Omaha Mall Shooting
Pages :
1 [2]
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 06:35 AM
The Castle Law doesn't give anyone an open license to kill. I'm quite sure the police will investigate and District Attorneys will review each individual case to see if the actor complied with the law. Basically it gives you a statutory right to self defense and the use of deadly force pursuant to the conditions set forward in the law and protection from civil liability like wrongful death lawsuits.
For reference here is Section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, aka Castle Law.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
SECTION 5.
(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
For reference here is Section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, aka Castle Law.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
SECTION 5.
(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 08:50 AM
Wow, this is interesting. Just so this discussion doesn't evolve strictly around Texas or get too lop-sided, other states have similar "Castle" or "Stand Your Ground" laws. It is based on the common law. Starting with Florida in 2005. Some with a duty to retreat.
Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law_w.2F_Stan d-your-ground)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Tennessee
Utah
:popcorn:
Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law_w.2F_Stan d-your-ground)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Tennessee
Utah
:popcorn:
03cavPA
12-12-2007, 10:40 AM
Before anybody starts jumping up and down to say that Bob's post only applies to defense of person, here's the other section about defense of property, especially that of another person:
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Yeah, it's not just Texas. A lot of states have those laws. Texas just happens to be in the news right now. Lots of people here in the rural areas of PA own more than one gun. Hunting is a big deal in these parts.
It would not be a good idea to break into a house around here while the occupants are at home.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Yeah, it's not just Texas. A lot of states have those laws. Texas just happens to be in the news right now. Lots of people here in the rural areas of PA own more than one gun. Hunting is a big deal in these parts.
It would not be a good idea to break into a house around here while the occupants are at home.
drunken monkey
12-12-2007, 11:19 AM
purely speculative supposition but doesn't this kind of law serve to encourage criminals to be more violent?
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 11:42 AM
purely speculative supposition
:werd:.........:lol:
but doesn't this kind of law serve to encourage criminals to be more violent?
Purely speculative supposition but it could have the opposite effect. :dunno: Don't all real criminals have the propensity to be violent? Also, people have to realize that the criminal may be armed too. Whether it be with a firearm, knife or even a baseball bat.
On the third party/person issue that could be risky. I'd be sure to get that in writing unless it is under exceptional and mitigating circumstances. IMO it is best not to take the law into your own hands and call the police, whenever possible. Now if the perp(s) attack you or you reasonably feel imminent bodily harm then you have an inherent right to self defense but it may not do any good. You may wind up as a statistic.
:werd:.........:lol:
but doesn't this kind of law serve to encourage criminals to be more violent?
Purely speculative supposition but it could have the opposite effect. :dunno: Don't all real criminals have the propensity to be violent? Also, people have to realize that the criminal may be armed too. Whether it be with a firearm, knife or even a baseball bat.
On the third party/person issue that could be risky. I'd be sure to get that in writing unless it is under exceptional and mitigating circumstances. IMO it is best not to take the law into your own hands and call the police, whenever possible. Now if the perp(s) attack you or you reasonably feel imminent bodily harm then you have an inherent right to self defense but it may not do any good. You may wind up as a statistic.
drunken monkey
12-12-2007, 12:18 PM
what i mean is, as far as I'm aware (of whatever numbers are given by police and insurance companies etc) most household burgularies, which this law is being discussed in this thread as being in relation to, are crimes of opportunity. While there are cases where it is a carefully planned "attack", a lot of times, it is a matter of open window = have a go.
A burgular doesn't want to have to deal with people and just because they are a criminal it doesn't always mean they are a violent criminal, does it?
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
A burgular doesn't want to have to deal with people and just because they are a criminal it doesn't always mean they are a violent criminal, does it?
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
03cavPA
12-12-2007, 01:26 PM
A burgular doesn't want to have to deal with people and just because they are a criminal it doesn't always mean they are a violent criminal, does it?
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
But, they've already declared that they refuse to follow the rules. If we talk about slippery slopes, then it's not much of a leap from crimes against property to crimes against person.
It goes along with what Kyle said earlier. If they don't want to get shot, they should stay the hell out of places they don't belong.
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
But, they've already declared that they refuse to follow the rules. If we talk about slippery slopes, then it's not much of a leap from crimes against property to crimes against person.
It goes along with what Kyle said earlier. If they don't want to get shot, they should stay the hell out of places they don't belong.
drunken monkey
12-12-2007, 05:52 PM
so are you saying that the punishment for theft is death?
Oz
12-12-2007, 06:09 PM
How many more people have to die senselessly before you rethink your attitude BNaylor? Do you enjoy living in such a trigger happy society? Even the cops seem to take the attitude of 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Some guy pulling a hairbrush out of his pocket was shot something like 30+ times and was dead before he hit the ground.
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 06:18 PM
How many more people have to die senselessly before you rethink your attitude BNaylor? Do you enjoy living in such a trigger happy society? Even the cops seem to take the attitude of 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Some guy pulling a hairbrush out of his pocket was shot something like 30+ times and was dead before he hit the ground.
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
Come again? What attitude? :confused:
What comment did I make for you to single me out? The fact I live in Texas? :screwy:
Just what part of my quote below do YOU not understand. :shakehead
IMO it is best not to take the law into your own hands and call the police, whenever possible.
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
Come again? What attitude? :confused:
What comment did I make for you to single me out? The fact I live in Texas? :screwy:
Just what part of my quote below do YOU not understand. :shakehead
IMO it is best not to take the law into your own hands and call the police, whenever possible.
blazee
12-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Come again? What attitude? :confused:
What comment did I make for you to single me out? The fact I live in Texas? :screwy::dunno: I didn't see anything you posted. Myself and a few others posted in favor of lethal force, but I didn't see you post anything beyond what we said.
Looks like Oz is taking the "talk shit, ask questions later" attitude. Glad he didn't have a gun. :lol:
What comment did I make for you to single me out? The fact I live in Texas? :screwy::dunno: I didn't see anything you posted. Myself and a few others posted in favor of lethal force, but I didn't see you post anything beyond what we said.
Looks like Oz is taking the "talk shit, ask questions later" attitude. Glad he didn't have a gun. :lol:
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 06:57 PM
:dunno: I didn't see anything you posted. Myself and a few others posted in favor of lethal force, but I didn't see you post anything beyond what we said.
Looks like Oz is taking the "talk shit, ask questions later" attitude. Glad he didn't have a gun. :lol:
Oh! Oh! Take cover! :lol:
I really don't know Chris. It sure beats me. Maybe living upside down does weird things to you or too many Fosters. :uhoh:.......:lol:
Or maybe it was the fact that I mentioned I own an AK47 Assault Rifle that I don't even store on any of my property let alone use it for personal self defense but safely stored at a secure military base used when I'm called up as an Army Reservist to do my official duties?
As a matter of fact we have a large presence of Australian Immigrants in West Texas and Southern New Mexico that love it here. I'm quite sure my buddy Ian feels very safe. He did pretty good and found a great deal on a DeLorean too. :thumbsup: Hopefully no one tries to steal it. They may be in for a rude awakening. :grinyes:
Looks like Oz is taking the "talk shit, ask questions later" attitude. Glad he didn't have a gun. :lol:
Oh! Oh! Take cover! :lol:
I really don't know Chris. It sure beats me. Maybe living upside down does weird things to you or too many Fosters. :uhoh:.......:lol:
Or maybe it was the fact that I mentioned I own an AK47 Assault Rifle that I don't even store on any of my property let alone use it for personal self defense but safely stored at a secure military base used when I'm called up as an Army Reservist to do my official duties?
As a matter of fact we have a large presence of Australian Immigrants in West Texas and Southern New Mexico that love it here. I'm quite sure my buddy Ian feels very safe. He did pretty good and found a great deal on a DeLorean too. :thumbsup: Hopefully no one tries to steal it. They may be in for a rude awakening. :grinyes:
03cavPA
12-12-2007, 07:41 PM
so are you saying that the punishment for theft is death?
No. Maybe take a hand or two. They'll be sorrier that way.
Don't pull a straw man on me, monkey. I said they wouldn't get shot if they weren't in places where they don't belong. If you read other posts of mine, I believe you'll find I've already stated that I don't think killing over property is right, but I can see how it happens. AND, apparently it's legal in quite a few "Castle Doctrine" states.
Oz, it's OK with us if you don't want to move here, but we would still welcome you if you did.
Bob, it must be that Texas thing. We all know what the saying is about how cowboy boots in Texas are different from regular boots.
No. Maybe take a hand or two. They'll be sorrier that way.
Don't pull a straw man on me, monkey. I said they wouldn't get shot if they weren't in places where they don't belong. If you read other posts of mine, I believe you'll find I've already stated that I don't think killing over property is right, but I can see how it happens. AND, apparently it's legal in quite a few "Castle Doctrine" states.
Oz, it's OK with us if you don't want to move here, but we would still welcome you if you did.
Bob, it must be that Texas thing. We all know what the saying is about how cowboy boots in Texas are different from regular boots.
2strokebloke
12-12-2007, 07:55 PM
Unfortunately We do have a "make my day" law in Colorado - and most disgustingly it has been abused, so that murderers can get off the hook.
Notably in Colorado Springs, A man shot another man. The guy he shot was LEAVING the man's property in a car! - the property owner shot him in the back and killed him. He got off of a 1st degree murder charge thanks to the "make my day" law - because he shot the man while he was still on his property, and according to his lawyers, he felt threatened by him being there - so apparently his murder was legal, even though the man was leaving, and posed no threat to the property owner.
These laws are just complete bullshit. No judge would ever sentence somebody to death for trespassing.
It's all good and well in theory that ordinary citizens can mow down "career criminals" but in practice these laws are subject to abuses like those in Texas and here in Colorado.
To suggest that death as punishment for trespassing or burglary is "justice" is patently ridiculous. It's an absolute perversion of the idea of justice.
Notably in Colorado Springs, A man shot another man. The guy he shot was LEAVING the man's property in a car! - the property owner shot him in the back and killed him. He got off of a 1st degree murder charge thanks to the "make my day" law - because he shot the man while he was still on his property, and according to his lawyers, he felt threatened by him being there - so apparently his murder was legal, even though the man was leaving, and posed no threat to the property owner.
These laws are just complete bullshit. No judge would ever sentence somebody to death for trespassing.
It's all good and well in theory that ordinary citizens can mow down "career criminals" but in practice these laws are subject to abuses like those in Texas and here in Colorado.
To suggest that death as punishment for trespassing or burglary is "justice" is patently ridiculous. It's an absolute perversion of the idea of justice.
drunken monkey
12-12-2007, 08:08 PM
Don't pull a straw man on me, monkey. I said they wouldn't get shot if they weren't in places where they don't belong.
It is specifically the law I am discussing, not your personal position because I can see that's how many people will interpret that law; rob me, I kill you.
Although, I can't see how you can agree with the law without agreeing that any death caused by this is justified
i.e death is a suitable punishment for theft.
don't belong?
You can also take that sort of argument with either side.
Don't want your stuff stolen?
have less stuff?
Get better doors/windows/locks?
Again, I am not that familiar with your country's construction methods but in the UK, it doesn't take a lot of effort to get your home secure (double skin masonry walls and all that); that is why for here at least, household burgularies are mostly opportunistic. Close your windows and lock your doors and they'll walk on by because it takes a determined soul to actually break into a house IF small things like locks (that are mostly standard fit anyway) are used.
It is specifically the law I am discussing, not your personal position because I can see that's how many people will interpret that law; rob me, I kill you.
Although, I can't see how you can agree with the law without agreeing that any death caused by this is justified
i.e death is a suitable punishment for theft.
don't belong?
You can also take that sort of argument with either side.
Don't want your stuff stolen?
have less stuff?
Get better doors/windows/locks?
Again, I am not that familiar with your country's construction methods but in the UK, it doesn't take a lot of effort to get your home secure (double skin masonry walls and all that); that is why for here at least, household burgularies are mostly opportunistic. Close your windows and lock your doors and they'll walk on by because it takes a determined soul to actually break into a house IF small things like locks (that are mostly standard fit anyway) are used.
03cavPA
12-12-2007, 08:59 PM
monkey, thanks for the clarification.
My understanding of the situation doesn't require my complete agreement with it. I personally don't think I would blow away somebody if they were leaving my house with my property. I also don't think I would personally blow away thieves leaving my neighbor's house with their property. I'd be bummed to come home and find my stuff gone, but I wasn't in any immediate danger while they were stealing it.
It would be a completely different matter if they broke into my house while we were home, and made attempts to enter our immediate space, even if all they were looking for were material goods. At that point, there would be dead intruders and a very large mess to clean up. AND the law allows for that type of self defense. At that point, I am protecting person and not property. I'm not willing to wait for them to ask me if we have any cookies and milk.
As for construction/security, you must have some damned wimpy thieves in the UK. In some areas here, they'll cave in an entire window and tear doors off the jambs to get in to steal stuff. Those are the mild cases. My mom lived in Miami for a while and it got so bad down there that everyone had bars on their windows, and the thieves STILL managed to get in some places. These are concrete block construction. We're not talking about opportunistic crimes here, we're talking about hard core, career criminals.
Own less stuff to keep from having it stolen? Now we punish law abiding citizens for their success. Blaming the victim, are we?
I'd prefer to see criminals punished, not victims. Perhaps you read too much into the "don't belong there " part. It simply means that people should stay out of homes where they don't belong/have not been invited and they should not take things that don't belong to them. Those are the rules in almost every civilized part of the world, as far as I know.
Bad things sometimes happen to people who won't follow the rules, and there are overreactions under the law. Sucks to be them, but they make a choice to be bad, and sometimes they get burnt. I'm not going to shed any tears over it.
One of the first things that I thought of when I read about the latest Texas incidents was the legend of Judge Roy Bean. Granted, the myth is bigger than the man, but that's what came to mind.
My understanding of the situation doesn't require my complete agreement with it. I personally don't think I would blow away somebody if they were leaving my house with my property. I also don't think I would personally blow away thieves leaving my neighbor's house with their property. I'd be bummed to come home and find my stuff gone, but I wasn't in any immediate danger while they were stealing it.
It would be a completely different matter if they broke into my house while we were home, and made attempts to enter our immediate space, even if all they were looking for were material goods. At that point, there would be dead intruders and a very large mess to clean up. AND the law allows for that type of self defense. At that point, I am protecting person and not property. I'm not willing to wait for them to ask me if we have any cookies and milk.
As for construction/security, you must have some damned wimpy thieves in the UK. In some areas here, they'll cave in an entire window and tear doors off the jambs to get in to steal stuff. Those are the mild cases. My mom lived in Miami for a while and it got so bad down there that everyone had bars on their windows, and the thieves STILL managed to get in some places. These are concrete block construction. We're not talking about opportunistic crimes here, we're talking about hard core, career criminals.
Own less stuff to keep from having it stolen? Now we punish law abiding citizens for their success. Blaming the victim, are we?
I'd prefer to see criminals punished, not victims. Perhaps you read too much into the "don't belong there " part. It simply means that people should stay out of homes where they don't belong/have not been invited and they should not take things that don't belong to them. Those are the rules in almost every civilized part of the world, as far as I know.
Bad things sometimes happen to people who won't follow the rules, and there are overreactions under the law. Sucks to be them, but they make a choice to be bad, and sometimes they get burnt. I'm not going to shed any tears over it.
One of the first things that I thought of when I read about the latest Texas incidents was the legend of Judge Roy Bean. Granted, the myth is bigger than the man, but that's what came to mind.
BNaylor
12-12-2007, 09:17 PM
Bob, it must be that Texas thing. We all know what the saying is about how cowboy boots in Texas are different from regular boots.
I don't know about a Texas thing because El Paso County is the bastard offspring of Texas. We have the best Cowboy boots (Tony Lama, etc.) in the world made here and one of the lowest crime rates of any U.S. city over 500K population. Make that over 2.5 million plus with Juarez, Mexico. Plus this is a border city with Mexico right across the border therefore we have the illegal immigrant problem but ICE and Border Patrol does a great job in that area to a point. I believe the amount of Australian Immigrants in our area speaks for itself and they DO NOT share the same views as Oz who appears to be suffering from an "attitude" problem himself. I wonder how many of our friends from down under or the U.K. have actually visited or lived in the U.S. to witness first hand for themselves all this alleged rampant crime and people gunning each other down like back in the Old West days. :rolleyes:
Time for a reality check people. :grinyes:
I don't know about a Texas thing because El Paso County is the bastard offspring of Texas. We have the best Cowboy boots (Tony Lama, etc.) in the world made here and one of the lowest crime rates of any U.S. city over 500K population. Make that over 2.5 million plus with Juarez, Mexico. Plus this is a border city with Mexico right across the border therefore we have the illegal immigrant problem but ICE and Border Patrol does a great job in that area to a point. I believe the amount of Australian Immigrants in our area speaks for itself and they DO NOT share the same views as Oz who appears to be suffering from an "attitude" problem himself. I wonder how many of our friends from down under or the U.K. have actually visited or lived in the U.S. to witness first hand for themselves all this alleged rampant crime and people gunning each other down like back in the Old West days. :rolleyes:
Time for a reality check people. :grinyes:
drunken monkey
12-12-2007, 09:30 PM
i should also add that in my mind, this is an extension of the laws regarding self defence in general which is something I have had to deal with.
As you may or may not know, I am an occasional martial arts instructor/assistant (wing chun + kick boxing for those that are interested), in particular in dealing with more "everyday" and realistic confrontations. As such, I also have particular in interest in the discussions regarding "reasonable force" which I can see applies here as well.
Most people just aren't prepared for direct face to face confrontation even if they have 3+ years of mainstream martial arts training. The first time I jump in their face and shout at them, they freeze AND that's with them knowing I am going to do that.
Having a law that makes it OK (within context) to shoot someone doesn't automatically prepare the individual for actually pulling the trigger, just like self defence doesn't automatically prepare the individual from taking on a thug in a fight (no matter how many decent ring hours they might have). Granted that shooting a gun is very different from having to actually fight to live but that's where another concern arises. As I have said and you may not agree with this but guns make it too easy to make a wrong choice. If there is a threat of getting shot, wouldn't you agree that any criminal who is going to rob you no matter what, is going to prepare him for that?
Also, for those that are interested in this sort of thing; it has just been made illegal to manufacter/sell/otherwise deal with, replica samurai swords in the UK.
Authentic ones are legal but in essence, ornamental ones are a no-no now.
I'm wondering how long before I have to hand in my custom made for my little short armed self live wing chun butterfly knives.
And yes, we have a lot of wimpy criminals here.
Most of the "thugs" on the streets are gangster wannabes I can't count the number of times I've laughed at some random kid attamtping to mug me. We have a strange thing here that goes a little like this:
kid: yo mate, got £1?
me/you: yes
kid: lend it to me
me/you: no
kid: gis a quid
me/you: no
kid: gis the fucking money
me/you: fuck off
kid: fuck off then, before I fuckin' kinfe ya. Gut ya I will.
me/you: twat
kid goes wandering off pretending to shoot you with his fingers.
As you may or may not know, I am an occasional martial arts instructor/assistant (wing chun + kick boxing for those that are interested), in particular in dealing with more "everyday" and realistic confrontations. As such, I also have particular in interest in the discussions regarding "reasonable force" which I can see applies here as well.
Most people just aren't prepared for direct face to face confrontation even if they have 3+ years of mainstream martial arts training. The first time I jump in their face and shout at them, they freeze AND that's with them knowing I am going to do that.
Having a law that makes it OK (within context) to shoot someone doesn't automatically prepare the individual for actually pulling the trigger, just like self defence doesn't automatically prepare the individual from taking on a thug in a fight (no matter how many decent ring hours they might have). Granted that shooting a gun is very different from having to actually fight to live but that's where another concern arises. As I have said and you may not agree with this but guns make it too easy to make a wrong choice. If there is a threat of getting shot, wouldn't you agree that any criminal who is going to rob you no matter what, is going to prepare him for that?
Also, for those that are interested in this sort of thing; it has just been made illegal to manufacter/sell/otherwise deal with, replica samurai swords in the UK.
Authentic ones are legal but in essence, ornamental ones are a no-no now.
I'm wondering how long before I have to hand in my custom made for my little short armed self live wing chun butterfly knives.
And yes, we have a lot of wimpy criminals here.
Most of the "thugs" on the streets are gangster wannabes I can't count the number of times I've laughed at some random kid attamtping to mug me. We have a strange thing here that goes a little like this:
kid: yo mate, got £1?
me/you: yes
kid: lend it to me
me/you: no
kid: gis a quid
me/you: no
kid: gis the fucking money
me/you: fuck off
kid: fuck off then, before I fuckin' kinfe ya. Gut ya I will.
me/you: twat
kid goes wandering off pretending to shoot you with his fingers.
03cavPA
12-12-2007, 09:33 PM
umm, Bob, the rest of us know that the cowboy boots in Texas have the bull manure on the inside of them.
:evillol:
:evillol:
xeroinfinity
12-13-2007, 12:05 AM
I dont condone killing some one for steeling your stuff, even though you'd like too, but the laws we do have need some work.
I remember here in Indiana back in the 80's, a man shot a guy who broke into his house. It was dark he saw a shadow that was a man carrying something(his tv) and shot him with a shot gun!
Well he shot the thief in the back, and paralised him from the waste down. 1 or 2 years later the shooter goes to jail for 5 years and had to pay $12000 in resistution, for shooting him while he was fleeing(a small clause) and the money for disabling him.
So I see why someone would shoot to kill, wound them and get sued, how crazies that... :shakehead
its a tough delima anyway you look at it, and I realy dont see it changing anytime soon. Thier's to much money to be had on all sides of the fence, legal and illegal.
They just best keep on thier side of that fence.
Welcome to the USA! :lol:
I remember here in Indiana back in the 80's, a man shot a guy who broke into his house. It was dark he saw a shadow that was a man carrying something(his tv) and shot him with a shot gun!
Well he shot the thief in the back, and paralised him from the waste down. 1 or 2 years later the shooter goes to jail for 5 years and had to pay $12000 in resistution, for shooting him while he was fleeing(a small clause) and the money for disabling him.
So I see why someone would shoot to kill, wound them and get sued, how crazies that... :shakehead
its a tough delima anyway you look at it, and I realy dont see it changing anytime soon. Thier's to much money to be had on all sides of the fence, legal and illegal.
They just best keep on thier side of that fence.
Welcome to the USA! :lol:
Oz
12-13-2007, 12:10 AM
Bnaylor,
Apologies - I did not mean to single you our (although I did) - my comment was generally aimed at the self righteous gun toting, trigger happy conservatives that see no need to change their countries attitude to firearms, despite a multitude of their countryman dieing all the time.
This a fairly moot, pointless argument. Neither side is going to change the others mind, I just can't believe you all think the current levels of gun related homicides and maniac rampages are not only acceptable, but a part of every day life. These deaths are completely avoidable.
Apologies - I did not mean to single you our (although I did) - my comment was generally aimed at the self righteous gun toting, trigger happy conservatives that see no need to change their countries attitude to firearms, despite a multitude of their countryman dieing all the time.
This a fairly moot, pointless argument. Neither side is going to change the others mind, I just can't believe you all think the current levels of gun related homicides and maniac rampages are not only acceptable, but a part of every day life. These deaths are completely avoidable.
Muscletang
12-13-2007, 03:38 AM
Oh goody more replies. Yah! Here we go again...
If you want to talk percentages and statistics, how many incidents where a gun was discharged with the intent of killing, has the victim's died?
How many of those deaths was the result of a single gun?
How many other multiple deaths were caused by a singular event/cause/device?
I looked up some stats and really couldn't find anything to answer that. If I had to guess I'd say of all the gunshot victims, about half die. Of course the one I saw suicide was thrown in so the stats are a little off. I'll look to see if I can find something.
You believe that you have the right to resort to violence, in this case homicide, in order to solve problems? Then people, and a lot of people at that, openly consider the value of material objects to be greater than that of a human life, it is symptomatic of problems much deeper that simply gun control.
Ok then. The next time somebody breaks into your house to steal something, have coffee and cake with them and try to work things out. Let me know how that goes.
Frankly, musclestang, if I had to choose between not having a TV and murdering somebody - I'd rather not have the TV.
I don't know where you keep your TV but mine is inside. To get to it, people must break into my house to get it. Now why would I shoot them? They broke into my house what more of a reason do you want? But just to please you and all the others so criminals don't get hurt we'll have them yell when they break the window. "Don't shoot, I'm not here to hurt you I'm just want to steal your TV. It'll only take a minute." Better?
That you can justify committing a greater more heinous crime to stop a lesser pettier crime is absolutely outrageous.
I can justify it. Could you bring up a counter argument? Nope. Since you missed it the first time I'll explain it real clearly.
1. They're breaking the law.
2. They know they're breaking the law.
3. If they know they're breaking the law and know they could get shot they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Break the law and risk getting shot.
Here I'll throw in a nice example too.
1. A person is entering a tiger cage at the zoo
2. The person knows you're not suppose to do that (hence why the tiger is in a cage).
3. The person knows that tigers have been known to kill people so they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Do it and risk getting their head ripped off.
A burgular doesn't want to have to deal with people and just because they are a criminal it doesn't always mean they are a violent criminal, does it?
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
Well as stated in the Oklahoma law, you have to enter the person's house without their consent. It's not their property.
I mean so what if you thought he had a gun? A person enters your house and you don't know it or if you do it's because he broke a window. You can say what you want but that's called stupidity on the person's part and they'll be cleared from the gene pool.
If you want to talk to somebody you call them, knock on their door, or if all else yell at them from outside their window. I'm hoping everybody on here knows the difference between right and wrong and that it's stupid to just enter somebody's house without them knowing or having to actually break into it. Now the criminal could be violent or not but I'm sure he knows this too.
How many more people have to die senselessly before you rethink your attitude BNaylor? Do you enjoy living in such a trigger happy society?
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)
Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45% (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304)
Gun laws fall short in war on crime (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html)
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
Australia better than America? Umm...didn't Yahoo Serious come from Australia?
It's all good and well in theory that ordinary citizens can mow down "career criminals" but in practice these laws are subject to abuses like those in Texas and here in Colorado.
To suggest that death as punishment for trespassing or burglary is "justice" is patently ridiculous. It's an absolute perversion of the idea of justice.
Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml)
my comment was generally aimed at the self righteous gun toting, trigger happy conservatives that see no need to change their countries attitude to firearms, despite a multitude of their countryman dieing all the time.
I'm going to assume you're talking about me. I guess I'm just a itchy trigger finger, right wing, low life, who will never get his lust for blood satisfied.
They could be true but at least I have common sense when it comes to this subject.
This a fairly moot, pointless argument. Neither side is going to change the others mind, I just can't believe you all think the current levels of gun related homicides and maniac rampages are not only acceptable, but a part of every day life. These deaths are completely avoidable.
Avoidable? Yes. By guns? No.
Now here's something I found today and I figured I'd plug it in. You tell me what's going on here.
Anybody remember Matthew Murray fromt his past weekend? He went on that shooting rampage in a couple of churches over the weekend in Colorado. Lets take a look at Matthew from some of his online postings.
"when I was a teenager my mother would do a pat down to check for music, DVDs and video games whenever I came out of an electronics store like Best Buy or Circuit City. I’d still obtain things anyways, it was like getting drugs from a drug dealer, EVERYTHING had to be done in secret. lol
I remember getting thrown around the room and hit while getting interrogated about whether or not I had video games and DVDs… I remember having to listen to everything in secret, at very low volume levels or with headphones, whether it was video games, TV, DVDs, or music/radio."
"“Prophetic Child”
Since I was at least age 6 my mother and her church friends have always told me about how my birth was “foretold.” They say that while I was still in my mother’s womb a “prophet” told my mother that I was to be, quote, “a prophet to the nations” and something along the lines of the next Billy Graham/Peter Wagner.
They said that the following verses applied to me:
Mat. 12.18 and Ezk. 36:26-28
Basically, they believe that I am their “chosen one” for “the end times” and according to the Ezekial passage they believe that I am going to go back to their church/system.
The problem right now is the fact that it appears that they are always going to pursue me throughout life(and they have said so), as I am supposedly the “chosen one.” As far as I can tell they did not treat the other youth the same way.
Well, I don’t want to be their “chosen one” at all. I just wish I could find some way to wake up from this nightmare."
You can read the kids post at this site with these and many others. (http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/12/11/matthew-murray-nghtmrchld26in-his-own-words)
Now here's the questions. Would restrictive gun access of helped this situation or are we looking at a kid who had a fucked up family and just snapped?
Now one last thing, here's an article I found that you can read.
Britian and it's gun ban
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece)
Anyway it'll probably be several days before I can reply to anybody. I'll be busy with work and then in my free time I plan to drink heavily and go wave my gun around like a maniac shooting at random objects.
If you want to talk percentages and statistics, how many incidents where a gun was discharged with the intent of killing, has the victim's died?
How many of those deaths was the result of a single gun?
How many other multiple deaths were caused by a singular event/cause/device?
I looked up some stats and really couldn't find anything to answer that. If I had to guess I'd say of all the gunshot victims, about half die. Of course the one I saw suicide was thrown in so the stats are a little off. I'll look to see if I can find something.
You believe that you have the right to resort to violence, in this case homicide, in order to solve problems? Then people, and a lot of people at that, openly consider the value of material objects to be greater than that of a human life, it is symptomatic of problems much deeper that simply gun control.
Ok then. The next time somebody breaks into your house to steal something, have coffee and cake with them and try to work things out. Let me know how that goes.
Frankly, musclestang, if I had to choose between not having a TV and murdering somebody - I'd rather not have the TV.
I don't know where you keep your TV but mine is inside. To get to it, people must break into my house to get it. Now why would I shoot them? They broke into my house what more of a reason do you want? But just to please you and all the others so criminals don't get hurt we'll have them yell when they break the window. "Don't shoot, I'm not here to hurt you I'm just want to steal your TV. It'll only take a minute." Better?
That you can justify committing a greater more heinous crime to stop a lesser pettier crime is absolutely outrageous.
I can justify it. Could you bring up a counter argument? Nope. Since you missed it the first time I'll explain it real clearly.
1. They're breaking the law.
2. They know they're breaking the law.
3. If they know they're breaking the law and know they could get shot they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Break the law and risk getting shot.
Here I'll throw in a nice example too.
1. A person is entering a tiger cage at the zoo
2. The person knows you're not suppose to do that (hence why the tiger is in a cage).
3. The person knows that tigers have been known to kill people so they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Do it and risk getting their head ripped off.
A burgular doesn't want to have to deal with people and just because they are a criminal it doesn't always mean they are a violent criminal, does it?
I guess what bothers me is that there are a lot of possible assumptions that can have drastic results on the outcome of any situation and that I can already hear "I thought he had a gun...".
Well as stated in the Oklahoma law, you have to enter the person's house without their consent. It's not their property.
I mean so what if you thought he had a gun? A person enters your house and you don't know it or if you do it's because he broke a window. You can say what you want but that's called stupidity on the person's part and they'll be cleared from the gene pool.
If you want to talk to somebody you call them, knock on their door, or if all else yell at them from outside their window. I'm hoping everybody on here knows the difference between right and wrong and that it's stupid to just enter somebody's house without them knowing or having to actually break into it. Now the criminal could be violent or not but I'm sure he knows this too.
How many more people have to die senselessly before you rethink your attitude BNaylor? Do you enjoy living in such a trigger happy society?
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)
Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45% (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304)
Gun laws fall short in war on crime (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html)
I'm glad you're all happy there - can't say I would ever entertain the idea of moving there.
Australia better than America? Umm...didn't Yahoo Serious come from Australia?
It's all good and well in theory that ordinary citizens can mow down "career criminals" but in practice these laws are subject to abuses like those in Texas and here in Colorado.
To suggest that death as punishment for trespassing or burglary is "justice" is patently ridiculous. It's an absolute perversion of the idea of justice.
Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml)
my comment was generally aimed at the self righteous gun toting, trigger happy conservatives that see no need to change their countries attitude to firearms, despite a multitude of their countryman dieing all the time.
I'm going to assume you're talking about me. I guess I'm just a itchy trigger finger, right wing, low life, who will never get his lust for blood satisfied.
They could be true but at least I have common sense when it comes to this subject.
This a fairly moot, pointless argument. Neither side is going to change the others mind, I just can't believe you all think the current levels of gun related homicides and maniac rampages are not only acceptable, but a part of every day life. These deaths are completely avoidable.
Avoidable? Yes. By guns? No.
Now here's something I found today and I figured I'd plug it in. You tell me what's going on here.
Anybody remember Matthew Murray fromt his past weekend? He went on that shooting rampage in a couple of churches over the weekend in Colorado. Lets take a look at Matthew from some of his online postings.
"when I was a teenager my mother would do a pat down to check for music, DVDs and video games whenever I came out of an electronics store like Best Buy or Circuit City. I’d still obtain things anyways, it was like getting drugs from a drug dealer, EVERYTHING had to be done in secret. lol
I remember getting thrown around the room and hit while getting interrogated about whether or not I had video games and DVDs… I remember having to listen to everything in secret, at very low volume levels or with headphones, whether it was video games, TV, DVDs, or music/radio."
"“Prophetic Child”
Since I was at least age 6 my mother and her church friends have always told me about how my birth was “foretold.” They say that while I was still in my mother’s womb a “prophet” told my mother that I was to be, quote, “a prophet to the nations” and something along the lines of the next Billy Graham/Peter Wagner.
They said that the following verses applied to me:
Mat. 12.18 and Ezk. 36:26-28
Basically, they believe that I am their “chosen one” for “the end times” and according to the Ezekial passage they believe that I am going to go back to their church/system.
The problem right now is the fact that it appears that they are always going to pursue me throughout life(and they have said so), as I am supposedly the “chosen one.” As far as I can tell they did not treat the other youth the same way.
Well, I don’t want to be their “chosen one” at all. I just wish I could find some way to wake up from this nightmare."
You can read the kids post at this site with these and many others. (http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/12/11/matthew-murray-nghtmrchld26in-his-own-words)
Now here's the questions. Would restrictive gun access of helped this situation or are we looking at a kid who had a fucked up family and just snapped?
Now one last thing, here's an article I found that you can read.
Britian and it's gun ban
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece)
Anyway it'll probably be several days before I can reply to anybody. I'll be busy with work and then in my free time I plan to drink heavily and go wave my gun around like a maniac shooting at random objects.
drunken monkey
12-13-2007, 04:28 AM
so trespass is just cause for death?
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
Oz
12-13-2007, 05:06 AM
Muscletang, what can I say. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The idea that gun-related violent crime increases after a gun buy back scheme and amnesty is utter nonsense.
I'm sure I could find twice as many nonsense statistics to prove man did or didn't walk on the moon.
Convince yourself of whatever you like, believe whatever you like.
Just hope it's not you or one of your loved ones next in the line of fire when some maniac walks into your school, workplace or mall.
This will be my last post in this thread, I've made my views very clear. Make of them what you will.
The idea that gun-related violent crime increases after a gun buy back scheme and amnesty is utter nonsense.
I'm sure I could find twice as many nonsense statistics to prove man did or didn't walk on the moon.
Convince yourself of whatever you like, believe whatever you like.
Just hope it's not you or one of your loved ones next in the line of fire when some maniac walks into your school, workplace or mall.
This will be my last post in this thread, I've made my views very clear. Make of them what you will.
2strokebloke
12-13-2007, 07:03 AM
1. They're breaking the law.
2. They know they're breaking the law.
3. If they know they're breaking the law and know they could get shot they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Break the law and risk getting shot.
So it's ok to murder people who break the law. Why don't you get out there on the street corner and start picking off some jay walkers.
They're breaking the law. They know they're breaking the law. They know they could get hurt, even killed by doing it. therefore, it's perfectly ok for somebody to kill them, just because it's a possible outcome.
Next time you see somebody jay walking, speed up and run them down musclestang. They're breaking the law, so you have every right to kill them.
Not only would you be ridding the world of one more worthless jay walker, but maybe your irrational violence will send other jay walkers a message. Jay walking rates would plummet, you'd be doing society a service.
As for Kennesaw, I've already pointed out what I think and why. It's a lot of hot air. I don't feel like reiterating what I've already said, but go look through the thread. They've achieved a below average crime rate, which they attribute to the gun law nobody has to follow, that thousands of other cities which also have a low crime rate do not have. Not to mention crime has dropped nationally since the end of the 80s, so the apparent "huge" decrease in crime there over the past 20 years isn't actually as huge as it first appears. And who knows what factors beside the law itself may have also contributed to a lowering of the crime rate (you'll note of course that even the article you linked states people attribute the lower crime rate only "in part" to the law). It is interesting to note though, that the town that "banned" guns saw no appreciable rise in crime. You'd think without their all important and useful hand guns, the criminals would just be crawling all over them.
2. They know they're breaking the law.
3. If they know they're breaking the law and know they could get shot they can...
A. Not do it.
B. Break the law and risk getting shot.
So it's ok to murder people who break the law. Why don't you get out there on the street corner and start picking off some jay walkers.
They're breaking the law. They know they're breaking the law. They know they could get hurt, even killed by doing it. therefore, it's perfectly ok for somebody to kill them, just because it's a possible outcome.
Next time you see somebody jay walking, speed up and run them down musclestang. They're breaking the law, so you have every right to kill them.
Not only would you be ridding the world of one more worthless jay walker, but maybe your irrational violence will send other jay walkers a message. Jay walking rates would plummet, you'd be doing society a service.
As for Kennesaw, I've already pointed out what I think and why. It's a lot of hot air. I don't feel like reiterating what I've already said, but go look through the thread. They've achieved a below average crime rate, which they attribute to the gun law nobody has to follow, that thousands of other cities which also have a low crime rate do not have. Not to mention crime has dropped nationally since the end of the 80s, so the apparent "huge" decrease in crime there over the past 20 years isn't actually as huge as it first appears. And who knows what factors beside the law itself may have also contributed to a lowering of the crime rate (you'll note of course that even the article you linked states people attribute the lower crime rate only "in part" to the law). It is interesting to note though, that the town that "banned" guns saw no appreciable rise in crime. You'd think without their all important and useful hand guns, the criminals would just be crawling all over them.
GForce957
12-13-2007, 11:18 AM
so trespass is just cause for death?
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
If someone is breaking into my home, then yes, I am not going to find out if he is going to be all nice about it, I am going to shoot him. You don't know what that person's intention is when they come into the house, they don't exactly announce it.
I don't think that a situation would exist where only law and armed services had guns, the black market seems like it would be able to supply someone with firearms. According to one of the articles Muscletang posted, it cost Australia 500 million dollars to get rid of their guns, but many are still believed to exist, and I'm sure the criminals are not going to be very forthcoming with the giving up of their tools.
It is interesting to note though, that the town that "banned" guns saw no appreciable rise in crime. You'd think without their all important and useful hand guns, the criminals would just be crawling all over them.
If you had read the article more closely, you might have noticed this.
"Some people seem to think our residents are not armed," Morton Grove Police Chief George Incledon, told United Press International on Tuesday. The chief pointed out that the law did not prohibit ownership of shotguns or rifles, and that gun collectors were exempt.
I don't know about you, but I think most burglars don't want to be shot close range with a rifle or shotgun. Usually leaves a bit of a mess.
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
If someone is breaking into my home, then yes, I am not going to find out if he is going to be all nice about it, I am going to shoot him. You don't know what that person's intention is when they come into the house, they don't exactly announce it.
I don't think that a situation would exist where only law and armed services had guns, the black market seems like it would be able to supply someone with firearms. According to one of the articles Muscletang posted, it cost Australia 500 million dollars to get rid of their guns, but many are still believed to exist, and I'm sure the criminals are not going to be very forthcoming with the giving up of their tools.
It is interesting to note though, that the town that "banned" guns saw no appreciable rise in crime. You'd think without their all important and useful hand guns, the criminals would just be crawling all over them.
If you had read the article more closely, you might have noticed this.
"Some people seem to think our residents are not armed," Morton Grove Police Chief George Incledon, told United Press International on Tuesday. The chief pointed out that the law did not prohibit ownership of shotguns or rifles, and that gun collectors were exempt.
I don't know about you, but I think most burglars don't want to be shot close range with a rifle or shotgun. Usually leaves a bit of a mess.
BNaylor
12-13-2007, 11:46 AM
I don't think that a situation would exist where only law and armed services had guns, the black market seems like it would be able to supply someone with firearms. According to one of the articles Muscletang posted, it cost Australia 500 million dollars to get rid of their guns, but many are still believed to exist, and I'm sure the criminals are not going to be very forthcoming with the giving up of their tools.
Good point. Unless someone from down under can give facts in support of and a valid argument about it no doubt many guns still exist. Speaking of which the so called utopian Australian society :rolleyes: has it's own fair share of crime especially in lieu of it's population (20 million) which pales in contrast to the US's 300 million. Just annecdotal and one instance but here is a prime example of one of those tools being used. A BFH? "Big f'ing hammer" in the commission of a crime against persons along with a firearm. Posted at Australian Crimestoppers. See link below.
Click here (http://www.qld.crimestoppers.com.au/unsolvedcrimes_details.aspx?CrimeId=1026)
Police are looking for two men after an armed robbery at a Tavern on the Gold Coast on December 13. Shortly after midnight, two men armed with a firearm and large hammer entered the Burleigh Town Tavern in Township Street, West Burleigh. The men forced staff and patrons to lie on the floor before taking a staff member to the office area and cashier room. The pair left the tavern in a white Subaru WRX with a rear spoiler that was driven by a third man. Police investigations into the incident are continuing. Anyone with information which could assist police with their investigations should contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
Good point. Unless someone from down under can give facts in support of and a valid argument about it no doubt many guns still exist. Speaking of which the so called utopian Australian society :rolleyes: has it's own fair share of crime especially in lieu of it's population (20 million) which pales in contrast to the US's 300 million. Just annecdotal and one instance but here is a prime example of one of those tools being used. A BFH? "Big f'ing hammer" in the commission of a crime against persons along with a firearm. Posted at Australian Crimestoppers. See link below.
Click here (http://www.qld.crimestoppers.com.au/unsolvedcrimes_details.aspx?CrimeId=1026)
Police are looking for two men after an armed robbery at a Tavern on the Gold Coast on December 13. Shortly after midnight, two men armed with a firearm and large hammer entered the Burleigh Town Tavern in Township Street, West Burleigh. The men forced staff and patrons to lie on the floor before taking a staff member to the office area and cashier room. The pair left the tavern in a white Subaru WRX with a rear spoiler that was driven by a third man. Police investigations into the incident are continuing. Anyone with information which could assist police with their investigations should contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
2strokebloke
12-13-2007, 05:27 PM
If you had read the article more closely, you might have noticed this.
And if you had read my post more closely you would have noted that I put "banned" into quotation marks (you may have also noticed that I specifically wrote hand guns and not rifles). The so called "ban" is as much of a ban on firearms, as Kennesaw's "law" is a law requiring fire arms. (and if you had read the entire thread, you would know that Kennesaw's "law" allows people to disregard it if they don't feel like following it, and there is not a fine or punishment for not following it).
...two men armed with a firearm and large hammer...
Obviously, Australia should require ever citizen to carry a firearm and a large hammer then, so that these things can't happen anymore.
And if you had read my post more closely you would have noted that I put "banned" into quotation marks (you may have also noticed that I specifically wrote hand guns and not rifles). The so called "ban" is as much of a ban on firearms, as Kennesaw's "law" is a law requiring fire arms. (and if you had read the entire thread, you would know that Kennesaw's "law" allows people to disregard it if they don't feel like following it, and there is not a fine or punishment for not following it).
...two men armed with a firearm and large hammer...
Obviously, Australia should require ever citizen to carry a firearm and a large hammer then, so that these things can't happen anymore.
Muscletang
12-14-2007, 01:13 PM
Here we go again...
so trespass is just cause for death?
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
GForce957 answered this pretty well for me.
Just hope it's not you or one of your loved ones next in the line of fire when some maniac walks into your school, workplace or mall.
I don't have to worry. They're licensed to carry.
This will be my last post in this thread, I've made my views very clear. Make of them what you will.
You will be missed. Have fun working on the Brady Campaign.
So it's ok to murder people who break the law. Why don't you get out there on the street corner and start picking off some jay walkers.
Your posts are like a twizzler. You're always twisting and turning.
Did I say I was a cop? No. What was I talking about when it came to criminals? Oh that's right, breaking into my house. I'm not responsible for all of them. Just the ones that decide they're going to break the law against me.
Not to mention crime has dropped nationally since the end of the 80s, so the apparent "huge" decrease in crime there over the past 20 years isn't actually as huge as it first appears.
Well then riddle me this, why are we talking about bans and such? You say crime has dropped in the past 20 years but guess what has gone up? Yup concealed carry.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif
Is there a link between the two? Maybe but the fact that crime hasn't gone up disprooves what you've said about America going crazy and we'd kill everybody. I think you need to have a little more faith in people and not assume they're all psychos like the ones you see in malls on CNN.
Obviously, Australia should require ever citizen to carry a firearm and a large hammer then, so that these things can't happen anymore.
Ah I love your sarcasm in the face of common sense.
Lets not forget how you were able to "skip" over my post of the guy stopping the robbery with a right to carry. Lets also not forget the "doom and gloom" you preached over how having citizens armed would cause chaos. It didn't as I showed with that one town. Do I also need to point out Switzerland? How about how the city of Chicago has a handgun ban and has been named "Murder Capital" of the country?
While we're also on that lets take a look at Washington D.C. who also has a ban...
While handguns are banned for citizens in Washington, D.C., congressmen are allowed to have a gun for self-protection on the Capitol grounds. Well-known liberal politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy have armed bodyguards. The wives of politicians, such as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, also have bodyguards.
SOURCE (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp)
I'll let that last one sink in for everybody.
so trespass is just cause for death?
and a quick question/point that still hasn't been addressed properly.
what would happen if there were no guns available at all except to law enforcement and armed services?
GForce957 answered this pretty well for me.
Just hope it's not you or one of your loved ones next in the line of fire when some maniac walks into your school, workplace or mall.
I don't have to worry. They're licensed to carry.
This will be my last post in this thread, I've made my views very clear. Make of them what you will.
You will be missed. Have fun working on the Brady Campaign.
So it's ok to murder people who break the law. Why don't you get out there on the street corner and start picking off some jay walkers.
Your posts are like a twizzler. You're always twisting and turning.
Did I say I was a cop? No. What was I talking about when it came to criminals? Oh that's right, breaking into my house. I'm not responsible for all of them. Just the ones that decide they're going to break the law against me.
Not to mention crime has dropped nationally since the end of the 80s, so the apparent "huge" decrease in crime there over the past 20 years isn't actually as huge as it first appears.
Well then riddle me this, why are we talking about bans and such? You say crime has dropped in the past 20 years but guess what has gone up? Yup concealed carry.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif
Is there a link between the two? Maybe but the fact that crime hasn't gone up disprooves what you've said about America going crazy and we'd kill everybody. I think you need to have a little more faith in people and not assume they're all psychos like the ones you see in malls on CNN.
Obviously, Australia should require ever citizen to carry a firearm and a large hammer then, so that these things can't happen anymore.
Ah I love your sarcasm in the face of common sense.
Lets not forget how you were able to "skip" over my post of the guy stopping the robbery with a right to carry. Lets also not forget the "doom and gloom" you preached over how having citizens armed would cause chaos. It didn't as I showed with that one town. Do I also need to point out Switzerland? How about how the city of Chicago has a handgun ban and has been named "Murder Capital" of the country?
While we're also on that lets take a look at Washington D.C. who also has a ban...
While handguns are banned for citizens in Washington, D.C., congressmen are allowed to have a gun for self-protection on the Capitol grounds. Well-known liberal politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy have armed bodyguards. The wives of politicians, such as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, also have bodyguards.
SOURCE (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp)
I'll let that last one sink in for everybody.
BNaylor
12-14-2007, 01:45 PM
Obviously, Australia should require ever citizen to carry a firearm and a large hammer then, so that these things can't happen anymore.
:lol:
Sorry no cigar due to a lack of a Second Amendment to start, hammer suggestion excluded. I prefer a baseball bat, sword, knife or chainsaw. :uhoh:.......:biggrin:
But seriously can anyone say with 100% certainty that if we ban ALL firearms (handguns, shotguns and rifles) in the U.S....no exceptions.... that the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. will see a significant drop or any at all? I recall the weapons issue at this particular unfortunate mall incident is rifle not handgun.
:lol:
Sorry no cigar due to a lack of a Second Amendment to start, hammer suggestion excluded. I prefer a baseball bat, sword, knife or chainsaw. :uhoh:.......:biggrin:
But seriously can anyone say with 100% certainty that if we ban ALL firearms (handguns, shotguns and rifles) in the U.S....no exceptions.... that the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. will see a significant drop or any at all? I recall the weapons issue at this particular unfortunate mall incident is rifle not handgun.
2strokebloke
12-14-2007, 07:06 PM
Well then riddle me this, why are we talking about bans and such? You say crime has dropped in the past 20 years but guess what has gone up? Yup concealed carry.
Sentencing has gotten tougher, and more and more people have been going to jail for lesser and lesser crimes. But if you want to believe it's because more people own guns they'll never use, then you can.
Maybe but the fact that crime hasn't gone up disprooves what you've said about America going crazy and we'd kill everybody. I think you need to have a little more faith in people and not assume they're all psychos like the ones you see in malls on CNN.
:uhoh: You apparently haven't been reading what I've been writing very closely. I never said that more guns will result in more crime (and if I somehow implied that, then it wasn't intentional), my argument was that more guns doesn't mean that crime will be halted, and mall shootings, etc. won't happen anymore. Which would seem to be the case. As you pointed out more and more people carry concealed weapons, and yet mass shootings still happen (which kind of makes your argument moot) You could arm everybody, and they'd still happen. Because it's not guns it's people.
You can ban guns, or require everybody to own them, either way it won't end up changing things very much - that's pretty much been my point. The problem with guns and Americans, is the "Americans" not the guns.
I should point out, that I never said I was in favor of banning guns, or even more gun laws. I am however, in favor of common sense and restraint by all individuals (of course if we had enough of that we wouldn't have burglars or guns, or even speed limit signs...)
Sentencing has gotten tougher, and more and more people have been going to jail for lesser and lesser crimes. But if you want to believe it's because more people own guns they'll never use, then you can.
Maybe but the fact that crime hasn't gone up disprooves what you've said about America going crazy and we'd kill everybody. I think you need to have a little more faith in people and not assume they're all psychos like the ones you see in malls on CNN.
:uhoh: You apparently haven't been reading what I've been writing very closely. I never said that more guns will result in more crime (and if I somehow implied that, then it wasn't intentional), my argument was that more guns doesn't mean that crime will be halted, and mall shootings, etc. won't happen anymore. Which would seem to be the case. As you pointed out more and more people carry concealed weapons, and yet mass shootings still happen (which kind of makes your argument moot) You could arm everybody, and they'd still happen. Because it's not guns it's people.
You can ban guns, or require everybody to own them, either way it won't end up changing things very much - that's pretty much been my point. The problem with guns and Americans, is the "Americans" not the guns.
I should point out, that I never said I was in favor of banning guns, or even more gun laws. I am however, in favor of common sense and restraint by all individuals (of course if we had enough of that we wouldn't have burglars or guns, or even speed limit signs...)
drunken monkey
12-14-2007, 10:42 PM
if there were no guns available to the general public, do you think there would be as many of these types of rampages?
just to make it clear; I am not supporting firearms bans or anything. I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less. Yes criminals might still have some way of getting them but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence? If we're going to take the point that there are lots of guns but not that many gun related incidents, then why isn't as acceptable to take into account that if there were less guns, there'd be less incidents?
So anyway, you do agree that trespass is a reasonable defence for killing someone then.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see the hypocrisy in that interpretation of the law.
just to make it clear; I am not supporting firearms bans or anything. I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less. Yes criminals might still have some way of getting them but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence? If we're going to take the point that there are lots of guns but not that many gun related incidents, then why isn't as acceptable to take into account that if there were less guns, there'd be less incidents?
So anyway, you do agree that trespass is a reasonable defence for killing someone then.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see the hypocrisy in that interpretation of the law.
new2mitsu
12-15-2007, 02:43 AM
if there were no guns available to the general public, do you think there would be as many of these types of rampages?
just to make it clear; I am not supporting firearms bans or anything. I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less. Yes criminals might still have some way of getting them but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence? If we're going to take the point that there are lots of guns but not that many gun related incidents, then why isn't as acceptable to take into account that if there were less guns, there'd be less incidents?
Man, it'd be just like prohibition in the 1920s. just because Alcohol was banned, people didn't really stop drinking. it pretty much just led to lots more organized crime ang gang activity, due to smuggling alcohol, and controlling speakeasies. It'd be like that, if quns were banned. They'd get smuggled in somehow, and it'd potentially cause more violence and organized crime
just to make it clear; I am not supporting firearms bans or anything. I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less. Yes criminals might still have some way of getting them but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence? If we're going to take the point that there are lots of guns but not that many gun related incidents, then why isn't as acceptable to take into account that if there were less guns, there'd be less incidents?
Man, it'd be just like prohibition in the 1920s. just because Alcohol was banned, people didn't really stop drinking. it pretty much just led to lots more organized crime ang gang activity, due to smuggling alcohol, and controlling speakeasies. It'd be like that, if quns were banned. They'd get smuggled in somehow, and it'd potentially cause more violence and organized crime
GForce957
12-15-2007, 04:50 AM
if there were no guns available to the general public, do you think there would be as many of these types of rampages?
I still think there would still be issues like this. No matter who you want to name it, I feel its the people, more then the gun issue that is the blame. From what I have read, if these guys could learn how to make cupcakes into something to killed someone, tasty kake would be out of business.
I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less.
Good luck with that, let me know how it works out. Also if you find a delorean that can go back to the future, I might give you a good price.
but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence?
me.
I still think there would still be issues like this. No matter who you want to name it, I feel its the people, more then the gun issue that is the blame. From what I have read, if these guys could learn how to make cupcakes into something to killed someone, tasty kake would be out of business.
I just can't understand how people can't see that IF there weren't any guns available, these sorts of things would happen less.
Good luck with that, let me know how it works out. Also if you find a delorean that can go back to the future, I might give you a good price.
but how many of you who own guns have ever had a real need for them in respect to self defence?
me.
drunken monkey
12-15-2007, 12:16 PM
you're missing the point.
the fact that firearms ban might or it might not have an effect on these sort of things is more or less the same as saying that arming people reduces crime.
to me though, the (over simple) simple truism is, no guns = no shooting.
It's like this, I know that driving fast isn't the actual cause of accidents but at the same time I know if I drive slower, IF I have an accident, the results will be less severe. It's the same with guns, no?
Yes, I know it's people that really need to be dealt with but until you know how to deal with that, why not get rid of the things that makes it easier for them to carry out their moments of insanity?
It's not far off from sticking an alcoholic in a rehab clinic that has free booze.
the fact that firearms ban might or it might not have an effect on these sort of things is more or less the same as saying that arming people reduces crime.
to me though, the (over simple) simple truism is, no guns = no shooting.
It's like this, I know that driving fast isn't the actual cause of accidents but at the same time I know if I drive slower, IF I have an accident, the results will be less severe. It's the same with guns, no?
Yes, I know it's people that really need to be dealt with but until you know how to deal with that, why not get rid of the things that makes it easier for them to carry out their moments of insanity?
It's not far off from sticking an alcoholic in a rehab clinic that has free booze.
wafrederick
12-16-2007, 04:38 PM
Gun bans do not work and the NRA has proven this,the crime rates go up.Canada and Great Britian have a high crime rate because of hand gun bans.Same as Austrilia,they have a gun ban too that has not worked.Former president Bill Clinton said a lie about 13 deaths and 13 funerals,the NRA Proved him wrong.Guns do not kill,people kill and the gun control groups need to realize this.They need to quit blaming responsible gun owners.
Toksin
12-16-2007, 05:41 PM
If people are getting guns illegally now, they're still going to get them illegally if guns are banned.
drunken monkey
12-16-2007, 05:56 PM
That is true but those criminals with guns who were going to shoot at you when you didn't have a gun is still going to shoot at you if you have a gun; which is why I don't see how "self defence" is a totally valid reason against gun control.
On the other hand though, if guns were banned, it'd be obvious how to handle situations because guns would be illegal
i.e police wouldn't have to worry about the legal implications of shooting someone possessing a gun who might be innocent.
On the other hand though, if guns were banned, it'd be obvious how to handle situations because guns would be illegal
i.e police wouldn't have to worry about the legal implications of shooting someone possessing a gun who might be innocent.
Oz
12-16-2007, 07:17 PM
If people are getting guns illegally now, they're still going to get them illegally if guns are banned.
:shakehead
A frequently used, if somewhat elementary argument. Think of your general knowledge of economics. If you make all weapons much harder to get (supply goes down), what happens to prices? Obviously they go up.
Since Australia's gun buy back amnesty in 1996, the cost of a 9mm handgun with the serial numbers filed off is into the thousands - probably $2-3k for one with one clip of ammo.
They're still available, but their prohibitive price makes them accessable to only the most determined and hardened of criminals (and the rich, who can have/do what they please anyway). They're well beyond the reach of your garden variety drug dealer or High School student turned Rambo nutjob.
(...and I said I wouldn't post again, my bad):2cents:
:shakehead
A frequently used, if somewhat elementary argument. Think of your general knowledge of economics. If you make all weapons much harder to get (supply goes down), what happens to prices? Obviously they go up.
Since Australia's gun buy back amnesty in 1996, the cost of a 9mm handgun with the serial numbers filed off is into the thousands - probably $2-3k for one with one clip of ammo.
They're still available, but their prohibitive price makes them accessable to only the most determined and hardened of criminals (and the rich, who can have/do what they please anyway). They're well beyond the reach of your garden variety drug dealer or High School student turned Rambo nutjob.
(...and I said I wouldn't post again, my bad):2cents:
kublah
12-17-2007, 02:08 AM
Does anybody out there really think they will live to see guns completely banned in the US? The right to bear arms is one of the cornerstones that our society was built on for better or worse, and there are enough people in this country that wouldn't stand for it that it just isn't going to happen.
But better gun control does not mean less guns available to the general public. For instance, the guy that committed the shootings at Va Tech had at one point been under psychological review in Va and it had been determined that he was dangerously unstable. Therefore it was illegal for him to buy a gun in that state. However, all he had to do to get a gun was go onto a web site of a gun shop operated out of Wisconsin where the state background check system did not have records of this guy's mental history. In that way a person who had been declared a danger to himself and others was able to legally purchase the firearms that enabled this type of incident.
That is the type of thing that needs to be fixed immediately. It's not about civil rights or different possible outcomes of proposed action, it's about responsibility. I don't expect our government to be able to protect us from people who nobody knows are psychotic, but we need to get better at seeing the warning signs and keeping guns out of people's hands once anybody at all knows that they are dangerous. Guns don't kill people, and neither do most people. It's crazy people that start all the fuss, so the mental health side has to be the major part of the solution.
But better gun control does not mean less guns available to the general public. For instance, the guy that committed the shootings at Va Tech had at one point been under psychological review in Va and it had been determined that he was dangerously unstable. Therefore it was illegal for him to buy a gun in that state. However, all he had to do to get a gun was go onto a web site of a gun shop operated out of Wisconsin where the state background check system did not have records of this guy's mental history. In that way a person who had been declared a danger to himself and others was able to legally purchase the firearms that enabled this type of incident.
That is the type of thing that needs to be fixed immediately. It's not about civil rights or different possible outcomes of proposed action, it's about responsibility. I don't expect our government to be able to protect us from people who nobody knows are psychotic, but we need to get better at seeing the warning signs and keeping guns out of people's hands once anybody at all knows that they are dangerous. Guns don't kill people, and neither do most people. It's crazy people that start all the fuss, so the mental health side has to be the major part of the solution.
drunken monkey
12-17-2007, 11:12 AM
Those criminals are smarter than you give them credit for...if they KNOW that the person they're about to shoot, rob, etc. is required by law to be defenseless they are much more likely to commit the crime. In fact the Justice Department survey said "40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed..."-MOCCW.org I'm not saying that it's going to stop ALL of the psychos but it WILL stop some and these psychos doing the school shootings, mall shooting, etc. would kill far fewer people if people were carrying because someone would shoot back and that is so much better than these psychos being able to run all over the place killing defenseless people so instead of killing say 23 people they only kill 5 or 10 which might still seem like a lot but it makes a big difference to the families of the victims and potential victims.
I don't know; that's why I'm asking questions.
That 40% thing. I'd like to know who these 40% are. I mean, "felon" covers a whole scope of peole who commit crimes. Isn't fraud a felony? In any case, I'm sure that the guys who carry out the mass shootings don't exactly fall under the catagory of regular criminals; they're going to shoot people no matter what whether or not you have a gun and might shoot back. My point still is, if guns weren't so readily available, would it have been so easy for them to kill so many people so easily on a whim? Yes there is still the whole "aint that hard to make a bomb" argument but a bomb doesn't have the same romantic attachements that a gun has; which is something that you can't deal with without dealing with guns themselves.
No?
I don't know; that's why I'm asking questions.
That 40% thing. I'd like to know who these 40% are. I mean, "felon" covers a whole scope of peole who commit crimes. Isn't fraud a felony? In any case, I'm sure that the guys who carry out the mass shootings don't exactly fall under the catagory of regular criminals; they're going to shoot people no matter what whether or not you have a gun and might shoot back. My point still is, if guns weren't so readily available, would it have been so easy for them to kill so many people so easily on a whim? Yes there is still the whole "aint that hard to make a bomb" argument but a bomb doesn't have the same romantic attachements that a gun has; which is something that you can't deal with without dealing with guns themselves.
No?
Steel
12-24-2007, 02:46 PM
. However, all he had to do to get a gun was go onto a web site of a gun shop operated out of Wisconsin where the state background check system did not have records of this guy's mental history. In that way a person who had been declared a danger to himself and others was able to legally purchase the firearms that enabled this type of incident.
Not true. Only blackpowder arms are available to buy through catalogs or online without background checks. To buy a modern firearm online, one has to have it shipped to a licensed FFL dealer in your state, who then does the NICS check for you to take it away. And the criminality check is a federal based system. In Cho's case, someone, or a multitude of people simply screwed up and circumvented the system in place.
It breaks my heart to see these deranged scumbags feel the need to take innocent people for their own infamy and at the same time give us responsible gun owners a bad name. I feel though, that if it wasnt for a pistol or rifle, these guys would have found another way to hurt or kill a lot of people and let everyone know it was them who did it before their ultimate end. I will still defend my RKBA tooth and nail.
Not true. Only blackpowder arms are available to buy through catalogs or online without background checks. To buy a modern firearm online, one has to have it shipped to a licensed FFL dealer in your state, who then does the NICS check for you to take it away. And the criminality check is a federal based system. In Cho's case, someone, or a multitude of people simply screwed up and circumvented the system in place.
It breaks my heart to see these deranged scumbags feel the need to take innocent people for their own infamy and at the same time give us responsible gun owners a bad name. I feel though, that if it wasnt for a pistol or rifle, these guys would have found another way to hurt or kill a lot of people and let everyone know it was them who did it before their ultimate end. I will still defend my RKBA tooth and nail.
kublah
12-29-2007, 12:57 AM
Not true. Only blackpowder arms are available to buy through catalogs or online without background checks. To buy a modern firearm online, one has to have it shipped to a licensed FFL dealer in your state, who then does the NICS check for you to take it away. And the criminality check is a federal based system. In Cho's case, someone, or a multitude of people simply screwed up and circumvented the system in place.
Nobody screwed up, the whole purchase was completely within the confines of the law. Because he was not unwillingly hospitalized for his mental issues and treated only on an outpatient basis, he was still eligible to purchase those guns under state law which I thought actually controlled the background check process. The Governor of VA has since changed this law so that the names of the outpatient whackos are also included in the background check system. It's unfortunate that it often takes such an incident to get that kind of loophole exposed & closed.
This explains it a little bit different than I originally understood, but it's pretty clear how it happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
Nobody screwed up, the whole purchase was completely within the confines of the law. Because he was not unwillingly hospitalized for his mental issues and treated only on an outpatient basis, he was still eligible to purchase those guns under state law which I thought actually controlled the background check process. The Governor of VA has since changed this law so that the names of the outpatient whackos are also included in the background check system. It's unfortunate that it often takes such an incident to get that kind of loophole exposed & closed.
This explains it a little bit different than I originally understood, but it's pretty clear how it happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
Steel
12-29-2007, 08:26 PM
Nobody screwed up, the whole purchase was completely within the confines of the law. Because he was not unwillingly hospitalized for his mental issues and treated only on an outpatient basis, he was still eligible to purchase those guns under state law which I thought actually controlled the background check process. The Governor of VA has since changed this law so that the names of the outpatient whackos are also included in the background check system. It's unfortunate that it often takes such an incident to get that kind of loophole exposed & closed.
This explains it a little bit different than I originally understood, but it's pretty clear how it happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
You're right, my mistake, apologies.
Though this bring up another irking point for me - the hardcore anti's that let this sort of thing pass with no though, but spend their time and money on banning "assault rifles" and basically any black gun that looks scary. The mainstream media makes it seem as if any schmo can walk down the street and pick up a full auto AK for $100 which is simply not the case. And then they want to ban .50 caliber rifles, for other fear mongering reasons. They never mention the fact that these rifles are insanely expensive, as are the rounds, and only dedicated and wealthy collectors tend to get these rifles. They don't mention how many crimes have actually been committed by them which IIRC, is exactly one. And it believe it might have been a .50 caliber blackpowder rifle which was misrepresented as one of those scary plane-downing-mile-long-range-goes-thorugh-anything-death-machines. But don't quote me on that.
I'm a gun collector and user myself. I'm all about SENSIBLE and LIMITED gun laws, the insane and violent felons. Unfortunately, it seems as if a lot of people are pushing for restrictions of every part in any way to reach a de facto ban without actually violating 2A. Luckily it seems as if their progress has been halted as of late.
This explains it a little bit different than I originally understood, but it's pretty clear how it happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
You're right, my mistake, apologies.
Though this bring up another irking point for me - the hardcore anti's that let this sort of thing pass with no though, but spend their time and money on banning "assault rifles" and basically any black gun that looks scary. The mainstream media makes it seem as if any schmo can walk down the street and pick up a full auto AK for $100 which is simply not the case. And then they want to ban .50 caliber rifles, for other fear mongering reasons. They never mention the fact that these rifles are insanely expensive, as are the rounds, and only dedicated and wealthy collectors tend to get these rifles. They don't mention how many crimes have actually been committed by them which IIRC, is exactly one. And it believe it might have been a .50 caliber blackpowder rifle which was misrepresented as one of those scary plane-downing-mile-long-range-goes-thorugh-anything-death-machines. But don't quote me on that.
I'm a gun collector and user myself. I'm all about SENSIBLE and LIMITED gun laws, the insane and violent felons. Unfortunately, it seems as if a lot of people are pushing for restrictions of every part in any way to reach a de facto ban without actually violating 2A. Luckily it seems as if their progress has been halted as of late.
drunken monkey
12-29-2007, 11:08 PM
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Are you saying that the only guns that should have the stricter restrictions (or banning or whatever) on them are the ones that are used in crimes and the mass killings instead of the assault rifles and big bore rifles?
Are you saying that the only guns that should have the stricter restrictions (or banning or whatever) on them are the ones that are used in crimes and the mass killings instead of the assault rifles and big bore rifles?
kublah
12-30-2007, 02:39 AM
There is one incident that comes to mind that just wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators hadn't been able to get weapons like assault rifles, and that was the North Hollywood bank shootout in 1997. Two guys with body armor and weapons including an AK-47, HK-91, and an AR-15 wounded 10 police officers and 5 civilians after a botched robbery. They laid down so much fire (armor piercing rounds) that there was little the cops could do to stop them, so badly outgunned that they had to go into a nearby gun shop to get better weapons & help even the fight.
Things like this make lots of people think that a gun that was built to be able to hurt as many people as possible in a small amount of time has no business in the hands of the common person, no matter how scarce the untrustwory really are. Most people don't share the collector's affinity for such guns as fine pieces of craftsmanship to be appreciated for their technology and pleasure of operation, but rather see them as ugly tools of war which have no value besides being able to kill the other guy before he either kills you or gets away. The only honest people who NEED that kind of power in this country are the cops and the military, for everyone else it's just an indulgence.
Things like this make lots of people think that a gun that was built to be able to hurt as many people as possible in a small amount of time has no business in the hands of the common person, no matter how scarce the untrustwory really are. Most people don't share the collector's affinity for such guns as fine pieces of craftsmanship to be appreciated for their technology and pleasure of operation, but rather see them as ugly tools of war which have no value besides being able to kill the other guy before he either kills you or gets away. The only honest people who NEED that kind of power in this country are the cops and the military, for everyone else it's just an indulgence.
drunken monkey
12-30-2007, 11:59 AM
but a gun's primary purpose is to hurt and kill.
Yes, some really are exquisite pieces of engineering but that doesn't alter the fact that the engineering is still to make a better device for facillitating its ability to hurt and kill.
As I said before, there are secondary associations, some of which relate to a sentimental and romantic ideal and it is these things that are part of the problem. There are certain modern cultures which more or less idolises the gun and the image of a gun carrying hero (of any sort) and I can't see how you can even begin to address changes in this type of mentality without touching the gun control issue.
Simply saying that it is a social problem so you don't need to address gun control is not a balanced argument.
Yes, some really are exquisite pieces of engineering but that doesn't alter the fact that the engineering is still to make a better device for facillitating its ability to hurt and kill.
As I said before, there are secondary associations, some of which relate to a sentimental and romantic ideal and it is these things that are part of the problem. There are certain modern cultures which more or less idolises the gun and the image of a gun carrying hero (of any sort) and I can't see how you can even begin to address changes in this type of mentality without touching the gun control issue.
Simply saying that it is a social problem so you don't need to address gun control is not a balanced argument.
Steel
12-30-2007, 07:26 PM
There is one incident that comes to mind that just wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators hadn't been able to get weapons like assault rifles, and that was the North Hollywood bank shootout in 1997. Two guys with body armor and weapons including an AK-47, HK-91, and an AR-15 wounded 10 police officers and 5 civilians after a botched robbery. They laid down so much fire (armor piercing rounds) that there was little the cops could do to stop them, so badly outgunned that they had to go into a nearby gun shop to get better weapons & help even the fight.
Things like this make lots of people think that a gun that was built to be able to hurt as many people as possible in a small amount of time has no business in the hands of the common person, no matter how scarce the untrustwory really are. Most people don't share the collector's affinity for such guns as fine pieces of craftsmanship to be appreciated for their technology and pleasure of operation, but rather see them as ugly tools of war which have no value besides being able to kill the other guy before he either kills you or gets away. The only honest people who NEED that kind of power in this country are the cops and the military, for everyone else it's just an indulgence.
But there will always be isolated incidence of violence. The whole purpose of the hollywood bank shootout WAS the shootout, not the robbery. I wouldn't be surprised if the fully automatic rifles the guys used were completely illegal. One can hurt a lot of people with knives and bladed weapons but you don't hear about them wanting to completley ban those... except in England, because they banned all the guns and now violent crimes with knives are going up :rolleyes: go figure.
Remember, the cops don't have a legal obligation to keep you safe, so i would disagree with you in saying that yes, i need a gun if i ever want a decent chance at exercising my basic human right to stay alive in the face of a violent adversary.
Not to mention, i like shooting as a hobby, and however many thousands of rounds i've gone through, i haven't managed to kill any one yet. And im a better shot than probably 85% of the cops out there.
Things like this make lots of people think that a gun that was built to be able to hurt as many people as possible in a small amount of time has no business in the hands of the common person, no matter how scarce the untrustwory really are. Most people don't share the collector's affinity for such guns as fine pieces of craftsmanship to be appreciated for their technology and pleasure of operation, but rather see them as ugly tools of war which have no value besides being able to kill the other guy before he either kills you or gets away. The only honest people who NEED that kind of power in this country are the cops and the military, for everyone else it's just an indulgence.
But there will always be isolated incidence of violence. The whole purpose of the hollywood bank shootout WAS the shootout, not the robbery. I wouldn't be surprised if the fully automatic rifles the guys used were completely illegal. One can hurt a lot of people with knives and bladed weapons but you don't hear about them wanting to completley ban those... except in England, because they banned all the guns and now violent crimes with knives are going up :rolleyes: go figure.
Remember, the cops don't have a legal obligation to keep you safe, so i would disagree with you in saying that yes, i need a gun if i ever want a decent chance at exercising my basic human right to stay alive in the face of a violent adversary.
Not to mention, i like shooting as a hobby, and however many thousands of rounds i've gone through, i haven't managed to kill any one yet. And im a better shot than probably 85% of the cops out there.
2strokebloke
12-30-2007, 08:37 PM
You know, from an engineering perspective - a manual Underwood typewriter is infinitely more interesting than pretty much any gun. Also more infinitely more useful.
The gun is such a fundamentally useless tool in day to day life, that I've always wondered why gun collectors don't spend their money collecting something more interesting...
I mean it's one thing to collect guns of historical interest, like say if you happened to find John Higgins' J.C. Higgins at an estate sale (which would actually be a pretty amusing conversation piece), but why people collect modern firearms is beyond me...
I've heard theories though. Something along the lines of why some people buy really large cars.:icon16:
The gun is such a fundamentally useless tool in day to day life, that I've always wondered why gun collectors don't spend their money collecting something more interesting...
I mean it's one thing to collect guns of historical interest, like say if you happened to find John Higgins' J.C. Higgins at an estate sale (which would actually be a pretty amusing conversation piece), but why people collect modern firearms is beyond me...
I've heard theories though. Something along the lines of why some people buy really large cars.:icon16:
Steel
12-31-2007, 05:56 PM
You know, from an engineering perspective - a manual Underwood typewriter is infinitely more interesting than pretty much any gun. Also more infinitely more useful.
In your opinion.
The gun is such a fundamentally useless tool in day to day life, that I've always wondered why gun collectors don't spend their money collecting something more interesting...
It's my perogative to spend my money on what I want. I like them.
I mean it's one thing to collect guns of historical interest, like say if you happened to find John Higgins' J.C. Higgins at an estate sale (which would actually be a pretty amusing conversation piece),
Or my 1860 Colt Army. Buckets of fun with that guy.
but why people collect modern firearms is beyond me...
Because they are fun to shoot, being cleaner and more reliable, and some of them are stunningly accurate.
I've heard theories though. Something along the lines of why some people buy really large cars.:icon16:
:rolleyes: Now now, must we throw back to the 5th grade?
In your opinion.
The gun is such a fundamentally useless tool in day to day life, that I've always wondered why gun collectors don't spend their money collecting something more interesting...
It's my perogative to spend my money on what I want. I like them.
I mean it's one thing to collect guns of historical interest, like say if you happened to find John Higgins' J.C. Higgins at an estate sale (which would actually be a pretty amusing conversation piece),
Or my 1860 Colt Army. Buckets of fun with that guy.
but why people collect modern firearms is beyond me...
Because they are fun to shoot, being cleaner and more reliable, and some of them are stunningly accurate.
I've heard theories though. Something along the lines of why some people buy really large cars.:icon16:
:rolleyes: Now now, must we throw back to the 5th grade?
2strokebloke
01-01-2008, 08:42 PM
:rolleyes: Now now, must we throw back to the 5th grade?
You got psychology classes in the 5th grade?:grinno:
You got psychology classes in the 5th grade?:grinno:
kublah
01-02-2008, 02:27 AM
The whole purpose of the hollywood bank shootout WAS the shootout, not the robbery.
Not really, it was their fourth robbery. The guns probably served quite a role intimidating the people they robbed, apparently well enough to avoid police contact 3 times. Of course they were asking for trouble like few people ever have, but I think it was more about the act and the money than trying to lash out at authority.
Remember, the cops don't have a legal obligation to keep you safe, so i would disagree with you in saying that yes, i need a gun if i ever want a decent chance at exercising my basic human right to stay alive in the face of a violent adversary.
I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself, and certainly not that you should put all your faith in the cops... But I just can't imagine any sort of situation that could possibly arise in the course of a peaceful person's day to day life when a nicely concealed semi-automatic handgun or closet full of shotguns wouldn't be adequate. If I ever need an automatic weapon to feel safe all the time, our society will have already failed to a point that my life would be in constant jeopardy no matter how well armed I was.
Not really, it was their fourth robbery. The guns probably served quite a role intimidating the people they robbed, apparently well enough to avoid police contact 3 times. Of course they were asking for trouble like few people ever have, but I think it was more about the act and the money than trying to lash out at authority.
Remember, the cops don't have a legal obligation to keep you safe, so i would disagree with you in saying that yes, i need a gun if i ever want a decent chance at exercising my basic human right to stay alive in the face of a violent adversary.
I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself, and certainly not that you should put all your faith in the cops... But I just can't imagine any sort of situation that could possibly arise in the course of a peaceful person's day to day life when a nicely concealed semi-automatic handgun or closet full of shotguns wouldn't be adequate. If I ever need an automatic weapon to feel safe all the time, our society will have already failed to a point that my life would be in constant jeopardy no matter how well armed I was.
Steel
01-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Not really, it was their fourth robbery. The guns probably served quite a role intimidating the people they robbed, apparently well enough to avoid police contact 3 times. Of course they were asking for trouble like few people ever have, but I think it was more about the act and the money than trying to lash out at authority.
a bit of both i'd imagine. They had lots of rounds.
I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself, and certainly not that you should put all your faith in the cops... But I just can't imagine any sort of situation that could possibly arise in the course of a peaceful person's day to day life when a nicely concealed semi-automatic handgun or closet full of shotguns wouldn't be adequate. If I ever need an automatic weapon to feel safe all the time, our society will have already failed to a point that my life would be in constant jeopardy no matter how well armed I was.
We have restrictions on full auto weapons, and truth be told, MOST gun people are really not that interested in them. The most automatic thing i own is my M1 Garand. And even with cheap surplus ammo, it gets expensive to shoot right quick. Price of ammo is skyrocketing nowadays too, anyone who can AFFORD to blow through 1000 rounds in 20 minutes.. more power to them I suppose. I personally will be carrying a 5 shot revolver in AZ, and any one of firearms I own will serve as home defense.. except the 1860 Colt. But that's not the crux of the argument here. A lot of people are clamoring for the ban of ALL firearms, not just the automatic and scary-looking. That I simply cannot agree with.
a bit of both i'd imagine. They had lots of rounds.
I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself, and certainly not that you should put all your faith in the cops... But I just can't imagine any sort of situation that could possibly arise in the course of a peaceful person's day to day life when a nicely concealed semi-automatic handgun or closet full of shotguns wouldn't be adequate. If I ever need an automatic weapon to feel safe all the time, our society will have already failed to a point that my life would be in constant jeopardy no matter how well armed I was.
We have restrictions on full auto weapons, and truth be told, MOST gun people are really not that interested in them. The most automatic thing i own is my M1 Garand. And even with cheap surplus ammo, it gets expensive to shoot right quick. Price of ammo is skyrocketing nowadays too, anyone who can AFFORD to blow through 1000 rounds in 20 minutes.. more power to them I suppose. I personally will be carrying a 5 shot revolver in AZ, and any one of firearms I own will serve as home defense.. except the 1860 Colt. But that's not the crux of the argument here. A lot of people are clamoring for the ban of ALL firearms, not just the automatic and scary-looking. That I simply cannot agree with.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026