!!!

All it does is illustrate that gov't takes whatever they can get... until you have nothing.

In the end... the US isn't perfect... but it's not like any other country has figured it out any better than us. Maybe we don't always follow through... but at least we have taken the stand on principle. No other society ever has... at least none before us have put down in principle the idea that the people grant government power, and not the other way around.

You can say I'm wrong, but too many other writers have said I'm right, so I'm sticking to it. You can wax philosophical all you want about what the meaning of "is" is... or any other semantical construct you want.

Break into my house one night and we'll see where the rubber hits the road.

1378. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 3:22:08 PM

You can say I'm wrong, but too many other writers have said I'm right, so I'm sticking to it.

What in particular are you talking about? The divine source of inalienable rights? Or the reason for the 14th amendment?

And lines like this Break into my house one night and we'll see where the rubber hits the road. aren't very reassuring about your interest in self defense.

1379. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 3:24:07 PM

Our forefathers, in order to ensure that gov't never steps too far outside of it's cage, made sure our gun rights were preserved.

You really believe this? That the well ordered militia they referred to were revolutionary troops prepared to depose a government that gets out of line?

1380. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 3:59:11 PM

Message # 1379

What in particular are you talking about? The divine source of inalienable rights? Or the reason for the 14th amendment?

In particular I am talking about the orgins of gov't power come from the people, rather than the gov't grants the people rights. It is the principle on which this nation was founded.

And lines like this Break into my house one night and we'll see where the rubber hits the road. aren't very reassuring about your interest in self defense.

I'm just illustrating that whether the gov't says I can do it or not... if you come into my home at night, univited, and I you do something to make me think you're there to hurt me (actually this will be assumed if it's night time and I didn't invite you in)... we'll find out if where the rubber meets the road... so to speak when it comes to my rights. I will defend myself... no matter what any of you guys have to say about the matter.

You really believe this? That the well ordered militia they referred to were revolutionary troops prepared to depose a government that gets out of line?

I beleive it because that's indeed what many of them wrote... have you ever read the federalist papers?

I can recognize that the last two comments were meant to bait me... so I reluctantly bit but that's the way you wanted the conversation to go... as predicted you jumped right into the "do you really beleive this... yadda yadda". I saw it all before it happened.

If we started hearding all the mislims together... what would you do? Would you fight... or submit to the governments' will? What if Bush really was a Nazi... and really started to jeopardize our future... would you sit back like a good German or run off to Canada... or would you do something to get your country back?

Since you so badly want to go to farfetchedland.

1381. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 4:29:41 PM

Actually... you don't even have to look at it that I personally revolt... but I can assure you there are a fair number of gun owners out there that seem to have the notion of a "line" out there, and if the gov't were to cross it, the gov't would have a problem on it's hand.

I can't say I have my finger on the pulse enough to tell you exactly where that line is... but even I know there is a line.

1382. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 4:43:33 PM

Nothing I've written has been meant to bait you. I was honestly surprised to read that you think the founding fathers want to give citizens guns so they could overthrow the goverment. They certainly didn't respond to citizen opposition in the cases of Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion. And the alien and sedition acts were certainly not movements by the people.

I was still more surprised by the last post. As you say, it's very farfetched--but I've said nothing farfetched. I've been surprised at ideas of yours that strike me as farfetched.

1383. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 5:24:09 PM

Well... you have me out of my element. We are arguing about fairly anscilary issues in my opinion... overthrowing a government is just not something I've really spent my time advocating with any fervor.

1384. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 7:28:21 PM

There's "a fair number of gun owners out there that seem to have the notion of a 'line' out there, and if the government were to cross it, the govt would have a problem on its hands."

IMHO, this is an example of why gun nuts are referred to as gun nuts and lumped in with people who refuse to pay their income taxes, move to the wilds of Idaho, home school their kids, and view most of the government and civilized society with great suspicion.

1385. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 7:38:26 PM

Again... I'm not the person to defend their point of view.

We're dealing with a lot of unspecified hypotheticals anyway. It's pretty hard to argue about this because we all have something different in mind when talking about them.

1386. iiibbb - 3/14/2005 7:46:51 PM

I'm not sure what today accomplished. The only thing I've managed to figure out is that Jay doesn't believe in fundamental rights... I do. It's obvious now that he and I are not being able to get passed that.

Just because a gov't takes a right away... doesn't mean it's not a right... I don't care what he says. All it means to me is that governments that ignore fundamental rights are in the wrong... Whether they have the power to impose their will or not, it doesn't make it right.

Obviously there is no point in pursuing further becasue lacking agreement on this fundamental point there's nothing to be gained by more in-depth arguments. To me it's the same sort of metaphysical argument argument about whether reality as we perceive it is the true reality.

Well... rights exist whether a governmental reality occludes our perception or the realization of these rights. It's still there.

1387. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 8:15:52 PM

Which ones are there? Right to food? A right to medical care? A right to property? A right to own guns? A right to attend a church? What are these fundamental rights, and why are they implemented in so many different ways across human societies? A right to privacy? A right to use a condom in exercising that privacy right, which wasn't true in CT in 1960 but became so in 1970? A right to abortion along the same line of reasoning?

I don't see how rights can be fundamental if we don't all agree on what's on the list.

Pelle--would you say that individual ownership rights of some kind are universal? I seem to recall the Inuit practiced community property. The right to own land is certainly not universal (which you may recall I believe to be the death knell for libertarianism), but the ownership of things you make or grow must be close to universal. The Dinka, for example, only have usufruct rights governed by clans. But they own their fishing spears, their cattle and the sorghum they grow.

1388. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 8:19:16 PM

Did fundamental rights exist before Locke and Rousseau? Doesn't it bother you even a little that such a small fraction of the human race over time and space has had rights? And if you want to move this discussion to Philosophy, I'd be happy to join you. As you say, this is not fundamentally a guns issue, other than my belief that it's a cheap argument--and even though I agree with you that the Constitution permits firearms ownership.

1389. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 8:21:44 PM

IMO, carring a gun is hardly a fundamental right.

1390. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 8:23:12 PM

It certainly is a constitutional right.

1391. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 8:26:09 PM

I wasn't aware that the issue has ever been decided or defined by the Supreme Court. I thought there was less than unanimity on the issue.

Certainly if it's a constitutional right it's one that's subject to considerable regulation.

1392. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 8:31:10 PM

If I changed my statement above from "carrying a gun" to carrying a "handgun" is not a fundamental or constitutional right would you still disagree? That is are you saying the Constitution guarantees the right to carry a handgun?

1393. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 8:46:01 PM

I think it does. I think the Court was wrong when it permitted the banning of sawed off shotguns. But the current line is that all guns can be regulated, based on the well-ordered militia phrase. Personally I would like to ban handguns and handgun ammo, but believe that would require a constitutional amendment, and would take generations to be effective because as iiibbb point out some people will still acquire guns even if they have to go on to a black market. Process matters a great deal in our system, and I don't like to see it circumvented.

Lots of interesting questions get raised if you take the 2nd amendment literally. It would seem, for example, to make it unconstiutional to not allow someone to carry a gun onto a plane. Or, as iiibbb claimed, to not allow people to carry a gun into a post office. A number of those interesting questions arise because of how much different the world is now than it was in the 18th century.

If the Court had had the guts to do so then, we'd have had an amendment to the constitution permitting weapon regulations, if only to prevent people from owning nukes and bazookas--a prohibition of which looks pretty unconstitutional to me.

The constitutionality discussion is distinct from the policy discussion. It's hard to preserve that distinction because so many people feel so strongly aboutit that they argue from their conclusions backward.

1394. Marc-Albert - 3/14/2005 9:15:44 PM

I agree with you that the Constitution permits firearms ownership.

But your Constitution also permited slave ownership, right?

1395. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 9:24:50 PM

Well, I can't argue with you because I'm not familiar with the legal arguments on the meaining of the second amendment. As you mentioned, a number of restrictions on the right to bear arms seem to have been accepted or not successfully challenged. There are limitations, both on "bearing" arms and on the arms that may be borne. It seems to me that common sense and the public necessity or public interest have been and are a legitimate basis for regulating the type of arms the people may bear as well as the circumstances and manner in which they may bear them--e.g. not on planes, not in court houses or schools or churches, etc., and not concealed. Also, it strikes me as reasonable and legally sustainable not to allow the "people" to accumulate caches of hand grenades, machine guns, field artillery, land mines, tanks, biological or chemical weapons, etc., for whatever purpose. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the 2nd Amendment. But, aside from judges like Scalia, the courts usually can be relied on to come up with decisions that don't depart far from common sense and practicality under current circumstances.

1396. wonkers2 - 3/14/2005 9:30:57 PM

The Supreme Court tends to reach for new interpretations under the press of circumstances and changing public opinion such as in the area of civil rights when blacks began to demand recognition of their rights. Similarly, the 9th amendment has been the basis of new rights demanded by women and homosexuals [based on a right to "privacy" which is not mentioned in the constitution].

1397. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 10:12:17 PM

But your Constitution also permited slave ownership, right? Slavery was made unconstitutional by the 14th amenedment.

1398. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 10:15:15 PM

Also, it strikes me as reasonable and legally sustainable not to allow the "people" to accumulate caches of hand grenades, machine guns, field artillery, land mines, tanks, biological or chemical weapons, etc., for whatever purpose. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the 2nd Amendment. But, aside from judges like Scalia, the courts usually can be relied on to come up with decisions that don't depart far from common sense and practicality under current circumstances.


Sure. In the first case it seemed like a good idea to get sawed off shotguns out of the hands of gangsters. But as I said earlier, process matters. By not suffering through the amendment process gun regulation is a mess, a hodgepodge of rules without a sound constitutional justification. And it enables arguments like the one iiibbb makes.

1399. jayackroyd - 3/14/2005 10:25:43 PM

The Supreme Court tends to reach for new interpretations under the press of circumstances and changing public opinion such as in the area of civil rights when blacks began to demand recognition of their rights. Similarly, the 9th amendment has been the basis of new rights demanded by women and homosexuals [based on a right to "privacy" which is not mentioned in the constitution].

Civil rights consisted of enforcing the law and adhering to the 14th amendment. I think Roe v Wade has proven to be a mistake. It was done too quickly, not allowing time for legislation, and not being defined as most constitutional law is defined, in small stages. Griswold started the process, and only 9 years later new national policy had been imposed by the court.

As you say, this was done in response to a pressing social issue that that reflected the opinion of a majority of people. And it saved lives. But this would not be the divisive issue it has become if the process had proceeded more slowly. And now technology is threatening to make Roe obsolete.

1400. wonkers2 - 3/15/2005 12:49:20 AM

You sound more and more like Scalia.

The 14th amendment meant "separate but equal" until Brown v. Board of Education. And, IMO, Roe was overdue. Process does matter, but so do results. And the constitution should be interpreted in light of current knowledge and circumstances, not the circumstances that prevailed when it was written. And usually the results from Supreme Court decisions have resulted in progress, for women, for minorities, for the economy. The court rarely rolls the clock of progress back (major exception--capital punishment.)

1401. wonkers2 - 3/15/2005 12:59:22 AM

As I suggested in a previous post, when the 2nd amendment was written we were a rural, agrarian country when protection from Indians and wild animals and hunting for food was a necessity for many and when our goverment was in its formative stage with the memory of British tyranny fresh in everyone's mind. Whe should be able to interpret the 2nd amendment to permit laws needed in our urban society where every state has a National Guard and militias are no more. The thought of people bearing arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical state has no practical meaning in today's world.

1402. Macnas - 3/15/2005 3:49:33 AM

Holy shit, I come back here after a few hours, and the debate has turned downright metaphysical.

1403. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 5:23:49 AM

Sorry Macnas. Entirely my fault. I dislike the absolutist "It's my right and I'm going to exercise it" argument.

Wonkers I agree with both policy results, but I dislike the use of the Supreme Court, sticking with guns, writing an opinion that is in pretty clear direct opposition to the words in the Constitution. I agree that we need to change as times change, and that the widespread distribution of guns, especially hand guns makes little sense. But the constitution was designed with change in mind, and if court had refused to act, in my opinion we would have changed the constitution long ago, and settled the issue.

1404. alistairconnor - 3/15/2005 6:06:38 AM

I fall between the two camps on "rights" (in no-man's-land between the trenches, as it were)

The idea that there is a fundamental human right to defend oneself with firearms scares the crap out of me (Euro-wimp that I am).

However I do believe, as justears suggest, that it is an obligation of humanity to work towards defining a set of basic human rights, and to advance pragmatically towards implementing them as widely as possible.

In fact, if you look at the places where human rights are respected the least, then (Saudi Arabia notwithstanding), you find that they are countries where armed men are effectively free to exercise their right to defend themselves without government interference.

1405. Magoseph - 3/15/2005 6:30:19 AM

(Euro-wimp that I am).

I was one of the Euro-wimp types until I found myself in a house situated on a small mountain overlooking a valley. The nearest houses were some distance away and obscured by forest. The area was a significant marijuana grower’s territory. Everyone in this area was armed to the teeth. I had two small children, my husband traveled, and I was alone in this location for weeks at a time. My husband felt that we had to have a good watchdog and a shotgun in this house and so did I.

1406. Macnas - 3/15/2005 6:33:48 AM

Mago, you should write a book girl.

1407. alistairconnor - 3/15/2005 6:47:43 AM

Several books.
I want to read your book about growing up in Provence too.

1408. Magoseph - 3/15/2005 7:02:35 AM

Frankly, I don’t know if you two are putting me on or are serious, but I will tell you that once when I was talking to my brother and bemoaning my fate in being stuck on top of this hill with only the fog settling down in the valley to look at, he said—Well, at least you had an interesting life. Yeah, right, small consolation now, I answered.

1409. wonkers2 - 3/15/2005 7:07:28 AM

HANDGUN ALERT!!!

GUN GOES OFF IN CLASS

A .45 caliber pistol in a book bag discharged in an elementary school classroom Monday, and the second-grader who brought it was shot in the and, police said. They didn't know why the gun went off.

The 7-year-old's mother said she didn't know where the weapon came from.

Columbus, Ohio

Reported in the Detroit Free press 3-15-05

1410. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 7:32:02 AM

I thought about it overnight Jay.

You're correct that I had not distilled what the fundamental right is down far enough. Every living thing has a fundamental right to try to achieve all the other "rights" we've mentioned in here yesterday... but it really ends at the right to try.

Gun ownership still fits this fundamental right because in today's world, a gun can be the effective tool in "trying" to defend yourself.

Even in the face of oppressive governments, the oppressed still have the right to "try" to install a government more favorable to their plights.

So there's your fundamental right. I think most 'rights' we have mentioned fall under its umbrella.

1411. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 7:34:31 AM

The right to try satisfies all your philosophical points as well.

1412. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 7:39:18 AM

Most of you keep ignoring the fact that a handgun is more appropriate than a rifle or shotgun in a variety of self defense situations.

- Rifles are many times more powerful than handguns.
- Rifles have many times the lethal range.
- Shotguns can be imprecise which can jeopardize bystanders.
- Rifles and Shotguns are unwieldy in confined areas such as home (or behind counters where convenience store people may be working).
- If handguns were not the appropriate tool, the police would not be carrying them.

1413. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 7:48:34 AM

Clerk kills knife-wielding robber

Homeowner holds intruder at gunpoint

Man (79) protects sister from home intruder

Storeowner shoots and kills burgler under gunpoint - Detroit Wonkers

Man fights off armed home invasion


Note... most of these defenses were with handguns... and most the perpetrator did not die.

1414. thoughtful - 3/15/2005 8:47:29 AM

Many uses for a hand gun there...the case with the 79-year-old ended up whacking the perp in the head with the butt of the gun!

I also found this comment interesting:

"It's completely legal. It's their right to do that. The police can't be everywhere at one time," said Lt. Spingola.

1415. Marc-Albert - 3/15/2005 9:14:54 AM

The Man fights off armed home invasion story is not very convincing.

The house guest who opened fire against two men tampering with a chained motocycle outside his host's house ended up with "a large puncture wound on his lower left back" because he prefered to confront the thugs with his semi-automatic pistol rather than stay sefely inside the house and call the police.

1416. Marc-Albert - 3/15/2005 9:18:17 AM

And for each store owner/attendant who shoot and kill armed robber, you probably have 5 who are shot and killed by armed robbers.

1417. thoughtful - 3/15/2005 9:30:47 AM

M-A, perhaps you didn't read this part...

Moments later the two men tried to break through the back door. Baldrica Sr. grabbed a semi-automatic pistol from his bedroom. He saw one of the suspects pointing a small handgun at him.



The article is poorly written and is unclear where/when the puncture wound came from, but the perps tried to break into the house and were armed.

1418. wonkers2 - 3/15/2005 10:22:32 AM

iiibbb, There's one small difference between the mulitple examples you site and the occasional ones I cite. Mine come from my own morning paper. Yours come from pro-gun sites which collect them and disseminate them. Also, mine are current, and I notice many of yours are not.

1419. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 10:29:06 AM

Message # 1316

Prove it Marc. You can't come in here and say baseless stuff like this. Guns are used in self defense between several 800,000 and 2 million times per year. This is far larger that successful violent criminal acts which are around 200,000/yr.

Lets look at your posting record in the recent past. First you start off with personal attacks. Then you heckle about sophisms. Now you're just making unfounded assertations.

What grade are you in?

1420. Marc-Albert - 3/15/2005 4:33:37 PM

Regarding your 800,000 to 2,000,000 Self-Defense Gun Use:

"Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."

David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates -

1421. Marc-Albert - 3/15/2005 4:45:23 PM

I like this bit of "expertise":

Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense - concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians."

Geez. Obviously, by restricting gun ownership, we're being counter-productive.

Advice to Canadian dummies from a south-of-the-border expert:

Increase you civilian (hand)gun ownership rate, you'll decrease your already low violent crime rate to almost nothing.

1422. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 5:22:35 PM

Did Canada's violent crime rate change when they imposed their gun registration program? Was the only effect to cost Canada more than 1 Billion for no apparent benefit?

The question isn't whether our culture is more violent... the question is whether gun control would change this. That I doubt you can show.

Your source that cricizes overestimates is directed at all 14 independently conducted studies? That's one heck of a refutation. These include surveys by Time/CNN, and the LA Times who you would tend to think wouldn't go out of their way to overestimate DGU's.

1423. Marc-Albert - 3/15/2005 6:27:04 PM

The Case of the Jaguar with the Fancy Wheels

DALLAS (AP) -- A gunman armed with an assault rifle squeezed through the sunroof of a Jaguar early Tuesday [this morning] and opened fire on another moving vehicle, killing three men and critically wounding a fourth, police said.

Authorities were searching for the gunman and two others who may have been riding in the light-colored Jaguar with fancy wheels, police said.

University Park police Capt. Robert Brown said the shooting may have stemmed from a scuffle at a bar earlier in the evening. He said the shooter apparently waited for the other party to leave the bar, and then followed in the Jaguar. The shooting occurred around 2 a.m. on a highway frontage road near the Southern Methodist University campus, police said.

Apparently, there was a dispute on the dance floor in which somebody got hit or punched,'' said Mike Turiace, who was tending bar at Jack's Pub & Volley Ball club.

1424. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 7:21:46 PM

You can't come in here and say baseless stuff like this. Guns are used in self defense between several 800,000 and 2 million times per year.

The studies don't say "per year." Nine of them say "ever." Two say five years. Two say n/a. One says 1yr/2yrs/ever, which implies ever. I'm afraid you're going to have to stop citing that statistic.

1425. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 7:33:46 PM

The 800,000 figure is also exaggerated. There are three studies that report under that number, and two of those fall in the "ever" category. The methodology is also kinda suspect when you realize that the organizations at the top of the columns did not produce the number of defensive events. That's inferred by the authors from when guns were used. The animals count row and the military/police count row is also a little problematic. This would, for example, include licensed security service events in the raw numbers of each study (or so I infer from the row headings).

And the numbers are wildly variable--the authors infer 777,153 and 1,621,377 events, ever, from polls two years apart done by Gallup. You'd expect that if the inferential model was flawed.

The two inferred numbers based on the Gallup studies are also interesting in that the big number excluded law enforcement and military events while the smaller number included them.

IOW, it's clear from looking at this table that the minimum number of private citizens who used a hand gun defensively, ever, is substantially less than the 777,153 that's cited. And way, way less on an annual basis.

1426. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 7:38:06 PM

Finally, it's interesting that the authors didn't include information to allow you to annualize the result. You need average years of gun ownership to do that. As iiibbb's use of "annual" indicates, it's hard to make comparisons of handgun deaths that do not result from defensive events without annualize the defensive events. The fact that we don't see annualized numbers is telling.

I'm afraid this smells like propaganda rather than scholarship--like that guy who claimed there were no guns to speak of in 18th century America.

iiibbb, have there been more recent studies? Crime rates have fallen dramatically, as have, gun crimes.

1427. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 8:24:28 PM

100,000 per year is still more than the gun crimes.

Someone still hasn't explained why Canada, which is very restrictive about handguns, has more crimes committed per handgun, than the US, which is not restrictive.

1428. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 8:25:13 PM

You still must show that gun control prevents crime, and the NAS report showed that there is no correlation between gun restrictions and lower crime.

1429. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 8:41:49 PM

First, I note the last bullet point:

Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack.

Second, so you won't be citing that other inflated figure anymore? You have to realize that this kind of error affects the credibility of your other evidence citiations.

Third, why is the burden of proof on the person who believes eliminating guns would reduce gun crime? It seems to me that the burden is on you to show the counter-intuitive result that more guns means less gun crime. There's plenty of international counter-evidence to contrary.

1430. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 8:43:00 PM

Looking for organizations on the other side of this issue in the butterbar, I stumble across this from the ACLU:

U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please.

which is what I was saying earlier.

1431. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 8:45:54 PM

I find this:

Guns are rarely useful for self-defense. They only
increase the risk of death and injury and create a
false sense of security. A gun kept in the home is 4
times more likely to be involved in an unintentional
shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal
assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely
to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to
be used in self-defense.
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; et. al. “Injuries and Deaths Due
to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma 1998 vol. 45 p.263.

1432. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 8:48:53 PM

The short answer is that I didn't believe the statstics you cited before about 800K-2Million defense events annually. I do appreciate your linking the supporting table,so we could straighten that out. That table implies the number of report annual self-defense events by private citizens could easily be 20-30 thousand, or less.

I'm just as suspicious of your 100,000 number, as is the document you cite.

1433. jayackroyd - 3/15/2005 8:53:16 PM

Someone still hasn't explained why Canada, which is very restrictive about handguns, has more crimes committed per handgun, than the US, which is not restrictive.

Why is that a relevant statistic? Japan probably has a very high rate of crimes per hand gun--because they just don't have many handguns. But the country also has a very low crime rate, and a very low homicide rate.

1434. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 9:04:10 PM

I don't yet support your contention it's inflated. Apparently there is a lot of disagreement about the way various surveys are conducted. I don't know which method is 'right'... it is statistics after all. Links to the discussion of the debate at the bottom

1435. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 9:09:59 PM

Why is that a relevant statistic? Japan probably has a very high rate of crimes per hand gun--because they just don't have many handguns. But the country also has a very low crime rate, and a very low homicide rate.

It's relevant because Canada's system is apt to be more like ours. If they're gun control is unable to actually control the handguns they have, then how's it going to work in the US. Japan has been controlling private ownership since forever. Not only that there are a number of cultural differences that make it a comparison of apples to oranges.

At least with Canada vs. the US the comparison is more like an apple to a pear.

1436. iiibbb - 3/15/2005 11:33:46 PM

I'll tell you one thing. If I do succumb to Jay's view of the world. Where there are no rights... where society too willingly puts limits on personal freedom.

It tends to incline me to stop giving a crap about abortion rights... about gay rights... In the end I might as well vote republican because ultimately I will probably benefit the most personally, and I will get to keep my guns.

It's a selfish way to go I know. Normally, I would want to do the right thing and allow people to choose how to live their own lives... but if it turns out they don't respect the rights I feel are important then why should I care about them?

I guess compromise is dead.

1437. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 1:42:50 AM

Let's try to separate out these issues. First, the abstract one of whether rights exist. If you'd try to drop your outrage at my saying this and just read what I have to say we may be able to get past it.

The idea of natural rights was one that was used by Rousseau, Locke, Mill to describe a new way of thinking about the role of government and the citizens of that government. It was a claim, as you have said, that government exists to serve the people, not vice versa. This was a new idea. The government in France in 1700 didn't exist to serve the people. The people served the King, with different kinds of responsibilities depending on their social rank.

The natural rights construct was a method that these guys used to convey this new idea. It's like John Rawls' veil of ignorance. It's a way to explain something about the relation of the state's access to individual resources and its disposition of them. Because Rawls persuades you that a flatter income distribution makes sense with his veil of ignorance contruct doesn't make the veil of ignorance exist.

But because they are a construct, any set of rights you want to list is going to be, ultimately, arbitrary and certainly can't stem from god. The Founding Fathers among other things permitted slavery, protected gun ownership, permitted state but not federal regulation of religion. That set of protected privileges held by the citizenry goes by the shorthand word "rights."

The fact that the list changes over time--slaves obtain citizen rights, women get the right to vote, descendents of slaves get the actual right to vote everywhere, women acquire a right to abortion, income tax is permitted to intefere with property rights and, now, inevitably in my view, homosexual americans will be granted some rights--illustrates the point that these rights aren't natural, aren't god given, but depend on the state of the polity even in those few states organized in this way.

You can say that it is manifestly clear that this is the best way to organize a government--restricting the government from certain activities under any circumstances-- and I would agree with you. I'd agree still more strongly if the restrictions were actually effective. However, again we see that the state, in practice, intrudes upon those rights periodically, even in those few states that are organized that way.

Saying something is god-given, self-evident and inalienable doesn't make it so. Abortion rights, for example, are none of those things. Nor was the right to purchase, sell and breed other Americans.

1438. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 1:46:51 AM

Next, let's talk about compromise. In terms of policy prescriptions, I don't think we're far apart. I'd like to see more effort made in restricting the use of the gun to the owner. And I disagree that New York City should have to abide by Montana's carry laws, or vice versa. (I'd note in passing that you'd lose your shit if I proposed that the state with the most restrictive laws should govern all the states--that if a citzen of Massachusetts is denied a gun except under special circumstances, the same should hold for everone. I don't see why the least restrictive state should govern all states.)

But other than these two issues, I don't think we differ much on what are realistic policies in a country with a large number of people who want to own guns.

1439. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 2:00:04 AM

On the justifications for your position aside from the rights argument, I think you have engaged in the presentation of data that has not been gathered in a scholarly fashion but in an advocacy fashion, and, in some cases, in the depth of your feeling, an inaccurate fashion.

For me the justification for the policy decisions I discussed in previous message is that the way the country is now does not permit extremely restrictive measures. If I were active in the anti-gun community, I'd point out things like the fact that 10-20 kids killed a year was considered reason enough to require auto manufacturers to make it possible to open a trunk from the inside. The number of children killed by guns is a much larger number than that. It should be possible to persuade the general populace that if we're worried about a consumer product feature that kills less than a couple of dozen kids a year, we should worry quite a bit more about a product with features that kills a couple orders of magnitude more kids than that.

We could have blamed the parents for handling their cars irresponsibly around children, but instead we tried to protect children from irresponsible parents. Same with child-proof drug caps.

But, no, you will not persuade me that the United States is a safer place because it has more guns per capita than Japan. You'll not persuade me that Florida is a safer state to live in than Massachusetts. I was just looking at pictures of a cousin in law who lives in Florida, has three kids and walks around with a Glock all the time. I found it distressing to see a man holding up a four year old with a holstered gun at his side. I can't possibly see how he and his family are safer because he routinely carries around a loaded gun.

So there is a lack of clash in our view of the justifications. I've come to believe that your statistics and studies are unreliable, especially given that the most dramatic number has proven to be dramatically overstated. I worry about accidents and crimes of passion. You worry about household break-ins. That's not something we're going to get past, but I do think you should re-examine your source data.

1440. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 2:37:05 AM

1435

My question was why it was relevant at all. I was using Japan as a polar case. You'd expect societies with few guns to have high rates of crime per gun, just by arithmetic. That's not a measure of guns causing or preventing crime. It's just the number of crimes divided by the number of guns.

1441. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2005 5:45:39 AM

Fine posts on natural rights, jay.

1442. wonkers2 - 3/16/2005 7:54:34 AM

Yes.

1443. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 8:20:05 AM

Saying something is god-given, self-evident and inalienable doesn't make it so. Abortion rights, for example, are none of those things. Nor was the right to purchase, sell and breed other Americans.

This is the rub... I'll agree that there are a number of rights that may not be natural just because we say so. However... I still believe there is a limited set of basic rights that are there, and they are in fact there just because we say so. We're back to the 'is reality really reality' issue. You're saying that because someone can create a gov't that occludes certain rights that they don't exist anymore.

I saw a show once about the way infants perceive the world. If you show them a toy they are interested in it... if you take it away it's as if it doesn't exist. You bring it back and they're like WOW!!!. That's why they're so into peek-a-boo.

If you put "your" money into the bank. Does it disappear. If the bank makes a mistake does it mean it wasn't "your" money?

Do you love your wife? Prove it. You might say you love her... but maybe I don't believe you. I can't see it... maybe I won't even acknowledge it... does that mean it goes away?

1444. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 8:23:48 AM

Message # 1439

Again... I've said before the only way I would ask that NY abide by Montana's carry laws is if a National Registration or National Licensing system were pushed. People want to 'treat guns like cars'... well let's do it.

Otherwise I'm content to leave the system state-dependent. I just won't move to NY or San Francisco

I've often said just to leave it to the states. I only talk about national carry in the face of national registration and licensing.

1445. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 8:38:11 AM

Message # 1439

On the justifications for your position aside from the rights argument, I think you have engaged in the presentation of data that has not been gathered in a scholarly fashion but in an advocacy fashion, and, in some cases, in the depth of your feeling, an inaccurate fashion.

At least I've been quite up front about my sources... which is more than others can say. If you've looked, then you will know how impossible it is to find reliable, scholarly information about this subject. Everyone writing anything about it is pushing one viewpoint or another.

I fucking hate social "scientists".

So there is a lack of clash in our view of the justifications. I've come to believe that your statistics and studies are unreliable, especially given that the most dramatic number has proven to be dramatically overstated. I worry about accidents and crimes of passion. You worry about household break-ins. That's not something we're going to get past, but I do think you should re-examine your source data.

So you're left with ignore it all and base everything on conjecture, or you try to look at it all and take it with a grain of salt.

So I don't appologize about my sources... I link them... people can make of them what they will. You can ignore a entire body of information because you've hit a hole in one part of it if you like... but if that's the case we'll never get anywhere because all scientific studies are flawed, and there are many reasons why the true numbers may be unknowable.

In light of all the statistics, I will still base the core of my argument on the so-called manifesto.

I will still look to the day I got robbed and no police were around or available.

I will still look to the things that happened in Miami after Hurricane Andrew

I will still look to the hurricane evacuation when the government didn't have things under control for better than half a day when I was living in a bad neighborhood.

I will still look to the LA riots.

I will still look to the Atlanta riots.

and now I will look to the fact that if I really want to keep this right that I'm going to have to become an issue-voter rather than a pricipled one (much to my chagrin I might add).

1446. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 8:59:31 AM

Trample on one right... and you trample them all. Any time you fail to strive for the higher ground of liberty you make Jay's vision correct. Rights become transient... they become vague concepts and intelectual arguments.

He's a magicians... with a wave of his hand **poof**... there went your 'right' that wasn't... or was it. Maybe it's just in his pocket and he just wants you to think it's gone.

1447. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 9:00:43 AM

If you accept that it's gone... he gets to walk away with it and you might have trouble getting it back.

1448. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:03:45 AM

I still believe there is a limited set of basic rights that are there, and they are in fact there just because we say so.

If all states or all individuals agreed on this limited set, I'd agree. But they don't. The "we" you're talking about is really you and people who agree with you on that set of rights.

We're back to the 'is reality really reality' issue.

We're not actually. Claiming that this is all solipsism is ducking the issue completely. You're left with a very small number of states that have existed for a very short period of time that change the list of rights over time and episodically violate those rights. Reality is simply not consistent with these rights really existing as something other than a metaphor.

1449. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:16:12 AM

At least I've been quite up front about my sources... which is more than others can say. If you've looked, then you will know how impossible it is to find reliable, scholarly information about this subject.

Yes, I agree on both scores, and I do appreciate the effort you've gone to, providing advocates on both sides of the issue. And I have always thought the annual claim was an honest mistake--that the study you cited presented the data dishonestly hoping to lead to precisely that misinterpretation. And, yes, I have looked and I don't find any of the analyses persuasive. Everywhere I look there seems to be an agenda rather than interest in figuring out what is really going on.

I will look to the fact that if I really want to keep this right that I'm going to have to become an issue-voter rather than a pricipled one (much to my chagrin I might add).

That's simply not so. Gun rights are not in the least bit at risk. You have no more reason to fear losing the right to bear arms than do women have reason to fear a reversal of Roe v Wade. The hyperbolic claims of the gun nuts involving cold dead fingers and other such rhetoric is out of touch with current political reality.

On the times that social order has broken down in riots and hurricanes, I'd note that the presence of privately owned guns didn't make things better. They made them worse. The post-war situation in Iraq was not enhanced by the widespread distribution of privately held automatic weapons. Nor did this same distribution lead to a popular revolution over an oppressive government.

1450. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:20:41 AM

Trample on one right... and you trample them all. Any time you fail to strive for the higher ground of liberty you make Jay's vision correct.

That's clearly false to fact. Removing the right to hold slaves didn't affect the right to bear arms. Going back and forth on prohibition didn't affect any other rights. The direction that we've seen in this country is the opposite--the extending of rights in such a way that more fully reflects the rhetoric of the Framers than did their implementation.

iiibbb, you don't need the natural rights trump card to make your case. The constitution gives you a very strong position. And that's a good thing, because they aren't what they are trumped up to be.

1451. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:26:08 AM

He's a magicians... with a wave of his hand **poof**... there went your 'right' that wasn't... or was it.

Again, it's very clear, given the variety of rights that are granted by the few states that are organized by the notion that the government serves the citizens that it's not magic that changes the lists of rights. It's legislation and other governmental mechanisms that change the list of rights. There's no magic involved. There's no magic involved in the invention of a right to abortion or to use a condom. There's no magic involved in losing those rights. The good thing is that these changes generally reflect the view of a large majority of citizens. The bad news is that these changes may oppress a minority. The strength of the constitution (and the Supremes willingness to bend it) is that minority rights are protected. But these really are lower case rights, resulting from social negotiation, not upper case Rights.

And, by the way, if they can be trampled on, then what makes them inalienable?

1452. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 9:32:35 AM

That's simply not so. Gun rights are not in the least bit at risk. You have no more reason to fear losing the right to bear arms than do women have reason to fear a reversal of Roe v Wade. The hyperbolic claims of the gun nuts involving cold dead fingers and other such rhetoric is out of touch with current political reality.

That is a little bit of melodrama for the audience. I doubt I could really base my voting only on gun-rights. I would be a hyporcrite if I ever did do this.

On the times that social order has broken down in riots and hurricanes, I'd note that the presence of privately owned guns didn't make things better. They made them worse. The post-war situation in Iraq was not enhanced by the widespread distribution of privately held automatic weapons. Nor did this same distribution lead to a popular revolution over an oppressive government.

In one way you may be right... in another you're not. I guess it depends on perspective. I suspect that if you were in the middle of a riot you'd be happier with one than without. This doesn't mean you wouldn't still try to avoid contact and conflict with the 'badguys'. However, people did use guns to successfully defend themselves, their homes, and their businesses against superior numbers of opportunists.

Iraq confuses the issue of gun rights, there are too many factors there.

1453. iiibbb - 3/16/2005 9:38:49 AM

That's clearly false to fact. Removing the right to hold slaves didn't affect the right to bear arms. Going back and forth on prohibition didn't affect any other rights. The direction that we've seen in this country is the opposite--the extending of rights in such a way that more fully reflects the rhetoric of the Framers than did their implementation.

You are missing my point.

My point is that if someone who believes in the idea of 'rights' allows themselves to think that one right is more important than another... or allows themselves to think that rights are negotable... then they jeopardize the rights they care about.

The right of those slaves to not be was there before we recognized it. The fact that we had a corrupt set of rights before we abolished slavery, didn't mean their right to be free wasn't there.

I guess I'm not getting through. We really are at an impasse on this.

It's not that I don't see what you are saying... all I'm saying is that rights are there whether society allows them to manifest or not.

It may beyond me to express what I am trying to...

...sigh... I've got to get to work...

1454. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:48:58 AM

My point is that if someone who believes in the idea of 'rights' allows themselves to think that one right is more important than another... or allows themselves to think that rights are negotable... then they jeopardize the rights they care about.

Someone who thinks they are not negotiable is simply not facing reality. There's no Platonic space where the real rights reside.

The right of those slaves to not be was there before we recognized it.

And the property right to own people that we did recognize was not there, despite being recognized? Are you saying that here and now we have the correct list of rights? Whence arises your authority?

1455. jayackroyd - 3/16/2005 9:52:18 AM

Take abortion rights. We've been engaged in a two-decade long negotiation about the nature (or even the existence) of those rights. How can you say that rights are not negotiable? You've said before that there is some special short list (treating, I might add, some rights as more important than others). What is that list? I know plenty of people who would insist that abortion belongs there and gun ownership does not. And vice versa.

1456. wonkers2 - 3/19/2005 8:21:21 AM

Self Defense on the High Seas Here.

1457. wonkers2 - 3/19/2005 8:32:43 AM

Try this. Click on "Cruisers Kill Pirates," March 18. Here.

1458. iiibbb - 3/19/2005 9:14:55 AM

Freaky. I wonder why the didn't have any longer range weapons with them. Shotguns are effective at close range, but I am amazed he got those guys even at 100 ft range with buckshot.

I was annoyed with Geraldo once becauase he has numerous times said he doesn't think civilians should have access to guns in this country, and then he did a round-the-world sailing trip on which he had a .45 (and maybe a rifle I can't remember) and was talking about pirate threats.

Geraldo also makes a big deal about the fact he's packing whenever he's in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I don't know if he's still anti-self defense... I haven't heard him talk about guns here in a while. Maybe these experiences have changed his outlook.

1459. wonkers2 - 3/19/2005 9:26:55 AM

Put Down Your Gun Here.

1460. iiibbb - 3/19/2005 9:46:27 AM

It'd also probably help a lot if they didn't have individual middle-aged female court deputies escorting unshackled prisoners as large as that guy.

1461. iiibbb - 3/19/2005 6:26:56 PM

An honest to god machine gun

Used in a crime. Of course he was violating the National Firearms Act that bans machine guns.

In DC no less.

1462. iiibbb - 3/19/2005 6:47:44 PM

Tragedies happen but even with a history of abuse, the police will not guarantee your safety.

1463. jexster - 3/20/2005 9:52:50 PM

Buying Big Guns? No Big Deal

Credit card, clean record and cash and you too can furnish a small army or terror group...

60 Minutes Report featuring an Albanian American who equipped the Kosova Liberation Army from US gun shops..

"You don't even need the clean record in Montana and Wyoming. Such helpful salesmen."

ATF: "The US is a candy store for international arms dealers"

I hear the 50 cal. sniper rifle is a hot seller. Real armor piercer!

A Brooklyn gunrunner tells Ed Bradley that it's so easy in the United States to buy and ship .50-caliber rifles overseas that even a terrorist could do it. More...

Thank God we've the right to arm bears....

1464. iiibbb - 3/21/2005 7:23:48 PM

So make a law about arms trafficking and arrest them. However, If we can't even keep tabs on sex offenders, what makes us think we can keep up with an even larger population of gun owners... most of which are no threat.

1465. jexster - 3/22/2005 4:45:47 AM

What makes us even try!

There's no reason not to have a central US gun registration/ownership database....a license to bear arms does not infringe the right to bear arms even if that WERE the meaning of "A well-reglated militia..."

1466. wonkers2 - 3/22/2005 6:56:51 AM

Retired cop's gun apparently used to kill him and eight others in Minnesota school rampage Here.

1467. PelleNilsson - 3/22/2005 9:20:16 AM

Shit happens. Right, iiibbb?

1468. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 9:24:08 AM

Every fucking day for no good reason.

1469. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 9:24:36 AM

You're an atheist... why do you give a crap whether it makes sense or not?

1470. alistairconnor - 3/22/2005 9:30:58 AM

Weird. Lots of religious people get this idea : atheist equals nihilist.

Ain't so.

1471. alistairconnor - 3/22/2005 9:32:26 AM

Even a metal detector and an armed security guard can't keep your children safe in a gun-crazy culture.

1472. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 9:43:41 AM

1470. alistairconnor - 3/22/2005 4:30:58 PM

Weird. Lots of religious people get this idea : atheist equals nihilist.

Ain't so.

Probably for similar reasons as people assume that all gun owners are blood-thirsty neandetals.

However... all this means to me is that more should be done to help suicidal people.

It was a cop's gun too.

1473. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 12:10:42 PM

The kid was a self identified nazi if that explains anything.

Does stealing a cop's gun make us a 'gun crazed culture'? Sounds more like we've got a problem with "European values" to me.

1474. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 12:14:27 PM

Minnisota, by the way, is a place where open and concealed carry of hanguns in any public place is not allowed.

1475. jexster - 3/22/2005 12:16:14 PM

Guns don't kill people.

People do.


The US is like a candy store for criminals, nutters and terrorists looking for guns of any and all sorts...

Too bad the market for flintlocks is down

1476. jayackroyd - 3/22/2005 12:20:19 PM

Probably for similar reasons as people assume that all gun owners are blood-thirsty neandetals.

Who assumes that?

1477. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 1:17:15 PM

Umm... you can try Mancas' and Pelle's posts for a start.

1478. PelleNilsson - 3/22/2005 2:34:40 PM

Yuu can try them too and try to come up with quotes that substantiate that assertion. But you won't because you can't and you know that.

1479. jayackroyd - 3/22/2005 3:05:07 PM

iiibbb--

Caricaturing the opposition doesn't strength your case. I, for one, have tried to be very clear that there are plenty of responsible gun owners who are not blood thirsty in the least--from my father with his single shot .22 to my relative with about six guns.

The issue is not the responsible owners--it's the irresponsible owners that are the problem. Where we draw that line differs, no doubt. I think my pistol-packing cousin is irresponsible to carry around while spending time with his young children. You may not.

And, just to be irritating, your statement is logically refuted if any of those "people" you refer to believe that one gun owner is not a blood thirsty neandertal. I offer my father as to any seeking a counter example. He putatively uses it to shoot groundhogs invading his garden, but there is no evidence that he has actually hit one. So all you unjustly accused neandertals can use my dad as a counterexample.

1480. Macnas - 3/22/2005 3:44:29 PM

Who's this Mancas bloke? Sounds like a right bollox.

1481. alistairConnor - 3/22/2005 3:51:38 PM

That would be "Mankie" Mancas. Insufferable wimp of a fellow.

1482. jexster - 3/22/2005 4:03:20 PM

Sounds more like we've got a problem with "European values" to me.

And so it is.

To paraphrase the Kosovan-American gun runner (a proponent of strict US gun control BTW)

Europeans have no idea. Sure they have this notion that AmeriKa is a gunsliinging cowboy free for all, but they have no idea. It is beyond their widest imaginings

1483. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 6:42:57 PM

Sorry Macnas... I didn't mean you... I meant Marc-Albert...

You have been perfectly reasonable.
Jay has been perfectly reasonable.
Jexter has even been perfectly reasonable.

Others just take their chances to jibe...

1484. iiibbb - 3/22/2005 6:43:39 PM

I shouldn't post in here when I am so busy... I get sloppy and I know it.

1485. wonkers2 - 3/23/2005 6:41:08 AM

In West Bloomfield, Michigan, assault weapons and Glocks are legal but possession of a Taser can get you up to 4 years and $2,000. Go figure.

1486. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 7:58:18 AM

Tasers are too dangerous... someone might get killed.

Personally... if given the choice between a gun and a taser for carrying, I might pick the taser. Pepper spray just pisses some people off. A knife requires too close contact. Very few stay upright with a taser.

The ACLU needs to get its head out of its ass and recognize that getting tazed is frequently better than getting shot.

The rub of course, and where I come down with the ACLU, is because it's "non-lethal" cops might become more willing to use it. I am bothered by these recent stories where cops are tazing 8 yr olds and old folks just so they don't have to deal with physically taking control. It shouldn't be used as that kind of crutch.

1487. alistairconnor - 3/23/2005 8:37:09 AM

I know nothing about tasers :

Are they noisy?
Do they leave a tangible trace?

What I'm wondering is : if they were widely available, wouldn't they be the weapon of choice for certain types of crime? Discreet and deniable.

1488. Wombat - 3/23/2005 8:50:28 AM

Tasers trail wires that lead right back to the shooter. They can only be used at short range. The barbs that hook on to the target's clothing (creating a circuit) don't always hold on.

1489. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 8:53:46 AM

They do leave marks on your skin. I don't know how noisy they are. Even if you get mugged with one... still better than getting shot.

There are already plenty of discrete weapons that can be used for crimes. You're essentially arguing that something like this would encourage criminals or even make new ones. This is silly. Someone with criminal inclinations is going to find a way to act on them one way or another.

I just think it's odd that the same people that argue against guns are the same who turn their nose at non-lethal alternatives (not necessarily you).

It really seems that the goal is to passify people by removing all means for them to hurt themselves and each other. This is such an innane concept. You just render people defenseless when the gov't can't really guarantee their safety.

I posted a long time ago about less than lethal technology, and advocating it for use in places like airplains. In particular I liked this sticky-glue stuff that incapacitates the 'badguy' because they wind up being curled up into a little ball... the motie's response - that it might choke someone.

1490. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 8:56:20 AM

Someone in here recently chided that guns in Iraq weren't helping citizens much... well, when insurgents start firing randomly into crowds is it better to wait for the military or police, or just go ahead and shoot the badguys. Another example where insurgents were staging a raid on a town, and they countered using their own weapons.

Now, if the general Iraqi public didn't have the guns how would these scenarios pan out?

1491. alistairconnor - 3/23/2005 9:05:44 AM

This is silly. Someone with criminal inclinations is going to find a way to act on them one way or another.

Well... I'm just exploring ideas here... this seems to be an ideological fixation on your part (all together now, Guuuuuns don't kill...)

I can't imagine any empirical basis for this notion that available technology has no influence on behaviour or outcomes. It's powerfully counter-intuitive to me.

Would you claim, for example, that a new form of transport (e.g. teleportation, or those rocket backpacks) would make no difference to the economy, human relationships etc? Or that, for example, abolishing cars would change nothing, because people will always find a way to get from A to B?

Or is this skepticism reserved solely for weaponry?

1492. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 9:31:10 AM

It might change the way someone conducts a crime... but what you seem to say is that it would take someone who would normally not bother anyone and suddenly make them want to go out and mug someone.

What is the basis for this idea?

I was watching COPS last night on TV. They were driving a semi around the inner city and pretend it had engine trouble. The driver would go off to "find a phone". Then guys would come up and break the lock off the trailor, open it and see stereo boxes and start trying to steal the stuff. They'd arrest them all.

Is this entrapment, or should those criminals just should have not broken into a disabled vehicle to begin with?

The criminal mind is the criminal mind. It just waits for opportunity. Whether it be a lead pipe, or a taser, or a knife, or whatever. If we released tasers to the general public I'm certain their would be a rise in crimes committed with tasers... but what does this really mean? It just means to me that they're using tasers in leau of guns or knives or whatever.

Maybe you should just follow Wonkers advice and not go places you have no business being.

On the flip side, things like tasers give citizens a less than lethal option... it reduces the chances that an innocent bystander will be killed because a woman 'drops her purse'... or a kid shooting his brother because the mom didn't put the gun away.

Aren't these the reasons guns are bad for society and shouldn'e be allowed out in public?

Instead people fixate on what a criminal can do with such a weapon instead of looking at the big picture. You complain that people want to carry guns around, but then don't give them an alternative except 'call the cops', which if there's one thing that I think I've shown in here is that you can't depend on the cops.

It seems to me that the goal of some is to simply disarm the general public... a citizen that wishes to take some control and fight back is somehow offensive to them.

1493. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 9:33:52 AM

If the cops were totally reliable for crime prevention... there would be no crime. There is crime... you have to give people some recourse... you can't simply disarm them. If you disarm them you're saying 'shit happens'.

Well... isn't that the same thing I'm saying when accidents happen.

Shit's going to happen either way.

1494. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 9:35:50 AM

Message # 1491

Using your logic we should ban new types of computers, palmtops and whatnot, because it will make identity theft easier.

We should ban cell-phones because terrorists can use them to communicate.

1495. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 9:47:04 AM

This is an example why open carry is not preferable to concealed

The armed security guard was the first victim once he got to the school. The shooter then had access to that weapon.

Ideally, you'll never know if someone who is legitimately carrying concealed because (1) they won't say, and (2) the gun is properly secured and they follow the basic safety rules.

1496. alistairconnor - 3/23/2005 10:01:00 AM

but what you seem to say is that it would take someone who would normally not bother anyone and suddenly make them want to go out and mug someone.

talk about fighting a straw man... you do that a lot... did you actually read what I said? to wit:
What I'm wondering is : if they were widely available, wouldn't they be the weapon of choice for certain types of crime?
I didn't even say whether I thought that would be a good thing or a bad thing. But I find nothing preposterous about examining the idea. You, apparently, want to silence that discussion for ideological reasons. Or else you got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Using your logic we should ban new types of computers, palmtops and whatnot, because it will make identity theft easier.

No, I'm simply saying you should avoid trying to deny things which are empirically obvious, because it makes you look silly.

I made no policy prescriptions at all. But I have no philosophical problem with the idea of banning or restricting certain technologies. e.g. car-free zones in inner cities; restrictions on where you can build cell-phone transmitters because of the harmful short-range emissions; and so on.

I think you need to be pragmatic and realistic in finding a balance between utility and freedoms on the one hand, and potential for nuisance and harm on the other.

1497. alistairconnor - 3/23/2005 10:15:20 AM

The armed security guard was the first victim once he got to the school.

What's your line of reasoning here? Do you think the armed security guard would not have been shot if his gun had not been visible? I don't understand this. The kid was clearly intending to kill as many people as possible, and the security guard was the obvious first obstacle.

1498. alistairconnor - 3/23/2005 10:22:27 AM

Message # 1496 But since you mention it... the straw man strikes back!

Consider a hypothetical skinny kid who's hooked on heroin or crystal meth, and is feeding his habit through burglaries. With a taser, he might turn to mugging instead : he's a coward and a wimp, so he's not going to take the risk of knocking people on the head or waving a gun at them; but a taser in the back, get the wallet, get away, nobody hears, nobody sees his face. A whole new career is opened up for this former burglar.

1499. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:06:58 AM

Message # 1497

The comment was a side-bar.

There have been some that say that citizen concealled carry should not be allowed. That if they carry they should carry in the open.

This just shows that someone carrying openly would be targeted, and their weapon potentially used against others. Concealled, a bad guy is less likey to discover or get contol of that weapon.

1500. thoughtful - 3/23/2005 11:18:13 AM

if using a taser, you'd better not miss as you won't have time to 'reload'.

1501. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:21:47 AM

Message # 1496
talk about fighting a straw man... you do that a lot... did you actually read what I said? to wit:
What I'm wondering is : if they were widely available, wouldn't they be the weapon of choice for certain types of crime?
I didn't even say whether I thought that would be a good thing or a bad thing. But I find nothing preposterous about examining the idea. You, apparently, want to silence that discussion for ideological reasons. Or else you got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Whether it becomes the "weapon of choice", to use that tired cliche, is a fine question. Is that a bad thing, is also a good question.

I thought I touched on what I though were the answer but here it is again.

I think it would be used by criminals... I think we would see an increase in taser crime if they were made available. So what? It could be good because the same people who might have shot you before, now may only taze you. Tasers still are only "less than lethal" so people are still going to die... and if we judge taser the same as guns, and only look to tragedies, rather than those who are helped by them, I suppose people will demand they either be banned, or never be allowed in the first place.

I think you need to be pragmatic and realistic in finding a balance between utility and freedoms on the one hand, and potential for nuisance and harm on the other.

Pragmatic

Some of you are going on and on about how bad guns are. How is is removing alternatives to firearms for self defense more pragmatic? If guns are such an unbearable nuisance, then explain why it isn't pragmatic that that people be given access to less than lethal alternatives.

1502. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:23:41 AM

Message # 1498

Why don't the cops just arrest him?

1503. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:26:17 AM

Message # 1498

Again, the counter argument is suppose that a mugger decides he wants to use something other than a gun (which draws attention to them by making so much noise) and opts for a less-lethal alternative.

But you're saying it's better for the victim to be shot... because the cops will come to their aid.

Oh wait... that's after they're shot and maybe dead.

1504. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:30:38 AM

Message # 1498

I love hypotheticals...

If he's just a "coward and wimp"... what is keeping him from pulling the trigger of the gun he's waving around when a victim fights back?

Since when is getting konked on the head by a pipe better than getting tazed? Brain damage or a cracked skull and possible neck injuries are better than getting tazed?

What if he's not a coward and wimp, but a psychotic and trigger happy. Would you rather he have a gun, or a tazer?

1505. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:31:26 AM

Or as wonkers would say...

Why was the person who got mugged somewhere where they had no business being?

1506. iiibbb - 3/23/2005 11:40:50 AM

Reasonable gun registration is expensive and does nothing: commentary

Ballistic fingerprinting was all the rage just a couple of years ago and Maryland and New York were leading the way in the use of a computer database that records the markings made on the bullets from all new guns, says author John Lott Jr. It was predicted that "the days of criminals using guns were numbered."
Yet, according to a recent investigative report by Lott, the Maryland State Police's forensic-sciences division shows the systems in both states have been expensive, miserable failures. New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 for every gun sold. But in the four years that the systems have been in effect, neither has solved a single crime.
"The systems have drained so many financial resources from other police activities that ballistic fingerprinting actually could end up increasing crime," says Lott. "In New York, how many crimes could 50 additional police officers (equal to $4 million in combined salaries) help solve?"
------------------------------------------------
Moreover, ballistic fingerprinting can be thwarted by replacing the gun's barrel -- just as criminals can foil tire-matching by replacing their tires. Even easier accomplished, the markings on bullets can be altered simply by scratching part of the inside of a barrel with a nail file, which would alter the bullet's path down the barrel and thus change the markings.
Also, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it's because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded. Second, and more important, is that criminals also virtually never get licenses, or buy their guns from licensed gun dealers, or register their guns and therefore they and their guns don't enter the fingerprinting process.
"Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws," says Lott. "What counts is whether the laws actually work, and end up saving lives. On that measure, ballistic fingerprinting is just another failure in a long line of gun-control measures."
-------------------------------------------

1507. alistairconnor - 3/24/2005 9:27:51 AM

iii :

Gee! Lots more strawmen and red herrings to play with!

You may remember, I took up your challenge to suggest

someone who would normally not bother anyone and suddenly make them want to go out and mug someone.

Message # 1504 is the only post in which you actually address my hypothetical, so let's look at that.

If he's just a "coward and wimp"... what is keeping him from pulling the trigger of the gun he's waving around when a victim fights back?

My hypothetical drug addict doesn't want to kill or even hurt anybody. He doesn't want to go to jail either. He's a rational actor. He just needs money for drugs. He knows that waving a pistol at someone is dangerous : they might be able to identify him later; they might fight back, he might have to kill them. Even if he couldn't care less about killing them, he knows that the cops will make a serious effort to track down a murderer, probably much less for a mugger.

So shooting the victim in the back with a taser is a much safer option.

Since when is getting konked on the head by a pipe better than getting tazed? Brain damage or a cracked skull and possible neck injuries are better than getting tazed?

Tazing seems safer to me than hitting the victim from behind with a pipe : maybe the victim knows kung fu, and will floor him. And, again, he doesn't want to hurt the victim (he would get a stiffer sentence). So my hypothetical junkie wouldn't take the risk of using a pipe. A tazer, or nothing.

What if he's not a coward and wimp, but a psychotic and trigger happy. Would you rather he have a gun, or a tazer?

That would be a different hypothetical, but in a word : yes, I would prefer that he had a tazer. But the question is : why would a trigger-happy psychotic prefer a tazer to a gun?

or... gasp... are you suggesting that it would be better if criminals couldn't get guns and had to use tazers instead?

I could agree with you on that point.

Thoughtful introduces a relevant argument :

if using a taser, you'd better not miss as you won't have time to 'reload'.

Again, I don't know anything about the technology, but is that more likely, or less likely, than taking a swing with a pipe and missing?

1508. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 10:42:16 AM

Look... my only point is that giving people alternatives to guns might be a good thing. Arguments have been made that it's bad for regular citizens to carry guns because they might go off accidentally, or their kids might get them. If you want people to give up guns, you have to give them alternatives to guns.

If you don't want to give them alternatives, then fine. You are essentially saying 1) that only guns are appropriate, or 2) regular citizens shouldn't have access to tools that may help them defend themselves.

I don't personally agree with 1 or 2.


There is no question that if tasers were made available, that criminals would find a way to use them. Then we start throwing hypotheticals at each other... well there's obviously no point in that exercise. However, you implore me to be pragmatic. Explain to me how giving regular citizens access to weapons that are not as lethal as guns isn't pragmatic.

You harp on me that the reason we need guns out of peoples hands is because of accidents and kids get a hold of them. You say that my desire to possibly carry a weapon is overblown and that crime isn't enough of a problem.

Now you're arguing that the obvious benefit of tasers (less prone to accidents, safer for kids) is overwhelmed by the criminal threat the present.

Do you not see that you are arguing against tasers with a argument that is the polar opposite of your argument against guns?

1509. alistairconnor - 3/24/2005 10:53:49 AM

Now you're arguing that the obvious benefit of tasers (less prone to accidents, safer for kids) is overwhelmed by the criminal threat the present.

Nothing of the kind. You're putting words in my mouth, as you often do. I don't have a firm opinion on tasers. I like to examine every side of a question first.

As I say, I am ignorant about tasers, and I don't know about the obvious benefits.

I took issue with your dogmatic position that tasers could not create crime. You haven't explicitly conceded that point, but you seem to have given up trying to find counter-arguments. Fine.

1510. alistairconnor - 3/24/2005 10:55:12 AM

Looks like yet another nation has overthrown their tyrannical government, fairly bloodlessly...

Good thing they weren't all armed to the teeth. Could have been a bloodbath.

1511. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 11:08:42 AM

I took issue with your dogmatic position that tasers could not create crime. You haven't explicitly conceded that point, but you seem to have given up trying to find counter-arguments. Fine.

Create crime or displace crime? You aren't creating crime if it decreasing one in favor of another.

Hypothetical

Muggings with pipe 25
Muggings with gun 25
Muggings with knife 25
Muggings with no weapon 25
Total Muggings 100

Introduce Tazers

Muggings with pipe 15
Muggings with gun 15
Muggings with knife 25
Muggings with no weapon 25
Muggings with tasers 20
Total Muggings 100


I never denied criminals would use them... but I do question how you can say that there would be extra crime over and above what there already is. Which seems to be the argument you have tried to make.

1512. wonkers2 - 3/24/2005 2:40:30 PM

iiibbb, why do you suppose that I read about a shooting, gun accident or gun crime in my Detroit newspaper nearly every day, but I can hardly recall ever reading about a case where a private citizen used gun to protect himself or prevent a crime. This makes me suspicious of the N.R.A. claims of thousands of successful self-protection incidents with handguns. If there were actually so many you'd think one would make my local paper once in a while.???

1513. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 2:53:47 PM

Ok... if it's not a stretch to see the NRA as biased... why would it be a stretch that news agencies might be biased?

Needless to say, I've provided a number of news items (including some from Detroit if I recall) that have showed private citizens thwarting crimes. However, if you need more...

She told him she'd shoot him if he hit her again

I can only think that he had plans other than burglary

I would question the wisdom of following the guy outside...

Armed robbers driven off

Attackers driven off

Armed burlar shot by homeowner, apprehended by police

1514. wonkers2 - 3/24/2005 3:01:55 PM

The first one, a wife shooting her husband in a domestic dispute wasn't what I had in mind. But the others qualify. Except you are gathering them from all over the country while I'm looking mostly at ones in the Detroit and Michigan area except for mass killings that make the national news. I haven't kept track, but my strong impression is that the cases reported of killings, accidents and suicides with guns greatly outnumber the cases of successful self defense.

1515. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 3:30:37 PM

Dunno what to say Wonk... not every murder ever committed makes it to the news... why would you expect every single DGU to make it?

You're strong impression at the beginning of this thread was that criminals don't really want to hurt us and aren't usually armed.

Domestic disputes shouldn't count? I had a friend who's husband told her he was going to kill her. She made it to a gun before he made it to her. She didn't kill him, but you don't think it counts... or does this fall under your "don't be in places you don't belong" category?

Here are some closer to home

Harrison, MI - elderly couple and home invader.

Detroit, MI - store owner

Archived stories

Detroit, MI - woman and home invader.

Cedar Springs, MI - home invasion

Royal Oak, MI - Home invasion and stolen gun.

Van Buren Township, MI - Concealed carry holder defends themself

Cedar Springs, MI - home invasion

Wayne Co, Mi - rapist shot

Cedar Springs, MI - home invader warned

Grand Rapids, MI - Home invader shot

Flint, MI - Wheelchair bound Vet shoots intruder

Dunno what else to say.

1518. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 3:34:39 PM

some runaway posts were deleted

1519. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 3:46:04 PM

Message # 1511 Bloody hell, you are stubborn when you don't want to understand, iii. You come up arbitrarily with this number, 100.

Go back and read my Message # 1498 again. If there are indeed people who would mug people with a taser, but not with a gun, knife, pipe or bare hands (and you haven't found any arguments why there wouldn't be), then your second number could well be greater than 100.

There is nothing but your pig-headed dogmatism to say otherwise.

1520. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 3:49:02 PM

Ok... if it's not a stretch to see the NRA as biased... why would it be a stretch that news agencies might be biased?

Follow the money. The NRA is a lobby group, pushing pro-gun policy. What sort of lobby are "news agencies", what policies are they pushing? Is there some sort of covert co-ordination among them? Can you not see the difference?

1521. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 3:55:52 PM

Alistar... please provide data that shows that a significant number of 'new criminals' are out there just waiting in the wings for the right technology to facilitate this career choice.

It's easy for you to make stuff up and then whine about me being dogmatic. You're blind to your own foibles.

At least I have the capacity to admit mine. I was just trying to play along with your hypotheticals... now I'm 'dogmatic'.

Is it not just as reasonable to assume that for as many 'new criminals' who would suddenly appear that all these guns accidents and suicides you guys keep harping about might diminish because some people might elect to have a taser in the house instead of a gun?

What do you want me to say? People be armed with deadly weapons or nothing at all? This is dogmatic?

I admit am dogmatic about self-defense... but I fail to understand why this is a character flaw.

1522. PelleNilsson - 3/24/2005 3:59:21 PM

Remind us, iiibbb. What "foibles" did you admit to?

1523. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 4:00:08 PM

You complain that there are too many guns... but when a viable, less-lethal, option pops up, that people might actually use in leau of a gun... you declare it to be evil.

It's a gun off the street... just like your claim you want to have happen. Your reaction is just bizzare.

1524. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 4:05:56 PM

You are showing yourself incapable of having a rational discussion.
Did you read 1498 again?

My sole point (I find it useful to discuss one thing at a time) is that it is plausible that wide availability of tasers might increase the frequency of some sorts of crime. You have been unable to find any arguments against that, so instead you keep changing the subject, even going so far as to make up numbers out of thin air that, magically, always add up to 100.

Is it not just as reasonable to assume that for as many 'new criminals' who would suddenly appear that all these guns accidents and suicides you guys keep harping about might diminish because some people might elect to have a taser in the house instead of a gun?

I can certainly see that being possible; in fact I have never denied that such an effect might happen, if people got rid of their guns and replaced them with tasers. It isn't relevant in itself to the point I'm making, but I suppose it's as close as you'll ever get to conceding that I've made a plausible point.

1525. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 4:07:23 PM

but when a viable, less-lethal, option pops up, that people might actually use in leau of a gun... you declare it to be evil.

Can you point out the post where I say that, or anything like it, iii?

No you can't, because you made it up. You didn't read my mind either, because I didn't even think it.

1526. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 4:08:18 PM

<1522. PelleNilsson - 3/24/2005 10:59:21 PM

Remind us, iiibbb. What "foibles" did you admit to?

As an advocate, I have freely admitted that guns are not a universal answer to crime. I have freely admitted that guns in society represent a cost to society.

Unlike most, I provide sources for my information and have admitted when I've interpreted it incorrectly. At least you get my sources to criticise... unlike Alistar who simply makes things up as it suits him.

I've not been blind to the ills they cause society... but you guys absolutely refuse to acknowlege any benefit they present.

And I thank you Pelle... for being ever present to not contribute to a discussion, but simply snipe... you're a hell of a guy.

1527. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 4:16:02 PM

Message # 1525

see

Message # 1491

Message # 1496

Message # 1507

now you claim you're just 'examining the sides of a question'... well, so am I... except when I say something the opposite of you I'm being dogmatic, not something so elegant as 'examining the sides of a question'.

I appear to be incapable of such high reasoning.

1528. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 4:20:34 PM

I guess the fact that one can't even make an argument (and it's not that bad of one) for less than lethal alternatives to guns without being declared a dogmatist shows the level of mistrust on the issue of guns and self defense.

1529. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 4:50:20 PM

You're entirely missing the point, iii. You decided early in this current discussion, that I was against tasers.

Can I ask you, what gave you that idea? It clearly wasn't something I've written. I still don't have a firm opinion on the subject.

I tried to make one, perhaps trivial point, and you have refused to envisage it (this is what I call dogmatic : not your support for tasers), while introducing a whole lot of other material which is interesting, but not relevant to that particular point.

The "mistrust" on this particular issue is all one-sided. You apparently don't believe that I don't have strong views on this question.

1530. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 4:54:46 PM

look... when you start throwing words like dogmatic around... then you cannot expect someone to respond to that favorably.

I've been called enough names in here, so I appologize if my response to you is based on the sum of my experience in here... but that's how it is.

1531. alistairConnor - 3/24/2005 4:57:10 PM

Yeah, I generally prefer if you respond to what I actually write rather than what you assume about me and people you deem to be like me...

Good night. Take care.

And watch out for junkies with tasers.

1532. jayackroyd - 3/24/2005 5:40:23 PM

why would you expect every single DGU to make it?

Because it's a man bites dog story. The successful fending off of an armed criminal is a big deal. Or of any criminal. Heroic bodega owner. Tough housewife. Big story.

1533. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 9:46:12 PM

Message # 1531

Well then, I'd generally prefer if you refrain from being insulting in the first place.

Message # 1532

Jay, you've proven discriminating enough not to believe everything you read, as well as everything you don't read. Why abdecate now?

Obviously these stories do make the news...

1534. iiibbb - 3/24/2005 9:52:14 PM

Message # 1520

Speaking of putting words in ones mouth. Wonkers is the one who brought up the NRA Message # 1512. All I did was point out some new articles, not NRA links.

I am not fond of the NRA. They are top heavy.

1535. alistairconnor - 3/25/2005 4:58:57 AM

"Speaking of putting words in ones mouth"

Here we go again... we seem to have a lot of trouble understanding each other. In Message # 1520 I am not accusing you of being pro-NRA. As careful reading will show you, I am simply criticising your comparison in Message # 1513 of the NRA with news agencies.

You haven't responded to that, by the way... it's clear why the NRA exhibits a pro-gun bias. What, according to you, would motivate the news agencies to have an anti-gun bias? Are there specific business interests involved?

1536. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 8:55:41 AM

(1) If the press is unbiassed, why in the face of calls for new gun control after the recent highly publicized shootings in the news, do they not talk about the National Science Foundation study that showed that gun laws don't appear to have much effect on crime?

(2) For that matter, why is it very rare that we see fairly dramatic, as Jay or Wonkers put it, DGU's on the national news? Why do many stories omit the fact that one of the victims of that courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas, was actually a CCW permit holder and shot the badguy twice in the chest before being killed (the only reason the perp did not fall is because he was wearing a bullet proof vest)... instead he's a hapless jerk who tried to intervene

(3) Try these stats on the nature of press reporting.

Evening News. Gun rights advocates were treated like clay pigeons in a skeet-shooting contest. Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun control stories outnumbered anti-gun control stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports. ABC was the most slanted (29 pro-gun control to five anti-, only six neutral), followed by CNN (17-1, and only six neutral). NBC reporters promoted gun control in 13 (60 percent) of 22 gun segments. CBS had the highest percentage of balanced stories but still advocated gun control in 11 (65 percent) of 17 gun control-related segments, to six neutral stories and zero opposing segments.

Pro-gun control talking heads were televised 99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun control spokesmen and 24 neutral soundbites. Once again ABC (35-20, five neutral) led the way in pushing for gun control, followed by CBS (24-13, six neutral). CNN (16-13, four neutral) NBC (24-21, and nine neutral) came closest to balance.

Morning Shows. In 141 morning-show gun policy segments, stories loaded in favor of gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control 87 to 4. (Fifty were neutral.) ABC's advocacy against gun owners carried over to Good Morning America (36 pro-gun control stories, zero opposed, 16 neutral). NBC came next (35-3, with 20 neutral). CBS set their sights against gun owners in 16 stories, but came closest to balance with 14 neutral segments (but only one story favoring gun rights).

(5) Why do they keep using the improper terms when refering to firearms on the news. Calling semi-autos "assault rifles". These guns aren't assault rifles... Why is there so much misunderstanding about what the AWB actually entailed? If the press were doing it's job people would know that the ban involves largely cosmetic features.

They purposefully neglect to say that what's available to the public are not the real deal... they allow the misconception that the AWB covers fully automatic assault rifles. However, many of them can't afford to concede any piece of information in an effort to make guns look as bad as possible.

(6) Do you think incidents like Dan Rather and Co. ramming a story based on a falsefied memo doesn't at least indicate bias, if not willful lying. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying it's just innocent bias. If they can do it over something like a presidential election, they can do it over gun control. It's not like Fox is the only biased news agency out there. I find it funny that someone who is so discriminating about my arguments in here is capable of putting that much blind trust in something as powerful as the press.

1537. wonkers2 - 3/25/2005 8:58:42 AM

I doubt that many motiers "put blind trust in the press."

1538. wonkers2 - 3/25/2005 8:59:57 AM

However, I also doubt that the press is going out of its way to suppress news favorable to the anti-gun control viewpoint.

1539. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 9:05:52 AM

Message # 1538

Evening News. Gun rights advocates were treated like clay pigeons in a skeet-shooting contest. Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun control stories outnumbered anti-gun control stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports. ABC was the most slanted (29 pro-gun control to five anti-, only six neutral), followed by CNN (17-1, and only six neutral). NBC reporters promoted gun control in 13 (60 percent) of 22 gun segments. CBS had the highest percentage of balanced stories but still advocated gun control in 11 (65 percent) of 17 gun control-related segments, to six neutral stories and zero opposing segments.

Pro-gun control talking heads were televised 99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun control spokesmen and 24 neutral soundbites. Once again ABC (35-20, five neutral) led the way in pushing for gun control, followed by CBS (24-13, six neutral). CNN (16-13, four neutral) NBC (24-21, and nine neutral) came closest to balance.

Morning Shows. In 141 morning-show gun policy segments, stories loaded in favor of gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control 87 to 4. (Fifty were neutral.) ABC's advocacy against gun owners carried over to Good Morning America (36 pro-gun control stories, zero opposed, 16 neutral). NBC came next (35-3, with 20 neutral). CBS set their sights against gun owners in 16 stories, but came closest to balance with 14 neutral segments (but only one story favoring gun rights).

Seems pretty out of the way to me.

1540. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 9:10:44 AM

70-6 - evening news
99-67 - evening shows
87-4 - morning shows

If you deny the possibility of bias looking at numbers like this, then you are being as willful as the press probably is.

1541. wonkers2 - 3/25/2005 10:14:53 AM

Where do you get that stuff? Straignt from the N.R.A.?

1542. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:27:01 AM

So what if it did come from the NRA? I somehow doubt you assign the same level of skepticism when the NAACP declare that the system is overtly racist.

You, who said you rarely see DGU's mentioned in the news, are trying to tell me that the press gives equal time to pro-gun stories? You're trying to tell me that the NRA gets equal billing compared to a flash-in-the-pan "million mom march" (which didn't actually have a million moms)?

Give me a break.

1543. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:27:48 AM

If you think it's wrong... show me it's wrong.

1544. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:33:41 AM

Going back through the New York Times of 2001, Lott found 50,745 words in 104 articles devoted to gun-crime stories. Only 163 words were about the successful use of guns in self defense.

The Washington Post had 46,884 words about crimes with guns, but only 953 words on the defensive use of guns. USA Today “contained 5,660 words on crimes committed with guns and zero words on examples of defensive gun use.” To Big Media, bad news about guns is the only news worth reporting.

Being able to threaten a burglar or rapist with a gun is the most effective way to prevent crime in urban areas. Yet, city folks favor gun control. Why? Because they have been propagandized into believing their security lies not in having a gun but in gun control laws that disarm them but do nothing to disarm the criminals who prey upon them.

Going back through the ABC, CBS, and NBC shows for 2001, Lott found 190,000 words on gun crimes, but only 580 words devoted to one news broadcast about a cop who used his gun to stop a school shooting. Lott’s chapter on the blind anti-gun bias in the press (“The Media on Guns”) is itself worth the price of the book.

1545. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:38:00 AM

toys

1546. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:39:30 AM

High school shooting and car massacre: Ultimate proof of media's anti-gun bias?

WASHINGTON, DC -- The media's anti-gun bias is showing loud and clear this week as the latest high school shooting (two dead in California) is plastered all over every front page in America -- while last week's murderous college car rampage (four dead in California) was virtually ignored, charge Libertarians.

"A disturbed 15-year-old California high school student kills two classmates with a gun, and it's front-page news and around-the-clock TV coverage," said George Getz, the Libertarian Party's press secretary. "Last week, a disturbed 19-year-old California college student kills four classmates with a car, and it's a minor blurb in newspapers and a 10-second clip on the news.

"What's the explanation for this, unless journalists are almost 100% opposed to the Second Amendment -- and eager to jump on any opportunity to demonize guns and exploit gun-related tragedies, while ignoring other, equally horrific, crimes?"

1547. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:51:15 AM

7 myths of gun control

Major news organizations show a clear bias in favor of gun control. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1. When it comes to guns and gun rights, we are hearing only one side of the story. Small wonder that few Americans are equipped to debate the issue intelligently.
--------------------------------------
Don't Blame Liberal Journalists

Many are quick to blame "liberal journalists" for the anti-gun slant they see in the media. Perhaps they are too quick.

It is undeniable that most journalists hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 (compared to only 43 percent of Americans overall who voted for Clinton). Only 4 percent of the journalists surveyed identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives. Journalists clearly favor the left.

Yet, their "liberal" opinions probably have less impact on the media's gun coverage than most people assume. Rank-and-file journalists in large news organizations actually have little control over the political slant of their stories. It is management that decides how a network or newspaper will spin a particular issue. Ordinary journalists have little opportunity to vent their personal views.
The New York Post, for example, is generally recognized to be a conservative paper. Yet, when I worked there in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper's conservative slant. But they did as they were told, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply follow orders. The anti-gun bias permeating our mass media comes, not from individual journalists, but from the owners and senior managers of multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.
--------------------------------------
Don't Blame Liberal Politicians Either

"Liberal" politicians are another favorite scapegoat of gun-rights advocates. But, in government, as in media, the forces promoting gun control appear to be larger than any party or faction.

1548. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:51:30 AM

Gun Abolition - The Real Goal

Today's gun-control promoters seem to share a view of gun rights every bit as restrictive as that of Richard Nixon. The ongoing case of United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson has helped make this clear.

In the midst of a bitter divorce fight, Dr. Emerson - a Texas physician - was hit with a restraining order from his wife. Unbeknownst to Dr. Emerson, federal law prohibits anyone under a restraining order from keeping a gun. He was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm - even though he had legally owned the firearm in question for years.

A federal judge dismissed the charges, partly on the grounds that they violated Emerson's Second Amendment rights. But the U.S. Justice Department appealed. Arguing before a three-judge panel on June 13, 2000, Justice Department attorney William B. Mateja dropped an unexpected bombshell, revealing the government's true - but seldom stated - position on gun rights.

According to Mateja, the Constitution does not ensure a right to keep and bear arms to ordinary citizens. Those rights stipulated in the Second Amendment apply only to members of a state "militia," Mateja claims. In today's terms, that would mean the National Guard. So if you're not a Guardsman, says the government, you have no right to own a gun. Any kind of gun.

Evidently stunned by Mateja's position, Judge William L. Garwood sought clarification. "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?" asked the judge. "You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Mateja answered, "Yes."

The judge probed further. "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

"Exactly," said Mateja. (9)

Dr. Emerson's case is now before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever its outcome, it has clarified, beyond doubt, that our government - or at least powerful elements within it -- recognizes no right to keep and bear arms on the part of ordinary Americans.

Most gun-control advocates swear that they have no intention of challenging the basic right to own a gun. But these soothing assurances should be measured against the reality of Mr. Mateja's words.

1549. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:52:24 AM

The Seven Myths

With such powerful forces arrayed against gun rights, we should not be surprised that so little pro-gun information manages to filter down to the public. Ignorance about guns has reached pandemic proportions. Children are not taught the history or meaning of the Second Amendment in school, nor do they learn later as adults. Much of what Americans think they know about guns is false.

The anti-gun case rests almost entirely on a set of deeply erroneous assumptions. I call them the Seven Myths of Gun Control. They are:



1. Guns increase violent crime.

2. Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal.

3. Guns pose a special threat to children.

4. The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen.

5. The Second Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era.

6. We should license guns for the same reason we license cars.

7. Reasonable gun-control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners.

1550. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 11:57:23 AM

Why isn't anyone in the Religion thread telling Ms No that the press isn't biased.

I dare you.

Message # 26726 in thread 145

1551. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 12:22:42 PM

Proposed tax on gun owners to increase courtroom security

(1) Ever hear of poll taxes? You might as well charge defendents a tax for going to trial... after all, if it weren't for them we woulnd't need courts.

(2) The article says that knives are confiscated 233 times as often as guns. Why not tax knives? You'd probably make more money anyway.

1552. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 12:29:01 PM

For that matter, why is it very rare that we see fairly dramatic, as Jay or Wonkers put it, DGU's on the national news?

One hypothesis would be that they are in fact very rare.

1553. alistairConnor - 3/25/2005 12:40:56 PM

If the press is unbiassed

OK, if we accept that the press is biased in favour of gun control :

I ask you again : WHY?

Do you have a theory as to why they are biased?
Are they getting paid for it?
Does it serve the business interests of media owners, as a whole, to promote gun control?

I can tell you why the press is biased with respect to any number of themes and issues : it's because there is money involved.

I'm not saying that there is no bias in the press (I don't have enough information to decide), I'm just interested in hearing a plausible explanation of the motive. Do you have one?

1554. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 12:44:02 PM

"hypothesis" and "very rare" being the operative words.

Even with your moderately sucessful deconstruction of the 14 studies out there (in fact you yourself admitted how both sides conducting stories are results driven rather than data driven) ... your use the words 'very rare' seems over stated.

1555. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 12:50:25 PM

"very rare" were your words. I just wanted to point out what Occam's razor would suggest. The tabloids here love victims who fight back stories. I'll let you know next time I see one.

1556. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 12:53:00 PM

Don't forget the unstated hypothesis... [Only pro-gun statistics are biased, and they are promulgate by the highly biased pro-gun lobby... all other participants are unbiased and unimpeachable]

1557. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 12:56:13 PM

Message # 1555

Very few (and I think I'm being generous) of the examples I have given have come from tabloids. Most come from local papers or tv websites. Tabloid is a 'red herring'.

1558. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 1:00:19 PM

Sheesh. I was not implying that the stories weren't accurate because they run in the tabloids.

waitaminute. You must have thought I was talking about the national inquirer or something. There are two local newspapers here with wide circulation, the Daily News and the Post, that are in tabloid format. The Post is a Rupert Murdoch right wingnut rag, but the news they report is usually real news. They love victim stories.

1559. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 1:03:17 PM

Don't forget the unstated hypothesis.

There's no unstated hypothesis. The fact that there are few stories about some subject may well be because there are few such instances. It doesn't matter what subject you put in there, be it alien landings or turkey dinners on thanksgiving.

In fact, that would seem to me to be the null hypothesis, and that the burden would be on the person who wants to show that the absence of stories has some other explanation.

1560. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 1:06:12 PM

Message # 1553

How the heck am I supposed to know why? Because they so firmly believe that guns are bad that they consciously or subconsciously exclude evidence that doesn't support this viewpoint.

Kinda like how we respond to each others' posts.

But you yourself say "follow the money"... well if the NRA has so much money we'd be seeing pro-gun stories out the yen-yang.

There are reasons beyond money to be gained by the way... there is political clout. If the press favors a certain type of candidate that has a certain type of view... and they only run a certain type of story... then that candidate has a better chance of being elected.

I need only cite a few examples from the past election to show how this works... or have you already forgotten Dan Rather and the forged memo? What did they have to gain from that story or the defeat of Bush? Certainly doesn't seem to serve their business interests to lie... the only other explanation is bias. Which we may or may not be privvy to.

1561. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 1:08:24 PM

Message # 1558

If you surmise that there are press entities out there trying to purposefully concentrate stories like that... why is it implausible that other entites would be trying to purposefully diffuse stories like that?

1562. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 1:12:15 PM

Message # 1559

In fact, that would seem to me to be the null hypothesis, and that the burden would be on the person who wants to show that the absence of stories has some other explanation.

Dude I don't know what to say. It seems like I'm all the time taking on these 'burdens' but you guys don't have to prove a fucking thing.

1563. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 1:19:08 PM

I'm talking about one narrow question--whether the absence of news stories about successful use of guns in self defense means that there is press bias. It seems to me that the simplest hypothesis is that there are few such stories because there are few such instances. It seems to me that this hypothesis would hold regardless of the subject of the stories. That is, the null hyporhesis is the absence of stories is due to the absence of events.

That seems like unexceptionable reasoning to me.

BTW, sampling my local papers would be biased, I just realized, because it is difficult to get a gun legally here. Someone who fended off a criminal with a gun would be unlikely to report doing so.

1564. jayackroyd - 3/25/2005 1:22:31 PM

Oddly enough, another reason for an absence of stories is that the event occurs frequently, as in the dog bites man story. In Russel Baker's memoir Growing Up he recounts calling in a "good murder" when he was a young reporter on the police beat. The city editor lost interest when it turned out the victim was black. Baker's view was that this was both an instance of too common a story and attitudes about race at the time.

1565. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 1:27:23 PM

In fact, that would seem to me to be the null hypothesis, and that the burden would be on the person who wants to show that the absence of stories has some other explanation.

Message # 1536

Message # 1544

Message # 1548

Message # 1547

Well... if you ask me these post call into question the press' honorable intentions. You're defense of the press is that the explaination must simply be that guns are so bad that there are no opportunities to report them positively. That DGU's are in fact so rare, and that 14 studies are so flawed...

basically that all the evidence in favor of guns is wrong... we must ignore all of this input and conclude that DGU's just don't really happen...

Come on... even that article I posted that the DGU numbers reported are over-estimates, isn't dumb enough to say that they are "very rare".

1566. iiibbb - 3/25/2005 2:07:20 PM

It insults me that you trust them more than me.

1567. wonkers2 - 3/26/2005 7:36:52 AM

N.R.A. answer to gun violence--MORE GUNS!

Arizona N.R.A. Leader Proposes Guns for Teachers

All options should be considered to prevent rampages like the Minnesota school shooting in which 10 died, including making guns available to teachers, a leader of the N.R.A. said. "I'm not saying that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students," said the first vice president of the group, Sandra S. Froman , who is widely expected to be elected its president next months. Ms. Forman, a lawyer in Tucson, cited a school shooting in Pearl, Miss., in 1997, when a teacher retrieved a gun from his car after a student opened fire and held the student at bay until police arrived.

(AP)

1568. iiibbb - 3/26/2005 8:36:51 AM

What's your answer? Disarm the cops? That's where the kid got the guns he used.

You want to reason with the shooter? That works.

A guy I work with used to talk about the days when he was a kid and many kids were taking guns to school to go hunting after classes were over. They checked them in with the principal in the morning.

If you ask me it's a fair question about what will increase the security of schools... if security guards and metal detectors don't work... what else?

We could make them all wear shock collars.

1569. iiibbb - 3/26/2005 8:56:52 AM

Let's pretend handguns didn't exist... a kid like this will find a shotgun... or get a rifle and kill people at a distance.

Let's pretend no guns exisit... a kid like this will build a bomb, or just get in a car and start running people.


The question we should be asking is first, what are we going to do to help, or interceding, on kids that might be planning something like this... and second, what really makes a school secure.

Declaring schools as "gun free zones" is a joke to anyone who decides they're going to walk in there and start shooting. It certainly isn't going to keep someone from finding a way to kill if that's what they want to do.

1570. wonkers2 - 3/27/2005 5:59:52 PM

iiibbb may want to get married in this church! Here.

1571. iiibbb - 3/27/2005 6:28:34 PM

After a warning from Quisenberry, Byers said he would keep guns out of the school and day care center. But he said the church has seen violent incidents in the past. Several years ago, a would-be carjacker at a nearby gas station tried to get into two Calvary church doors when 75 children were there for school and day care, Byers said.

Just for argument's sake... and if the carjacker had gotten in what would you have recommended them do? Remind the criminal that churches are gun-free zones? Perhaps registering the firearms would prevent something bad from happening. Perhaps tell the church to relocate to a better neighborhood.

1572. wonkers2 - 3/27/2005 6:59:06 PM

Have everybody lie down on the floor?

1573. iiibbb - 3/27/2005 8:07:12 PM

Does that prevent blood spatter from ruining as much of the decor?

1574. alistairconnor - 3/29/2005 8:06:55 AM

Let's pretend handguns didn't exist... a kid like this will find a shotgun... or get a rifle and kill people at a distance.

Let's pretend no guns exisit... a kid like this will build a bomb, or just get in a car and start running people.

No, the handgun is the Great Equaliser.

That's the whole point of its usefulness. A woman with a gun in her handbag is empowered, as Thoughtful will tell us. I understand and respect that (though I don't agree with it as a right). The aggrieved kid who takes a handgun to school is the downside to that. He is empowered by the gun too.

You can't have one without the other. You can't have it both ways.

1575. alistairconnor - 3/29/2005 8:25:40 AM

iii : With respect to your allegation of press bias :

The point I'm trying to make is that for an accusation of bias to have any meaning or credibility, a motive is required. Otherwise it's functionally equivalent to paranoia.

As I said, I'm not alleging there is no bias : I'm searching for motives and mechanisms.


But if you look at two classes of events : gun crime, and successful self-defense involving guns, there are plenty of other reasons why the second might have a low profile in the press. For example :

1) it might happen less often than you think
2) occurrences might not come to the attention of the media.


Look at the mechanics of it. Why is a gun crime going to be reported? Because the police are involved, for one thing; the media check with the police for incidents worth reporting.

How are the media going to know about self-defense episodes? If the police are not involved, there is almost certainly no possibility of a story : a journalist needs to find out about the story (how?), and also requires independent verification. A householder's say-so that he saw off a burglar is not a story.

1576. wonkers2 - 3/29/2005 9:49:33 AM

"You can't have it both ways." Good point.

1577. iiibbb - 3/29/2005 9:55:51 AM

You've answered your own question.

As you say, bias doesn't have to be intentional. Whether it is because

(1) reporter X has a slant against guns, or
(2) that reporter X is unaware of defensive acts not reported to police

So you yourself have pointed out the folly of drawing conclusions based only on what's reported to police.

Murders and DGU's where someone actually fires a gun or injures a criminal are likely to be reported in the press. However, by your own observation, DGU where the gun isn't fired are probably not going to be reported at all... just like muggings or hold-ups are rarely reported.

Granted, there may be over-reporting in Kleck's and other studies because 'victims' embelish... but people are also disinclined to report some events to the police because they may be harassed for 'brandishing' a gun.

However, while there may be no concerted effort by the wholistic press, there must be individual operators who are using their position to slant stories against guns (just like I advocate guns as a moderator in here). There's no denying that the body of work on guns in the popular press is pretty negative about guns.

There's a lot about DGU's that's unknowable.

1578. alistairconnor - 3/29/2005 10:05:09 AM

So you yourself have pointed out the folly of drawing conclusions based only on what's reported to police.

Fine. But I'm still finding you very unconvincing on the subject of press bias.

Occam's razor : press bias is not necessary to explain the paucity of reporting on DGUs.

In your opinion, is the press bias you allege predominantly due to journalists as a class disliking guns, or because they are under instructions from media owners?

The first explanation is somewhat plausible, if indeed US journalists are overwhelmingly left of centre, as one of your posts alleges. But your source alleges that the bias comes more from media owners, and I'm confused about that -- he doesn't provide any explanation -- why would media owners as a class be down on guns?


There is another possible element of explanation :
Media owners like to make money; by and large, they report stuff that people want to hear. It may be that there is a market for gun-crime stories, and not much interest among the public for DGU stories.

If this were the case, would that constitute media bias?

Or perhaps the public is biased...?

1579. iiibbb - 3/29/2005 11:39:23 AM

There is another possible element of explanation :
Media owners like to make money; by and large, they report stuff that people want to hear. It may be that there is a market for gun-crime stories, and not much interest among the public for DGU stories.

Yes, I'd say it's media bias. Media is supposed to be a public service, not a market. If they are pandering to what sells, rather than accurately reporting the facts, then they are biased.

If I were to tell the forest company that funded me what they wanted to hear, and left out critical facts about logging disturbance, then I'd be biased. Granted, what I found was mostly good news for them... but there were aspects of my analysis regarding the economics of their practices which will no doubt ruffle some of their feathers. To omit this would be bias on my part.

I should note that most people are biaed in some way or another... it is almost unavoidable.

I am biased by my own experiences. I was neutral about gun control until some things happened to me that changed my perspective.

My future mother-in-law and federal judge is fairly biased against guns, but after the attacks on that other judge's family she's expressed at least some degree of approval of me owning a shotgun. I'm certain that someone who's been touched by suicide has a propensity to be biased against guns.

Everyone is biased...

As far as I'm concerned, with tricky subjects like guns, abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia... whatever... I make a principled stand on the side of government non-interference.

That's the source of my bias more than paranoia over being attacked or a desire to overthrow the government or any of those other topics we have discussed.

If our society truely believes guns are bad, abortion is bad, gays are bad, gay marriage is good.... whatever... then the proper thing to do is to pass an ammendment. If a concensus can't be met on social issues such as these, then the default is that gov't stays out of peoples' business.

1580. jayackroyd - 3/31/2005 4:58:07 PM

This kind of front page is something the tabloids pursue here. Why do I not see gun wielders when I see such stories?

1581. jexster - 4/1/2005 3:06:01 PM

Personally as a hunter, NRA rifle competitor, and skeet shooter (all in my yute), I find the agruments be they practical or constitutional against strict gun control are trivial...

Practical politics is another matter..

Democrat Killer?




[from the April 18, 2005 issue]

New Mexico

Shannon Robinson is an unlikely prototype of a twenty-first-century opinion shaper. With disheveled gray hair, a ruddy face, a voice gravelly from years of chain-smoking Marlboros and a habit of sipping translucent maté tea from a thermos through a silver straw, Robinson looks more like a down-and-out prizefighter than a cutting-edge politician. Yet this 57-year-old is a Democratic state senator in New Mexico, and he informally heads a group of state politicians who call themselves the Bull Moosers. When an issue that the members of this caucus care about comes up for a vote in the Santa Fe Capitol, they signal its importance by putting their fingers up to their ears and imitating the antlers on a male moose. Bills to do with hunting, fishing, guns, trucks, boats, ranching and such are routinely greeted by a raising of the antlers.

The Bull Moosers are a potent alliance of rural representatives, many of them Hispanic, and politicians, like Robinson, from poorer city districts (Robinson represents an impoverished, heavily immigrant and crime-ridden neighborhood in Albuquerque). "Not many people care much about my part of town," says Robinson, in between maté sips. "But these folks have done that for me. So when we talk about issues important to ranchers and the guys with boots on, I pay a lot of attention to that. I'm the number-one Bull Moose. One of those old stags. Got some chipped-off antlers."

...
"Richardson's a very politically astute individual," says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. "He knows you're beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes." Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode's colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. "Richardson," says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney's, "got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue."

Shannon Robinson believes the Democrats would have won the last presidential election--would have certainly won New Mexico, with its five Electoral College votes--if the wedge issue of guns had been successfully neutralized. "Folks need to understand that we need to fight issues that are significant to why people are Democrats," the Bull Mooser asserts. "The Democratic Party is the party of inclusion. Bush's latest budget has a very predictable effort to let people know 'you're on your own. You're not going to get help from the federal government.' The Democrats are the group trying to create success for all Americans."

Quite simply, says Robinson, lighting another cigarette with the smoldering butt of the one just smoked, the stakes are too high to let an issue like guns rob Democrats of Electoral College votes in a state like New Mexico. "This is real," he exclaims as he details the way in which he wants the party to get on-message. "We're playing for the ability to rule the world. And what we have on the line is the conscience of the world, which is aghast that we had an election and didn't discuss the new imperialism that Bush's people have played us into."

1582. wonkers2 - 4/4/2005 3:46:50 PM

Guns for Terrorists--more NRA mischief Here.

1583. iiibbb - 4/4/2005 6:37:11 PM

In my mind if they're questionable enough terror-wise to not buy a gun... why aren't they questionable enough to arrest or deport?

If they are US citizens... are they innocent until proven guilty or not? How can you condone people being put on lists that curtail their rights without a trial to prove their guilt? If they are guilty... shouldn't we worry more about why they're not in prison, rather than whether they can buy a gun?

Seems a bit of a red herring to me.

1584. wonkers2 - 4/4/2005 8:12:05 PM

Or take flying lessons, learning only how to take off jet planes??

1585. wonkers2 - 4/4/2005 8:13:20 PM

Well, I guess the 9-11 terrorists weren't citizens.

1586. iiibbb - 4/4/2005 9:02:17 PM

If they're on a 'list' deport them or jail them...

1587. wonkers2 - 4/11/2005 6:27:58 AM

Clueless in Minnesota, iiibbb doesn't get it on what guns are doing to our inner cities--12-year-old killed while taking out the trash Here.

1588. iiibbb - 4/11/2005 11:06:21 AM

By criminals who probably had stolen guns who probably would be unaffected by any gun control laws and if they are caught will still go to jail.

so what are more laws going to do for us?

1589. iiibbb - 4/11/2005 11:07:02 AM

The laws are loosening...

1590. iiibbb - 4/11/2005 11:08:09 AM

Message # 1587

In all likelyhood if they do catch the people who shot this kid... what do you think the likelyhood is that they will be in prison for more than 5 years? 10 years?

1591. alistairConnor - 4/11/2005 1:56:20 PM

More interesting, I think, than the legal aspects of gun control, in this particular case, is the emphasis in the article about changing the gun culture :

To combat Detroit's wave of gun violence, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy launched a 2-year plan in February 2004 called Change the Culture that called for public-service announcements, a gun amnesty program, gun-lock giveaways, educating people about conflict resolution without guns, neighborhood clubs and town meetings to discuss the "culture of violence." Worthy also changed a policy that allowed people with illegal guns to plead guilty to certain charges, in exchange for delayed sentences and having the charges wiped clean if they stayed above the law for a year.

What do you think about this aspect, iii?

1592. iiibbb - 4/11/2005 2:03:48 PM

That aspect is important... and I beleive I have frequently advocated education and addressing violence over guns alone.

1593. jayackroyd - 4/11/2005 7:55:03 PM

Researchers at the Medical College of Georgia reviewed the cases of more than 2,500 patients under age 19 seen by neurosurgeons between 1996 and 2002. They identified 64 sports-related injuries, including 15 golf-related injuries. Of those injuries, seven were caused by golf cart accidents, seven by golf clubs and one by being struck with a golf ball.

This is the kind of thing that gets me. If we're worried about death and injury at this level of frequency, then why aren't guns in the picture?

1594. wonkers2 - 4/12/2005 4:43:55 AM

Man charged in child's death. Apparently not a hardened criminal or dope dealer, just an ordinary guy with a temper and a gun. Here.

1595. wonkers2 - 4/12/2005 4:45:42 AM

It will be interesting to see for sure whether the perp owned the gun legally or illegally, where he obtained it, whether he had a record, etc.

1596. iiibbb - 4/12/2005 9:31:36 AM

Watch List Justice

Should people lose rights because they are sympathetic to, but do not actually help, terrorist groups? Should law enforcement and not judges be the arbiter of those sympathizers who should be placed on "watch lists"?
In Senate hearings on renewing the Patriot Act last week, Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer said the answer to both questions was "yes." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller were grilled over a report showing that 35 gun purchases during the first half of last year were made by people on terrorist "watch lists," and the Senators called it a major public security risk.
----------------------------------
The 35 "suspected" purchases, out of 3.1 million total transactions, were allowed because background checks found no prohibiting information. No felonies or disqualifying misdemeanors, for example. They were neither fugitives from justice nor illegal aliens. Nor had they ever disavowed their U.S. citizenship.
As Mr. Mueller pointed out, the FBI was alerted when these sales took place, but the transactions weren't stopped because the law didn't prohibit them. But Mr. Mueller assured the Senators that "we then will pursue [these leads]. We will not let it go."
Ironically, this debate occurred just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down state laws that use police reports to set prison sentences because police reports are not reliable. Being on the "watch list" would also just rely on police reports. There would be no adjudication by a judge, no trial by jury, before being placed on the list. "Suspects" don't even have to be foreigners. They may have simply been individuals classified by law enforcement as sympathetic to militia groups or other undesirable domestic organizations.
Some politicians have recently experienced being on a "watch list" firsthand.
Ironically, the same Mr. Kennedy who wants to rely on "watch lists" was understandably upset last year and publicly complained to the Senate Judiciary committee when he was prevented from flying on an airplane because his name was placed on just such a "watch list." Rules did not allow him to be told at the airport why he was being denied a ticket, but fortunately for him being a U.S. senator meant the problem was eventually resolved with a few telephone calls.
-------------------------------------
People need to remind themselves that a "watch list" is only that. It is not even probable cause. If you had probable cause that these suspects had done something illegal, you could arrest them.
Ironically, during the hearing, Mr. Kennedy spent most of his question time concerned that foreign combatants held in Guantanamo were not treated by the military with the respect that the FBI uses to handle American criminals. At the same time, he believes Americans can lose their rights to own a gun without an evidentiary hearing. Democrats may think that people on "watch lists" should be denied their rights to own a gun, but what is next? Why not just make the system much "more efficient" and simply put all people "watch lists" directly in prison?

1597. wonkers2 - 4/12/2005 7:00:37 PM

Actually, these people are lucky they haven't been "rendered" (Great word!) to Egypt or similar places never to be heard from again.

1598. wonkers2 - 4/12/2005 7:01:11 PM

Not being allowed to buy a gun is the least of their worries.

1599. wonkers2 - 4/14/2005 5:47:14 AM

An inner city voice on gun rights. Here.

1600. iiibbb - 4/14/2005 6:43:05 AM

Some gems
If that isn't risky enough, the bill also extends immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her hands, so long as another law isn't being violated.

Heat of the moment self defense is not 'taking the law in your own hands'...

Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad judgments and deadly mistakes.

Ooooo weeks of training huh? First, let's not be overly impressed with the polices' training. I've posted plenty of examples of police who show no more ability than I do. Let's also not forget that they are under no obligation to protect individuals.

"The bill assumes that everyone is reasonable and rational. Let's just say someone acts with this law as a defense and the 4-year-old in the yard or the 90-year-old walking down the street gets hit," she says. "A bullet has no name on it. How do you control that?"

Gun control bills assume that people will actually register weapons and comply with restrictions. Do criminals? How do you control that?

No doubt, our flawed justice system lets some awful people off the hook too easily. But better to gamble on that system than a legal trend that could easily become a quick-draw excuse for more violence in America.

Better to gamble on the current system. The writer admits it's a gamble while trashing the idea that normal citizens should be given some empowerment? Hah!

1601. wonkers2 - 4/14/2005 7:00:36 AM

"Self defense is not taking the law into your own hands."

But what if the "self defender" has misjudged the situation as in the case of Amadou Diallo where NYPD's "finest" pumped 40 bullets into him on his own front steps as he reached for his wallet. Don't you think that blanket immunit from lawsuit is going too far? Shouldn't each case on the facts of the situation?

1602. alistairconnor - 4/14/2005 7:21:01 AM

Blanket immunity certainly invites abuse.

If two people have guns, and one of them dies, the survivor just has to claim self defense, and he's OK?

OK... corral.

1603. alistairconnor - 4/14/2005 7:23:51 AM

In the absence of witnesses, this law sounds like it legalises murder, as long as the victim is armed.

Come to think of it, that becomes a powerful disincentive to carrying a gun for self-defense... you automatically become a legitimate target.

Sort of perverse.

1604. wonkers2 - 4/14/2005 7:37:20 AM

Good point.

1605. iiibbb - 4/14/2005 10:11:20 AM

Message # 1601

The police have "weeks" of training to deal with these situations... didn't you read the article you linked?

What happened to the NYPD's finest? Did they lose their jobs? did they go to jail? Did the city get sued or did they compensate the family of the victim? I would simply say hold a citizen to the same standard that you hold those cops.

1606. iiibbb - 4/14/2005 10:14:28 AM

Message # 1602

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a blank check. I think it merely moves the burden of proof back onto the state to show that it wasn't self-defense... not the victim (self defender) to prove their innocence.

We opperate under a presumption of innocence... except in the case of self defense for some reason.

1607. iiibbb - 4/14/2005 10:16:58 AM

If that isn't the intent of the law... then I agree... it is too liberal about the use of force.

But I don't think that mandating that a home owner is required to retreat is necessarily a good policy either.

1608. wonkers2 - 4/14/2005 10:17:43 AM

You may well be correct. I haven't seen what the law says.

1609. iiibbb - 4/14/2005 10:19:03 AM

Basically... if you don't want to get shot...

Don't break into someone elses house.

Don't try to mug someone.

Don't try to rape someone.

Don't cut people off in traffic or use hand gestures.

Don't pick fights.

1610. wonkers2 - 4/14/2005 11:07:55 AM

iiibbb, you'll like this one! Message # 4712 in thread 138

1611. iiibbb - 4/15/2005 7:46:38 AM

More cops with guns... I'll bet he had "weeks" of training.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is an aphorism we usually associate with those who give others instructions or advice or guidelines that they themselves don't follow. That phrase springs to mind as an apt description of an incident involving DEA a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent who accidentally shot himself while presenting a lecture on gun safety.

On 9 April 2004, a DEA agent (who has not been identified by name in press accounts) delivered a presentation on gun safety to about 50 adults and students at an event sponsored by the Orlando Minority Youth Golf Association. Partway through his lecture, the agent picked up his .40-caliber duty weapon and held it up for the audience to see as he announced: "This is a Glock 40. Fifty Cent, Too Short, all of them talk about a Glock 40, OK? I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock 40." Seconds later the gun discharged, wounding the agent in the thigh (or the foot, or the leg, according to various press accounts).

Ironically... according to at least one of the press accounts, the agent wasn't suspended because of the incident, but because he shouldn't have been video taped and his cover was blown.

I'll tell you what; it is the height of arrogance of agents of the government to imply they are necessarily better qualified to handle weapons than many citizens. It is also the height of naivete to believe anyone who says they are.

1612. iiibbb - 4/15/2005 8:41:00 AM

ISRA: Cockeyed Legislation Would Result in the Arrest and Prosecution of Robbery Victims

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., April 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

The ISRA is encouraging members of the Illinois General Assembly to strike down a proposal that would lead to the arrest and prosecution of robbery victims.

Under SB 219, victims of burglary or others who had firearms stolen would have 72 hours to report such thefts to the Illinois State Police. Failing to do so would result in the victim being arrested and tried.

"There is no practical purpose for this legislation other than to harass the state's gun owners," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "Forcing gun owners to report gun thefts under the threat of prosecution will not aid in the apprehension of the robber or result in quicker recovery of the stolen property. Likewise, forced reporting will not prevent the thief from fencing the stolen guns nor will it prevent criminals from using those stolen guns to aid in the commission of additional crimes. Furthermore, most legally owned firearms are covered under homeowners' insurance policies. Claims against those policies must be supported by police reports that list stolen property. Forced reporting accomplishes nothing more than adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already painful process. Victims of crime deserve better than that."

"Like all good Illinois citizens, law-abiding gun owners are all for taking a bite out of crime," continued Pearson. "However, adding insult to injury by threatening burglary victims with prosecution isn't responsible government in our minds. This bill is yet another example of needless, punitive legislation that has become the hallmark of a certain contingent within the General Assembly."

1613. iiibbb - 4/15/2005 10:18:42 AM

Another tragedy where a child kills another child. I just can't believe parents would allow kids such ready access to these types of weapons... much less encourage their use.

Obviously, the correct response to to ban them.

1614. wonkers2 - 4/16/2005 6:31:09 AM

Cops get trigger happy when citizens have guns Here.

1615. wonkers2 - 4/16/2005 6:33:25 AM

Two shot with AK-47 and 9mm in drive-by shooting. Here.

1616. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 7:24:57 AM

Speaking of unproven social experiments

The idea that a free education automatically means you're rehabilitating a violent criminals doesn't seem to jibe. It also doesn't seem fair that people who don't go off and rape someone can barely do better than a student loan, yet some violent asshole can get a couple of BS degrees and get out of prison earlier.

They say it's cheaper than leaving them in prison... well, askt he next victim if it was a bargain or not.

At a minimum it seems that you make them pay their debt for getting out early through a program like this.

1617. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 7:31:25 AM

Obviously, the correct response to to ban them.

What is the correct response?

1618. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 7:32:31 AM

This is the central point I, at least have been driving at. You're always talking about sensible, responsible gun owners. How do distinguish the responsible from the irresponsible?

1619. alistairconnor - 4/18/2005 7:35:12 AM

They say it's cheaper than leaving them in prison... well, askt he next victim if it was a bargain or not.

That'd be an interesting subject for a study : The re-offending rate among people who earned a degree in prison.

No doubt the subject has already been studied. I think we can rely on Fox News not to report on that. Probably the results wouldn't fit their prejudices, nor yours, iii.

1620. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 7:43:33 AM

1617. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 2:31:25 PM

What is the correct response?

I was being facetious... kid kills a kid with a gun... uproar about my gun.

Kid kills a kid with a baseball bat.... no uproard about my baseball bat.

1618. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 2:32:31 PM

This is the central point I, at least have been driving at. You're always talking about sensible, responsible gun owners. How do distinguish the responsible from the irresponsible?

I guess if we could determine that we'd not have drunk drivers either. When you're irresponsible with alcohol and a car you only lose your license for a few hours. What's to really stop a drunk from driving again?

Are you (collective) willing to give someone the same second chance for being irresponsible with a gun? There are those who don't even think sober people with no record should have access to a gun... but apparently society has no problem with people who've proven themselves irresponsible with something as deadly as a car.

1621. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 7:51:46 AM

That was unresponsive, unless you mean "do nothing."

1622. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 7:53:17 AM

I just can't believe parents would allow kids such ready access to these types of weapons... much less encourage their use.

Was this also facetious? (I knew the other comment was, but I thought you were serious here.)

1623. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 7:54:13 AM

Message # 1619

Not so much prejudice as it is a little resentment given that I know people who are struggling to get through college... working their ass off at nights to make enough money in school...

While a rapist can go out there and commit a violent crime and not only get a free education out of it, not even serve as much time as they should have.

Prejudice means I have a preconceived and baseless mistrust of someone based on some stereotype... it's kinda hard to say that I mistrust violent criminals because I've stereotyped them... because they've proven themselves to be violent it's hardly a stereotype.

No, I think this qualifies more as resentment than prejudice.

And in the case of this story... who the fuck cares if it came from Fox?

By the way... I have no issue with these programs for non-violent criminals.

1624. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 7:56:58 AM

1621. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 2:51:46 PM

That was unresponsive, unless you mean "do nothing."

Treat guns like cars... right?

It wasn't unresponsive. How do you know who's going to be irresponsible ahead of time? Irresponsible can be willful or ignorant.

The point of the post is that if it weere possible to determine who's worthy of a gun ahead of time, we'd be doing it with cars.

1625. alistairconnor - 4/18/2005 7:57:57 AM

I think it demonstrates that you believe in punishment rather than rehabilitation.

As for Fox, I think it's reasonable to assume that, if they had the statistics, they wouldn't publish them if they did not support the point they are making.

I thought you expected journalists to be objective? Do you except Fox from that obligation?

1626. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:00:13 AM

1622. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 2:53:17 PM

I just can't believe parents would allow kids such ready access to these types of weapons... much less encourage their use.

Was this also facetious? (I knew the other comment was, but I thought you were serious here.)

The whole post was facetious.

Would we actually demand that baseball bats be banned in light of this crime? Would we say that these parents are irresponsible for leaving baseball bats unlocked in their homes, much less allowing kids to use them unsupervised?

Why is a kid beating the snot out of another kid with a baseball bat less henious than a kid shooting another kid?

1627. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:07:50 AM

Are you serious?

1628. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:09:53 AM

Message # 1625

I get my news from more places than fox... that's all I can say. You're assumption that they can not report any fact just belys your prejudice.

It's a story. I have no doubt that these education programs are great for non-violent criminals.

But when it comes to violence... yes... I believe in punishment once the act has been committed. I already think that the penalties for crimes in this country are out of balance. The fact that pot possession previously landed you 5 years; although the SCOTUS overturned those recently, but doesn't help those already in jail.

Basically... I don't think less than 10 years for rape, murder, and child molestation are adequate... but that's just me. As long as our system releases people like this back into the world... then I have a low desire to give up my gun rights.

Jay... you ask how decide whether someone is responsible enough for a gun... why can't we even apply it to violent offenders we're going to release back into the world?

People are fixated on me proving my worth to society when I've done nothing to call it into question... yet see no issue with releasing proven aggressors back into the world.

1629. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:10:31 AM

It wasn't unresponsive. How do you know who's going to be irresponsible ahead of time? Irresponsible can be willful or ignorant.


Can't you use this argument for permitting unregulated citizen ownership of bazookas? Or explosives? Or nukes? You honestly believe that a kid shooting a kid with a gun is the same thing as a kid hitting another kid with a baseball bat?

1630. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:11:40 AM

Jay... you ask how decide whether someone is responsible enough for a gun... why can't we even apply it to violent offenders we're going to release back into the world?

I didn't raise the responsibility argument. You did.

I just want to be clear. Your policy prescription for dealing with kids killing other kids with their parents' guns is to do nothing, right?

1631. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:14:46 AM

1629. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 3:10:31 PM
Can't you use this argument for permitting unregulated citizen ownership of bazookas? Or explosives? Or nukes? You honestly believe that a kid shooting a kid with a gun is the same thing as a kid hitting another kid with a baseball bat?

I'm not asking for a bazooka, explosibes, or nukes.

Yes... I honestly believe that a kid shooting a kid with a gun is the same thing as a kid murdering another kid with a baseball bat.

Dead=Dead.

1632. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:18:03 AM

Message # 1630

My comment is more a criticism directed at policy prescription that would not be effective, than making my own prescription...

If I were to have a prescription... it would center around gun education.

1633. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:22:07 AM

iiibbb

Look, I'm getting a little tired of your not being willing to directly state your position here. You believe that the policy response to children killing children with guns is to make no response. Is that not so?

1634. alistairconnor - 4/18/2005 8:27:57 AM

Message # 1628

I get my news from more places than fox... that's all I can say. You're assumption that they can not report any fact just belys your prejudice.

No, I looked at the content of the article. Fox used an anecdote to reinforce their thesis that rehabilitating criminals is baaaaaad :

Diane Wheatley, who was raped ten years ago, was surprised to find out her attacker is out of prison four years early. She said earning two bachelor's and an associate's degree behind bars does not prove rehabilitation.

Sure, a victim's opinion carries emotional weight, but does not illuminate a rational discussion. If Fox had wanted to present the facts in a balanced manner, as you have advocated at other times, they could have used statistics on re-offending instead of the anecdote.

1635. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:29:08 AM

That is not so.

I'm saying that gun bans and registration are not the proper response to children killing children... and make no more sense than banning baseball bats.

I'm saying that at the core, we must address the behavior that causes a child, or adult, to act violently against another. Gun-control is ineffective.

I think that with specific regards to guns... gun education would work as well, or better, than gun bans or other legislation.

If you think that education is 'doing nothing' then I don't know what to say. I think registering guns, the AWB, and balistic fingerprinting are also 'doing nothing'.

1636. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:29:37 AM

So I'm getting tired of you implying that your nothing > my nothing.

1637. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:33:02 AM

I'm not asking for a bazooka, explosibes, or nukes.

I didn't say you were. I'm saying that your argument works equally well if you replace "guns" with "bazookas." I'm saying that your argument neglects any issue except the idea you introduced of individual responsibility.

To put it differently, when do you decide you'll no longer trust individual responsibility? How is your saying "guns but not bazookas" any more logically sound than someone saying "bats but not guns"?

1638. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 8:35:53 AM

So you still won't take a position? I didn't raise this issue. You did.

Besides, I've already offered ideas on this score--biometric measures, mandatory trigger locks. You seem to be saying that it's up to parents to decide whether to set up the gun rack next to the bat rack and let the kid make the choice when he gets into a dispute. Parents aren't permitted to buy a car that doesn't have a trunk that can't be open from the inside. But they can leave a loaded gun in their garage. You really believe this makes sense?

1639. alistairconnor - 4/18/2005 8:40:56 AM

... However, iii, I can reassure you on one thing : you incorrectly inferred that Indiana inmates get their education for free.

Indiana corrections FAQ

However, if an inmate wants to pursue post secondary education, the cost is the inmate's responsibility.

Perpetuation of class barriers behind bars...

1640. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 8:44:16 AM

Recidivism... Prison Education.

I don't know if there's much to be gleened from this seeing as they don't separate out violent recidivism... and the appear to only track violent criminals for the first 3 years.

1641. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 10:19:04 AM

Message # 1637

I know better than to try to go beyond the gun-rights issue. If I were to stand before this forum and demand Bazooka rights no one in here would probably even bother to respond.

There was a time where people had pretty open access to explosives. You couldn't cross the border with it, but you could by TNT long after sawed-off shotguns, and machineguns were effectively banned.

... actually we still have ready access to a number of explosives that we don't need special permits for, it just requires a little scientific knowledge to make a considerable bang.

But we can all buy a few gallons of diesel and modest ammounts of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and do whatever we want with it.

1642. iiibbb - 4/18/2005 10:45:27 AM

Message # 1658

Parents aren't permitted to buy a car that doesn't have a trunk that can't be open from the inside. But they can leave a loaded gun in their garage. You really believe this makes sense?

You act as if I consider this appropriate.

However... a point made and made again... just because you have a law that says "no guns in a garage" doesn't mean that someone will not put their gun their. The people who are stupid enough to do it are stupid enough to do it with a law in place.

Mandatory locks? Someone who's stupid enough to not utilize a lock, is not going to utilize one just because you wrote a law... Locks are completely irrelevant in a lot of homes too.

Biometric measures. In their current form, I just think they should be available... not mandatory. They have not reached reliability standards that would be acceptable. When the police adopt them... then I will be a believer.... but in New Jersy, which does have a law that mandates that these smart guns be required in a few years, the cops are exempt. If the gov't doesn't have enough faith in the technology to make the cops use it... why should I have faith in it?

Anyway... been down this road with you already. No need to repeat the trip.

1643. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 10:53:57 AM

You said this:

So I'm getting tired of you implying that your nothing > my nothing.......Anyway... been down this road with you already. No need to repeat the trip

I was simply pointing out that my something > your nothing.

You really do believe there should be no policies in place to protect children from firearms, right? Why won't you say so? Why do you start rattling on about baseball bats? Could it be that you're a little uncomfortable with your position?

1644. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 10:58:16 AM

You act as if I consider this appropriate.

I do not. This trick also won't work anymore. This is not about you (in fact, it has never been about you; I've always been certain that you are a responsible gun owner). It's about policies for dealing with irresponsible people handling extremely dangerous consumer goods. For you to say that other less dangerous consumer goods are similarly dangerous, I've responded,"well, why not permit irresponsible people access to still more dangerous goods."

and you don't reply, except to say that you don't the more dangerous goods. But that's not the point. The point is that your argument doesn't support your position.

1645. jayackroyd - 4/18/2005 11:00:40 AM

"For you to say that other less dangerous consumer goods are similarly dangerous," should be "For you to say that other less dangerous consumer goods can hurt kids too"

1646. iiibbb - 4/20/2005 5:35:55 PM

Collective right vs. Individual right... Just scroll to the conclusions

1647. iiibbb - 4/21/2005 2:01:41 PM

Innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

Recent suicides prompt Walmart to change policy

1648. robertjayb - 4/21/2005 5:01:31 PM

Whaddaya think, iiibbb? Was it a Glock?

SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- This is one story they'll be telling around the San Antonio Police Department for a long time. An off-duty officer was at a San Antonio auto auction house yesterday when nature called, a police spokesman said.

Officer Craig Clancy strolled to the appropriate facility and was lowering his trousers when his pistol fell from his waistband. When Clancy fumbled for the falling firearm, it went off, twice.

One of the bullets nicked a bit of floor tile into the leg of a man who was washing his hands nearby. That man was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

Police int,i.ernal affairs is investigating.

1649. iiibbb - 4/21/2005 7:08:13 PM

Dunno... saw the article, but can't tell if it was holstered or just suck in his waistband. If it was unholstered he was an idiot. Grabbing at it makes him a idiot.

1650. iiibbb - 4/21/2005 8:51:18 PM

If it happened to a civilian... I wonder whether they'd be arrested or not. I bet this guy suffers very little punishment just because he's a cop.

1651. iiibbb - 4/21/2005 8:54:30 PM

Ammo for your crusade against Glocks

DEA agent shoots himself during gun safety demonstration for kids.

"This is a Glock 40," the agent said on the tape. "Fifty Cent, Too Short, all of them talk about a Glock 40, OK?," he said. "I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock 40."

Seconds later, the agent shot himself in the foot.

Laugh riot.

1652. iiibbb - 4/21/2005 8:56:03 PM

Irony is they didn't suspend him until the tape went public... and more because it blew his cover than because they were upset that he did it.

1653. wonkers2 - 4/23/2005 6:06:44 AM

Gun mayhem continues in Detroit Here.

1654. wonkers2 - 4/24/2005 8:22:12 AM

Many say assault weapons ban changed little Here.

1655. iiibbb - 4/24/2005 3:04:49 PM

Message # 1653

So where did the kid get the weapon in the first incident... they never say. I don't know how B follows A in the first example... although I don't disagree that gun locks are a good preventative measure

Several adults and another child were in the home in the 19000 block of Mansfield in northwest Detroit at the time of the shooting. Family members told police that they did not keep a gun in the house and didn't know where the weapon came from.

"This is an unfortunate and needless incident that would have been prevented if people would make sure that a weapon in the home is secure and out of reach," said Lt. James Tolbert, commanding officer of the Detroit Police Department's homicide unit.

Tolbert suggested that parents can take a few simple actions to prevent such tragedies, such as getting a gun lock, which are offered for free by many communities, or separating the gun from any ammunition.
---------------------------------------------
You already reported the second incident in that article... didn't they catch that guy... wasn't he targeting that family? What's been the the follow up? Where did he get that gun from?

1656. iiibbb - 4/24/2005 3:09:16 PM

Message # 1654

The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many of them had said all along: that the ban was porous - so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition.

yet

"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available."

Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area shootings, for instance, used semiautomatic assault rifles that were copycat versions of banned carbines.

Feinstein is an idiot... and she carries a weapon.
-----------------------------

"The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.

The majority of the American public also thinks that the AWB bans machine guns... which it didn't... or new much else about what the AWB actually banned.

1657. iiibbb - 4/27/2005 7:12:02 AM

California plans to put a S/N on every handgun bullet.

The technology exists to laser-cut bullets with a number that police could use to trace who purchased bullets used in crimes, said Democratic sponsor Sen. Joseph Dunn.

Purchasers would pay up to a half a cent per bullet to fund record-keeping by the state Department of Justice. Vendors would pay up to $50 a year.

"We'll solve a lot of crimes if this becomes law," said Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Actually... this is actually a mildly interesting idea. I'm not sure what they're going to do about surplus ammo, handloaded ammo, and hand cast ammo... and criminals will obviously just load up on or import unmarked ammo prior to its implementation, steal it, or find other ways to unmark what they buy.

In the end I'll bet it will cost a lot and solve little... but it's an interesting idea.

1658. iiibbb - 4/27/2005 8:15:03 AM

Cops are exempt

Figures.

1659. iiibbb - 5/5/2005 8:37:52 AM

Question... if it'd been a citizen shooting at a fleeing criminal... what would the penalty be? This isn't the only case where police indiscriminantly hurl bullets. Yet joe-citizen is expected to show more restraint than these highly-trained professionals...


Idaho cities to pay to fix bullet holes

GARDEN CITY, Idaho May 4, 2005 — After officers fired 22 shots at a fleeing man without hitting him, Boise and Garden City police departments say they'll pay nearly $7,000 to repair bullet holes in homes that were hit during the wild confrontation.

According to insurance claims filed with both departments by residents, shots fired by four officers in pursuit of 39-year-old Harlan Hale hit doors, windows, window moldings, garage doors, an all-terrain-vehicle and a clothes dryer. No one was injured in the March 9 chase.

Garden City is a town of about 11,000 residents surrounded by the city of Boise.

The shots came as police tried to apprehend Hale, who had been the target of a manhunt after he was accused of shooting at two Boise police officers during a traffic stop on Feb. 28.

He was arrested March 9 less than a mile from the neighborhood. After a short car chase, Hale drove through a back yard and over a shed before crashing his car into an irrigation canal.

1660. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 8:24:33 AM

Straight Shooting on Gun Control

When it comes to rancorous debates in which the two sides routinely talk past each other, gun control ranks up there with abortion and the death penalty. Last year Abigail A. Kohn, an anthropologist trained at the University of California at San Francisco, bravely waded into this battle with Shooters: Myths and Realities of America’s Gun Cultures (Oxford University Press). A sympathetic portrait of gun enthusiasts in Northern California, the book ends with a plea for a calmer discussion of guns and crime. Reason asked Kohn to summarize her argument and invited responses from three people with an interest in this area: civil liberties lawyer Don B. Kates, journalist Wendy Kaminer, and law professor Michael I. Krauss.
------------------------------------------------
Here’s what gun control supporters must do to have any hope of being heard on the national level again:

1) Stop trying to destroy the gun culture.
2) Stop demonizing gun owners.
3) Use local gun owners as a resource.
4) Give up on dead-end gun control proposals.

1661. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 8:29:05 AM

Gun control myths just won't die

have never owned a firearm. Heck, I've never even held a real gun, much less fired one. Still, there are few federal programs that irk me more than Ottawa's gun registry.

It's not just the waste, although that's atrocious -- nearly $2-billion for a dysfunctional pile of uselessness.

And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith.
------------------------------------
Still, the fact that 13,000 Canadians -- about one-half of one per cent of applicants -- have been refused a licence in the past seven years might be meaningful if gun-controllers could then point to lowered murder rates, or show that firearms suicides have declined faster than suicides by other methods, or demonstrate a significant reduction in spousal homicides (most of the 13,000 denials have stemmed from complaints by one partner against another).

But despite these thousands of licence refusals, government ministers and special interest groups who favour the registry can't even point to a reduction in armed robberies.

The registry is not keeping the unfit from getting guns, just licences. And licences don't kill people, guns do. Keeping licences out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is meaningless.
-----------------------------
Consider, too, (from the latest Statistics Canada homicide report), that 68% of firearms murders in Canada in 2003 were committed with handguns, and handguns have been subject to mandatory federal registration since 1934. Indeed, in the past 15 years, the percentage of total murders committed with handguns has doubled, despite their being tightly controlled.

That should tell you all you need to know about the worth of firearms registries.
--------------------------------
Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.

Harassing duck hunters, target shooters and gun collectors to register their firearms will have no effect on crime. But don't tell liberals. They take great comfort in their myths.

1662. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 8:44:53 AM

To that end A serial number on every bullet

The bill

My questions

- Why are the police exempt?

- Do they even care about the reprocussions this has on recreational reloaders for target shooting and hunting?

- What makes them think that a criminal who can get a gun illegally, can't get ammo illegally? The person firing the gun doesn't have to be the person who bought the bullet.



It's stuff like this that make it unlikely there will be a reasoned debate on gun-control anytime in the near future.

1663. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 8:52:39 AM

Just a penny a bullet? Over a billion .22LR bullets are produced each year. Each .22 bullet would need a 10 digit number.

Furthermore, the idiot legislator is willing to force the law abiding to spend millions in the asinine hope of catching the two or three dumbest criminals in the western states who will use marked ammunition that they have bought themselves to commit felonies.

Makes total sense, right?

1664. PelleNilsson - 5/11/2005 9:05:43 AM

Each .22 bullet would need a 10 digit number.

Outrageous! Insurmountable difficulties!

Have you ever seen a barcode?

1665. alistairconnor - 5/11/2005 9:09:14 AM

If you cast your own bullets for personal use, forget it, you're out of business. Those days are over if this bill becomes law

Sort of like moonshine whiskey.

1666. Macnas - 5/11/2005 9:19:46 AM

Is the code on the casing or on the bullet??

If it was a case of identifying the shooter, then it would have to be on the bullet, i.e. the bit that is left in the body after a gun crime of some sort. Well, maybe not, it could pass right through the body and be lost. Or it could deform to the point where the "code" is destroyed. Indeed, it could be lost on the way out of the barrell, due to the friction and bite of the rifling lands.

I can't see this being practicle really.

1667. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 10:08:21 AM

Message # 1664

Have you ever seen a .22 bullet?

But it just goes to show you aren't willing to follow Ms Kohn's advice to give up on dead-end gun control policies... "The gun control movement needs to take responsibility for its own poor showing, which is largely due to its reliance on policies that are not only unpopular but unlikely to reduce gun crime. "

Would it interest you to know that this bill is not supported by any police organization in Cali? Not a single law enforcement association in California supports SB 357. That includes the Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) and the California Police Chiefs Association (Cal-Chiefs). So why does CADOJ say they need it?

It's blind faith that any law... no matter how unreasonable or ineffective... is justified... To quote the article from Gunter "And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns [b][or ammo in this case][/b] is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear)."

1668. arkymalarky - 5/11/2005 10:10:04 AM

But it just goes to show you aren't willing to follow Ms Kohn's advice to give up on dead-end gun control policies..

Democrats need to learn that on several subjects besides gun control, imho.

1669. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 10:11:45 AM

And yet you all are still truely baffled how people like Bush, Schwarzenegger, Ventura get elected. You are baffled why republicans have taken congress.

1670. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 10:29:22 AM

Meanwhile in Detroit another cop is going to be taken down by Kym Worthy... of course she's the same proscuter who locked an innocent man up for 3 months.

Boy... between all the murders in Detroit... including the cops... I wonder why anyone would want to arm themselves.... go figure.

1671. PelleNilsson - 5/11/2005 10:48:39 AM

In fact, iiibbb, I don't give shit about gun control in the US. If you people want to shoot each other up I couldn't care less.

1672. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 10:57:16 AM

Yay for "you-people"

1673. PelleNilsson - 5/11/2005 11:14:59 AM

Nice touch, wasn't it?

1674. arkymalarky - 5/11/2005 12:14:08 PM

And yet you all are still truely baffled how people like Bush, Schwarzenegger, Ventura get elected. You are baffled why republicans have taken congress.

Republicans play their wingnuts like harps--including the NRA "out of my cold dead hands" ones--and shove them back under their rocks as soon as elections are over. Clinton knew how to pull to the middle, but the Democratic Party doesn't. Yet Republican extremes never seem to have anything to show in the way of legislation from all their loyalty. Right now I keep getting email alerts from the AFA on NCLB and Bush's immigration policy. Before the election all they sent emails on was gay marriage. Serves them right.

1675. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 12:49:30 PM

Republicans are currently making their nest IMHO.

1676. jayackroyd - 5/11/2005 1:10:34 PM

Republicans play their wingnuts like harps--including the NRA "out of my cold dead hands" ones--and shove them back under their rocks as soon as elections are over.

Frist is having trouble getting them back under the rocks this time around. They've waited long enough, and believe they elected the President. Can't understand why they'd think so, other than Rove telling them so, over and over again.

1677. arkymalarky - 5/11/2005 2:53:30 PM

3i3b,
Yep. I think they made their nest and are proceeding to shit in it.

You're right, Jay. And they're being very loud and persistent and getting much broader public attention in demanding payback this time.

1678. iiibbb - 5/11/2005 8:58:08 PM

Sheriff: Deputies Fired 120 Rounds In Compton

This is what training gets you? It's interesting the standard that they want to hold CCW to.

1679. robertjayb - 5/11/2005 9:32:04 PM

Condi and iiibbb, sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

In an interview on CNN's ''Larry King Live,'' Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

1680. iiibbb - 5/12/2005 8:29:37 AM

David and robert sittin' in a tree... keep them n****rs in their place, eh Robert?

1681. Macnas - 5/12/2005 8:49:28 AM

Why are you associating Rob with David Duke?

Because he posted that article? Get a fucking grip lad.

1682. robertjayb - 5/12/2005 8:55:29 AM

Actually, iiibbb, I very much agree with Condi on gun registration.

1683. iiibbb - 5/12/2005 9:37:55 AM

My apologies then...

I'm not used to people starting off an agreement with a nyah-nyah chant.

1684. iiibbb - 5/13/2005 9:43:32 AM

A permit to pack


While experts debate the merits of concealed handguns, this much is known: a News & Record analysis of thousands of state records shows proponents made at least one accurate prediction -- those who receive permits follow the law.

One-tenth of 1 percent of all permits issued since the law's inception have been revoked. Though the State Bureau of Investigation declined to release what led to revocations, local law enforcement officials say most weren't because of crime.
And those who carry hidden handguns may surprise you.

They're teachers and electricians, salon owners and factory workers, bus drivers and university accountants.

"As we like to say, a concealed-handgun-permit holder is the only certified law-abiding citizen that a law enforcement officer is likely to meet," said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina. "The people who have concealed handgun permits by and large are very ordinary people. They come from all walks of life."
---------------------------------------------------
And, as gun proponents boast, most people with concealed-handgun permits stay out of trouble with the law.

"The problem with firearms is when people are not licensed and are engaged in criminal activity," said Sheriff Sam Page in Rockingham County. "Those are the people who victimize (the) county, and those are the people we want to focus on."

According to SBI statistics, of the 1,300-plus permits issued since 1995 in Rockingham County, five were revoked as of mid-January; two were temporarily suspended.

Guilford County's data looks similar. Sheriff BJ Barnes' office has issued more than 3,400 permits since passage of the law; seven permits have been revoked as of mid-January.
-------------------------------------------------
They once called themselves North Carolinians for Gun Control. That changed a few years back when organizers renamed the group the North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund.... Ten years ago, Price and gun opponents lobbied against the law's passage. Today, she said, it's harder to support the argument of potential street violence that critics once used to oppose the law.

1685. iiibbb - 5/13/2005 9:43:47 AM

toys toys

1686. robertjayb - 5/13/2005 10:38:31 AM

It's none of your business...

(AP)---The public could no longer find out who has a state permit to carry a concealed handgun under a bill approved unanimously Thursday by the Texas Senate.

A permit holder's identity could be disclosed only if that person has been arrested, indicted or convicted of a crime.

The Senate approved the measure with little discussion. It was tacked onto a bill that would extend the renewal time for a concealed handgun license.

The House passed a measure in March that also would keep permit holder identities secret.

Under current law, the Department of Public Safety must disclose whether someone holds a concealed handgun license to any person submitting a written request. Opponents of the current system say it allows potential criminals to determine whether a victim is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

Last month, The Associated Press reported that 30 Texas lawmakers have permits to carry concealed weapons, according to records obtained from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

1687. wonkers2 - 5/13/2005 10:44:58 AM

I just heard on Air America that the odds of getting killed in D.C. are slightly higher than in Iraq based on U.S. military casualties to date.

1688. iiibbb - 5/15/2005 9:10:08 AM

Leave guns at home, let police do job

I enjoy taking my family out to the fine dining establishments in Chandler without having to worry about gun-wielding National Rifle Association activists spinning their pistols on the tables.

Perhaps the most idiotic anti-gun preamble ever... who does this?

See Message # 1648

1689. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 8:42:20 AM

Maybe living in a modern-day dodge city wouldn't be so bad

The American West: A Heritage of Peace

by Ryan McMaken

A century ago, the American West, and the process of homesteading and Americanization that took place in the lands West of the Mississippi River was seen as a triumph of American drive, ingenuity, and courage; a sheer act of will that required hard work, perseverance, and above all, a spirit of independence and individualism.

In the decades following the closing of the Frontier (as pronounced by Frederick Turner in 1890), this perception of the West changed dramatically. The old view of a divinely inspired spread of Americanism changed to a more ambivalent view by mid-century, and finally, to an openly hostile view today that Western society was (and is) violent, murderous, and chaotic. We are now told that the West, after the coming of the white man, was a land of sadistic Indian murderers, psychopathic outlaws, and misfits who had abandoned the more peaceful life back in the good ol' civilized U.S. of A.

Whether promoting or condemning the West, though, novelists, filmmakers, and even historians never shied away from giving us many images of murdering Indians, or roaming outlaws, or crazy misfits, but what in an earlier era would have been abnormal behavior in films and images of the West, became standard behavior for denizens of the West in later times.
----------------------------------
More recently, we find Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History, edited by Michael Bellesiles (the now infamous author of Arming America) which contains a number of essays by authors further examining the disappointing reality that the West was actually quite a bit more boring than the movies led us to believe. Indeed, taken together, this body of research leaves us with a West that hardly lives up to the reputation of the Wild West.

As with Dodge City, the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse.

According to Dykstra and Richard M. Brown, while the Kansas code gave mayors the power to call a vigilante group from all the men in the town who ranged in ages from 18–50, it seems, at least in Kansas, that it was rarely done. In a span of 38 years, Kansas had only 19 vigilante movements that accounted for 18 deaths. In addition, between 1876 and 1886, no one was lynched or hanged illegally in Dodge City.

Given the money to be made by exploiting the exciting reputation of the Frontier, it should not surprise us that Dodge City was hardly alone in manufacturing tales of blazing guns to attract men seeking adventure. Towns like Tombstone, Abilene and Deadwood all played up their supposed histories of Frontier violence. On closer inspection, though, the records are not nearly as exciting. (For more, see "The Not So Wild Wild West" by Terry Anderson.)

If the movies and novels about the West are so unreliable then, what can we learn from documented cases about real life violence in the West? Certainly, a case that would have to jump out at us as the quintessential blood feud in the West would be the Lincoln County war of 1878–81. As the name implies, this unpleasantness was quite disruptive to southern New Mexico, and produced quite its share of corpses. But even then, we find a body count intolerably low by Hollywood standards.

1690. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 9:21:48 AM

What's the deal with all these bone-head cops negligently discharging weapons in schools lately? Fucking morons.

Student fires officer's gun in school

DEA agent discharges .40 calber pistol during gun safety demonstration.

1691. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 9:22:48 AM

I bet neither of them even lose their jobs over either incident.

A common citizen would probably get 5 years in prison or something.

1692. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2005 10:31:04 AM

And these guys are assumed to be responsible citizens and well-trained in the use of arms. Just like you.

1693. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 10:47:28 AM

No... they are assumed to be better trained than me... when in fact they are no better and have the obvious capacity to be far worse.

These two individuals are proven to be unsafe. It is unlikely anyone will be clammoring to ban armed police from schools even after events like this.

The main point is that just because they're the police doesn't autopmatically mean they're better qualified or safer than an average citizen.

1694. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2005 12:08:39 PM

The obvious counterpoint is that the average, responsible, well-trained citizen may be no better than these chaps when put in a tight situation. You are so sure that you will handle yourself admirably. How can you be? You won't know until you've been there and then it may be too late.

1695. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 12:27:17 PM

It is unlikely anyone will be clammoring to ban armed police from schools even after events like this.

Mark me down as one clamoring to ban armed police from schools.

1696. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 1:11:27 PM

Message # 1694

I am 99.99% sure I can/will handle myself safely than these officers.

Whether I handle a 'tight' confrontation any better than they do... that's true... there are many scenarios. What do you mean by 'tight'?

If 'tight' means an armed confrontation, then it doesn't matter how I act if I'm not armed myself.

If I am armed... well that's impossible to say. I am pretty non-violent and non-confrontational, so if I am given an opportunity to avoid a situation, I have invariable taken it.

If I am in a 'tight' where my friends or family were depending on me... in this regard I have never really been truely tested. However, if I'm not armed at all, I'm only a witness or the next victim regarless of whether I act bravely or not.

If 'tight' still allows that I have an opportunity to withdraw or not engage. I may very well do that, and I admit the police are not as easily afforded this option... although they are under no legal obligation to protect individuals... and often elect to stand-off rather than engage.

I would never say a gun is a guarantee of anything. However, if the situation is 'tight' what alternatives are there except to be armed?... unless I miss your meaning of the term 'tight'.


I have been in life-threatening situations caving. I'd like to think I kept a pretty cool head in those situations. Most people generally consider me to be pretty unflappable and sensible in crisis.

1697. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 1:21:20 PM

Not being a victim

Now... you may be right... I might be a coward deep down inside. We'll probably never get to find out... but without access to a gun, Option 1 isn't even a posibility, and tje idea that blind compliance is a good strategy fell with the World Trade Centers.


Option 1:

While threatening to kill everybody, the robber – described by police as a light-skinned black male in his early 20s, about six feet tall with a slim build – stuck his gun in Nader’s face. To motivate Nader, the gunman punctuated his threats with profanity and cocked the revolver.

Nader picked up the bag as though he were going to comply with the demand. Instead, he dropped it. This distracted the gunman for an instant. That’s all Nader needed to grab the robber’s pistol with one hand and pull the semiautomatic from his belt with the other.

When faced with resistance, the robber’s tough-guy facade wilted like an over-watered petunia. He pulled away and ran.


Option 2:

Nashua police implied Nader should have been a good victim and freely given his property to the criminal. The spokesman said, “The more weapons become involved, the more chance somebody could get hurt.”

Obviously, the spokesman was regurgitating department policy, but is insisting that people always be good, defenseless victims sound advice? An Internet search on convenience store robberies raises serious doubts. Numerous incidents are documented in which robbers murdered helpless and compliant victims for reasons known only to those robbers.

In Westland, Mich., Michael Lamont Schofield robbed a convenience store. In the process he killed four people and wounded two others. His girlfriend, Leslie Gordon, acted as lookout while Schofield methodically fired one shot into each of the two unarmed clerks and four customers. That they were all good victims while they waited to die was irrelevant to the killers.

In another instance, two men killed an unarmed convenience store clerk in Houston, Texas. Neighbors told investigators the clerk was a nervous person in fear of the local crime rate. They said he’d have given no resistance and would have given his money over freely. Once again, being a good victim didn’t matter to the criminals.

1698. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:25:10 PM

I am 99.99% sure

For someone who specializes in methods, that's a pretty wacky claim. You're one guy in ten thousand?

The claim itself argues against your conclusion, like the NASA management guys who claimed the risk to the shuttle before the first crash was better than 1 in 100,000.

It's this kind of claim that undermines your (and other gun advocates') credibility.

1699. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2005 1:29:42 PM

I am 99.99% sure I can/will handle myself safely than these officers.


No doubt these officers, if asked before the fact, also were 99.9% sure they could handle it safely.

I repeat whatt I said above: You won't know until you've been there and then it may be too late.

1700. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:35:22 PM

Funny. When I do what the articles author said he did "An Internet search on convenience store robberies raises serious doubts." Here's what I got:

second hit (First hit was a summary of an archived article about the decline in convenience store robberies)

About half of the respondents (47.2%) indicated that they used self protection during the robbery, including activating the alarm (68%) and firing a weapon (24%). When individuals were asked what could be done to prevent the robbery, they indicated changes in the store characteristics including better alarm systems and increasing police and security. The respondents had a particularly fatalistic approach to what could be done to prevent injury; 65% of those who had been injured indicated that nothing could have been done to prevent it. The majority of respondents said that they had not had training prior to the incident.

The offenders reported that the crimes that they had committed were usually committed with others; the majority of time one person accompanied them. A weapon was used 87% of the time, most frequently a gun. Fourteen percent of the offenders reported that injury occurred to one or more of the employees or customers in the store.

Forty percent of the offenders indicated that they had previously robbed convenience stores. In 83% of the cases, offenders reported that at the time of committing the convenience store robbery they were either drinking, using drugs, or both. They said that the single most important motivation for robbing the store was money or money for drugs. Sixty-four percent planned the robbery within six hours or less of committing the crime. Factors that appeared to be important in the selection of the stores--such as the proximity of the store to major and minor roads--were characteristics that are not easily manipulated by the staff or store owners.

In describing the robbery, the overwhelming majority of offenders reported that they did not initially use force. They only used force when, in their judgment, the response of the clerk or customer necessitated force. The majority thought they had very little chance of being caught. When asked what they thought could have been done to prevent the robbery, offenders emphasized characteristics such as presence of guards (85%), the proximity of police stations (76%), the presence of police in the area (83%), and the number of individuals inside and outside of the store (72%).

1701. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:39:31 PM

Third hit

I found most interesting that the rate went down when the store had been robbed in the past, when victims were experienced and presumably did what the cops in the Nashua (town where I was born). Funny to see the Telegraph show up in a story. iiibbb has a very broad collection of papers that he reads.

In the 1,835 convenience store robberies documented, at least 12 employees were killed and 219 sustained nonfatal injuries. Data from four states -- Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Virginia -- contained more complete information about risk factors than the data from the other states. NIOSH analyzed these data to estimate the risk of employee injury in a robbery, according to various risk factors.

Although the overall risk of employee injury in a robbery and the deterrent effect of any particular strategy could not be estimated because information was available only for robbed stores, with no comparable information for stores that were not robbed, the study found from 758 robberies in these four states that:

there were 5 homicides and 88 nonfatal assaults of convenience store workers;

employee probability of injury was significantly lower when the perpetrator used a firearm, although all of the homicides were firearm-related;

employee probability of injury was significantly lower in stores which had been robbed multiple times versus only once;

employee probability of injury was significantly lower when money was stolen than when no money was taken;

employee probability of injury was significantly lower when customers were present at the time of the robbery; and

employee risk of injury was not significantly different between one and multiple-employee stores.

NIOSH has conducted pioneering research on workplace violence, including a landmark June 1996 report that analyzed national data on assaults and homicides in different industries and identified major risk factors and potential prevention strategies.

1702. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 1:39:53 PM

No doubt... but I'm still in the position where I haven't fucked up... while they're in the position where they have fucked up.

It's like saying that you are 99.5% sure you will never rape a woman... or you'll never be mad enough to hit a child... Well, the rest of us won't know it until you die without having done it.

Point of fact is that both these officers broke fundamental rules... actually a series of fundamental rules regarding firearms safety. Sure, I've broken one or two of them individually on occasion, but breaking one of the rules isn't what causes an "accident". To have a negligent discharge you must disregard an entire series of them.

Ultimately what causes screw-ups like this is complacency... which is more about your state of mind, than your training.

1703. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:41:51 PM

fifth hit

No mention of guns here at all as an effective tool for saving employee lives.

In the early 1990s, federal studies showed that grocery and convenience store workers had the fourth highest mortality rate of retail workers (after employees of liquor stores, gas stations, and jewelry stores). But safety training programs for employees have helped lower that risk. Convenience store workers like Fowler know more about protecting themselves against violence at work than they used to, thanks in part to the industry's adoption of employee training classes. Such training may be one reason why robberies at late-night retail establishments have actually decreased more than 23 percent since 1994, according to the 1999 FBI Uniform Crime Report.

In fact, employee training is among the most basic recommendations the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) advocates in its robbery deterrence program. "Employee training focuses on helping employees be alert," says Lindsay Hutter, vice president of industry relations and communications at NACS. "If employees are alert, they're moving about the store, they're observing activities from different situations. The robber is going to believe, and rightly so, that such [employees] can spot any suspicious activity before it gets under way." The association offers industry-wide training programs in CD-ROM and video format, offering tips on spotting criminal activity ahead of time and on how to handle yourself when confronted.

1704. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:43:25 PM

Sixth hit:

The Liberty 2000 gas station on Research Park Boulevard was robbed Saturday afternoon around 2:30.

Authorities with the Madison County Sheriff's Department say a white male walked into the business and waited patiently in line. When it was his turn at the counter, he pulled out a gun, demanded all of the station's blank money orders, was handed them and then ran out, police say.

No one was hurt in the quick incident and the cashier on duty immediately called authorities. The money orders were the only items stolen. Police say the culprit was caught on video surveillance.

He's described as a white male in his twenties or thirties, 6'0 tall with an average build. At the time of the robbery, he was wearing a black jacket with a hood. According to surveillance, he had a get-a-way driver. The two left in a dark colored, late-model sedan - possibly a mainstream make such as a Camry, Maxima or Accord, police say.

If you have any information, contact the Madison County Sheriff's Department at (256) 722-7181.

Late Saturday, the Meridian Foods store on Meridian Street in North Huntsville was robbed. Employees were forced to hand over some money to a man and a woman weilding a gun, police said.

No one was hurt in this incident, either. It was unclear this weekend exactly how much money this duo got away with

1705. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 1:44:11 PM

Message # 1698

I don't see how a statement like this undermines my credibility. You're saying because I am not willing to make an unequivocal claim that I will be safe, I am therefore unsafe?

Would it make you feel better if I said it? Would that suddenly make me credible.

Ok

I'm 100% sure that I will never fuck up like these officers did.

1706. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 1:46:56 PM

Remember the point is that the police and other government opporators and 'experts' are not necessarily more qualified than the common citizenry.

To say so is kind-of like saying that men are physically superior to women... when we know that there is quite a bit of overlap in terms of strength and indurance among men and women.

1707. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:48:04 PM

Conclusions.

1) iiibbb found this story on some gun nut site.
2) the guy writing the story lied about how he obtained anecdotal information about guns as effective defenses in convenenince store robberies
3) While convenience store clerk is a very dangerous job, it's dangerous by US standards.
3) Mr Nader did act stupidly.
4) I must know that store; it's a couple of blocks from my maternal aunts' house.

1708. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:50:19 PM

while they're in the position where they have fucked up.

No, by making that claim you're also saying that you'll do better than 9990 or so other guys in the same situation.

It's like saying that you are 99.5% sure you will never rape a woman.

No, it's not in the least bit the same. Have you been through not rape training?

Your claim is that you are better trained and have better crisis reactions than 9999 similarly trained people out of 10,000. That's ridiculous on its face.

1709. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:51:41 PM

I'm 100% sure that I will never fuck up like these officers did.

And I say that kind of confidence undermines your credibility. Absence of doubt is not a good a thing.

1710. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:56:38 PM

Remember the point is that the police and other government opporators and 'experts' are not necessarily more qualified than the common citizenry.

That's not your claim. Your claim is that you are more competent than 9999 out of 10,000.

The acutal claim someone would make regarding the benefit of training and certification of government operators is that they are, on average, more qualified than the ordinary gun owner.

Your claim to profound superiority over all but a very few cops (or even over the ones who show up in the "cops are idiots" articles you find on gun nut sites) doesn't refute the claim that trained law enforcement officials handle situations better than do your average gun owner.

One could probably point to the frequency with which, say, a NYC cop fires his gun compared to your ordinary citizen. You could, say, look at the accidental deaths from guns rate and adjusting for population, determine whether cops or guys with gun racks in their pickup windows and cases of Bud in their coolers are more reliable gun users.

1711. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:57:45 PM

You're saying because I am not willing to make an unequivocal claim that I will be safe, I am therefore unsafe?


No, I am saying that claiming a 1 in 10,000 level of certain (what's that, four standard deviations) is an unrealistic assessment--dangerously so, in my view, given the topic.

1712. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 1:58:16 PM

"level of certainty"

I'm going out now. First I'll write to the telegraph guy, though.

1713. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 2:00:00 PM

So... Hypothetically Jay... if you were robbed at gunpoint today by some guy saying he was going to kill you... your action would be to comply with all of his wishes?

If your Aunt were robbed... your hope is that she would do exactly as she were told?

You're telling me that there are criminals out there who wouldn't just kill you? Everyone knows that never happens.


You're free to comply if you like... but I'm sure not going to tell someone else how they should react to a situation where someone has a gun to their face.

1714. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 2:02:21 PM

That's not your claim. Your claim is that you are more competent than 9999 out of 10,000.

Oh please. What does it mean in this country when someone says they're 99% sure of something? You think they're talking scientific precision.

Don't be so obtuse.

1715. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 2:05:59 PM

I'll let you know what Joe has to say for himself, if anything.

1716. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 2:08:02 PM

So... Hypothetically Jay... if you were robbed at gunpoint today by some guy saying he was going to kill you... your action would be to comply with all of his wishes?

I really have no idea how I would respond, and I am very suspicious of people who say that they do how they would respond in such situations.

1717. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 2:08:12 PM

That's not your claim. Your claim is that you are more competent than 9999 out of 10,000.

I'd tend to look at as I am 1/10,000 not likely to fuck up... rather than I am 'more compitant'. Negligence is not a normal distribution anyway. People are, or they are not. It would be measured as a binomial distribution.

In other words, I am not above the other competant people, I am equivalent to them.

1718. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 2:09:34 PM

Oh please. What does it mean in this country when someone says they're 99% sure of something? You think they're talking scientific precision.

No, I was talking about you. You know what that degree of certainty means. You know what the difference is between 90, 95, 99, and 99.99 percent degree of certainty is.

1719. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 2:11:16 PM

People are, or they are not. It would be measured as a binomial distribution.

Nonsense. If that were true then the army wouldn't invest in urban guerilla training courses. Have you ever played a first person shooter involving distinguishing bad guys from good? Did you get better?

1720. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 2:14:31 PM

Message # 1716

I have made no prediction how I would react... except that if I saw an a situation developing and I had time to avoid it I would.

What I do know is that with access to a weapon, I will have certain choices that are otherwise not available to me.

What I do know is that I have taken steps to train myself. If circumstances do present an opportunity to defend myself when no other options seem to remain, I will not be trying to react with a tool with which I have no familiarity... and in fact may even have some degree of competancy.

1721. jayackroyd - 5/16/2005 2:15:56 PM

There's a reasonable and reassuring position--one I expect would be echoed by some large number (over ninety percent, I'd guess) of law enforcement officials.

1722. iiibbb - 5/16/2005 2:23:12 PM

Message # 1719

Nonsense. If that were true then the army wouldn't invest in urban guerilla training courses. Have you ever played a first person shooter involving distinguishing bad guys from good? Did you get better?

Nonsense?

People are safe or they are not safe. There is not really a continuum of safety... or if their is I have no idea how you would measure it.

I would say that the only thing that matters is whether someone causes a negligent discharge... everything else is minutiae.

You might be able to break it down into a hierarchical distribution in that you could have 1) no unitentional discahrges at all 2) unintentional discharges where the rules were followed and no one was hurt, 3)unintentional (negligent) discarges where the rules were not followed and no one was hurt, and 4) unitentional (negilgent) discharges where the rules were not followed and someone was hurt.

You are morphing this from a commentary about the ability to be safe with a firearm, to the ability to read a situation or the ability to fight with a firearm. An entirely different matter than the one regarding the police NG's in those schools.

1723. alistairconnor - 5/17/2005 5:49:53 AM

Message # 1701 This study opens up some fascinating questions... Implicitly, there are two motivations for the use of firearms to defend a store during a robbery :

1. preventing the robber from getting the loot.
2. avoiding injury to staff and customers.

It seems likely to me, that firearm use would be useful for point 1 but counter-productive for point 2. i.e. that resistance increases the likelihood of injury.

If I were a store employee, I would read this as an invitation to comply with a robber's demands in order to lessen the risk of injury or death. After all, it's not my loot I'd be handing over.

If I were a store owner, on the other hand, my priorities might be different.

1724. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:28:23 AM

1. preventing the robber from getting the loot.
2. avoiding injury to staff and customers.

It seems likely to me, that firearm use would be useful for point 1 but counter-productive for point 2. i.e. that resistance increases the likelihood of injury.

This is not predictable... beyond th convenience store issue...

They used to say that compliance with plane hijackers was your best bet for survival. They have actually told women that compliance with a rapist was the best bet for survival.

I think a 'bet' is exactly what it is.

However... I'm not here to tell people to automatically resist; never my intent. People in the heat of the situation are the ones that have to read the person and decide what they're going to do. What you do depends on how many of them there are, did they take you by surprise, how well armed they are, how many people are in the store, what's your read on the person, how much are they paying attention, how many times have they said they're going to kill you, how far away from help are you... etc. etc.

Did you see the post I made a few months ago. The woman behind the counter complied until the criminal wanted her to come out from behind the counter... he turned his head... then she pulled her gun and shot him. I'm not about to go up to that woman and tell her she did something stupid. Unlike Jay, I'm not about to tell Mr. Nader he did something stupid. Mr. Nader is alive. Jay has no clue what the intent of that criminal was... he might be 99.9% sure that the criminal wouldn't have done anything and Mr Nader would have been better off. But as Jay points out, that's not very scientific... we must remain scientific after all.

How do you codify something so situationally dependent?

1725. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:30:17 AM

Some of you seem to act like I believe there is only one course of action. I'll remind you again, there is a continuum of responses, and that a gun is one that responsible people should have access to if they choose.

1726. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:42:03 AM

LAMPASAS -- Suzanna Gratia Hupp remembers reaching for a butter knife as a madman shot her parents dead at a packed cafeteria one cold October day in 1991.

"I was looking for a weapon, any weapon, because my handgun was 100 feet away, outside in my car. I made an incredibly stupid decision to follow the law, and that cost my family's lives," she says as she reflects on the massacre that ended with 24 people dead inside the Luby's Cafeteria at Killeen, a military town in Central Texas.

The personal tragedy launched her one-woman crusade to permit licensed owners to carry concealed weapons.
--------------------------------

How were these people safer by not doing anything?

1727. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:47:55 AM

The Supreme Court has ruled that a State is not obligated to protect individuals from private violence.

It is surely folly, then, for an individual to depend solely upon the protection of the police to ensure their personal safety... and to blindly rely on the grace of their attacker not to hurt them.

You can comply if you want to. I'm reserving my firearms option* thanks.


* Please note I say option as some of you continue to miss this point.

1728. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:49:37 AM

That Hupp woman in the first story is a Senator now BTW. Doubt she made it to the Million Mom March.

1729. alistairconnor - 5/17/2005 8:11:43 AM

Message # 1727 This constitutional business is a strawman if I ever saw one... and a non sequitur. I haven't seen anyone claiming that individuals have an opposable right to absolute protection against wrongdoers.

Let's see : A county social services department cannot be prosecuted for failing to protect a son against his father... implicitly, and by extension (and I grant you), you'll have no luck prosecuting the police department if you get hurt (or murdered) by a criminal... in fact the very idea is rather absurd, which, I guess, is why you didn't post anything which directly addresses this notion...

... and all this proves ... what? That the police are no use at all? There's a missing link here.

If one wishes for an intrusive social welfare system, capable of protecting children against violent parents (as I do, I'm not sure if you do or not, iii) then situations like the case cited in your link should be dealt with by increasing the efficacy and proactiveness of the system. Having the right to prosecute someone when the system fails, is rather secondary.

The fact that an individual can't count on police intervention to protect him is a simple, concrete reality, regardless of constitutional principles. Hence, the idea that it implies a right to bear arms is a non sequitur.

The French constitution (and the projected European constitition) most likely don't guarantee me protection against extraterrestrial invaders. Do you think I should install an anti-aircraft battery at my home to shoot down UFOs?

1730. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 9:12:13 AM

The police investigate crimes after the fact. Police rarely intervene in crimes.

I don't get the strawman thing. Is that just a buzzword for you? UFO's... please... pick a more rational example like wearing seatbelts.

However...

People do get attacked by criminals...
People do get killed by criminals...

You have no business dictating to me what reasonable measures I may take to protect myself from these events. If you want to gamble with your own life, fine... I don't tell you how to live your life.

I'm not hurting anyone... and I'm not endangering anyone. Certainly people you probably place considerable blind trust in, have in fact proven themselves to be no more worthy than me.

---------------------

The fact that an individual can't count on police intervention to protect him is a simple, concrete reality, regardless of constitutional principles. Hence, the idea that it implies a right to bear arms is a non sequitur.

Talk about doublespeak...

It's a non-sequitur that since I can not count on the gov't to protect me, that I should therefore take measures to protect myself?

How is your conclusion that I just lay down and let whatever happens happen any less a non-sequitur?

The laydown response is quite the herd-mentality. The sheep are collectively safe, because the odds that any one individual will die is low. Sure they may lose one or two to the wolves, but that's just their bad luck. Sheep distrust the dog because in a sheep's mind the dog is no different than the wolf... even through the dog is entirely different than the wolf.

You want to be a sheep... fine.

I'm not going to be one.

1731. alistairconnor - 5/17/2005 9:56:17 AM

Fact : Police can't protect you every moment of your life (nor can your parents).

Your conclusions : I have a right to bear arms.

Your conclusion, concerning a right, in no way follows from the first statement of fact : it's a non sequitur. QED.

I didn't say anywhere that you should lie down (that's a strawman).

I don't get the strawman thing. Is that just a buzzword for you?
No : you are trumpeting this thing about the government not being constitutionally responsible, in a tort-law sense, for protecting you, as if someone here were asserting that it were. This not being the case, it's a strawman argument.

1732. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 10:07:03 AM

This is not a non sequitur. You can't leave out other facts just so you can declare it a non-sequitur.


Fact: Police can't protect you every moment of your life.

My Conclusion: I am therefore sometimes responsible for my own protection.

Fact: A gun is the best means to stop a violent attacker or attackers.

Fact: A gun is an equilizer. It makes it so a 125 lb woman can take on a 250 lb man. It makes it so that one indivudual can ward off a group of attackers. A gun is the best way to ward off an attack by a large animal.

My Conclusion: A gun is the best solution to the variety of violent attacks I may encounter.

Fact: Private law-abiding citizens are not a threat to the general public. I am not a threat to the general public. You can't declare me a threat to the general public while ignoring the greater threat criminals are to the general public.

1733. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2005 10:37:36 AM

Suppose somebody threatens you with a a gun and demands your wallet or your car or whatever. Suppose you are carrying. What exactly will you do? Graphic detail please.

1734. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 11:02:52 AM

Sorry Pelle, you just want me to pull out some rambo story out of my ass. Although you continually appear to be convinced otherwise, I am not like that.

I can tell by your asking tht you know there is no way to entirely control or predict the outcome.

My actions will entirely depend on the circumstances.

Convince me I'm better off without a gun in that circumstance.

Armed : I can choose to draw or not draw.
Unarmed: I can only rely on the attacker's graces.

You tell me why I'm better off placing my fate in the hands of someone who's already pointing a gun at me.

Are you trying to argue that by discovering a gun are more likely to kill me... well my bet is that they were going to kill me anyway.

If I kill them... there you have it.

If they run... there you have it.


If I am attacked by dog(s) (and I have been attacked by a dog before)... I will shoot it(them) dead if I can.

1735. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2005 12:34:38 PM

I'm not at all convinced that you are a rambo type. In my opinion you are a sensible guy who is sadly misguided on this particular issue. And if you choose to draw against a guy who already has his gun out you are also a fool.

1736. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 12:52:25 PM

I'm not at all convinced that you are a rambo type. In my opinion you are a sensible guy who is sadly misguided on this particular issue. And if you choose to draw against a guy who already has his gun out you are also a fool.

Plenty of people have done it and saved their life...

Plenty of people have gone along with the badguy only to be killed...

So you can say what you want about it being foolish or misguided, but ultimately you've got no justifiable reason to fear me or others like me. The chances of you being hurt by me are much lower than the chances you'll be hurt by a criminal. You can't justfiably say that you are concerned about me, and then criticize me for being concerned about criminals.

Certainly isn't foolish to draw on someone with a knife... or 3 guys. Certainly isn't foolish to shoot a viscious dog.

If guns could materialize and dematerialize based on where it's politically correct to have them or not, or based on the nature of your attacker, that'd be great... but that's not how reality works.

1737. alistairConnor - 5/17/2005 1:31:28 PM

Personally, iii, if I lived near you, I would have no worries about you being armed. I am confident that you are safe gun user.

On the other hand, and according to your own political stance, the fact that you are allowed to carry a gun, also means that a whole bunch of other people are allowed too. Notably, the rambo types, the alcoholics, the drug addicts desparate for $50, the pimps, the burglars, the jealous husbands.

I would have worries about living near them.

1738. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 1:55:57 PM

The thing is... those people you worry about are going to have a gun, and do irresponsible things with a gun (or kill/maim in other ways) no matter what you say.

The only thing banning a gun does is take away the best equalizer the people you're not worried about (like me) have.


Pelle thinks me to be misguided but what exactly am I misguided about? Guns can/do have value. I am misguided for insisting that people be given a choice about protecting themselves?

I think he's misguided by ignoring their potential value to peace-loving individuals in favor of some utopian, non-existant construct. Is miguided to think that when I lay down my weapon, a criminal will treat me more gently.

I've had enough close calls to know better... I don't think I'm misguided at all.

1739. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2005 3:01:18 PM

So then you must think that the majority of Americans who don't carry handguns are misguided, or?

1740. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 3:20:03 PM

They're free to evaluate the risks however they see fit. As long as they afford me the same courtesy.

There are many valid reasons for not carrying. For one thing, I don't think someone should carry a gun if they're not mentally prepared to use it in self defense. Another reason not to carry is if they frequently spend time where it's illegal to carry.

Another reason is they just don't want the hassle... work, the nature of my town, and the hassle of carrying is the main reason I don't carry very much in town; however, there are times where I do carry (especially in the woods by myself). I (and the people that wrote the constitution) don't think that it's anyones' business but mine. It stays in its holster and no one knows its there or need be bothered by it being there.

1741. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 3:23:48 PM

The thing is people who don't carry benefit from the fact that I do carry.

This has been borne out by interviews of criminals (no time for links sorry). They don't want to confront an armed person. They don't know who's armed. This lowers the risk for everyone. Criminals opt for non-confrontational crimes such as burglary rather than deal with the risk of being shot.

1742. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 3:27:45 PM

The only thing I'm ever liable to say to someone with whom I'm having a conversation is an explaination why I have a gun(s) and why I changed my mind about them.

If they seem interested I invite them shooting, and I encourage them to take a gun safety and self defense class.

They can make their own decision.

1743. thoughtful - 5/17/2005 4:24:21 PM

exactly, isbs....why must it be either or...why must it be either your a gun nut or nutty for not carrying a gun.

In reality it is individuals each deciding their own circumstances and what's required for their personal safety and security.

Perhaps a black belt feels no need to carry...perhaps owning a gun would cause more fear and anxiety for some than not. It's to each to decide. The result of that decision does not define the person as a nut one way or the other.

1744. arkymalarky - 5/17/2005 5:06:35 PM

And we wonder why the country is polarized. The extremes of both sides have so affected many such arguments (with the help of a pathetic media) to the point it's almost impossible to have a real discussion on sensible policy.

1745. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:04:06 PM

This is the funny thing, many of the people here who object to me carrying a gun are the same people who like the idea of licensing... when my CCW permit is precisely what they're asking for.

I don't really know what they expect... what's the point of licensing unless someone can use it?

The only state that doesn't have formal permitting is Vermont. 39 states are shall-issue, which means the state must justify not giving you one. You have to have some kind of training and must pass a througough background check.

What other citizen has been essentially certified as law-abiding?

What if you had to prove to the state you needed a driver's license, and someone made arbitrary decisions about whether you really needed to drive or not... or you had to be famous to drive?

1746. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:08:59 PM

An argument for waiting periods - LOL

BELLEVUE, WA – More than 115 dead or injured, and now a lame “apology” from Newsweek; maybe it is time for the press to accept waiting periods before exercising its First Amendment rights in the same way the press has backed waiting periods on law-abiding Americans before exercising their Second Amendment rights.

That’s the observation from the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) now that Newsweek has acknowledged its report about the desecration of the Koran by soldiers at Guantanamo Bay was bogus.

“I wonder if Newsweek, or its owner, the Washington Post, would submit all of their stories for FBI clearance before they publish,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “This irresponsible exercise of the First Amendment freedom of the press has killed and injured more people than Charles Whitman or the Beltway Snipers.

“How many times,” Gottlieb wondered, “have Newsweek and The Washington Post advocated waiting periods for law-abiding citizens, who have hurt nobody, before they can buy a firearm? A waiting period amounts to prior restraint by the government. How loud would reporters scream if they faced prior restraint before printing their version of the news? Their double standard is hypocritical.

“The Second Amendment is the only civil right in this country that Americans can’t exercise unless they get government permission,” he noted. “A Newsweek story just killed or injured more than 115 people, but they don’t have to face government scrutiny before turning on the press.

“Newsweek reporters and editors should be subject to the same kind of ‘cooling-off’ period they advocate for gun buyers,” Gottlieb observed. “In their heated rush to print a sensational story to discredit American soldiers and the Bush Administration, they started a chain reaction that ended in worldwide acts of violence.

“The blood is on Newsweek’s hands,” Gottlieb stated. “Their report killed and injured scores of people, yet it is the American gun owner who must endure waiting periods because of an irrational fear that they might commit a crime. Crimes were committed because of Newsweek’s story. People have died.”

1747. iiibbb - 5/17/2005 6:09:13 PM

toystoys

1748. alistairconnor - 5/18/2005 8:13:26 AM

Here's an important constitutional issue about the right to bear arms.

Iti, defending himself on a charge of possessing a firearm in a public place without lawful purpose, told community magistrates Kevin Hurley and Heather White it was not uncommon on significant occasions for Tuhoe to brandish firearms ceremonially on their own territory.
[...]

Under cross examination by prosecutor Senior Sergeant Tony Rielly, Iti refused to concede he had shot at a NZ flag about 15m from tribunal members as they waited to be welcomed on to the marae. "It was a tattered article."

Although it was an offence under NZ law to hold a firearm without a licence it was not under Tuhoe law, he said.

He did not have to obey the mainstream law because, he told Mr Rielly, "you are not a Maori chief".

This guy Tame Iti (pronounced Ta-may!] is, er, a colourful character... I'll look for a photo...

1749. alistairconnor - 5/18/2005 8:17:55 AM

A profile

1750. iiibbb - 5/18/2005 11:12:05 AM

Doesn't he know the government is just there to help them?

1751. iiibbb - 5/18/2005 2:47:11 PM

Yet another bat attack.

but still no controls on their availabilty in the US exist. They should do background checks. You should be at least 21 to play baseball. Although widely used for sport, bats are derivatives of the cudgel... which are only meant to kill.

1752. alistairconnor - 5/19/2005 8:25:46 AM

Doesn't he know the government is just there to help them?

The land wars have been over since the 1880s. (The Maoris lost, but are getting a certain amount of stuff back through the courts.)

... Are you suggesting that modern-day Confederates have a right to bear arms in order to defend themselves against the evil government of the Union?

1753. iiibbb - 5/19/2005 9:09:35 AM

nah...

I just think that governments, in general, chose strange times to apply the heavy hand of justice.

I hope I'm never chosen as someone to be made an example of... not that I'm at all note-worthy.

1754. iiibbb - 5/19/2005 10:40:58 AM

To serve and protect

- note the point is not that cops are 'bad'... the point is that even though cops like this exist, is no reason to hate or distrust the vast preponderance of cops.

- same with guns and gun owners.

1755. iiibbb - 5/19/2005 3:17:56 PM

Standing your ground

This op-ed has some of the most rediculous notions about the decisions a gun owner would make... it's like a nuclear chain reaction!!!

Here's a potential scenario: say someone gets upset with someone else. He or she gets a gun and goes to the other person's home and starts to shoot. Say the next door neighbor hears these shots and fears for the safety of her children and husband. She grabs a gun, leaves her home, and starts shooting. Other neighbors feel threatened, grab weapons, go out into the street, and starting wounding and killing each other, simply because they feel threatened. So, because one person was angry, a block war has started. Could this really happen? It's definitely a possibility.

This article can only be described as hysterics.

1757. iiibbb - 5/20/2005 9:11:23 AM

Would you like litigation with that?"

Burgers and guns are two things our nation loves, but both are threatened by what has become the national pastime - no, not baseball - litigation.

There are those who argue that burgers and guns are both inherently dangerous. According to this logic, someone who eats too many burgers and develops heart disease should be able to sue the fast-food restaurant that served them platters of fat and calories. On the gun side, the litigious among us claim that if a gun is used to commit a crime, the gun manufacturer should be the target of a civil lawsuit by the victim. Whether frying meat or manufacturing rifles, businesses can be sued just for selling their products legally to people who buy them of their own free will.

While such lawsuits might sound frivolous, businesses still have to defend against them and spend money paying attorneys to file motions just to get such suits dismissed. Fast-food and firearms businesses also have to deal with 50 different states having 50 different ways of handling such cases. While it might be easy to get these suits dismissed in 45 states, there might be five states that take such silliness seriously, causing businesses to get bogged down in litigation that can seem to drag on endlessly. Furthermore, the attorneys who file these suits are sometimes funded by activist groups that do not make victory in court their top priority - causing havoc and shaking up the system are their more immediate concerns.

The judicial system seems unable to adequately control this problem, so, unfortunately, the legislature needs to step in. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, is co-sponsoring two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prevent such suits. People would still be able sue a fast-food restaurant for negligence or file a lawsuit against a company that makes defective guns. The new laws would merely protect these businesses from being sued for what they sell.

1758. iiibbb - 5/23/2005 12:33:44 PM

Some newspeople just don't get it.

4 Children In Home During Beloit Shooting

POSTED: 8:17 am CDT May 23, 2005
UPDATED: 10:20 am CDT May 23, 2005

BELOIT, Wis. -- Beloit police are sorting out the details of a weekend home invasion.

Police believe Dramain Dumas, 25, shot an intruder in his home about 3:30 a.m. Sunday.

The victim [Victim?! You have to be shitting me.] barged into the home at 156 Middle Street, started a fight and was shot, police said. He was taken to a hospital and is in stable condition.

Four children were in the home at the time of the shooting, but none of them was hurt. [You know... it's probably a good thing that a victim who invades a home is shot instead of doing something to the 4 children.]

1759. iiibbb - 5/27/2005 8:38:47 AM

Britain proposes knife control

I'm not really sure if this is real or not... the article litereally looks like it's a joke...yet it's bbc. Maybe the dr's are joking.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

1760. wabbit - 5/28/2005 11:58:01 AM

How many guns can you hide in your pants? (wmv file, needs Windows Media Player)

It never occurred to me that someone would want to (or could) walk around with this many guns in their pants, but I suppose it's a good enough example for those folks asking for dress codes to be enforced in schools.

1761. wonkers2 - 5/29/2005 5:03:01 AM

Was that iiibbb?!

1762. jexster - 5/29/2005 8:19:41 PM

Barrett m82a1

Banned In California

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided there’s a weapon that’s too dangerous to be in the hands of private citizens.

This year, a new law went into effect in California banning that weapon. It’s the .50-caliber rifle, the Rolls Royce of sniper rifles. It’s a big gun, a favorite of armies around the world, and it’s still available in 49 states in this country to anyone over 18 with a clean record.

It is, without a doubt, the most powerful weapon you can buy


And you can buy it in 49 states but that isn't what pissed me off.

I've always wanted .50 cal Machine Gun which next to the AK-47 is the best weapon made for our time.

Can't get one can I i3b3?



Browning machinegun, Cal. .50 HB, M2 on M3 Tripod Mount
Gives me an erection

1763. Macnas - 5/30/2005 1:23:56 AM

I used to fix those. Headspace needed adjusting all the time.

1764. Macnas - 5/30/2005 1:24:46 AM

The gun I mean, not jexter.

1765. alistairconnor - 5/30/2005 3:31:49 AM

< rim shot! >

Coming in late on your post Message # 1757 of ten days ago, iii :

The new laws would merely protect these businesses from being sued for what they sell.

Presumably, that proposed law would have protected tobacco companies or asbestos manufacturers from litigation.

Is that a good thing?

I'm posing the question, not answering it.

1766. arkymalarky - 5/30/2005 8:21:23 AM

They actively tried to hide the dangers of their products from consumers and the government. They're culpable because of misleading advertisements. Their products weren't pulled, but now they're required to inform consumers of the hazards of exposure to them.

1767. alistairconnor - 5/30/2005 8:52:52 AM

Well, how about a prominent health warning on all guns?

"The surgeon general has determined that shooting causes lead poisoning." something like that...

1768. alistairconnor - 5/30/2005 8:58:14 AM

My favourite hammer is US made. It bears a safety message, moulded into the handle : "Warning - wear safety glasses when using this equipment." Words to that effect.

1769. Macnas - 5/30/2005 9:00:26 AM

You have a favourite hammer?

1770. alistairconnor - 5/30/2005 9:06:37 AM

Yes, it's the best hammer I've ever had. Also, it was a gift from my brother. He arrived in France with it, and various other carpenter's tools, in carry-on baggage.

1771. Macnas - 5/30/2005 9:07:23 AM

Those were the days eh?

1772. iiibbb - 5/30/2005 4:49:23 PM

Message # 1765

Litigation... or at least the awards have gotten out of control in this country if you ask me. Do something stupid, strike it rich. Slip in the store and retire wealthy.

It's nuts.

I don't know what happened to buyer beware, and I don't know where people got it in their head that life is supposed to be risk-free.

I went to the pool with my nephew the other day. He slipped on the side getting out of the pool and cut his lip. Is it the pool's fault? I swear there are people who'd be suing that place for a million over that.

Ain't right.

Tobacco lawsuits should be dead... no one can claim they didn't know they were bad for them anymore... I don't care what anyone says. Buyer takes some responsibility for the safe use of a product... and not-smoking at all would be safe-use.

1773. iiibbb - 5/30/2005 4:52:36 PM

Message # 1762

old news Jex. What I think is funny is that Barrett now refuses to sell to anyone in CA... including the police who spent a lot of time telling the gov't how dangerous the gun is.

He refuses to service the weapons they already have too.


And actually... you could get a 50 cal machine gun... you just need the right permits in the right state. Probably would be a $20,000 plus toy... but assuming you can convince the gov't you're worthy... you could get one.

1774. Ulgine Barrows - 5/30/2005 10:53:37 PM

I watched Bowling for Columbine this weekend.

It contained a Chris Rock skit about bullet control that had me howling with laughter.

Something along the lines of, if bullets cost $5K there would be no innocent bystanders.

Yes, that's taking it to the extreme; but there's a sorrow in there, just like any good joke has.

1775. jayackroyd - 5/31/2005 1:08:23 AM

I went to the pool with my nephew the other day. He slipped on the side getting out of the pool and cut his lip. Is it the pool's fault? I swear there are people who'd be suing that place for a million over that.


No there aren't.

1776. alistairconnor - 5/31/2005 1:18:28 AM

My thinking goes along those lines too. In general, goods should be taxed less, and bads should be taxed more.

There is a strong tax component in the retail price of liquor and tobacco -- this is a recognition, at least implicit, of the cost their consumption generates for the collectivity. So yes, ammunition should be expensive. Guns too -- but not a blanket tax, a graduated thing, based on actuarial type calculations of the harm inflicted by various classes of weapon.

The same sort of logic should be applied to cocaine and heroin, for example. Which points out the flaw in the reasoning : it implies that you can control the distribution of all this stuff.

1777. jayackroyd - 5/31/2005 1:22:04 AM

I'm afraid the reason for high excise taxes is not because the things taxed are bad, but because they are price-inelastic. In the US, for example, there are excise taxes on tires. You pretty much have to buy new tires when the old ones wear out, so it doesn't matter much what the tax is.

1778. jayackroyd - 5/31/2005 1:23:22 AM

The same sort of logic should be applied to cocaine and heroin, for example. Which points out the flaw in the reasoning : it implies that you can control the distribution of all this stuff.

A primary practical (rather than moral) argument made for illegal drugs is that black markets drive up prices and therefore discourage use.

1779. Ulgine Barrows - 5/31/2005 1:46:36 AM

Bullshit about controlling the distribution.

A different, cheaper-to-make drug will then be invented. And its distribution can also be controlled.

I am saving up $5K to shoot that bullet, man.

1780. Macnas - 5/31/2005 3:12:28 AM

re 1776

I shot over a hundred cartridges at a clay shoot last weekend. Tax that and all you do is prohibit people like me from pursuing a sport. If that's the aim then, well fine.

On the other hand, if you buy an illegal gun, say a shotgun, and you want to buy cartridges for it, you also have to get them illegally (no firearms cert, no ammo).
You pay 5euro per cartridge when you buy them illegal.

Considering that you spend the bones of that for a box of 25 over the counter, I can't see what penal taxes will do to stop people being shot.

1781. wonkers2 - 6/14/2005 3:07:30 PM

iiibbb, would you care to tell us whether you were in Michigan over the weekend? Bizarre gunfight.

1782. wonkers2 - 6/15/2005 5:52:10 AM

Wing him with a handgun. Finish him off with a shotgun.

1783. iiibbb - 7/2/2005 6:52:52 AM

Proof that it never ends. Neither the violence, or assault on the law abiding... you can replace "knife" with "gun" in the article and you'll see it's the same crappy song.

1784. iiibbb - 7/2/2005 6:55:48 AM

Message # 1781

Wonkers... that's an insult to me... it's like you haven't paid any attention to anything I have said.

1785. wonkers2 - 7/13/2005 6:49:08 AM

Cop and "packer" shoot it out. More gun mahem in Detroit. Bad combination--road rage and "packing." Here.

1786. wonkers2 - 7/28/2005 9:10:20 AM

Great GOP immunizer of producers of harmful products from lawsuits. Here.

1787. Ms. No - 7/28/2005 10:34:37 AM

copied from current events.


I think it's ridiculous that such a thing would be needed. When a pedestrian gets mowed down by a drunk driver nobody sues Subaru.

The regulation to put in place and enforce is to obtain the report of criminal distributors from the gun manufacturers. They know who's selling illegal guns to criminals. They've always known and from what I understand the ATFB knows they know.

The problem is that there's a liberal investment in being anti-gun and you can't be vociferously anti-gun when you don't have enough gun violence to concern folks.

And so long as the liberals are happy to chase the red herring of gun restriction, the conservatives are happy to let them. It ensures that the Dems will have a harder time getting the Libertarian vote and so long as they're spending their energy on guns, they can't spend it on other stuff.

1788. iiibbb - 7/28/2005 4:39:20 PM

I heard a story on NPR today where they were describing a situation where a woman did a strawman purchase (already illegal) for her criminal boyfriend. The boyfriend turned around and murdered someone. Now some Dems are supporting a bill to hold gunshop owners responsible for this kind of purchase.

How the heck is a gun shop owner supposed to know the record and attentions of all known associates of a buyer in their store who's passed all the background checks?

If it's easy enough to hold gun shop owners responsible for identifying these purchasers, why doesn't the gov't just include it as part of the background check?

Keep it up... this is why Bush gets elected you dumbfucks.

1789. jayackroyd - 7/28/2005 5:37:17 PM

What dems? Who says?

1790. wonkers2 - 7/28/2005 7:57:42 PM

Why should gun manufacturers be treated differently from any other manufacturer? Because the National Rifle Association says so.

1791. jayackroyd - 7/29/2005 5:19:48 AM

Do other consumer devices designed to hurt people carry warning messages? Like say a billy club. If you buy one, does it say "May be harmful if you whack people on the head with this product"? I've bought swiss army knives, and they don't say "Sticking this into people may be harmful to their health."

It seems weird, of course--warnings on coffee cups and step ladders are de regieur. But maybe the idea that if a guy is walking around with a loaded gun, or, even better, keeping one to protect him from danger under his pillow that he is doing so, prima facie, with his eyes open?

1792. Ms. No - 7/29/2005 9:43:19 AM

Wonk,

You're not talking about a manufacturing defect you're talking operator abuse. Such a law would ensure treating gun manufacturers differently than any others by insisting that simply because they make their product they are responsible for its misuse by consumers. By such logic car manufacturers should be held liable for auto accidents which clearly wouldn't occur if there were no automobiles.

1793. Ms. No - 7/29/2005 9:48:57 AM

Jay,

?

Not sure what you're asking.

1794. wonkers2 - 7/29/2005 10:06:02 AM

Ms.No, My understanding is that the GOP proposal in the Senate is to exempt gun manufacturers from product liability lawsuits, eg in a case where a gun safety failed.

1795. wonkers2 - 7/29/2005 10:17:10 AM

Well, I re-read the brief article and you apprently are right. The article mentioned the potential liability of gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by victims of gun vilolence. However, I can envision situations in which manufacturers encouraged dealers to sell guns to people who shouldn't have them and cases where dealers didn't perform required checks in which they SHOULD be held liable by victims injured or killed as a result. In any event, I think the courts should continue to be empowered to sort these claims out the same as in any other industry. Also, I am suspicious of any bill supported by the NRA. Our cities are reaping the harvest of too many handguns being manufactured and sold. My recollection is that a majority of Americans support stricter handgun control.

1796. jexster - 7/31/2005 1:51:53 PM

"Senator Frist Slain in a Hail of Ballots."


Send Lawyers, Guns and Money

1797. jexster - 7/31/2005 2:15:50 PM

(Warren Zevon)

Well, I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians, too

I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this

I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck

Now I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan

1798. iiibbb - 8/12/2005 9:16:15 AM

Message # 1795

owever, I can envision situations in which manufacturers encouraged dealers to sell guns to people who shouldn't have them and cases where dealers didn't perform required checks in which they SHOULD be held liable by victims injured or killed as a result.

(a) You act like the gun dealers are going door to door. People walk into the store on their own. How do manufacturers encourage dealers to sell to people who shouldn't have them? I want to see this memo. "Increase criminal activity in Detroit to increase sales for self-defense purchase".

(b) Gun dealers who bypass the legal documentation of a purchase should lose their license to sell and perhaps be arrested by the BATF on criminal charges anyway

Also, I am suspicious of any bill supported by the NRA.

Why? The NRA has supported a number of 'common sense' gun control. Things like increasing criminal penalties for crimes committed with guns. The NRA has traditionally supported legislation that instigated background checks. Among others.

Just because they don't support poorly written legislation is not their fault. When Kerry and Kennedy sloppily author a bill to ban 'vest-piercing' bullets... failing to account for the fact that this applies to the vast preponderance of hunting ammo... is not their fault.

Just because they object to toothless, feel-good laws, is something to be praised.

1799. iiibbb - 8/12/2005 9:21:08 AM

Mixed messages, and Fl Castle Doctorine

Here we see the results of government over-engineering society, and the problem with their monopoly on the the authority to use force.

The law demanded that the man act, and when he did, he was arrested.

Brilliant
-----------------------------
A Fort Myers shooting that has received little attention is headed for what promises to be an interesting court case. It involves a Dunbar grocer who shot to death another man in the grocery store's parking lot. On its face, the case appears to be a perfect first test of Florida's controversial new self-defense law.
--------------------------------
Two legal wrinkles make this case different from a typical confrontation and shooting:

• First, Fort Myers has a Nuisance Abatement Board, which can close a business that it believes isn't doing enough to stop crime on its premises.

• Second, accompanied by predictions of statewide carnage, legislators this year passed a bill that extended Florida's "castle doctrine" beyond a person's home and vehicle.

The Hasan case seems to fall squarely within this new law's broad protections. It reads:

"A person, not engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Further, this person cannot be held liable for his actions in criminal or civil court.

Unfortunately for Hasan, however, the law does not take effect until Oct. 1.

1800. wonkers2 - 8/12/2005 10:34:19 AM

Why should gun manfacturers and/or dealers get legislation specifically exempting them from lawsuits? Why do they deserve anything different from any other manufacturer?

1801. iiibbb - 8/12/2005 11:00:12 AM

The reason is because they are being specifically targeted by lawsuits that are trying to blame the manufacturers for the actions of individual criminals.

If there were a spate of lawsuits blaming Ford for drunk driving we might see the same kind of legislation for cars.

We're not talking about defective products.... we're talking about people suing Smith and Wesson because some criminal shot an innocent. We're talking about cities suing gun manufacturers for gun crime.

They deserve relief from it all... it costs money to defend themselves against court cases that have thus far been getting dismissed.... But why should they have to keep defending themselves?

1802. iiibbb - 8/12/2005 11:04:20 AM

Since those who hate guns can't win in congress using legislation... they are attacking using the courts... and it's a mis-use of our courts to file cases that have no basis in logic and do not at all compare to how we handle other manufactured goods.

Why aren't cities suing alcohol producers drunk driving deaths?

1803. wonkers2 - 8/12/2005 1:37:54 PM

Why should they have to keep defending themselves?

For the same reason the car companies, the drug companies, et al do.

1804. PelleNilsson - 8/12/2005 2:00:41 PM

Why is anyone wasting their time discussing this issue with iiibbb? It's like discussing the existance of God with Kuligan.

1805. wonkers2 - 8/12/2005 2:41:11 PM

True enough!

1806. iiibbb - 8/12/2005 9:35:00 PM

Wasting your time...

Why are you wasting my time?

1807. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2005 1:07:46 AM

iiibbb, I'm with you.

1808. iiibbb - 8/15/2005 11:42:32 AM

I think I'm going to close this thread...

Some of you a tough audience.

I say this because parallel to the discussions in here I've taken on a US federal court of appeals judge (fiance's mom) to at least acknowledge my positions... She is not anti-gun anymore... not exactly pro-gun... but has at least acknowledged many of the points that I have made in here. Of course... she's not a fascist, so she's not one to simply resort to categorically denouncing a point of view without a logical counter-point.

Too bad she'll never be in a position to make a decision in a gun control case.

1809. iiibbb - 8/15/2005 11:44:17 AM

Anyway... thanks to those who made an honest effort.

To the rest... have a nice day.

1810. arkymalarky - 8/15/2005 4:38:40 PM

Hey, you've had a great thread. Almos 2000 posts, and one of the best, longest-running "issues threads" in a while, even taking into account how the Mote has shrunk from its beginning (four years ago? I'm losing count).

1811. alistairconnor - 8/16/2005 1:37:26 AM

iii, I'm sure I'm one of those you're wishing a nice day to... and I acknowledge that I'm a tough audience...

but wait a minute... I didn't come here to be lectured to, but to debate an issue. And I've enjoyed the debate, and I certainly don't feel you have failed in any way merely because I, or others, haven't changed our fundamental views on the issue. I'm certainly much better informed than I was, and (although the adversarial nature of the debate has made this difficult to acknowledge) am more nuanced in my judgements now. Thank you.

1812. alistairconnor - 8/16/2005 1:39:40 AM

And you're a great deal less isolated than you appear to think... if I'm at one end of the spectrum and you're at the other on this issue, then everyone else here is in between somewhere.

1813. alistairconnor - 8/16/2005 1:41:30 AM

Five years, Arky. Coming up to six. (I can always work that out from the age of my younger daughter.)

1814. Macnas - 8/16/2005 2:55:46 AM

I don't know, it's kind of good having a gun thread.

1815. alistairconnor - 8/16/2005 3:06:10 AM

Exactly what I would expect a gun nut to say.

Did you read the Mote Fiction thread, iii? "Guns for McBride" is perhaps the best thing in it.

1816. Macnas - 8/16/2005 3:48:08 AM

Ah, tanks mister. But I still think you were right, it's too bare by far.

And yes, I suppose I am a gun nut of a sort, but that aside I think there is a good debate or two left in this thread.

1817. iiibbb - 8/16/2005 6:39:55 AM

Alistar.. as I recall I don't consider you one of the have a nice days too... although you may have one too if you wish.

I don't expect people to agree... but if you read within the last 20 posts you can capture a dismissive, yet insubstantive post.

You may not have agreed, but you at least have been substantive.

1818. iiibbb - 8/16/2005 6:41:44 AM

And yes, I suppose I am a gun nut of a sort, but that aside I think there is a good debate or two left in this thread.

Perhaps... but it seems to get ever-circular. And it's gone a while without any additions.

1819. Macnas - 8/16/2005 7:10:36 AM

Debating the same issues makes for circular debate, no doubt about that. And as for dismissive posts, well, it can't be all love and sunshine.

But just to open things up a bit, I'd like your thoughts on the current state of affairs in Ireland wrt firearms.

From 1972 up until last year, the police used a piece of an emergency act which banned all handguns, and all rifles over the calibre of .22" inches.
A court case was taken by a pistol owner, who won it and got his pistol back. The courts directed the police to issue a pistol licence as they could not show any good reason why he should not have one, and deemed the emergency powers act to be long defunct.

Since then pistols are being purchased and licensed by many shooters, pistol clubs, long forgotten have risen again, and more and more rifles are being bought.
At the moment, the only firearms legislation is that which dates from 1926, which basically states that guns are to be registered and machine guns are not to be used/bought/sold by civilians. Everything else is open.

So, we now have the polar opposite of the old situation, and there are guys importing HK semi-auto rifles and like, not to mention your favourite, Glocks of all descriptions.

At the moment, most serious gun crime is committed with illegally held firearms, AK's and the like. But it won't be long until some fool uses his legal pistol to shoot someone, and then, I'm afraid, things might go back to the way they were, or maybe worse.
Keep in mind, that we do not have the right to use a gun to defend ourselves but only in the most dire of circumstances.

What do you think?

1820. iiibbb - 8/16/2005 9:43:21 AM

I think it would be an interesting test because we see a number of countries going from allow to ban. This will be the only case that I know of that's going from ban, to allow.

The relevant question (IMHO) will not be whether the gun-murder/violent crime rate goes up, but rather