BS: Gun control

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:32 AM

The stats would be skewed by 9/11. (Brucie)

Why should Canadian stats be skewed by 9/11?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:36 AM

Was assuming stats for the US, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:38 AM

Gues the point is that anything can be turned into a weapon. However, I would expect most mass murder to have been done with poison or sleeping pills. Then guns. Just a guess, leaving 9/11 outta the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM

Some scary stuff on this link. Worth looking at. Figures for the US.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:56 AM

Murder, Types of Weapons Used                                                
Percent Distribution by Region, 2003                                                
Region        Total all weapons1        Firearms        Knives or cutting instruments        Unknown or other dangerous weapons        Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)2
        
Total                66.9        12.6        13.9        6.6        
Northeast        61.9        16.8        14.1        7.2        
Midwest            68.1        10.9        14.9        6.2        
South                67.7        12.3        13.7        6.4        
West                67.8        12.0        13.5        6.7
        
1 Because of rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.0.        

The above is from an FBI site. www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:01 AM

However, look at this, too. Absolutely shocking and largely unnoticed. Maybe as somone pointed out up-thread, the 'culture' of violence needs some changin'. Guns ain't helping, but there is a bigger problem than the one that comes outta the end of a barrel.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM

Ah, I've traveled the Highlands, from Glasgow to Glencoe to Ft. William to Kyle of L to Skye to Inverness to Stirling to Balmoral to Dundee to Edinburgh (although not necessarily in that order -- we started in Glasgow and ended in Edinburgh. I've also traveled in East Anglia, and passsed military reservations.

I've also traveled fairly widely in Ireland.

I'm still amazed that there are places where riflery, shotgunning, and archery can be practiced.

As for proper range safety, the stricures on archery ranges in the UK are in place here as well. Ranges for firearms are even more closely controlled, at least the ones I frequent. Problems in the States arise from the fools who simply think that because they can't see anyone or any houses they can let fly with impunity.

But deer hunting in Illinois and Indiana, for instance, is limited (for the most part) to shotgun, muzzleloader, and archery because it is felt that the State is too flat and too populated for high powered rifle (.22s are allowed for rabbits and squirrels). Pennsylvania, on the other hand, while more populous, is also more mountainous and deer hunting is permitted there with rifles, as is Kentucky. Out here, with a population of (Census 2000) 1,293,953 on the 53,483,110 acres that make up the State of Idaho, the problem isn't as acute. But compare this to a 2001 population of 58,789,194 on 59,698,189.44 land acres in Great Britain!

See why I'm surprised??

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:14 PM

Clint...in case you don't bother to read the link brucie found, here are a couple of clips from it: (in reply to "I don't think there are any reliable statistics on this."



FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40


FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures.

- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8


You really don't read my posts in depth, I guess.... I said I KNOW it would be hard to reduce the number of guns, given the number hidden away already...but I will say right now that guns would be far harder to import illegally than drugs, and we COULD control it if we cared to. (You just can't hide Ouzis in car tires or have paid 'mules' bring little bags of pistols on flights from Coloumbia!)

...and yeah, I remember zip guns....boy, if that's ALL we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy! ...As to your success in warding off trouble by waving a gun, congratulations. Call me back when you have a database of a hundred or so tries to report on. The statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time.

Sorry for being the pessimist, but I continue to be confident that the ultimate BEST way to reduce the problem is to have fewer guns available to those who shouldn't have them.
.... and this INCLUDES well-meaning citizens who don't believe in statistics.


----------------------------------------------------

and to Susu's Hubby:
" I'm pretty much assured of the fact that a future Liberal gov't of the US gov't would very much like to have a country full of unarmed peasants."

that is BS almost beyond the realm of belief! I won't bother to type all the reasonable answers to such contorted nonsense, since anyone who'd say something like that would not listen anyway.....

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:26 PM

Thanks for the links, Brucie, I love statistics.

My summary from several years: There are roughly 14,000 murders per years (increasing) in the USA and 2/3 of them (close to 10,000 in 2003) have been done by using firearms.

Of course one can also make some numerically true but nonsensical conclusions from looking at the data, like for instance interracial homicides are rare, Whites kill Whites and Blacks kill Blacks. So it seems relations between the races are fine? Women, BTW, are less likely to be killed than men, so then why is there always 'violence against women' a theme and not 'violence against men'? (I'm still in the section about nonsensical conclusion)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM

There's a lot to be said for living in a country full of unarmed peasants and sundry others. I wouldn't want to live in any other kind of country myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM

I should have said "I don't think there is any reliable _interpretation_ of the statistics on this."

There was a book out recently claiming that statistics show that more gun ownership decreases crime. I don't know that I believe it, but that's what he said. I hear that gun homicide statistics include suicide and self defense, which are neither crime nor accident. I don't know that I believe that either.

I do believe that people in the US are irrational about drugs, guns, and automobiles.[I've heard that automobiles are the major cause of death among children up to five years old. We deal with it by infant seats & airbags, rather like dealing with gunshot deaths by issuing bulletproof vests.]

I believe that strict gun laws do not keep homicides down; does Vermont, which has no gun restrictions at all, have a higher crime rate than New York City or Washington DC?

I believe that drug usage has increased along with the tough drug laws.

"As to your success in warding off trouble by waving a gun, congratulations. Call me back when you have a database of a hundred or so tries to report on. The statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time."

Don't be snotty. I didn't wave the revolver; I don't wave weapons. Nor brandish. I pointed it squarely at the midsection of a man who wanted to hit me in the head with a hatchet, in the hope that it would discourage him. I had said nothing to him, and I was in a doorway, making it difficult to turn & run. Neither of us got hurt, but I think if I myself had, say, a hatchet he could have taken it as a challenge, which would have been ugly.

"…statistics seem to indicate that showing a gun often leads to the other guy deciding that he needs a bigger one, and that he will not give you a chance next time."
I don't think that's a reliable interpretation of the statistics. In any case, it's been 50 years and he hasn't been back yet.

Look, I'd be for prohibiting guns if they'd go away; I just don't believe prohibition laws work, judging by history.

[And the police are not obliged to protect you, even if you have a restraining order on an ex-husband known to be violent. There've been court cases about it.]

clint

The database idea is interesting; I wonder how I could go about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:05 PM

Since it seems that a large number of people here would outlaw guns, can we get rid of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, too? That would make it a lot easier to make it "safe" for ... well, somebody.

(please look at the bill of rights- do you really want to make an arguement that we would be safer without ANY of it's protections?)

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM

In the early Seventies I spent a year in the Tri-Cities area in Washington State working for a radio station. On my days off, I drove around a bit to familiarize myself with the area.

Also, I do some target shooting. One Sunday I took my pistol with me to an area that the station's program director told me about, south of Kennewick. Lot's of folks, he said, go there to do some plinking. Isolated. Rolling hills, miles from anywhere. In addition to the isolation, there was a hill there that could function as a backstop. Some folks also used it as an unofficial garbage dump, and there were lots of empty soft drink and beer cans laying around to use as targets. I popped away for an hour or so, burning my way through a couple of boxes of .22 LRs. Then I packed up to go back to where I was staying.

As I drove, back to town, there were the usual road signs beside the narrow, two-lane road ("Curve," "Soft Shoulder," "No Passing," etc.). They all had bullet holes in them. About a block and a half before the first group of houses, there was a sign saying "Entering Kennewick." This sign also was full of bullet holes. The penetration pattern (direction of the crater made by the bullet passing through it) showed that whoever had used the sign for target practice was firing toward the town! And they were using pretty heavy caliber stuff, possibly a rifle! The only backstops were the houses a block and a half away.

Minimum requirement for purchasing a firearm of any kind should be a medical examination to make sure that the applicant possesses a brain.

Also, beardedbruce, I don't really see that a bunch of goons playing soldier in eastern Oregon, or northern Idaho, or anywhere else, for that matter—including people who keep guns laying around in desk drawers or on bedside tables all over the country—constitute a "well regulated militia." As long as the individual states have a "well regulated militia" (the National Guard), that need is met. Rational gun laws (that, contrary to the NRA, would constitute "well regulated") would not contradict the Second Amendment, nor would it have any bearing on the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Been there. Done that. I used to be a member of the NRA. Until I got totally disgusted by some of their completely spurious arguments against any kind of reasonable regulation. They want no regulation at all!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:02 PM

Airport security prevented the September 11th hijackers from using guns. They managed quite nicely without them - as will anyone intent on murder.

BillD - I would be interested in seeing the statistics on shootings involving illegal weapons vs. legal. I am not disagreeing with you but my problem is that NYC has tough gun ownership laws and still it has one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If someone is intent on murder, he will find a means.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM

on a recent documentary about a Canadian professor who studies murder & violence (Ill try to look up the name) one is 10x more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than the UK. And 5x as likely in the US as opposed to Canada.
SOme interesting comparisons were between small town in Alabama, and Newfoundland, very similar population in terms of gun ownership, level of education etc. except one had several times the murder rate of the other. Apparently NEwfoundland has one of the lowest in the world, mostly due to history and culture. Since there were no police in the past troublemakers were often ostracized by the community and it seemed to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:31 PM

We deal with it by infant seats & airbags

I believe you also have compulsory driving tests before anyone can get a licence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:38 PM

bearded bruce: your usual fallacy : "Straw Man"...those other rights have nothing to do with sane gun laws.

SINSULL the statistics are mostly there at the place brucie posted. Almost ALL weapons confisicated after local shootings here are illegal...bought 'legally' somewhere else, and then stolen or sold illegally.

and, I keep trying to make the point that ONE place having tough laws.(as I said, so does DC) does not help if they can go across a state line and get whatever they want! I-95 is FULL of folks moving illegal guns from state to state and selling them to those who make that murder rate so high. How would lax laws help? There are always guys who are willing to make a buck trafficing, and if they can buy 'em right across the street, they can even lower the price.

Yes, sure...someone who is INTENT on committing murder can often find a way, but so many gun deaths are opportunistic incidents that come about when several kids who HAVE guns decide to escalate an argument. I have read a dozen stories aboutn this in DC papers recently. One young girl died when some kids shot wildly at someone else on a porch.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,munchie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:39 PM

What country are most mudcatter's from?

Amazing how different cultures differ about gun control. I'm from the USA, Mississippi to be exact. We do a LOT of hunting around here. I grew up with guns, and had firearms safety drilled into me from a young age as well as safety courses. To me a gun is a ridiculously simple machine that fires projectiles. I respect them greatly but have never feared them in the least. But thanks to finding forums like this with members in different countries (and, of course, cultures) I now realize that some folks are just scared to death of guns, and in their cultures, few people own them (or are allowed to).

So, how far does your belief go? As in, does your country have an army, or some kind of armed forces? You do? Why? To protect yourselves from hostile countries? Ok, that makes sense. So why would it be questioned that as living beings have some right to defend ourselves against hostile forces, either on a national or personal level?

I would say, either get rid of your armies and practice what you preach, or realize that people have a right to protect themselves, be it on a personal or a national level.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:49 PM

BillD,

"those other rights have nothing to do with sane gun laws."

They are all in the Bill of Rights. I would rather not bring up the idea that we should change those rights (any of them) because it is "safer"..

Your speech or religion might well be a threat to the next person argueing to alter the Bill of Rights to make people "safe".

That is my point-hardly a straw-man arguement.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM

Poisoning someone takes more than just a sudden loss of temper. It takes planning. And it's pretty obvious that such a murder was premeditated. In a sudden loss of temper, someone may grab a knife and attempt to stab someone else, but that requires close proximity, and may result in a struggle in which the assailant is disarmed or, possibly, ends up the one who's perforated. If a gun is present, a sudden loss of temper—from across the room or across the street—can result in the death of someone; to be immediately regretted by the assailant. But too late.

If they have the means at hand, people will often do things in a sudden flash of anger that they would never do after a few seconds of reflection. Guns make impulse-killing easy to do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST, Clint Keller
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM

"I believe you also have compulsory driving tests before anyone can get a licence."

True, but the infant seats & airbags were particularly aimed at protecting children, at least until some got decapitated by the airbags. Sane driving would be a wonderful thing.

And I don't drive because I have no depth perception: no binocular vision. But I could get a driver's license legally. This is bad. It's also bad that for the most part after you pass the first test you don't have to be re-examined for the rest of your life.

I think a 'driver's licecnse' for gun owners would be ok. Something to show they are able to operate the device and know the applicable laws. This is essentially what you have to do to get a carry permit here in Idaho.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM

bbruce...you KNOW that no one is suggesting we repeal ANY of the Bill of Rights! You are simply arguing for a lax interpretation of "keep and bear arms" Remember, that follows "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"... When that was written, we didn't have the situation we have now. Now we have a "militia" for the security of our free state, and lots of individuals owning private weapons is not necessary! Let's have "bearing arms" restricted to the situation where they are acting as part of an official "militia".

I despair at the notion that after 250 years, people are still trying to defend what they want on the basis of their personal, subjective interpretation of a document whose authors could not possibly forsee AK-47s on street corners!

...It is not necessary to banish all guns in order to have sane gun LAWS which restrict 'some' weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM

Bill, I am a bit disappointed in you. That piece was skewed and clearly was put together to demonstrate a point. I note with interest that there was no comment on the FBI stats that showed that there was no greater percentage from guns, in fact less in some cases, than from knives and other instruments. The Canadian stats seem to indicate the same thing, in fact they seem to indicate that if one adds the beating and strangulation together (bare handed murders, in other words) that is about the same. The study you are basing this argument on was done for the purpose of discrediting gun ownership. When you take the raw data, you find that guns are no more dangerous than any other item. Folks that are intent on killing will do so. I would also question the source of your contention Almost ALL weapons confisicated after local shootings here are illegal...bought 'legally' somewhere else, and then stolen or sold illegally. I would like to see some cites on that. While that certainly is a problem, my understanding is that most don't come from the homes of law abiding citizens.

I have not seen the first study that indicates that disarming the populace, or increasing the strictness of gun laws, has the desired effect of lowering violent crime. In fact the opposite seems to be true as SINS and several others have pointed out.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:58 PM

(I think I will invent a new fallacy... the "Domino theory" of threats. "if we allow THIS, THAT could sorta maybe might possibly follow")

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM

And free speech limited to the human voice? I think that one must look at the intent of the founding fathers, which was to provide for the "right of the citizen to keep and bear arms".

I have NOT argued against SANE laws- but we may differ on what they are. If you notice, AK-47s are illegal, already. So are ALL fully automatic weapons, including "assult rifles", without a lot of paperwork, and a serious fee- and none of the weapons thus licenced have been used in any crimes.

But, it is trivial for anyone to make a functional firearm- the idea that passing laws will stop the ILLEGAL use of anything seems to me to be a little ridicules.


"It is not necessary to banish all guns in order to have sane gun LAWS which restrict 'some' weapons. "

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:10 PM

One thing I've never been clear about. Does the "right to bear arms" include swords and suchlike?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:29 PM

Mick...when I put bought 'legally' in single quotes, it refers to the practice of an individual 'legally' buying guns in one place with the intent of making money on them by reselling them...very often with no concern as to who gets them! This is a COMMON practice around here! Entire series have been written in the paper about this. It is a constant concern of area law enforcement. Unless laws are both similar AND enforced in all states, it becomes just a matter of how far they have to drive to get the guns.

BB.." ...So are ALL fully automatic weapons, including "assult rifles"," and there is a booming business in info and material to make semi-auto weapons full-auto. I'm sure you know that- the guys who buy the 'legal' semis sure do!

You just made my point about the founding fathers...You have your interpretation of what you'd like "keep & bear" mean, and gloss over the fact that it is part of a sentence that starts by referring to the militia.

No...it is NOT 'trivial' for anyone to make a firearm. As I said before, if homemade guns were all we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy!

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: MuddleC
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:38 PM

FYI
In this peaceful, crime free country of Great Britain where our police are unarmed and naughty pistols/handguns are banned,..... target shooting, pest/varmint control and humane livestock destruction are the pimary allowable reasons for having a firearms certificate... use for self-defence is not allowed unless you are a high ranking politician or ex-govt minister who has pissed off somebody.
The only pistols allowed are muzzle loaders cap'n'ball type, and only because they slipped up in the wording of the law. Rifle and shotgun is the predominant legal 'shooters' tool. The criminal fraternity have the choice of gun,knife or club, although there have been some
notable cases of the use of semi/auto machine pistols lately and quite a number of City Police Forces are 'suiting-up'as standard.
The 'swat' or Armed Response guys here rush about with H&K carbines, having lost favour with handguns.
The biggest non-terrorist murder toll so far is by a friendly Doctor called Shipman who took out 215 people between 1975 and 1992 and favoured the hypodermic syringe rather than lead projectile.
There are moves afoot now to ban all replica guns, and 'de-acts' whilst CO2 powered pistols are now required to be registered.
The killing of 17 people at Dunblane in Scotland resulted in the loss of UK handguns, and a controversial 100-year secrecy ban imposed on police reports dealing with the man responsible for the massacre. That has since been lifted after much campaigning , and revealed a report compiled by Paul Hughes, then a detective sergeant with Central Scotland police, into Hamilton's activities at a summer camp in Loch Lomond in 1991, five years before he carried out the shootings. The report advised that Hamilton should face prosecution over "incidents" at the summer camp and that his gun licence should be revoked. The police took no action and the Chief Constable renewed that firearm permit annually for the next five years... After the incident, the Chief Constable retired....
The only other name I'll mention is that of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for 5 years shooting dead a teenage intruder at his remote farm in 2000. It is clearly not reasonable to blast them at close range with a shotgun, even when there are two of them and one of you and it is the middle of the night. Nor is it reasonable to stab them to death, even if they are wielding a jemmy, as Barry Lee-Hastings discovered when jailed for five years at the Old Bailey for killing an intruder. Rigging up a booby-trap shotgun on your Ayrshire smallholding may sound reasonable to a man counting the cost of repeated break-ins, but it will get you seven years behind bars - as Frank Gillingham can testify. The law, however, believes it is perfectly reasonable for a career criminal such as Fearon (only wounded) to sue Martin for £15,000 damages or to be released from prison after serving only five-and-a-half months of an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: susu
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:45 PM

Well lets just say that we adopt a policy where the only people who can possess a gun are military and police officers, including game wardens, there are a couple of things that would happen INSHO...

1) to round up all the weapons would be impossible, and would those who have them be compensated?

2) even if we were able to get all of the guns, there are some cops etc that are crooked, so they could sell a weapon to a criminal, then what are you going to defend your family with? Heck, even if they come into your house at night with a knife while you are sleeping, what then? Charles Manson and his followers did a lot of damage with knives.

3) what about some people who hunt for food? Where we live there are several families       that use the meat that they get from hunting to feed their families.

4) loss of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses, that won't ever happen, enough said there.

Now that being said, so all people who are molested turn into child molesters, and on the other side of that, are all child molesters previous victims? No.

I was run over by a car when I was 12 and the kids were extremely cruel to me for the next 6 years because of how my face looked, (I could not have reconstructive surgery until my growth was complete) yet through all of the bullying, and mean comments, did I go on a shooting spree, well yeah but that is beside the point! Before some of you get your panties twisted, no I did not, the thought never entered my mind! I feel that two things attribute to the increase of shootings.

1)Too much violence on T.V. that smaller kids are being exposed to, I mean after all if a 5 year old sees a movie or show in which an actor gets killed then the next week that actor is in another movie without a scratch, there is no finality to the act of the killing. Then as the years progress the child grows up to be desensitized. Learning no remorse, they learn violence as a solution. And we won't even get into rap and violent video games.
2)People do not spend enough time with their kids today, the moral fiber of this country is on a downhill slid, and we are too busy to teach our children to be better people. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their children, and so many times that does not happen.

There you have my opinion, whatever you think of it, I just think we need to work on what our kids see and think, garbage in…garbage out. Susu

Besides where I come from, gun control means using both hands so you don't shake.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM

Tony Martin shot the kid in the back. He then failed to do anything about informing the police, so that there could have been a chance of him being picked up and given medical treatment (and being arrested). That was what made it murder.

If he'd simply phoned up and said "I've shot a burglar in my house and he's staggered off wounded" there is virtually no possibility he'd have been charged for murder, even if the boy had died.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:53 PM

Well, I ain't said nuthin' on this thread 'cause it would just get me embroiled...

...and I'll be the first to admit that I ain't read this entire thread 'cause with work an' all I don't really have much extra time but...

...has any one brought up the actual language of the 2nd Ammenedment yet?

If not, I think it would be very interesting for the *entire* ammendment be printed so that folks could might discuss it in the context of linking gun ownership to the right to maintain a militia...

Jus' a sidebar...

And, BTW, I've been a gun owner since I was 14 years old and believe very strongly that I should be able, unless I start shooting at people, be allowed to continue to own my 12 guage Remington pump and my 22/410 over under...

Ahhhhh, does anyone know just how many handguns there were per capita when the 2nd ammendment was written?

And, ahhhhhh, how many of the folks who fought in the War for Independence carried handguns?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: MuddleC
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM

Martin's conviction for murder was quashed and replaced by one of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility.

Barras and Fearon had gone to Bleak House with another friend, Darren Bark, with the intention of burgling the property. As Bark waited in his car, Barras and Fearon were shot while prowling in the house. Both men escaped back through the window the way they came, Fearon was severely injured but got away and Barras was found dead in the bushes the following afternoon.
I don't know how long it took the Police to arrive, they were called by a nearby houseowner who answererd Fearon's knock at the door for medical help.

Brendan Fearon, 29, was jailed for three years at Norwich crown court.

Darren Bark, 33, was jailed for 30 months. He was also ordered to serve an extra 12 months for an unrelated burglary. Fearon and Bark asked for seven other offences to be taken into consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM

Looking at what there is about the debates in the Congress regarding the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment:

1. Yes, Kevin, swords are included. In fact, they are specifically mentioned as something that "belongs" to an American citizen.

2. The idea seems to be that citizens should be able to possess arms to a) protect the country during wartime and, b) insure that the government did not destroy the Rights of citizens (i.e., to allow the citizens to be able to overthrow the government if it became "destructive of these ends" as the Declaration of Independence says).

But most of the debate seems to have centered around

3. The idea that a standing army in peacetime was something not to be tolerated by a free people.

In fact, the notions discussed seem to be that the US military was to be something like Switzerland's.

As a side note, there was also much discussion about including in the Second Amendment language that would exempt those who, for religious reasons, would not carry arms from serving in the militia or any form of the military.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:18 PM

BillD,

" and there is a booming business in info and material to make semi-auto weapons full-auto. I'm sure you know that- the guys who buy the 'legal' semis sure do!"

And that is highly illegal- so how would more laws alter it?





"You just made my point about the founding fathers...You have your interpretation of what you'd like "keep & bear" mean, and gloss over the fact that it is part of a sentence that starts by referring to the militia."

Please look at the discussions of the founding fathers before you put a modern interpretation on the "militia"






"No...it is NOT 'trivial' for anyone to make a firearm. As I said before, if homemade guns were all we had to worry about, I'd jump for joy! "

Since the level of responsibility here is not what I would like, I will refrain fron giving directions- but it takes two pipes, a nail, and a (short) piece of wood.... The US made thousands and dropped them behind the lines in WWII for use by partisens. Single shot, but that gets you a weapon from whoever you shoot- like the police or army you have stated should be allowed to have guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: harpgirl
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:34 PM

Here's some news for the gun nuts:http://www.gunguys.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:16 AM

BB.."so how would more laws alter it?" *sigh* ask me something hard...if they can't GET the guns, they can't mess with them.

It STILL doesn't require a semi-automatic gadget to go after Bambi.

sorry, but whether or not we agree about the finer points of what the founding fathers might have meant by 'militia' and 'keep', this society today does not NEED unlimited freedom to own private guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:23 AM

Nor do we NEED unlimited freedom of speech, but some of us would prefer to have it regardless.


Nor is the freedom to own guns unlimited. It is greatly restricted ( no felons, no insane people: no fully automatic weapons, nothing above a certain caliber, no explosive bullets, no barrels shorter than a fixed limit ( for rifles), ....)

Hardly unlimited.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:15 AM

"if they can't GET the guns, they can't mess with them. "

Listen carefully. You. Can't. Keep. Them. From. Getting. Guns.

There is an innocent middle class faith in this country that passing a law is equivalent to enforcing it. I'm not trying to be mean, but honestly, some laws cannot be enforced.

There is an equally innocent faith in the efficacy of passing laws against objects instead of against actions. But it ain't the bottle of whisky, it's the driving under the influence. The influence of anything: alcohol, cold medicine, or a high fever. Or a hot temper.

But it really would be nice to have a law against crime on Sundays so the cops could have a day off.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: HuwG
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM

Just my two pence worth ...

Years ago, when I was in the UK armed forces, my unit was sharing some rifle ranges with a local firearms club. At one point, the range staff ordered firing to cease so that the butt parties (i.e. those behind embankments under the targets, who raised and lowered targets and pasted over holes) could march off for lunch. Everything waited for the best part of five minutes while one of the club shooters fired off one last shot (at a miserable 100 yards). Then with all safety flags raised and the butt parties in the open and marching off, another of them fired off another shot. I don't know where it went or where it was aimed; the intention was clearly to annoy or scare the butt parties (most of whom were very young recruits).

Even as the rooks took flight and the echoes of the shot were fading, the culprit was calling, "Sorry ! Didn't see the flags going up !", in the manner of a soccer player raising his hands to say "Accident, ref !" before cutting an opponent's feet from underneath him with a vicious studs-first tackle.

I was very tempted indeed to march over and give him a toecap sandwich. However, several senior officers and SNCOs were present, and seemed to make light of the incident. In hindsight, I find their attitude rather improper. The soldiers they were responsible for were subject to draconian penalties for negligently discharging a weapon, or mishandling one. However, they seemed to take the view, "He's not a soldier, he doesn't have to cringe when I shout at him, he's not my responsiblity. I can't be a*sed."

Gun "control" in the UK, prior to the Dunblane shootings, seemed to be similarly laxly controlled by the Police etc. In the aftermath of that incident, the Government seemed to take the view that all the legislation necessary to prevent the incident was in place, but not properly enforced. The alternatives were continuing as before and hope, on no evidence, that the existing controls would be properly applied; or impose a draconian ban. I was pleased that they took the latter course.

I agree that adopting a similar course in the US. would be very difficult. However, it should be noted that firearms crimes in the UK now attract the most severe jail sentences (as in the case of the minimum 35-year sentences passed recently on four men who shot two innocent girls in a Birmingham gangland feud). The attitude of the judiciary is clearly that anyone who plays with weapons intended purely to kill others, deserves little mercy.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

HuwG, if such an incident happened on the range here the responsible party would have been banned (for life) from the range AND very likely arrested for reckless endangerment. "Cease Fire" orders on the civilian range here and on ALL military ranges I have been familiar with were done with 1) a loudspeaker (tannoy) setup AND 2) range officers running around screaming "Cease Fire!" AND 3) the absolute requirement that EVERYONE put down their weapon on the ground, magazine out and bolt locked open and STAND UP.

I have not only experienced this, but have seen it down at competitions ranging from the extremely local to national competitions.

The only example I know of similar to what you described occured some years ago when three drunken 20-year-old males, living together in a mobile home, shot a .22 at a bunch of Cub Scouts hiking along a road. My nephew was in the Scouts. My brother didn't report it -- he paid a visit to the young males, and after lifting two of them off the ground and throwing them into the third, promised them that if they ever did such a thing again it would be the last time. THEY called the Sheriff, who talked to my bro. The Sheriff said, "You know, if something does happen I'll have to come looking for you." Bro said, "Okay. But you'll never find the bodies." The young males were later arrested for running a meth lab (yes, my brother, who works for the Illinois State Police DID help to break that case!) and are now locked up.

Oh, yeah. They threatened to shoot my brother as he walked away. He replied, rather scornfully, "You ain't got the the balls" and left. He was right -- they didn't.

There is NO excuse for either ignoring range commands or for what those young punks did. None.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:17 AM

The notion of keeping people from getting guns is a non-starter. I would bet that within a few hours of getting to any medium to large city in North America, I could get guns via black market. It's just a matter of askin' the right folks. It is today more difficult to get guns legally in Canada than it is illegally. The legal purchase of guns requires a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, and that is a whole procedure involving passing a test and being acceptable to the law. Illegal purchase? "Hey, I need __________. What will it cost?" "Two fifty for the weapon and another $250 for me to forget you."

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:38 AM

Guns can be made from a piece of pipe and a nipple to close the end. Gunpowder can be made from charcoal, sulphur and saltpeter. Saltpeter can be extracted from the soil of a barnyard using means and chemicals available to anyone -- it was for centuries. Projectiles can be rocks, as they were for centuries.

But guns don't even need powder as a propellant; just an overpressure of some gas contained within a space with one way easier for the gas to escape (and push something in front of it) than the rest of the walls of the space.

In fact, you can make a projectile thrower which uses centripedal force and bypass the compressed gas completely. The principle is the same as a sling.

If people want to harm someone badly enough, they'll find a way to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:51 AM

Incidentally, I have had guns pointed at me a few times: Once I disrupted a drug deal in front of an ol' girlfriend's place; 'nother time it involved circumstance I won't go into, but I got a few scars as a result--not from the gun. Neither of the aforementioned weapons were acquired legally. There were a few more occasions, but no point going into them. Members of the National Guard in California pointed guns at me as did a few police officers in NYC.

One of my better friends has about twenty guns. He is what some folks call a 'gun nut'. He has never pointed a gun at anyone. In fact, he teaches range safety, and his daughter is an excellent pistol shot. She doesn't point guns at people either.

So, why would any country want only duly authorized authorities and criminals to have guns? Because when you take guns away from honest people, they're the only two left with weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:04 PM

There are a lot of things that might be useful in some circumstances that criminals have and I don't:

wrong passports, false money, heroin, things to open closed doors, devices to listen to my conversation when I think noone can

It's an unjust world, I never would abuse all those things like any criminal would, just the listening devices perhaps once or a few times, and I don't have them, only the criminals have them. I think I should be allowed to have everything a criminal might have, just in case.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM

I don't have a gun and I want to overthrow the government. Cops and soldiers have guns, but the government won't let me have one. So I have to kill a cop or cops (or soldiers) to get the guns I need.

No problem. Wait until a patrol car is on a lonely road and wreck it. Use a spear to kill a guard, or a "booby trap" or cut his throat some dark night -- even sharpened wood will work for these.

Now I have a gun and bullets.

The knowledge of how to do these things is not secret. Unfortunately, the bad guys know it as well as the good guys -- as was amply demonstrated in the Fulton Coounty Courthouse recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM

Capital Punishment and Homicide

That's more an article about methodology. How different methods lead to different results. For those looking for support for one point of view the article has no unambiguous response.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM

I guess I should quit banging my head on the wall.....several of you are missing the point of my argument. ( I think you are also making a mistake in judgement, but that is a different issue).

There are TWO issues..some of you are using one to argue for the other.

1) SHOULD ordinary people who are not felons or insane be able to buy 'most' classes of firearms? Note..this would include those who are not YET felons or insane, including those who intend to break the law.
2) Could we prevent them from obtaining guns if we tried?

I have agreed that we could not totally prevent illegal traffic, and I have stipulated that there are so many guns already out there, that finding and confiscating them all would be impractical. We could, however, slowly reduce the totals, just as we are slowly reducing the number of smokers. In such matters, ANY improvement is a plus.

It is poor logic to claim that because it is hard, ("You. Can't. Keep. Them. From. Getting. Guns."), you shouldn't try.) You CAN keep most of them from easily getting the worst types of guns!!!!!

My claim is, that this is a VERY dangerous and regretable situation, and that we should restrict MORE ownership of most types of guns , restrict many types of ammunition, make the various state laws more uniform, enforce the laws strictly and begin an educational process similar to the ongoing one about tobacco, so that the DESIRE for guns is gradually reduced. The mentality that sees violence as a solution needs to be changed, as difficult as that is.

I have said almost all I can about this....but I will add this. I did not always have such a strong position. I actually owned a pistol once...(just a .22 5 shot revolver...I fired it ONCE, way out in the wilderness. I loaned to a lady who lived alone, and it was stolen from her house by a kid!) I lived with a gun nut for a year, and learned to open and load a shotgun, and watched him play with a .45 can carry it around in his hip pocket. I was dubious, but guns were common, and I didn't make a big issue of it. (This was Kansas in the early 1960s)......Gradually, over the years, I have seen more & more problems as street gangs became bolder and more organized and the spread of serious drugs fuel the desire for guns to 'protect' the dealers. I have seen the types of weapons become more sophisticated and powerful. I have seen the methods of distribution become sneakier. I have seen more & more incidents of previously 'innocent' people, most of whom got their weapons perfectly legally, do horrible things with them.

Howard Unruh, Charles Whitman...etc...school shootings by kids....accidental deaths by kids playing....you know the stories.....Yet you keep saying those were just carelessness or sad cases of flawed individuals, and that education and enforcement are all we need.

Right there is where we differ....I believe that as long as society has this many careless and flawed people mixed with this many guns, we DO need more than a set of rules posted. I don't care if it's hard and slow to control, I don't care if guns are fascinating and deeply ingrained in our culture, I don't care if you think some meeting 250 years ago wrote a rule that allows YOU to override common sense. That rule needs to be examined and the ambiguities removed.

This is my position, belief, analysis, thought, judgement...and yes, 'feeling'.....but the emotion comes a RESULT of the thought in my case, it does not drive my reasoning. I did not begin with an irrational fear or hatred of guns. I do not favor making hunters turn in their deer rifles. I do not suggest making collecting of antique firearms illegal. I just want people to quit saying, "Oh, you can't stop illegal guns and illegal use of them...why try?"

do I think all this typing is gonna make much difference? Hey, I'm an idealist, but I'm not totally stupid! I know who has clout and who has political power right now.

Now....I guess I HAVE said about all I can on the subject. I expected disagreement, and I didn't expect to 'win'... I just didn't expect so much distortion of the points I was making.

further, deponent sayeth not

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

I've already talked about this in more detail on another gun thread. There were a lot of burglaries in a low populated community north of Anchorage, Alaska. A local minister came into his church when the burglers were in the basement loading up on stuff. No other folks around. He plugged them both on their way past him out the door. I believe the wounds were in their backs. He was arrested by local constabulary and put on trial. It split the community and many letters to the paper were sent. He was put on trial before a jury of his peers and testified he was afraid for his life. Do I need to tell you the determination?

So the system works.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM

Of course if they were to put out on the street large quantities of ammunition designed to explode in a way that destroyed the gun, and endangered the person firing it, but looked in evewry way similar to the ordinary stuff, perhaps that might make people more reluctant to use their guns...

Subject: RE: BS: Gun control
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM

ooooh, McGrath..interesting idea, but even I wouldn't support such a thing..........


now if it burst and sprayed them with cheap perfume....hmmmmmmm..... *grin*