Gun Control in the Socialist Republic of Kahlifornia

[Steve Connors]

Shoot'em all and let God sort'em out

 

[DingBat]

One of the biggest issues in Constitutional Law today is how the words are interpretted. With the meanings of today or when they were written. The only coorect way, and yes I am right on that, is to interpret it with the word meanigns at the time. If you do not do it that way then nothing is gaurenteed by the Constitution. Those who cannot get laws and ammendments passed saying what they want though have depended on an activist court to redefine words to suit their views. It is a disaster that constantly explodes in our faces when confronted with logic.

Fair enough. So, if I understand your argument, the constitution is to be interpreted only in the context of 18th century English.

I suppose that's a reasonable position to take, but doesn't it kind of admit that the constitution is going to have problems dealing with any sort of social situation that CAN'T be described in terms of the 18th century?

Perhaps a national debate on a clearer, 21st century friendly ammendment would be in order?

I once read an article that proposed that the people of the world look upon the U.S. in the wrong way. The U.S. likes to look upon itself as a young society, but the truth may be quite different. The U.S. is actually one of the oldest countries in the world, in terms of continuous line of government (please forgive me and don't flame if you feel your country has a better claim). This actually makes the U.S. one of the more conservative countries in the world. This kind of jibes with the view that the constitution should be interpreted strictly in the frame of reference of the founding fathers.

Canada does not have the problems of the USA, it also does not have the population density in the areas where our crime is the worst. I also think that Canada may be a little behind the USA in our personal moral decline into self indulgence and importance. Give it time though and you may catch up...

Toronto is, I believe, the fifth largest city on the continent (after Mexico City, New York, LA, and Chicago). Despite the population density, and our current gang problems, Toronto has a gun murder rate less than that of Buffalo, a much smaller city. This is not conclusive evidence of any sort, but it does suggest that population density may not be a deciding factor.

 

[Musketeer]

Fair enough. So, if I understand your argument, the constitution is to be interpreted only in the context of 18th century English.

I suppose that's a reasonable position to take, but doesn't it kind of admit that the constitution is going to have problems dealing with any sort of social situation that CAN'T be described in terms of the 18th century?

Perhaps a national debate on a clearer, 21st century friendly ammendment would be in order?

The Bill of Rights was not written to list the Rights of the People, as is commonly misunderstood. It was a specific LIMITATION of the rights of Government with respect to the people. Remember we are dealing with men who just fought a war to gaurentee those freedoms, they were not about to sign them away to another government. Run everything through that filter FIRST to understand what was written.

I like your idea and would love to see it. There is a mechanism built into the US Constitution just for such a debate, it is called the ammendment process. The problem is people lack the will to enact it on an issue they are not certain to carry a supermajority on. The amendments require more than a 51% majority for a reason and that is because the founding fathers wanted to have us be damn certain we wanted to change something as fundamental as a pillar of the Constitution. There is precident though so bring it on. The problem is, for the left at least, that they do not possess that supermajority. They do tend to control much of the higher education institutions resulting in a skewing of the views of many who go on to be judges and such to their side. Often these justices look on it as their responsibility to interpret and adapt the Constitution to the current day when it was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to have them do so. Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin for a great description of this disaster.

 

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

Let me start by addressing one common misconception about the Second Amendment (capitalization correct, BTW) to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is not, nor has it EVER been solely about people being able to hunt or to protect themselves from common street thugs, or to protect the country in the face of foreign invasion. Those just happen to be included in the true intent of the Amendment. Simply put, the Second Amendment is and always has been the strongest guarantee that the First Amendment and all others in the Bill of Rights will continue to exist. Period, full stop.

The fact that the Second Amendment is the second amendment isn't an accident. When the framers of the Bill of Rights created their document they considered the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to be second in importance ONLY to the right of free speech. The right is literally that of the people of this country to rise up in armed rebellion against an oppressive and unjust government should the need arise.

What causes confusion today is that the Second Amendment was written in a style of language that hasn't been commonly used since the end of the 18th century. Its phrasing is difficult for someone who isn't absolutely familiar with not only the common writing styles of the day, but the background thoughts and commentaries available from those who drafted the Bill of Rights to fully comprehend. If you don't believe that, then take a close look at the way people of half a century ago wrote things compared to how they are done today. I, personally, have run into that since I was taught a form of written expression and speech during my primary and secondary school years that is no longer commonly taught. Languages change over the years, and not always for the better.

Needless to say I am a very strong supporter of the RIGHT to own and possess firearms. I am vehemently opposed to registration (confiscation) schemes, or to any form of federal "gun owner" licensing. Personally I view the gun control laws of California and many other states to be de facto violations of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. I fully believe that any person legally qualified under the auspices of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which legislation I also have major issues with, and don't even get me started on the National Firearms Act of 1934) to purchase a firearm should be allowed to purchase however many of whatever type of firearm the desire to purchase. Law-abiding gun owners are not and have never been the problem. As always it is the criminal element that causes law-abiding people to suffer. And please, don't make me laugh by saying taking guns from the law-abiding will take them from criminals as well. It is well proven that criminals (who, by definition, don't obey the law) will ALWAYS find ways to procure whatever weapons they choose. One of our major cities had a "gun buy-back" program whereby any gang member could take their handgun in and recieve $200 cash in exchange. A young gang member wrote about his experience in doing so, about how he took his old piece of crap .38 in, got his $200, then walked 2 blocks from the police station to an alleyway where he bought a stolen .40 caliber automatic out of a street dealer's trunk for $150. Very effective program, no? Not only was he able to trade up to a better gun but he also profited $50 on the deal.

As for the "trained soldier" bit, I shudder to think that people can really believe that. Yes, they have some basic gun safety training, but I cannot begin to tell you just how many times I've had to retrain someone in truly safe gun handling after they've served in the military. Some of the most idiotic safety viloations I have ever witnessed were perpetrated by "trained solders" who had no real understanding of even the most basic rules of safe handling. I can't claim perfection, because I do have one (and ONLY one) accidental discharge to my credit, caused when I was unloading my hunting rifle with nearly frozen fingers. Even then the muzzle was pointed in a safe direction and no harm was done. However, I won't argue that there are people out there who own guns and have absolutely no clue what they are doing with them. That's why I have been a firm and outspoken advocate of mandatory firearms safety training as a part of every school curriculum. Fundamental safe handling training, not the "see a gun, dial 911" drivel so prevalent in education today.

I guess you can really sum up my views with the phrase "An armed society is a polite society" - except that these days it seems only the criminals are allowed to be armed, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

 

[The Soup Nazi]

My /mother/ who is Taiwanese learned about gun safety and firing firearms in high school. I think implementing training (since America doesn't have mandatory military service like other countries, even though I do plan on joining ROTC and eventually becoming a comissioned officer) is important. Here are my 4 arguements:

First, when you enact gun control ordinances, you're doing nothing but screwing over law abiding citizens who want to follow the rules. The people who commit crimes are going to obtain firearms illegaly whether or not you have laws controlling what people can have.

Second, if you look at states who have no restrictions as to carrying a concealed weapon (Vermont doesn't even require a license), gun crimes are actually very low. What has to be considered is that when a state allows one to carry a weapon on his body, while he may not want to commit any crimes, someone with criminal intents will have to put a lot more consideration as to whether they want to assault someone who may possibly have a handgun and is trained to use it. Also, when you restrict guns, gun crime MAY go down (which usually doesn't happen and even increases), but violent crime overall stays where it is or increases. If you take away guns, you'll have more stabbings from the people who don't know how to get firearms illegaly.

Third, its complete ignorance on law enforcement and our legislature. Again, in LA, any ammo or gun with the term magnum is banned. I think someones paranoid after watching the firefight in Heat where the bank robbers had AR-15s and the cops had 9mms. Criminals have Uzis and 9mms with high capacity magazines, thats not going to change even if you do screw over the law abiding citizen. The solution to this problem should be to ARM the FBI and Police better. I doubt they're still using revolvers, but hell, I would not mind if you gave them MP5s/AR-15s. I'm not a criminal, I don't intend to face off law enforcement in a fire fight, so why should any of us have a problem with that?

Fourth, its paternalism. Its the control that my state's government has over me. I feel that living in this country, I'm entitled to not automatically be considered a criminal (innocent until proven guilty?). With a liberal monopoly (not Libertarian, if they were in control, I'd be all happy with the gun issues) over California, they totally control what I am entitled to have, and thats final. The problem is where you take a further look at this. The US has been succesful, because our citizens are able to control their fates, and we've had to struggle to achieve our independance. Now you look at a control like Iraq or Iran, being former British Colonies, they're so messed up that they can't even civily rule themselves like the Romans did /2000/ years ago. They're THAT backwards. I apply these observations to our own country now.

When you enact restrictions and not allow people to take responsibility for themselves and make them rely on you, you breed a form of stupid and reliant human being. I guess this whole gun arguement has evolved from buying that 12 capacity magazine for the HK USP as opposed to the 10 or 8 round magazine, to "This country doesn't owe you anything, but if you take the effort to make your own decisions, you'll turn out to be a better human being"

And BTW, I'm 15, I understand that I cannot purchase my own guns, but having done extensive research on my state's and federal gunlaws, when I turn 16, I will be able to carry a /rifle/ on my person with written permission. I plan on buying a Mosin Nagant M91/30, I don't intend on shooting people, but firing it for recreational purposes and owning it as a collector's item. So no, I'm not going to go Columbine on anyone... And I do intend to use semiautomatic pistols responsibly. I don't read books (aside from Starship Troopers) in my spare time, I read gun manuals cover to cover, even on how to unload a gun when its written multiple times in different instances.

 

[DingBat]

Excellent post.

First, though, I would say that pointing at politicians is perhaps laying the blame at the wrong doorstep. Politicians will HAPPILY do nothing. If they do something, it's only because they believe people will vote for it. I submit to you that your problems with gun laws are not due to politicians but instead due to your fellow citizens. They want the laws the politicians enacted.

Now, note: I don't say the laws are right or wrong. Merely that they're there because most of the electorate want them.

If you believe they are stupid laws, you have to change the mind of the electorate. Attacking the politicians does nothing. You could vote Charlton Heston in as President and, if we wanted a second term, he'd bow to the anti-gun lobby in California.

So, a few questions to start the ball rolling:

1. To outside observers, and I assume more than a few US citizens, the United States seems to be literally awash with guns. Do you feel that this has anything to do with peoples feelings about violent crime and gun control? If not, how would you convince them that the availability of guns is not a factor.

2. How would you explain the difference in gun violence statistics between comparable western countries? For example, I believe murders with handguns is over 10x higher in the US than Canada, per capita. We're close enough culturally, ethnically, etc, that we're occasionally mistaken for the same people, so why this difference?

Personally, I think the answer to these questions is key to any pro-gun argument. If you can show that the gun related crime rate is not influenced by the availability of firearms and that the comparisons to countries with strict(er) gun control are explainable, then you have a compelling argument to relax gun control laws. Until then, people will continue to vote as they have in the past.

Cheers.

 

[The Soup Nazi]

I just think the problem with this issue is that as human beings, people aren't able to acknowledge human error. Its a lot easier to pin the blame on an inanimate object that fires metallic slugs than a person who is either negligent or aiming to commit criminal activities.

If you take a step back, its quite a surprise that we haven't banned knives (though box cutters in airplanes are), like guns, knives have uses, they were and continue to be used as impliments of the military. But theres a reason why stabbing crimes (because of intent or negligence) aren't sky rocketing when I'm pretty sure every household in America has at least one knife. My friend is in the Boy Scouts, lots of young American males are, I'm sure each of them has a pocket knife. And yet never has my friend accidently (hopefully not purposelly) inflicted an injury against me because he has been properly educated in the use of it.

I guess when you compare this instance to guns, if you encourage gun ownership but ensure that owners are properly educated in their uses, then the only person you hurt is the criminal. "Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both."

I'd make a good Libertarian, huh.

 

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

DingBat, let me try to answer your questions this way...

1. The Brady Bill (more correctly Brady Act) was enacted with the promise that it would drastically reduce the availability of handguns to criminals, and thus help reduce crime. When it was passed it was given a 5 year life, after which the effectiveness of the act would be examined and a determination made as to whether it stayed in place or was replaced by an instant check system (excepting only those states that already had mandatory waiting periods). The results, as had been predicted when it was first presented as a bill in Congress, was that it had ZERO impact on either availability or on crime rates. It was, and is, a total waste of time. Literally.

Where gun bans have been enacted instances of violent crime have increased, not decreased. The prime example for this is Morton Grove, Illinois, which outlawed the private posession of handguns. Within a year violent home invasions had gone up, as had assaults and other violent crimes. Conversely, after the town of Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta) enacted a mandatory gun ownership law crime rates plummeted. The law, of course, exempted those who were ineligible for gun ownership by criminal record or other factor (restraining orders, for example) or who had a religious objection to owning a firearm. All other residents are required by law to own at least one firearm and have it in their home.

2. Gun death figures commonly quoted by major sources, such as the news media and certain professional associations, are highly misleading. For one thing they use studies that make no separation between violent crimes, suicides, accidental shootings, personal or home defense shootings, and police shootings. All are lumped together with no attempt at separation. The FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics Report used to do the same thing until they were called on it by members of Congress. The FBI now separates out police shootings, but still leaves the others as a lump sum figure.

When broken down the numbers show something that comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has half a brain: the vast majority of gun deaths are cause by violent criminals against other violent criminals. In other words, gang related shootings. Criminal attacks against civilians are next, with suicides and accidental shootings coming in last. Defensive shootings are hard to quantify with any accuracy since many jurisdictions still include them in the assault numbers.

Unfortunately even seeing accurate numbers has no discernible affect on certain people. There is a certain knee-jerk reactionary mentality amongst certain groups that blames the gun (not the person holding the gun) for everything that happens (including, but not limited to, somehow concluding that the best response to 9/11 is to ban all firearms ownership in the US - despite the fact that not one single firearm was used in the hijackings). These people totally ignore the moral and societal issues that create the mindset that leads people to think that shooting someone is the best answer. There has been an undeniable and increasingly evident decline in the moral values of young people (from whom the majority of violent offenders originate) over the last several decades. The start of the decline can be traced fairly accurately, and coincides with the "kinder, gentler" mindset that brought such people as Dr. Spock (not the Vulcan, the "spankings are evil" guy) to the forefront of American society.

More and more parents aren't parents, they're simply providers for whatever their child wants. If you want to know why violent crimes, including shootings, are so high take a look at home right from the start. The root causes are there, not in an inanimate piece of steel. Some cultures embrace violence, such as "honor killings" and revenge killings. Here in LA, the most violent attacks occur in the Asian sections of town. Asian gangs in particular are the most bloody and violent to be found in a town full of bloody and violent gangs.

The gun isn't the problem. It's the mindset and the conditions that created the mindset that are the problem.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

I really start to like this thread (even though I have been named a "militant pacifist" ).

Still, I am not convinced that "more guns" equals "more safety". I regard the USA and Austria as being part of the same cultural zone, with only very slight differences, as both base their values basically on the achievements of the french revolution in 1789. That's why I really can't see the strong american (I know, a generalisation ) need for guns compared to Austria.

Austria is situated at the very rim of "our" culture for millenia (celtic/germanic - roman [and vice versa ], european - slavic, christian - muslim, capitalism - communism, to name a few), and had its fair share of invasions. In the early nineties, we had (allthough for a very short time) battles a few meters away from our national border, when slovenia struggled for independency of yugoslavia, which could have very well leapt over to us, endangering our lives.

Still, a grand part of the population had not the urge to arm themselves facing such a thread. Fighting crimes and armies is the job of the police and the military, and not of my neighbours and myself.

And I think that gun regulation doesn't work in america, because it does only restrict the acquisition of new guns, but does not decrease the amount of guns that are already distributed. So, I guess that regulation would need more than 5 years to really show a readable result.
In Austria, in the mid 90ies, there was found a loophole in our gun regulation legislation, which allowed shotguns to be owned more easily. As a result, we had quite a lot murders and killing sprees with shotguns. The governement quickly banned the trade for them (allthough registered owners could keep them, but they are nor allowed to buy, sell, donate or even hand them down), and within weeks, the problem was solved.

Also, i have found this interesting tables and analysis here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Basically it says that from all the murders where the relationship between victim and offender were known, about 75% knew each other beforehand. As most murders are carried out with firearms, I think that of there would be a lot less murders if the offenders wouldn't have had easy access to such arms. I assume (judgeing by austrian murders) that most murders happen affectually, and are not outright planned, so if you take the ability to kill someone within a brink of a second, most (not all, I know) will calm to a degree where they don't have the urge to kill someone anymore.

And lastly, I think that as soon as guns are involved, the situation does escalate much more easily. If you would be a robber, or whatsoever, and would try to steal at gunpoint, how would you react, if your victim would draw a gun? I think, I'd shoot first, as my life would be suddenly endangered. And how would you react if he doesn't have a gun, but tries to resist? Unless you're drugged and acting irrationally, a murder would certainly greatly imbalance your risk/effect calculation, so I would rather back off and search an easier victim...
Additionally, only a small part of murders seem to be carried out at such robberies, and I dare say that most of those simply happen BECAUSE the victim has a gun and tries to protect himself (and fails very miserably).

 

[Uber_Bob]

In Finland you can get everything from .500 S&Ws to folding-stock Kalashnikovs, but you need a reason, be it a hobby or profession. Law enforcement, practical shooting, hunting or precision shooting.

Very sensible laws, ours are politically correct to the point of stupidity here in New Zealand. You are allowed to own fully automatics but firing them at any time is a punishable offence, if the guy (who had to go through very expensive and thorough criminal background and 'good character' checks) owns a machine pistol and decides to go on a rampage, hes isnt going to be put off by the law which says "you arent allowed to fire this gun, and we're going to trust you not to"

Guns are fun, but owning one shouldn't be a right, but a privilege

Very well said, if only the rednecks believed that. It aint 1776 any more people!

I enjoy firing my guns but I believe they arent a birth right.

 

[bas]

I enjoy firing my guns but I believe they arent a birth right.

My view on firearms licenceing is the same as a drivers licence. As long as some one can demonstrate an understanding of the road rules / firearms safety they should be entitled to drive / own a firearm.

The licencing process is a way to establish that these conditions are meet.

If the conditions are met, then a person should be assured to get their drivers / firearms licence.

It should also be affordable otherwise you will drive guns underground as happens every time people need to re-licence in NZ.

 

[Lucius]

I really start to like this thread (even though I have been named a "militant pacifist" ).

Still, I am not convinced that "more guns" equals "more safety". I regard the USA and Austria as being part of the same cultural zone, with only very slight differences, as both base their values basically on the achievements of the french revolution in 1789. That's why I really can't see the strong american (I know, a generalisation ) need for guns compared to Austria.

Austria is situated at the very rim of "our" culture for millenia (celtic/germanic - roman [and vice versa ], european - slavic, christian - muslim, capitalism - communism, to name a few), and had its fair share of invasions. In the early nineties, we had (allthough for a very short time) battles a few meters away from our national border, when slovenia struggled for independency of yugoslavia, which could have very well leapt over to us, endangering our lives.

Still, a grand part of the population had not the urge to arm themselves facing such a thread. Fighting crimes and armies is the job of the police and the military, and not of my neighbours and myself.

And I think that gun regulation doesn't work in america, because it does only restrict the acquisition of new guns, but does not decrease the amount of guns that are already distributed. So, I guess that regulation would need more than 5 years to really show a readable result.
In Austria, in the mid 90ies, there was found a loophole in our gun regulation legislation, which allowed shotguns to be owned more easily. As a result, we had quite a lot murders and killing sprees with shotguns. The governement quickly banned the trade for them (allthough registered owners could keep them, but they are nor allowed to buy, sell, donate or even hand them down), and within weeks, the problem was solved.

Also, i have found this interesting tables and analysis here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Basically it says that from all the murders where the relationship between victim and offender were known, about 75% knew each other beforehand. As most murders are carried out with firearms, I think that of there would be a lot less murders if the offenders wouldn't have had easy access to such arms. I assume (judgeing by austrian murders) that most murders happen affectually, and are not outright planned, so if you take the ability to kill someone within a brink of a second, most (not all, I know) will calm to a degree where they don't have the urge to kill someone anymore.

And lastly, I think that as soon as guns are involved, the situation does escalate much more easily. If you would be a robber, or whatsoever, and would try to steal at gunpoint, how would you react, if your victim would draw a gun? I think, I'd shoot first, as my life would be suddenly endangered. And how would you react if he doesn't have a gun, but tries to resist? Unless you're drugged and acting irrationally, a murder would certainly greatly imbalance your risk/effect calculation, so I would rather back off and search an easier victim...
Additionally, only a small part of murders seem to be carried out at such robberies, and I dare say that most of those simply happen BECAUSE the victim has a gun and tries to protect himself (and fails very miserably).

Good post!

 

[Piron]

Belgian gun laws are very strict as in the most part of the european union. Only a very small part of the population have a gun. (mostly hunters and a few 'sport shooters'). Personally I know nobody, and I mean really nobody, from my family, relatives or other friends who own a gun. And I can only conclude that gun related accidents, criminal activities,... are very rare. Its so rare that most of these cases become the main article in all media. And I like to keep it that way.
I follow these kind of discussions with a mixture of amasement, disbelief, even fear. A 15 year old kid that complains about not being able to own a gun? Where does a 15 year old boy need a gun for? Come on, you should be going to parties, trying to get girls, playing computer games, hanging around with the other guys, play football, icehockey or whatever... but owning a gun? You're not even old enough to drive a car or buy a beer.

 

[Musketeer]

I really start to like this thread (even though I have been named a "militant pacifist" ).

Still, I am not convinced that "more guns" equals "more safety". I regard the USA and Austria as being part of the same cultural zone, with only very slight differences, as both base their values basically on the achievements of the french revolution in 1789. That's why I really can't see the strong american (I know, a generalisation ) need for guns compared to Austria.

.......

Still, a grand part of the population had not the urge to arm themselves facing such a thread. Fighting crimes and armies is the job of the police and the military, and not of my neighbours and myself.

And I think that gun regulation doesn't work in america, because it does only restrict the acquisition of new guns, but does not decrease the amount of guns that are already distributed. So, I guess that regulation would need more than 5 years to really show a readable result.
In Austria, in the mid 90ies, there was found a loophole in our gun regulation legislation, which allowed shotguns to be owned more easily. As a result, we had quite a lot murders and killing sprees with shotguns. The governement quickly banned the trade for them (allthough registered owners could keep them, but they are nor allowed to buy, sell, donate or even hand them down), and within weeks, the problem was solved.

Also, i have found this interesting tables and analysis here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

Basically it says that from all the murders where the relationship between victim and offender were known, about 75% knew each other beforehand. As most murders are carried out with firearms, I think that of there would be a lot less murders if the offenders wouldn't have had easy access to such arms. I assume (judgeing by austrian murders) that most murders happen affectually, and are not outright planned, so if you take the ability to kill someone within a brink of a second, most (not all, I know) will calm to a degree where they don't have the urge to kill someone anymore.

And lastly, I think that as soon as guns are involved, the situation does escalate much more easily. If you would be a robber, or whatsoever, and would try to steal at gunpoint, how would you react, if your victim would draw a gun? I think, I'd shoot first, as my life would be suddenly endangered. And how would you react if he doesn't have a gun, but tries to resist? Unless you're drugged and acting irrationally, a murder would certainly greatly imbalance your risk/effect calculation, so I would rather back off and search an easier victim...
Additionally, only a small part of murders seem to be carried out at such robberies, and I dare say that most of those simply happen BECAUSE the victim has a gun and tries to protect himself (and fails very miserably).

Great chart. The antis try to state all the time how a gun is more likely to be used on a friend or family memeber but neglect this little part of information.

and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances.

Those would be crack dealers who knew each other, pimps killing prostittutes, rival gangs, etc, etc, etc. It is not a surpirse that the majority of killings are against somebody known. By the logic you put forward there would be less murders if people just did not know each other...

Freinds also includes gangbangers who have had a falling out.

French revolution of 1789 eh.... well as an American fairly up on our own history I don't really see the French Revolution of 1789 having had much impact on the founding of this nation in 1776, the war that we fought in the years that followed, or the COnstitution ratified in 1787. Perhaps it is the other way around?

I don't know what the law in Austria is but in the USA while the goal of the police is to "protect and serve" they have absolutely NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so. This has gone to our Supreme Court several times, including just last year. The police have no responsibility to protect you. You could have them on the phone while your home is being broken into and your family killed and their ONLY responsiblity is to investigate the crime. From a logical standpoint as well there is no way the police will be present at the vast majority of instances where crime occurs. Look in areas where natrual disasters occur, such as New Orleans. There we had police aiding in the looting of stores while gangs walked the streets. The only people who were able to protect their lives and homes were those with guns. THis also happenned in Florida after hurricane Andrew. I happenned in LA during the Rodney King Riots when only the Korean grocers who were armed to the teeth were able to protect their homes and stores from bands of criminals.

If people choose to be sheep themselves that is their business but they have no right to insist that others do so as well.

Gun regulation does not work in the USA because it does not work anywhere. Are you goin gto tell me there is no gun crime in Austria because guns are illegal? There has been a drastic increase in gun crime in the UK and all guns are illegal there. Their Olympic shooting team even has to practice in Switzerland for crying out loud! Yet crime has gone through the roof in the UK when it is an island nation that should easily be able to block firearms. Could it be that actual criminals do not care about the law? Could it also be that the criminals in the UK know that it is open season on law abiding citizens who have no way to defend themselves.

In Florida the animals were preying on tourists in rental cars becasue they knew a large majority of residents carry a gun or have one in their car. Now tourists can get the same concealed weapons permit as residents.

So you hold the belief that a gun in the hand of a lawful citizen will escalate the sitaution. Sorry but the situation was escalated when the CRIMINAL threatenned the life of that citizen in the first place. This is the same as advising women to just lay back and be raped so nothing worse is doen to them. I had a female friend who obeyed the criminals at the Taco Bell she worked at back in 1992. Her and her coworkers did exactly as they were told and were shot in the heads after being marched in to the freezer for their trouble. When faced with violent crime almost any police officer in the USA will tell you it is better to resist than comply if you feel your life is in peril. Nobody can say a criminal who arms himself with a gun or knife didn't really mean to do you harm! Taking that attitutde means you surrender your very life to the judgement of an animal who has already shown complete disreegard for your existence. I live in New York state and am always amazed by the stories that come out of the city when some person gets killed even though they complied with every demand. The sheeple (sheep + people) just fail to understand a criminal does not care if you live or die.

If accosted I will resist, but I will do so smartly. I know that the lives of my family and I are solely MY responsiblity. If faced with an armed aggressor I will comply only so long as I need to to gain the upper hand. Then I will shoot him as many times as I need to in order to end the threat. Although I have not had to shoot already I have been as close as you can get and not shoot. As traumatic an experience as it was I know my life is worth more than a criminal's who would threaten me. Not everybody can make that decision and I respect that, although I don't understand it. Just please do not feel that your decision should have any bearing on how I live my life.

To see how guns are used in legal defense (not given much press time) read this daily: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

 

[The Soup Nazi]

First, in response to whoever said a 15 year old didn't need a gun, I said I wanted to buy a Mosin Nagant M91/30, that exactly isn't the most conveniant gun to murder people with. Sure, I don't /need/ it, but can't I have a sought after collector's item and perhaps occasionaly fire it for fun like everyone else if I conduct myself in a responsible manner?

Second, as I've reiterated multiple times, criminals ignore gun laws. Maybe the reason your shotgun crimes are so high is because you're living in a country with already restricted gun access. If only a select few (shotgun owners) are allowed to have guns, then everyone else is a fish in a barrel because there aren't any laws that allow them to protect themselves adequately. Perhaps if they took out the gun restrictions, everyone would know that the chances of pulling off a crime succesfully are pretty slim.

And I don't get this whole consideration for the criminal thing. They're trying to illegaly make themselves more happy by taking advantage of hard working people. Why should any leniancy be given to them? If I were defending myself, I would not give a second thought and just place a round into his chest, and you know what? If I miss and place a round into my wall and he lives, I expect him to pay for that hole in the wall that HE caused by putting me in a situation of duress. What we have to do is DISCOURAGE crimes by making it harder for them, not easier for them.

 

[Lucius]

You guys are turning the argument around. You say 'criminals have guns, we need to defend ourselves'. But allowing guns of any kind is what is giving the criminals the guns in the first place. We have criminals here too, but do you think all these criminals walk around with guns? No. Why not? Because you have to go through a lot of trouble to get one. It is easier and safer to not use a gun.

Increase in UK gun crime? LOL, that is good one. There was hardly any gun crime to begin with, no wonder that it goes up if something happens somewhere. UK gun crime is still nothing compared to US gun crime.

The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy, and is often thought of as part of a larger period which includes the Age of Reason. The term also more specifically refers to a historical intellectual movement, "The Enlightenment." This movement advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. The intellectual leaders of this movement regarded themselves as courageous and elite, and regarded their purpose as leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny (which they believed began during a historical period they called the "Dark Ages"). This movement also provided a framework for the American and French Revolutions, the Latin American independence movement, and the Polish Constitution of May 3, and also led to the rise of capitalism and the birth of socialism, liberalism andfascism.

French and American Revolutions had the same basis and mindset. That is what Rattus was referring to.

 

[Musketeer]

You guys are turning the argument around. You say 'criminals have guns, we need to defend ourselves'. But allowing guns of any kind is what is giving the criminals the guns in the first place. We have criminals here too, but do you think all these criminals walk around with guns? No. Why not? Because you have to go through a lot of trouble to get one. It is easier and safer to not use a gun.

Increase in UK gun crime? LOL, that is good one. There was hardly any gun crime to begin with, no wonder that it goes up if something happens somewhere. UK gun crime is still nothing compared to US gun crime.

Banning guns does not get rid of them. It has never worked and it never will.

The UK has seen an increase in gun crime, that is the truth. It is also now leading the western world in total violent crimes per capita. The citizens are disarmed and defenseless. The criminals know it. It is open season on the law abiding and there is no bag limit. Given that it is now more dangerous to be a law abiding citizen in the UK after all guns were outlawed than before I fail to see how this law has helped people there.

Criminals will always find a weapon. Even if it is just a matter of overpowerring a significantly weaker target the victim's life is in danger. What a handgun does that nothing else does as effectively is allow a law abiding citizen who is physically outclassed by their attacker to have a fighting chance to defend themselves effectively.

Many people prefer to give in and become sheeple (sheep /people). This is most common in areas where people have given up care for their own well being. Depend on the governement for housing, food, medical care, retirement, and every other thing in your life and it is not so far fetched to think they should be responsible for protecting you from those who do not care about the system's rules. It is easy to say the problem is caused by a gun and that the government should do something about it, the problem is it never works. Many Americans are finaly relearning that fact after Hurricane Katrina left the citizens of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the position of having to defend themselves. Perhaps it will become more understood in Europe as the UK descends into violent crime so bad that people refuse to leave their homes (where they are still not safe). France saw widespread rioting last year and it is only going to get worse. People are going to start getting really hurt and killed by the mobs forming there, how many of the law abiding people are properly armed to stand up to a mob of angry Muslim immigrants out for blood?

European countires have many programs with the nobel goals of helping their citizens. Sadly it seems many people in Europe are of the same mindset as those living in the major cities of America, thinking the governemnt will be able to take care of them when it will not. Americans are confronting this issue more and more with crimes due to drugs, illegal immigrants flooding across our borders and destroying our neighborhoods, and natural disasters showing just how much we really need to depend on ourselves when the brown stuff hits the fan. Europe is going to start to see it as well soon I fear. Some countires will be better prepared than others. Rioting of the nature seen in France will not fly in Switzerland I know. I travel there regularly for work and know the attitudes of the people in that nation backed with their ability to defend themselves.

Ask youselves this... Rioting is going on, the police cannot contain it (already seen that happen!), and your home is in the path of an approaching mob. People are being beaten and killed. HOmes are being looted and burned. You have nowhere to go, perhaps everything you own is there, perhaps you have an invalid loved one who cannot be moved. What are you going to do? Do you have the ability to defend yourself effectively?

People in Florida, Alabama, California, Louisianna and Missisippi have all had to ask themselves this question on a large scale in recent years in the USA. Others like myself have had to face such evil on a smaller and personal scale. In every case though the only one you can depend on is yourself. You can either stand up and take responsibility for your own safety or be a noble victim. It is your choice. What should not be your choice though is to disarm those law abidiing citizens who choose to care for themselves.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

how many of the law abiding people are properly armed to stand up to a mob of angry Muslim immigrants out for blood?

Everybody generalises somewhat, because it would make arguments quite tedious if everything had to be spelled out. With this statement though, you crossed the line from generalisation to racism, which renders your points irrelevant in my eyes.

And no, handguns don't protect your safety. You might protect your property, at the cost of a hugely increased risk for your own life, and the lives of beloved ones. Honestly, I don't care that if someone's going to rob me of my valuables, as long as I, or ones I love, are unharmed. As soon as I draw a gun though, I give the "enemies" every reason to classify me as a threat and act accordingly, which, in most cases, would be to shoot me first. Additionally, you yourself pose a threat to your surroundings, either by mishandling the gun (no matter how carefull you are, that risk is there), bad aiming, or even "overpenetration" (Google for the box o'truth).

 

[Musketeer]

Everybody generalises somewhat, brecaus eit would make arguments quite tedious. With this statement though, you crossed the line from generalisation to racism, which renders your points irrelevant in my eyes.

I am sorry you feel that way but I only spoke the truth. It was members of that community causing the riots and arsons in France last year. It was members of that group who have commited violence around the world over cartoons in a newspaper. It was memebers of that group who conducted bombings in Spain and the UK.

If I am going to point out the most likely scenario in Europe for a violent riot I would be foolish to ignore the fact that many of the recent violent problems can be traced to a signle group.

This does not mean that all members of that group are guilty and I never said as much. This has moved away from the discussion at hand though...

The point was that there is a very strong likelyhood that civil unrest will descend upon the civilized cities of Europe, very possibly from the group I mentioned but perhaps others (have there been any violent Inuit uprisings in Europe?). When it happens will those who choose to obey the law be able to defend themselves, sadly I think not.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

I am sorry you feel that way but I only spoke the truth. It was members of that community causing the riots and arsons in France last year. It was members of that group who have commited violence around the world over cartoons in a newspaper. It was memebers of that group who conducted bombings in Spain and the UK.

Sadly, were drifting quite OT, so I understand if this thread will be locked, but I cannot leave this statement unrebuked.
1stly, the riots in france were not because the french don't have guns, but because the second generation of immigrants from former french colonies (the Maghreb), who all have the French nationality, still get discriminated for their origin (I know, intergration of other cultures is a two bladed sword), especially since 9/11/2001, where every Muslim is regarded with suspicion.
2ndly, do you know anything about the rules of Qu'ran? We Christians have a long tradition of creating images of Jesus, saints, or even God itself. The Qu'ran though explicitly forbids to make an image of God or Muhammad. So it is very easily understandable that Muslims all over the world got offended by MOCKING pictures of devine entities, who are not to be illustrated AT ALL.
Lastly, even though we have a quickly growing peer of muslim (mostly Turkish) immigrants, and the univesity I am at is right next to a "Muslim" quarter, I have not ever seen any kind of riot of islamistic fanatics against us western infidels. Only the keep of the doner kebab booth I like to eat at explained to me why so many Muslims are angered by those cartoons.

And I have to ask a question. When is it ok for you to shoot a human being?