Good Gal: 1, Bad Guy: 0

[Frohickey]

Intruder's killer: 'I had no choice' (http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shot29_20040429.htm)
Detroit woman tells of self-defense shooting

Their eyes locked.

Then Barbara Holland saw the barrel of the gun.

She lay on the floorin her house after an intruder had knocked her down while pushing through her side door. While on her back, she drew a 9mm handgun from a holster on her waist.

Her assailant's glare suddenly changed.

"He looked surprised," Holland said.

Then she pulled the trigger.

Holland, a 38-year-old Detroit business owner and mother, remembers firing three shots. Detroit police told her she fired six.

Either way, she killed the 42-year-old man, Clabe Hunt -- who had shoved intoher home on Troester, near Hayes, on Detroit's east side at 8:10 p.m. April 13.

He was an ex-con with five children and was armed with a loaded, nickel-plated semiautomatic handgun that was not registered to him. Autopsy reports indicate he was shot in the head multiple times. He never fired his weapon.

Police officers said Holland's gun was licensed, and they determined the shooting to be self-defense. Wayne County prosecutors continue to investigate, which is routine in most fatal shootings.

Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan's controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

"The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

Even a justified shooting takes its toll, though, as Holland has discovered.

She is slowly coming to terms with the fact that she took a life. Sometimes she has tinges of remorse. Mostly she feels as though she had to protect herself and her 15-year-old daughter, who was home that night, hiding in the living room after the shots.

Hunt's family members are also hurting. They want more answers from police.

"Was someone else with him? Where is his car?" said Hunt's 40-year-old sister, who requested anonymity because she is the owner of a business.

"I'm not necessarily mad at her, but I don't know enough. Why unload the gun on him?"

'Like Friday the 13th'



Holland still remembers the words of the man whom she says she never met before he charged her.

Using a vulgarity, Hunt said: "I got you, I got you," Holland recalled. "I kept wondering if he was talking to me, but he came running right up at me," she said. "It didn't seem real."

The shooting was the first in an unusual night of violence, even in Detroit, which is experiencing a rise in homicides this year. In four hours, nine people were shot. Four, including Hunt, were killed.

"It was like Friday the 13th," Holland said. "Only it was Tuesday the 13th."

When police homicide officers arrived at Holland's home, Hunt's feet were inside her side entrance. The rest of his body lay in the driveway, investigators said. Hunt still had a gun in his right hand.

Holland's daughter, Tabitha, heard her mother scream, "Oh, Lord," as the shots rang out. She eventually ran outside, thinking the worst. Instead, she found her mother alive.

"I had normal feelings about taking a life, if you can call that normal," Barbara Holland said. "But I'm not losing sleep over it any more. I really had no choice."

'I had a strange feeling'



Holland owns a small used-car lot on Hayes and Troester with rent-to-own deals. She employs three workers and has about 20 cars and a couple of motorcycles for sale.

What sticks with Holland is something she is calling divine intervention.

Before she closed April 13, Holland said, two suspicious men came into the office asking about cars and then a Kawasaki motorcycle. One man said he had $1,000 in cash.

Holland said she told him to go outside and pick out a car.

"But he never left," she said. "He just stared at me."

Then the man asked about the motorcycle inside the office. Holland told him it cost $2,500. He asked about a payment plan but let the matter drop. "Then, they both just left," she said. "I had a strange feeling and I said a prayer."

She then checked to make sure the gun, which she has owned since 1992, was loaded.

Holland got into her 1998 Ford Escort station wagon and drove home. She pulled into her drivewayand walked toward her side door. A video cassette fell out of her laptop computer case.

As she bent down to pick it up, she saw Hunt running toward her, pointing the gun.

She screamed for help and tried slamming the door. Hunt blocked the door with his foot, pushing it open. Holland fell back onto a landing leading up to her kitchen.

Then she fired.

When Hunt's funeral took place a week later at Swanson Funeral Home on West Grand Boulevard in Detroit, Holland closed her shop.

"I did it out of respect for his family," she said. "I don't know them, but I thought it was the right thing to do."

Hunt's wife, Cynthia, did not attend the funeral. She could not be reached.

"It's been hard on everybody," Hunt's sister said. "We had just seen him two days earlier, on Easter. He called me on the day of his death and asked me to watch his kids. I'm not saying my brother was a great guy, but he didn't bring his problems near us."

Hunt's five children range in age from 27 to 2, his sister said.

He lived near 8 Mile and I-75 and was not working. Before going to prison in 1985 for armed robbery, he had attended the now-closed Northeastern High School in Detroit but never graduated.

He was released on parole in 1996, went back in a year later for violating parole and spent 1999 through 2002 in a halfway house, according to state Department of Corrections records.

Hunt's sister is still baffled that police have not been able to find her brother's red 1990 Ford Tempo. The missing car makes her think someone else was involved in the robbery attempt.

Police said they are still looking for the car but have no evidence of other suspects.

Meanwhile, Holland said she's considering selling her business and moving west.

"I think I'm ready to move on now," she said. "California."

=====

If this woman was in California, and the same thing happened, she would be dead. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Dippo]

"I'm not necessarily mad at her, but I don't know enough. Why unload the gun on him?"

Oh yea, blame the person getting robbed. :rolleyes:

[markjones05]

"Why unload the gun on him?"


Why not unload the gun on him?not

[Neserk]

Now, to balance tell the hundreds of stories where the kid shoots his sibling/neighbor and killls them in an accident... There are a lot more of those.

[Frohickey]

Now, to balance tell the hundreds of stories where the kid shoots his sibling/neighbor and killls them in an accident... There are a lot more of those.

Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children. In 2000, there were 776 firearm accident deaths, including 86 among children. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120)

Hundreds, eh? More likely, tens, as in 86 from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000.

Firearm accidents among "children": Handgun Control (now Brady Campaign) president, Michael Barnes, and longtime anti-gun senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have teamed up to allege that 12 children die from gun accidents every day. President Bill Clinton campaigned for so-called "triggerlock" and "smart" gun laws, claiming that 13 children are killed with guns every day. Hillary Clinton said, "Every day in America we lose 13 precious children to gun-related violence." The HELP Network recently put the figure at "an average of 9 children" daily. Other "gun control" advocates have varyingly claimed 5,000 per year, 14 per day, or one every 90 seconds. In fact, on average there are 1.2 such deaths among children per day, including one accidental death every four days. The phony figures are produced by adding the relatively small number of firearm-related deaths among children to the much larger number of deaths among juveniles and young adults under the age of 20, and dishonestly calling the total "children." Sometimes, anti-gunners have counted anyone under the age of 24 as a "child" to get an even higher number. (For details, see www.nraila.org, click "research," "firearm safety," "Not 12 Per Day.")

The Oct. 1, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association presented a study which concluded that so-called "Child Access Prevention" (CAP) laws (which make it a crime, under some circumstances, to leave a gun accessible to a child, if a child obtains and misuses the gun) imposed in 12 states between 1989-1993, decreased fatal firearm accidents among children. The article was written by individuals from the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, a group active in the HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) Network, which is dedicated to "changing society`s attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns." The study`s flaws: First, the decline in firearm accident deaths among children began in the mid-1970s, not in 1989, when "CAP" laws started to be imposed. Second, the decrease in fatal firearm accidents among children has been nationwide, not only in the 12 "CAP" states. Third, in 1989, NRA`s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program&® was introduced nationwide.

Neserk, you need to ask yourself why these 'child-deaths via gun accidents' include suicides and people aged from 24 and under. Sounds like padding the numbers in order to make it sound like an epidemic, in order to propagate the myth.

The best way to prevent gun accidents is to educate and train children. We teach teenagers drivers education, why not teach children gun education? By adding to the mysticism of a firearm in NOT teaching gun education and gun safety, you are practically inviting children to satiate their curiosity when proper adult supervision is NOT present. Better to educate and inform children of proper gun safety and use while they are young in order to teach them right and wrong. We already teach children what is right and what is wrong starting at an early age, makes it easier for the proper behavior to come to the fore, why not do the same with guns?

Neserk, here is a standing offer to you, if you happen to be in the San Francisco Bay area. I offer to teach you, and your students proper gun handling, gun safety and marksmanship, FREE OF CHARGE, given ample notice. I know people that offer to sell this type of service for cash money, and they make a good living doing so. I offer it to you for free. What do I get out of it? People that are safer if they happen to get ahold of a gun; if I or anyone I know, GOD FORBID, get shot at, I want it be to intentional and not by accident. :D :eek: :D

[Frohickey]

Why not unload the gun on him?not

I don't understand the issue you are trying to make.

[pseudobrit]

I don't understand the issue you are trying to make.

I don't understnad the issue you are trying to make either.

A woman defended herself in her own home with a pistol. Yay.

[Frohickey]

I don't understnad the issue you are trying to make either.

A woman defended herself in her own home with a pistol. Yay.

Actually, the woman was followed home from the car dealership that she owns. The law that allowed her to protect herself was the CCW law that was recently enacted in Michigan. Without that law, she would have been unarmed from the time she left the car dealership to the time she got inside of her house and taken and loaded the pistol from her gun safe. Without the CCW law, she would have probably been attacked at gunpoint as soon as she opened her front door, and we might have two women, the lady and her daughter, dead instead of alive.

Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan's controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

"The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

Precisely, that there has NOT been any increase in the vigilante-style shootings that opponents of CCW laws have always put forth in their arguments against these laws.

Actually, another thought occurred to me. The fact that this woman's life and probably her daughter's as well were saved by the CCW law, makes you wonder how many lives ARE LOST in the states that do not have CCW laws, and makes women like these victims of the criminal element out on the streets.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4926533&section=news)

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A 16-year-old boy was charged on Friday with murdering a California Highway Patrol officer in what Los Angeles officials called "the ultimate hate crime," killing the policeman to gain admission to a gang.

Valentino Mitchell Arenas faces murder and special circumstances charges that could send him to prison for the rest of his life for the fatal shooting of Officer Thomas Steiner on Wednesday, prosecutors said.

Police believe Arenas gunned down the 35-year-old Steiner outside a courthouse in Pomona to gain initiation into a violent street gang.

Steiner, who was armed and wearing his uniform, was leaving the courthouse after testifying in several traffic citation cases when he was shot in the upper body and head by an assailant who escaped in a stolen car, police said.

He died several hours later. Arenas was arrested about 12 hours after the shooting just blocks from the crime scene and the abandoned car, police said.

"This was the ultimate hate crime: the random assassination of a law enforcement officer soley based on the victim's status in the community and a uniform worn," Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said on Friday.

Arenas was expected to appear in court on Friday afternoon to enter a plea to the charges against him. Prosecutors said they plan to try him as an adult.


Wanna keep score? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Desertrat]

mac, sure, on the "keeping score". Just check out Prof. Gary Kleck's work at FSU. He's a statistician; he peformed the largest known telephone survey in researching the use of firearms in self defense; some 4,800 homes throughout the states and with some sort of statistical scatter among ZIP Codes. The minimum ratio is roughly 8:6 for firearms used to prevent a crime vs. firearms misused to perpetrate a crime. His upper limit is roughly 3:1. If "truth is in the center", that's 1.6 million preventions vs. 600,000 successful crimes during a year.

Caveat: "Usage" does not mean killing or wounding or even firing a warning shot. It includes a display or even a lie of "I have a gun!" "Prevent" means the Bad Guy quitting whatever action he'd proposed, because of a firearm in the possession of his potential victim.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, sure, on the "keeping score". Just check out Prof. Gary Kleck's work at FSU. He's a statistician; he peformed the largest known telephone survey in researching the use of firearms in self defense; some 4,800 homes throughout the states and with some sort of statistical scatter among ZIP Codes. The minimum ratio is roughly 8:6 for firearms used to prevent a crime vs. firearms misused to perpetrate a crime. His upper limit is roughly 3:1. If "truth is in the center", that's 1.6 million preventions vs. 600,000 successful crimes during a year.

Caveat: "Usage" does not mean killing or wounding or even firing a warning shot. It includes a display or even a lie of "I have a gun!" "Prevent" means the Bad Guy quitting whatever action he'd proposed, because of a firearm in the possession of his potential victim.

'Rat

Did his crime stats include threats to use a weapon, displays of weapons, or lies about having weapons? Or only reported crimes? Or only successful convictions?

[Desertrat]

The basic question was, "Have you, or anybody in your home, ever used a firearm in defense against a crime?" (Had to do all the explanatory stuff about the survey, and guarantee anonymity; no names were ever asked.)

"Used", as in my "CAVEAT" concerning usage.

There was no requirement for inclusion in the results about any involvement with officialdom. This was a survey about usage.

Kleck's work followed similar studies by Wright, Rossi & Daly ("Under The Gun" and others) and preceded Dr. Lott's work. Lott's statistical surveys of EVERY county in the U.S. survived peer review as to his statistical methodology. Lott's conclusions support Kleck's, although they're more dramatic in nature as regards the ongoing arguments over gun control.

Let's don't get to wandering into gun control in this thread, please? The issue of the utility or hazards of the CHL is aplenty!

:), 'Rat

[Krizoitz]

The best way to prevent gun accidents is to educate and train children.

No the best way to prevent gun accidents is to not have guns.

[pseudobrit]

The basic question was, "Have you, or anybody in your home, ever used a firearm in defense against a crime?"

To base the results on when a gun is "used" means little. Let's see the data on how many deaths guns cause/prevent.

[wwidgirl]

Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children. In 2000, there were 776 firearm accident deaths, including 86 among children. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120)

Hundreds, eh? More likely, tens, as in 86 from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000.



Just for clarification:

"Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

And someone was praising John Lott who has been the subject of A LOT of embarassing criticism lately- accusations of falsifying a survey, pretending he was someone else in order to praise his own research, etc.

"economists like Stanford's John Donohue and Georgetown's Jens Ludwig say that when first published in 1997, Lott's work was novel and even cutting edge. But the intervening years -- and increased scholarly scrutiny -- have not been kind to the "More Guns, Less Crime" idea. In fact, social scientists have turned away from the thesis even as Lott has stuck by his original conclusions. "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

[Neserk]

"Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin. "




:p

[wwidgirl]

:p
I realise that the stat posted previously was for the year 2000- 86 deaths. However, more than 800 deaths from 2000-2004 demonstrates that the stat is probably higher for the year 2000 unless deaths have been increasing since then.

Also, "children" = those younger than 12 and this stat does not include suicides.

[takao]

Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children. In 2000, there were 776 firearm accident deaths, including 86 among children. (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120)

Hundreds, eh? More likely, tens, as in 86 from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000.



86 ?

numbers from other countries anybody ? ;)

shouldn't be the police responsible for saftey ?

[SlyHunter]

Actually every now and then the liberal mass media gets on a band wagon and reports every bad thing ever done with a gun. This web site tries to report every good thing.
http://www.packing.org/

Oh they have a forum there too and talk about stuff like

Even IF (notice that's a big if) one were to believe in the numbers they present, they leave out a couple of important pieces of information. First, they refer to increases in numbers and percentages of gun-relted homicides over a period of several years (even though thier own table shows a declining murder rate shortly after Shall-Issue CCW was passed) in Florida. Correct me if I'm worng, but hasn't Florida been experienceing a teency population BOOM in the last couple of decades? I'd like to see some PER-CAPITA numbers before drawing any conclusions, either for or against gun control.

Second, they talk about the gun-related homicides increasing, though they didn't post actual numbers, only percentages. Don't they realize that when one is killed, even if justifiable by means of self defense, it is still ruled a homicide, even if there was no crime? If people are defending themselves by shooting BG's, this results in homicides that are not a public threat!

Hey, I know we can't trust these people to be truly critical and report findings based on proper methodology, but it's really frustrating to see it. Especially knowing that most people aren't trained well enough (either formally or just through common sense analysis) to pick up on these details. Thank God for my graduate-level statistics and methodology training! I wish these know-nothings had some before forming opinions and posting bogus conclusions to further their "moral" crusade!

http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/25027/

[markjones05]

I don't understand the issue you are trying to make.

The point I'm making is who cares why she unloaded a full clip into the guy that forcibly pushed his way into the victims house at gun point.

[Krizoitz]

Actually every now and then the liberal mass media gets on a band wagon and reports every bad thing ever done with a gun. This web site tries to report every good thing.
http://www.packing.org/

Oh they have a forum there too and talk about stuff like

http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/25027/

The problem I have with sites like this is they have such a huge agenda, its hard to find any objectivity. I mean honestly how do you expect us to take it seriously when the site has the sole purpose of promoting guns.

You claim that there is some "liberal mass media" like its some sort of conspiracy, yet you have yet to give any solid evidence that such a thing exists.

Regardless of either of the above statements think about this. What is a gun for?

A gun has one purpose. To kill. In the past few centuries in which guns have existed they have grown steadily more and more effective at doing so. It boggles my mind how a group, in this case the conservative right, who wants to ban Gay marriage because they think it is a threat to society hasn't noticed that guns do far more damage than any gay couple I have ever noticed. They go on and on about the second ammendmant like its some divine right. Honestly if the founding fathers could see what society was like today I seriously doubt they would have put that one in. Think about it.

In 1776 a gun was used for hunting, it was part of a livelihood. In addition the idea was that the citizens needed to be able to form militia's to defend themselves since there was no standing army at the time.

In 2004 no one short of Bob Redneck who lives in the middle of nowhere actually needs a gun to get food. Plus todays guns are far far FAR more deadly than anything that existed at the time of the founding of this nation.

A well skilled rifleman could fire AT BEST six rounds per minute with a rifle. In addition they had to be pretty good at aiming as the weapons back then weren't exactly accurate. Today's hand guns can fire of six shots in a couple seconds with a pretty high degree of accuracy even from a novice. Not to mention that they are far deadlier when they do connect. A minnie ball hit wasn't exactly the death sentence that a couple bullets from a .45 are today.

Plus the ammendmant was set up so that the citizens could defend their country. Now frankly if Russia tried to invade I'm fairly certain their tanks and bombs and missles would pretty much render our hand guns not so useful.

So what you say, its for individual protection. Guess what? Not what the second ammendment defends.

I recently read a op-ed piece where the writer complained about the selfishness of most Pro-choice people, how they only care about the womans rights and not the childs. Yet hypocritically they support the right to proliferate guns without regard for the consequences. It's my gun and you can't take it. Talk about selfish.

Using guns to stop gun violence reminds me of that old axiom, "You have to fight fire with fire". Problem is unless you really know what you're doing fighting fire with fire just leads to a bigger fire. Likewise fighting gun violence by having more guns seems pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

How about instead of using concealed weapons we get rid of as many guns as possible. I'm not sayign we have to get rid of them all, but certainly we can get rid of a lot of types of guns. What use does the average person have for a handgun anyway? And if companies weren't making them except for maybe the police and military, then even criminals would have a pretty hard time getting them illegally. Hard to get something when there isn't much of it, no matter how hard you try.

Guns are for killing. Its that simple.

[markjones05]

The problem I have with sites like this is they have such a huge agenda, its hard to find any objectivity. I mean honestly how do you expect us to take it seriously when the site has the sole purpose of promoting guns.

You claim that there is some "liberal mass media" like its some sort of conspiracy, yet you have yet to give any solid evidence that such a thing exists.

Regardless of either of the above statements think about this. What is a gun for?

A gun has one purpose. To kill. In the past few centuries in which guns have existed they have grown steadily more and more effective at doing so. It boggles my mind how a group, in this case the conservative right, who wants to ban Gay marriage because they think it is a threat to society hasn't noticed that guns do far more damage than any gay couple I have ever noticed. They go on and on about the second ammendmant like its some divine right. Honestly if the founding fathers could see what society was like today I seriously doubt they would have put that one in. Think about it.

In 1776 a gun was used for hunting, it was part of a livelihood. In addition the idea was that the citizens needed to be able to form militia's to defend themselves since there was no standing army at the time.

In 2004 no one short of Bob Redneck who lives in the middle of nowhere actually needs a gun to get food. Plus todays guns are far far FAR more deadly than anything that existed at the time of the founding of this nation.

A well skilled rifleman could fire AT BEST six rounds per minute with a rifle. In addition they had to be pretty good at aiming as the weapons back then weren't exactly accurate. Today's hand guns can fire of six shots in a couple seconds with a pretty high degree of accuracy even from a novice. Not to mention that they are far deadlier when they do connect. A minnie ball hit wasn't exactly the death sentence that a couple bullets from a .45 are today.

Plus the ammendmant was set up so that the citizens could defend their country. Now frankly if Russia tried to invade I'm fairly certain their tanks and bombs and missles would pretty much render our hand guns not so useful.

So what you say, its for individual protection. Guess what? Not what the second ammendment defends.

I recently read a op-ed piece where the writer complained about the selfishness of most Pro-choice people, how they only care about the womans rights and not the childs. Yet hypocritically they support the right to proliferate guns without regard for the consequences. It's my gun and you can't take it. Talk about selfish.

Using guns to stop gun violence reminds me of that old axiom, "You have to fight fire with fire". Problem is unless you really know what you're doing fighting fire with fire just leads to a bigger fire. Likewise fighting gun violence by having more guns seems pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

How about instead of using concealed weapons we get rid of as many guns as possible. I'm not sayign we have to get rid of them all, but certainly we can get rid of a lot of types of guns. What use does the average person have for a handgun anyway? And if companies weren't making them except for maybe the police and military, then even criminals would have a pretty hard time getting them illegally. Hard to get something when there isn't much of it, no matter how hard you try.

Guns are for killing. Its that simple.


What type of media is not subjective?.....none

[vwcruisn]

Guns are for killing. Its that simple.

Nice post, I agree. Ive never shot a gung before in my life and obviously have never owned one and I feel quite safe when I go to bed at night. My friend is a cop with LAPD and everytime we hang out he is carrying one or two guns on him at all time. I can't honestly say that I don't feel any safer walking around with him, knowing he has two loaded weapons straped to his body, then if I was walking around with the average joe, who has no weapon. The way the government here in america keeps us in check is through fear, and apparantly a_lot_of_people are buying into it, and gun ownership is just the beginning of it.

[mactastic]

What use does the average person have for a handgun anyway?

I like having one when I'm wilderness camping. There ARE legitimate uses for handguns. I don't believe in unfettered access to them the way some here do, but I certainly don't want to see the erradication of firearms.

[Frohickey]

86 ?

numbers from other countries anybody ? ;)

shouldn't be the police responsible for saftey ?

Hooboy.

Police in the United States do not have a duty to protect the safety of individual members of society. This has been argued in several court cases, and each time it has held. So, the answer to your question is 'No, police are not responsible for your safety. If they were, they can and should be sued when they fail to protect.'

Remember a man called Reginald Denny, a truckdriver that was attacked by thugs during the LA Riots.

[Frohickey]

No the best way to prevent gun accidents is to not have guns.

So, the best way to prevent car accidents is to not have cars.

[skunk]

So, the best way to prevent car accidents is to not have cars.
'Sright :D

[mactastic]

'Sright :D

Frohickey learns fast, doesn't he? :D :D :eek:

[Krizoitz]

So, the best way to prevent car accidents is to not have cars.

Except for one key difference, a car while it can be deadly in some cases actually has a valid and necessary use. A cars purpose is for transportation. Likewise one could claim that a kitchen knife could be gotten rid of to prevent stabbings, but a kitchen knife also has a purpose that is not killing. A gun has no such purpose.

And while it hasn't come up yet I'm sure it will, yes there are more deaths from car accidents than guns. BUT consider how frequently cars are used and imagine if as many people as had cars carried around guns with them for those long periods and you'd probably see a dramatic increase in gun deaths both accidental and intentional.

[mactastic]

Except for one key difference, a car while it can be deadly in some cases actually has a valid and necessary use.

Guns have valid and necessary uses. I don't see the difference you are talking about.

[Frohickey]

Just for clarification:

"Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

And someone was praising John Lott who has been the subject of A LOT of embarassing criticism lately- accusations of falsifying a survey, pretending he was someone else in order to praise his own research, etc.

"economists like Stanford's John Donohue and Georgetown's Jens Ludwig say that when first published in 1997, Lott's work was novel and even cutting edge. But the intervening years -- and increased scholarly scrutiny -- have not been kind to the "More Guns, Less Crime" idea. In fact, social scientists have turned away from the thesis even as Lott has stuck by his original conclusions. "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

The first url was about the anti-gun rights people padding their numbers, and essentially caught in a lie, but, lets say that the 892 number is accurate. Population average in the US is 260million * 4 years, if you find the rate of child gun deaths, that is 892/(260M*4) or 0.000000858 deaths per 1.04billion. Sounds like something that could be alleviated by gun education and safety courses.

John Lott and the maelstrom of accusations has not borne fruit either. First, there was the question of the original survey, where Dr Lott did claim to have lost the data. It could be inexcusable to not have made backup copies of the data, but Dr Lott has finished another survey, and this new survey closely correlates what he reported as the results of the first survey.

Second, Dr Lott's "Mary Rosh" posting does not nullify his original analysis and data of crime rates in ALL US counties. This is more along the lines of an ad hominem attack, or attacking the messenger instead of the data. His analysis and data has held scrutiny and he makes his data available for people who want to analyze his findings. (Contrary to the anti-gun-rights 'hero' Michael Bellesiles, who resigned from Emory University in disgrace when it was found he miraculously had data from San Francisco records offices, records that were destroyed in 1906. He either has a working time machine, or he is a liar.)

[Frohickey]

The point I'm making is who cares why she unloaded a full clip into the guy that forcibly pushed his way into the victims house at gun point.

Agreed. You keep on firing until the threat stops. If the threat is a bad guy that pushed you into your house while carrying a gun/knife, then you keep on shooting until the bad guy is down on the ground or runs away.

Thats why the law against magazines greater than 10 rounds is a bad law that can cause lives. If the bad guy was full of PCP, and you missed the first few shots, you are in a world of hurt if you have to reload in order to put the bad guy down. The counter-argument is that 101 California Street shooting massacre would have been less if the law were in place, but how many Barbara Holland's do you want to save versus how many J.L.F. scumbags are there that do these massacres.

[mactastic]

Agreed. You keep on firing until the threat stops. If the threat is a bad guy that pushed you into your house while carrying a gun/knife, then you keep on shooting until the bad guy is down on the ground or runs away.

Thats why the law against magazines greater than 10 rounds is a bad law that can cause lives. If the bad guy was full of PCP, and you missed the first few shots, you are in a world of hurt if you have to reload in order to put the bad guy down. The counter-argument is that 101 California Street shooting massacre would have been less if the law were in place, but how many Barbara Holland's do you want to save versus how many J.L.F. scumbags are there that do these massacres.

You gotta be careful about crossing that line between self-defense and assault yourself though. If I keep beating someone who's on their knees I can go to jail for assault even if they started it. That's why we learned to scoop-kick to the groin to prevent those knees from touching...

Point is, legally there is a fine line between self defense and assault. Emptying a clip into someone may or may not cross that line depending on the circumstances, but it shouldn't be assumed that emptying your clip is always ok.

[Frohickey]

You gotta be careful about crossing that line between self-defense and assault yourself though. If I keep beating someone who's on their knees I can go to jail for assault even if they started it. That's why we learned to scoop-kick to the groin to prevent those knees from touching...

Point is, legally there is a fine line between self defense and assault. Emptying a clip into someone may or may not cross that line depending on the circumstances, but it shouldn't be assumed that emptying your clip is always ok.

You must not have read the first few sentences of my post that you quoted.

[Frohickey]

The problem I have with sites like this is they have such a huge agenda, its hard to find any objectivity. I mean honestly how do you expect us to take it seriously when the site has the sole purpose of promoting guns.

You claim that there is some "liberal mass media" like its some sort of conspiracy, yet you have yet to give any solid evidence that such a thing exists.

Regardless of either of the above statements think about this. What is a gun for?

A gun has one purpose. To kill. In the past few centuries in which guns have existed they have grown steadily more and more effective at doing so. It boggles my mind how a group, in this case the conservative right, who wants to ban Gay marriage because they think it is a threat to society hasn't noticed that guns do far more damage than any gay couple I have ever noticed. They go on and on about the second ammendmant like its some divine right. Honestly if the founding fathers could see what society was like today I seriously doubt they would have put that one in. Think about it.

In 1776 a gun was used for hunting, it was part of a livelihood. In addition the idea was that the citizens needed to be able to form militia's to defend themselves since there was no standing army at the time.

In 2004 no one short of Bob Redneck who lives in the middle of nowhere actually needs a gun to get food. Plus todays guns are far far FAR more deadly than anything that existed at the time of the founding of this nation.

A well skilled rifleman could fire AT BEST six rounds per minute with a rifle. In addition they had to be pretty good at aiming as the weapons back then weren't exactly accurate. Today's hand guns can fire of six shots in a couple seconds with a pretty high degree of accuracy even from a novice. Not to mention that they are far deadlier when they do connect. A minnie ball hit wasn't exactly the death sentence that a couple bullets from a .45 are today.

Plus the ammendmant was set up so that the citizens could defend their country. Now frankly if Russia tried to invade I'm fairly certain their tanks and bombs and missles would pretty much render our hand guns not so useful.

So what you say, its for individual protection. Guess what? Not what the second ammendment defends.

I recently read a op-ed piece where the writer complained about the selfishness of most Pro-choice people, how they only care about the womans rights and not the childs. Yet hypocritically they support the right to proliferate guns without regard for the consequences. It's my gun and you can't take it. Talk about selfish.

Using guns to stop gun violence reminds me of that old axiom, "You have to fight fire with fire". Problem is unless you really know what you're doing fighting fire with fire just leads to a bigger fire. Likewise fighting gun violence by having more guns seems pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

How about instead of using concealed weapons we get rid of as many guns as possible. I'm not sayign we have to get rid of them all, but certainly we can get rid of a lot of types of guns. What use does the average person have for a handgun anyway? And if companies weren't making them except for maybe the police and military, then even criminals would have a pretty hard time getting them illegally. Hard to get something when there isn't much of it, no matter how hard you try.

Guns are for killing. Its that simple.

Guns are made for killing, but not all killing is a bad thing. Killing to stop violence initiated on you is a good thing. Killing to protect innocents is a good thing. On this basis alone, guns should be available for people in order to stop violence and protect innocents. But that is not what the liberal leftists want.

An armed gay couple, or armed gay person would not be bashed as easily. Imagine if Matthew Shepard had a concealed weapon on him on that night when he was attacked.

There was militias, and there was the Continental Army as well. What the Founding Fathers said is that a free people with arms would not be subjugated by a tyrannical government as readily. By their calculation, the number of soldiers a tyrannical government can muster is a small fraction of the armed citizens they would face.

You say a minnie ball is not as deadly as a few slugs from a 45ACP. How about you and I stand 50 feet apart, you can shoot at me with a 45, I get to shoot at you with a minnie ball. I get to shoot first though. Want to take the challenge? I thought not.

There is no selfishness in the part of pro-gun-rights people. They just want to have the means to protect themselves with. Anti-gun-rights people like Sarah Brady and Mary Leigh Blek can disarm themselves all they want. We don't care. We are safe with our guns. We are responsible with them. Don't go after us. Go after the criminals instead. Saying that the 'availability' of guns makes gun suicides more probable is disingenous.

And finally, if you think personal firearms are of no use at all, even during an invasion, maybe you should read as to how a bunch of starving Polish Jews managed to hold off the best army in Europe for close to a month, starting with a handgun. The method is you get a handgun, befriend a German soldier, get in close, shoot them, take their rifle, give the handgun to someone else, and rinse and repeat.

But it won't have to get to that. Lets say a President gets dictatorial on us. How many highpower rifles with scopes do you think might be possibly aimed at him in his next public appearance? Pretty sobering for a would-be dictator.

I'll end this long post with a quote from a recent court opinion.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

[mactastic]

You must not have read the first few sentences of my post that you quoted.

No I read them, I'm just pointing out that 'on the ground' is a vague and sometimes misleading description of when the threat is over. As soon as those knees touch the ground, you have to stop firing. If the threat resumes, you may resume firing.

Sometimes it's better to be doing things hand to hand, you've got more control over your opponents body.... :D

[Desertrat]

Welcome, Krizoitz!

I'll just stick with guns for self defense. :) The other stuff is extraneous, IMO.

I've been "messin'" with guns since around 1940 or 1941. Hunter and reloader; pistol competitor, once upon a time.

Guns are fun to shoot, if one likes precision. Target shooting is one of the few ways in which you can compete with yourself, always striving to outdo what you did in the past.

Sure, even a $3,000 free-style Olympic single-shot .22 rimfire can kill a person. All that means is that some Bad Guy got hold of one and misused it.

I've never had any real need to draw on somebody. My ex-wife had four different occasions to need self-defense against intruders or would-be intruders. Me, I "skated" based upon my local reputation as an expert--which is the story I'm gonna tell.

I moved to the middle of nowhere in 1983. On the 40 acres adjoining my land were Manuel and Chata Acosta. He was uncle to Pablo Acosta who was the Drug Lord* up the river at Ojinaga, Mexico and who allegedly was responsible for the smuggling of as much as one-third of the U.S. cocaine supply. Well over 100 "primos" or cousins worked for Pablo. There were a fair number of shoot-outs in those days, fending off rivals.

Manuel and Chata had their own thing going, smuggling burro-train loads of Progressive Pall Mall makings. I blew the whistle on the "how to" of their operation and they knew it. About that time, a neighbor of mine came down to see what the noise was all about as I was doing some pistol practice for an IPSC match. He also being a gossipy sort went and told the folks at the local Center for Gossip and Inellectual Stimulus that I was the baddest thing since Wyatt Urp.

Now, I can't guarantee that the reason no overt threats arose was due to my "pistolero" reputation. Only severe scowls durning various chance meetings. Somebody threw a couple of dead rabbits down my well, and I had my suspicions, but no way for proof. Regardless, I'm alive and that's about as good as it gets.

'Rat

*Pablo's biography of that name was written by Terence Pappas. An interesting, low-emotion-level read about the people on both sides of the Rio Grande, the "River of Drugs".

[mactastic]

Target shooting is one of the few ways in which you can compete with yourself, always striving to outdo what you did in the past.

A few ways? Come on 'Rat, there are tons of Zen sports as I like to call them. How about darts? Golf? Bowling? Horseshoes? Running? Rock Climbing?

Not that pistol shooting isn't one of them, I'm just surprised that you would characterize it as 'one of the few ways in which you can compete with yourself.' It's almost like you have an agenda surrounding guns....

[Krizoitz]

Guns are made for killing, but not all killing is a bad thing. Killing to stop violence initiated on you is a good thing. Killing to protect innocents is a good thing. On this basis alone, guns should be available for people in order to stop violence and protect innocents. But that is not what the liberal leftists want.
Which is why i have no problem with police having them.


An armed gay couple, or armed gay person would not be bashed as easily. Imagine if Matthew Shepard had a concealed weapon on him on that night when he was attacked.

So the answer to violence is more violence?


There was militias, and there was the Continental Army as well. What the Founding Fathers said is that a free people with arms would not be subjugated by a tyrannical government as readily. By their calculation, the number of soldiers a tyrannical government can muster is a small fraction of the armed citizens they would face.

Yes because quite obviously if the government tried to become tyrannical the membership of the NRA could stop the tanks, cruise missles, jet fighters, etc with their hand guns. If the purpose of allowing the citizenry to have guns is to prevent that then we better start handing out stinger launchers and anti-tank weapons. Of course that would be a fantastic idea.


You say a minnie ball is not as deadly as a few slugs from a 45ACP. How about you and I stand 50 feet apart, you can shoot at me with a 45, I get to shoot at you with a minnie ball. I get to shoot first though. Want to take the challenge? I thought not.

Yes because that is obviously how the situation would work. How about this instead. You get a rifle, I get a 45. But is in a large field with trees, etc. the kind they use for paintballing. Well see who comes out alive. Or in a house, or on the streets. My guess is even IF you got off one shot and IF it hit me I'd still be able to take you out before you had a chance to reload. Not to mention that since you have never handled a musket it would probably take you quite a while to reload. Oh and I can just imagine a drive by using muskets.

"hey could you all just wait there while we reload so we can shoot at you again?"



There is no selfishness in the part of pro-gun-rights people. They just want to have the means to protect themselves with. Anti-gun-rights people like Sarah Brady and Mary Leigh Blek can disarm themselves all they want. We don't care. We are safe with our guns. We are responsible with them. Don't go after us. Go after the criminals instead. Saying that the 'availability' of guns makes gun suicides more probable is disingenous.

You individually might be able to handle a gun responsibly, the problem is too many people get access to guns who either shouldn't or end up being people who won't be responsible, and since an irresponsible person with a gun is a danger to the rest of us, yes I'd rather it were much harder (not impossible) for even responsible users to get guns.

You know whats sad? It takes more effort to get a drivers licencse than it does to get a gun. You don't have to take any gun safety courses or tests, no training at all. You just sign up for the background check, which of course only tells if you haven't done anything wrong yet, and in a few days, theres your gun.

[mactastic]

Homer: "Five days? But I'm mad now." (The clerk takes the gun from Homer.) "I'd kill you if I had my gun."

Clerk: "Yeah, well, you don't."

:D :eek: :D

[Frohickey]

No I read them, I'm just pointing out that 'on the ground' is a vague and sometimes misleading description of when the threat is over. As soon as those knees touch the ground, you have to stop firing. If the threat resumes, you may resume firing.

Sometimes it's better to be doing things hand to hand, you've got more control over your opponents body.... :D

As soon as those knees touch the ground? What is to say that someone on their knees can't pull the trigger of the gun pointed at you? Better for the bad guy to be on the ground. If the scenario were that you aimed your gun at the bad guy, he ducks, loses his balance, drops on the ground, with the weapon still in hand, he tries to get up, in the direction of the bedroom door of your baby? You shoot until the threat is gone.

[mactastic]

As soon as those knees touch the ground? What is to say that someone on their knees can't pull the trigger of the gun pointed at you? Better for the bad guy to be on the ground. If the scenario were that you aimed your gun at the bad guy, he ducks, loses his balance, drops on the ground, with the weapon still in hand, he tries to get up, in the direction of the bedroom door of your baby? You shoot until the threat is gone.

You are assuming it's a gun-to-gun duel. I'm talking more general situation. If their knees touch and their still pointing a weapon at you, keep firing. All I'm saying is that legally speaking, being attacked is not a license to kill.

[Frohickey]

Which is why i have no problem with police having them.

You individually might be able to handle a gun responsibly, the problem is too many people get access to guns who either shouldn't or end up being people who won't be responsible, and since an irresponsible person with a gun is a danger to the rest of us, yes I'd rather it were much harder (not impossible) for even responsible users to get guns.

You know whats sad? It takes more effort to get a drivers licencse than it does to get a gun. You don't have to take any gun safety courses or tests, no training at all. You just sign up for the background check, which of course only tells if you haven't done anything wrong yet, and in a few days, theres your gun.

Police DO NOT have a monopoly on protecting innocents. Police DO NOT have a monopoly on using violence to stop the continuation of violence.

Hate to burst your bubble, but my individual personal safety is NO ONE'S business. Who is hurt the most if my personal safety is threatened? Who stands the most to lose if I am hurt or die at the hands of a criminal? Not you, you get to read about me in the newspapers, maybe. Not the police, they get to read crime reports and maybe haul off my remains to the coroner, and maybe get to hug my wife as she cries her eyes out. Not the politicians, they get their personal taxpayer-paid bodyguards, and per-diem and car allowances.

There is no Constitutionally-protected right to keep and drive cars.

Voting is a right. (http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/000977.shtml) Poll taxes and literacy requirements are considered bad for the right to vote. Are you suggesting that we put barriers to the various rights that we, as Americans enjoy? What is next? PhDs in English literature before you can practice freedom of speech? :eek:

Maybe freedom of speech and the press should only be limited to handcranked printing presses and how much your voice can carry unassisted. (end_sarcasm)

[Frohickey]

You are assuming it's a gun-to-gun duel. I'm talking more general situation. If their knees touch and their still pointing a weapon at you, keep firing. All I'm saying is that legally speaking, being attacked is not a license to kill.

Legally speaking, there is no license to kill, unless you are a government agent, or James Bond, 007.

Legally speaking, being attacked means that you have a right to stop the commencement, or continuation of the attack. If the means to stopping the attack just so happens to contribute to the killing of the attacker, that is a side-effect.

[mactastic]

Legally speaking, there is no license to kill, unless you are a government agent, or James Bond, 007.

Legally speaking, being attacked means that you have a right to stop the commencement, or continuation of the attack. If the means to stopping the attack just so happens to contribute to the killing of the attacker, that is a side-effect.

But if you have to go explain it to a judge, they're gonna want to see that you tried to avoid killing the person.

Fudge it, go ahead and do it you're way. You'll spend some time in jail if you can't show that you tried something other than emptying your clip. This ain't Texas.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/10/fresno.slayings.ap/)

Marcus Wesson was covered in blood when he emerged from his Fresno home on March 12. Inside, police found a pile of bodies entangled in bloody clothes. Each of the nine victims was shot once in the eye and died almost instantly, according to the coroner's reports.

Wesson, 57, has pleaded innocent to charges he murdered his 25-year-old daughter and eight of his other children, who ranged in age from 1 to 17. He also has pleaded innocent to 33 additional charges of sexual abuse. Wesson is accused of fathering some of his children through polygamy and incest.

[wwidgirl]

The first url was about the anti-gun rights people padding their numbers, and essentially caught in a lie, but, lets say that the 892 number is accurate. Population average in the US is 260million * 4 years, if you find the rate of child gun deaths, that is 892/(260M*4) or 0.000000858 deaths per 1.04billion. Sounds like something that could be alleviated by gun education and safety courses.
I was just clarifying the numbers. I thought coming from a non anti-gun website the numbers would hold more validity. Also, I find your last statement debatable but that's not something we can resolve here.


John Lott and the maelstrom of accusations has not borne fruit either. First, there was the question of the original survey, where Dr Lott did claim to have lost the data. It could be inexcusable to not have made backup copies of the data, but Dr Lott has finished another survey, and this new survey closely correlates what he reported as the results of the first survey.

Could you give me a link. This is new information to me. Thanks.


Second, Dr Lott's "Mary Rosh" posting does not nullify his original analysis and data of crime rates in ALL US counties. This is more along the lines of an ad hominem attack, or attacking the messenger instead of the data. His analysis and data has held scrutiny and he makes his data available for people who want to analyze his findings. (Contrary to the anti-gun-rights 'hero' Michael Bellesiles, who resigned from Emory University in disgrace when it was found he miraculously had data from San Francisco records offices, records that were destroyed in 1906. He either has a working time machine, or he is a liar.)

It just demonstrates that he isn't someone with the best moral character. I am not arguing that his behaviour nulifies his research.

[Frohickey]

I was just clarifying the numbers. I thought coming from a non anti-gun website the numbers would hold more validity. Also, I find your last statement debatable but that's not something we can resolve here.

Could you give me a link. This is new information to me. Thanks.

It just demonstrates that he isn't someone with the best moral character. I am not arguing that his behaviour nulifies his research.

Clayton Cramer blog archive (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_10_05_archive.html)

There was a lot of links on Clayton Cramer's blog when the issue was coming to a head, and I read through the links as well as the supporters and detractors of Dr. Lott. The Mary Rosh incident is a very minor if not insignificant act. Not saying its a wise debating tactic and that I approve of it, but sometimes, when debating an issue, the source of the debate can cloud people's mind to the logic presented, and when it comes from an anonymous or unknown source, the 'red fog' can be lifted.

The lost survey and the follow-on survey, in my mind, serves to reinforce the original assertions.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, mac. If I partook of some of your Zen sports, I'd probably get all teary and weepy. Age, arthritis...Who wants to see his scores decline? :) But, at least I'm not in a wheelchair.

Krizoitz, the last time I saw any numbers (I don't remember the exact source, but it was from one of the federal agencies) about accidental shooting of innocents during a legally justified self-defense situation, the score was roughly cops 30, citizens 3.

Two problems with limiting guns to cops: The first is the usual police state argument. That is far less important to my immediate health and safety than the judicial decisions which lead me to conclude that nobody is responsible for my minute-to-minute safety than I, myself. A comment from a local law-enforcement type about response times in trouble calls was, "Oh, about thirty minutes, if all the gates are open." Never forget that police function predominantly as janitors after a crime is committed, not as preventers beforetimes.

wwidgirl, the gripe about the "padding the numbers" stems from including wilful killings and the inclusion of ages above that commonly thought of as the upper limit of "child".

For instance, the Center for Disease Control said that for 1993, accidental deaths where a firearm was the cause totalled 130 (+/-) for those 14 and under. I forget which anti-gun group was using higher numbers for implied "accidental" childrens' deaths, but you had to go on up toward the age of twenty to reach their total, AND include homicides. (Note that the total accidental deaths involving firearms for all ages totals around 1,100 per year, rough average.)

mac, no, a judge isn't gonna ask if you could avoid the killing. A grand jury will investigate whether there was any justification to use deadly force at all. It doesn't matter whether the Bad Guy was wounded or killed. Now, if witnesses said that after your first shot the BG dropped his weapon and turned to run, but you kept shooting, shame on your sorry butt.

Texas law is quite specific that if the proverbial "rational and prudent person" thinks somebody is an "ongoing threat to the community", it doesn't matter if he's coming or going, you can shoot him. If he's unarmed, he's no ongoing threat, and the most you can do is chase him to recover stolen property.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/10/fresno.slayings.ap/)

Are you rooting for the Bad Guys with your ongoing posts about criminal acts?

Yes, its bad when the Bad Guys are winning. Thats why my original post about the Good Guys (Gal) winning. There are more of these around, not all are as exceptional as the Bad Guy dying. Some end with the Bad Guy running away.

[mactastic]

Are you rooting for the Bad Guys with your ongoing posts about criminal acts?

Yes, its bad when the Bad Guys are winning. Thats why my original post about the Good Guys (Gal) winning. There are more of these around, not all are as exceptional as the Bad Guy dying. Some end with the Bad Guy running away.

There's two sides to gun violence. You say many more lives would be saved if everyone had guns, I say more lives will be lost that way. You know we have this disparity in views. But then again, you probably think I root for terrorists too.... :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

There's two sides to gun violence. You say many more lives would be saved if everyone had guns, I say more lives will be lost that way. You know we have this disparity in views. But then again, you probably think I root for terrorists too.... :rolleyes:

Never said 'everyone'. Just the ones that want to avail themselves the means with which to protect themselves with.

If this country had a loosening of frivolous gun regulations, that would not automatically lead to 'everyone' having or owning guns. Last I checked, guns still cost money to purchase and maintain.

[Frohickey]

Oh, here (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-locdea30043004apr30,0,1049814.story?coll=orl-home-headlines) is a link for some people here that say that only cops and law enforcement people should have guns, because they are the ones that are properly trained on their use. :OUCH: :eek:

[Krizoitz]

There is no Constitutionally-protected right to keep and drive cars.

Voting is a right. (http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/000977.shtml) Poll taxes and literacy requirements are considered bad for the right to vote. Are you suggesting that we put barriers to the various rights that we, as Americans enjoy? What is next? PhDs in English literature before you can practice freedom of speech? :eek:

Maybe freedom of speech and the press should only be limited to handcranked printing presses and how much your voice can carry unassisted. (end_sarcasm)

Yes of course that is exactly what I am saying. When you start carrying arguments to absurdity you make it hard to take your points seriously.

We license and limit car usage because when used improperly cars have an immediate and deadly affect.

You being able to vote isn't quite as scary, oh and we do limit voting.

Guns have the sole use of killing, and I don't see how mandatory training and testing is a bad idea. You claimed in your previous statements that education is the key, well fine, lets make sure people who get guns have some safety education.

[Krizoitz]

Never said 'everyone'. Just the ones that want to avail themselves the means with which to protect themselves with.

If this country had a loosening of frivolous gun regulations, that would not automatically lead to 'everyone' having or owning guns. Last I checked, guns still cost money to purchase and maintain.

1998 statistics

Gun deaths in the US per 100,000 people 11.4
Gun deaths in Canada per 100,000 people 4.3

In Canada gun ownership isn't a right, instead its been regulated since 1930 and roughly 50 people in the entire country (canada) are allowed to carry concealed weapons. In Canada you can get a firearm if you belong to a gun club or a collector so the few people with limited claims to valid gun use aren't out of luck either.

Looks to me like stricter gun laws and limited ownership does reduce gun violence.

[blackfox]

Our founding fathers must be turning over in their graves...they believed in gun-rights, but they also believed in Liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it). Modern US society no longer has a concept of responsibility, of accountabilty, or of the efforts of Liberty...in this environment, formal regulations must fill the gap, and they do it imperfectly for all concerned...the 'honor' system does not work in a society without a sense of one.

[SlyHunter]

1998 statistics

Gun deaths in the US per 100,000 people 11.4
Gun deaths in Canada per 100,000 people 4.3

In Canada gun ownership isn't a right, instead its been regulated since 1930 and roughly 50 people in the entire country (canada) are allowed to carry concealed weapons. In Canada you can get a firearm if you belong to a gun club or a collector so the few people with limited claims to valid gun use aren't out of luck either.

Looks to me like stricter gun laws and limited ownership does reduce gun violence.
First the link is http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
Your statistics only include death by suicide or death by accident.


"Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.
Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.

This link gives a more broad perspective accross the world of gun deaths.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Finland 30.72 per 100k gun deaths with 23.2% of households with guns.
US same chart 18.57 per 100k gun deaths with 39.0% of households with guns.
Germany same chart 17.0 per 100k gun deaths with 8.9% of households with guns.
France 22.67 per 100k gun deaths with 22.6% of households with guns.

Looks to me like your logic is faulty.


In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels."

Using homicide and suicide data from a larger sample of countries, 35, (International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:216), Kleck found "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate in the largest sample of nations available to study this topic. (Associations with the total suicide rate were even weaker.)" (Targeting Guns, p 254.)





Oh did you want an example of liberal media bias. This is one. They purposely ignore statistics that go against their agenda and only report those news items that support their agenda. The above news agencies in the second quote aren't suppose to be biased but they are.

[IJ Reilly]

I wonder if anyone on this board has ever come close to being shot to death by someone in their own household. Other than myself, that is.

It'll change your outlook on this issue, I can assure you. You'll become a lot less impressed by statistics in a hurry.

[SlyHunter]

I wonder if anyone on this board has ever come close to being shot to death by someone in their own household. Other than myself, that is.

It'll change your outlook on this issue, I can assure you. You'll become a lot less impressed by statistics in a hurry.
Statistics or not even if you were right and gun ownership increased crime an armed populace keeps its government honest. But then we don't have to play this game we can keep playing the statistical game.

It comes down to responsibility. When I was a kid we had a loaded 12 gauge shot gun in the closet everyone in my family knew how to use it. It wasn't kept locked because if we needed self defense we didn't want to waste time loading it. Now we weren't rich it was the only gun we had so I wasn't allowed to take it from the house. So whenever I wanted to go out and shoot I would have to go accross the street to the neighbors house and grab one of his guns off of the wall. I had to provide my own bullets. Sometimes 22 sometimes 12 guage solid slug. And I would go out into the woods and hunt refrigerators. Back then thats where we dumped our trash so they were easy to find. When their sewage leaked out into their yard and their kids had to use the local lake for their baths for several months before they could get it repaired. I went with them and we each took turns standing gator guard. Had to make sure the 12 guage was loaded with solid slugs cuzz we would shoot over the heads of those in the water at the gators if any got too curious. One time I got jumped on my way into the woods. He pulled a knife on me. I dropped the gun and pulled a branch and used it to club him with. Never crossed my mind to shoot him. Didn't need to so I didn't. Shot a wood pecker once. Decided next animal I shoot it would be for food and not fun.

It all comes down to proper responsibility and how your parents raised you. Kids nowadays just aint given the discipline to be responsible for their own actions and their own bad choices.

[Krizoitz]

First the link is http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
Your statistics only include death by suicide or death by accident.

Um no it doesn't, it just highlights those two numbers in addition to including the total deaths. Think about it for a second, accidental deaths at .3, suicides 6.4 and total deaths 11.4. Hmm 0.3 + 6.4 = 6.7 leaving 4.7 deaths per 100,000 unnacounted for if it was just those two numbers.


This link gives a more broad perspective accross the world of gun deaths.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Finland 30.72 per 100k gun deaths with 23.2% of households with guns.
US same chart 18.57 per 100k gun deaths with 39.0% of households with guns.
Germany same chart 17.0 per 100k gun deaths with 8.9% of households with guns.
France 22.67 per 100k gun deaths with 22.6% of households with guns.

Looks to me like your logic is faulty.
.....
Oh did you want an example of liberal media bias. This is one. They purposely ignore statistics that go against their agenda and only report those news items that support their agenda. The above news agencies in the second quote aren't suppose to be biased but they are.

You are the one ignoring statistics. Lets take a look.

France has 22.67 total deaths, not fire arms deaths. This is a table of violent crimes not just fire arms crimes. The fire arm homicides in france are .44 per 100,000, in the US they are 3.72. In Germany .22 and Finland at .86 . So it looks like the US is quite clearly the most violent and with almost 40% of households having guns in this case. In fact of the countries that list the percentage of households with firearms only Northern Ireland comes in with more gun deaths, which if you look back at 1994 makes a lot of sense.

Once again my logic holds. More guns = more deaths by guns.

[Krizoitz]

Statistics or not even if you were right and gun ownership increased crime an armed populace keeps its government honest. But then we don't have to play this game we can keep playing the statistical game.

An armed populace keeps the government honest? You really think that a bunch of NRA members running around with ther hand guns would deter the US military? What keeps our government honest is a law based society, and that no one is supposed to be able to get away with breaking the law, it happens but fortunately not all THAT often.

[SlyHunter]

Um no it doesn't, it just highlights those two numbers in addition to including the total deaths. Think about it for a second, accidental deaths at .3, suicides 6.4 and total deaths 11.4. Hmm 0.3 + 6.4 = 6.7 leaving 4.7 deaths per 100,000 unnacounted for if it was just those two numbers.


You are the one ignoring statistics. Lets take a look.

France has 22.67 total deaths, not fire arms deaths. This is a table of violent crimes not just fire arms crimes. The fire arm homicides in france are .44 per 100,000, in the US they are 3.72. In Germany .22 and Finland at .86 . So it looks like the US is quite clearly the most violent and with almost 40% of households having guns in this case. In fact of the countries that list the percentage of households with firearms only Northern Ireland comes in with more gun deaths, which if you look back at 1994 makes a lot of sense.

Once again my logic holds. More guns = more deaths by guns.
What it means is that those country with higher gun laws have to be more inventive to keep the death rate up but substitute other forms of causing death to keep up with the gun deaths from other countries with lower gun control. Doesn't matter whether you died from a gun or from a knife your still dead. Gun control might reduce the number of people who died from guns but did not reduce the number of people who died.

Also none of these charts show how many gun deaths were by people (for example) shooting those who forced their way into their homes with knives. ie how many gun deaths were self defense.

[Sayhey]

An armed populace keeps the government honest? You really think that a bunch of NRA members running around with ther hand guns would deter the US military? What keeps our government honest is a law based society, and that no one is supposed to be able to get away with breaking the law, it happens but fortunately not all THAT often.

Krizoitz, thank you, this has got to be one of the most amazing arguments for gun ownership ever put out there. Not meaning anything about Sly (at least not in this case), but every so often this gets brought up by gun nuts as why we should all have guns. We keep our government honest by participating in the process and being aware of what is going on, not by keeping a .45 on the nightstand.

[Krizoitz]

What it means is that those country with higher gun laws have to be more inventive to keep the death rate up but substitute other forms of causing death to keep up with the gun deaths from other countries with lower gun control. Doesn't matter whether you died from a gun or from a knife your still dead. Gun control might reduce the number of people who died from guns but did not reduce the number of people who died.

Also none of these charts show how many gun deaths were by people (for example) shooting those who forced their way into their homes with knives. ie how many gun deaths were self defense.

It appears to me that the only one here selectively looking at this and picking and choosing statistics is you. Yes those three countries (Finland, France, Germany) that you highlight have higher deaths per capita, but most of those deaths are suicides. As soon as we discount suicides the numbers drop dramatically.

DEATHS (TOTAL DEATHS - SUICIDE DEATHS) (per 100,000)
Finland 3.46
Germany 1.36
France 1.88
US 6.51

Again more guns = more deaths. You can continue to ignore the facts that are staring you in the face if you want but its really that simple.

[Frohickey]

1998 statistics

Gun deaths in the US per 100,000 people 11.4
Gun deaths in Canada per 100,000 people 4.3

Looks to me like stricter gun laws and limited ownership does reduce gun violence.

A thread too late.

zimv20 and I have already done the crime rate studies of US versus Canada. Canada crime rates are higher. :eek:

[SlyHunter]

A thread too late.

zimv20 and I have already done the crime rate studies of US versus Canada. Canada crime rates are higher. :eek:
Also those percentages only take into account accidental gun deaths and suicide by gun. They ignore other kinds of deaths and when you compare death in general US is not even near the lead. To those who die does it matter whether its by knife or by gun. These countries with stricter gun controls are simply more inventive in killing folks. We can't outlaw everything nor should we.

[Krizoitz]

Also those percentages only take into account accidental gun deaths and suicide by gun. They ignore other kinds of deaths and when you compare death in general US is not even near the lead. To those who die does it matter whether its by knife or by gun. These countries with stricter gun controls are simply more inventive in killing folks. We can't outlaw everything nor should we.

Do you honestly not even read what people write? As soon as you exclude suicide number the death rate in the US jumps dramatically higher. This is from the very website that YOU cited. Bottom line more guns = more deaths.

[wwidgirl]

Could you provide a link for that thread?

Crime rates in Canada are higher but violent crime, especially homocides, are much higher in the States. I think most of Canada's crimes are of the petty or white collar sort.


A thread too late.

zimv20 and I have already done the crime rate studies of US versus Canada. Canada crime rates are higher. :eek:

[Frohickey]

Could you provide a link for that thread?

Crime rates in Canada are higher but violent crime, especially homocides, are much higher in the States. I think most of Canada's crimes are of the petty or white collar sort.

Here ya go (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=62266&page=2&highlight=crime+rate) for the old thread.

Here is snippet of my post reordering zimv20's calculations of crime rates. This is data for 2002 on both countries.

Here are the numbers using US UCR data instead of NCVS. I also reordered the line items so comparison would be simpler, 1st line to 1st line, instead of 1st line to 3rd line.

Canada
crimes of violence*: 965.5 per 100k
total population: 31.8 million
total violent crimes: approx. 307,000 (i calc'ed this)

US
per 100k: 418.8 (i calc'ed this)
US population: approx. 291 million
crimes of violence**: 1,218,600 (total)


Absolute crime numbers, which most people key upon is erroneous, since Canada has 1/9th the population of the US.

[wwidgirl]

Here ya go (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=62266&page=2&highlight=crime+rate) for the old thread.

Here is snippet of my post reordering zimv20's calculations of crime rates. This is data for 2002 on both countries.


Absolute crime numbers, which most people key upon is erroneous, since Canada has 1/9th the population of the US.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

looking at your two sources, the Canada one seems to include a lot of crimes that are not included in the US one (ie. Attempted murder, "other sexual offences", etc), which may account for the discrepancy.... which you did mention in the quoted thread. Your comparison is very misleading.

[Frohickey]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

looking at your two sources, the Canada one seems to include a lot of crimes that are not included in the US one (ie. Attempted murder, "other sexual offences", etc), which may account for the discrepancy.... which you did mention in the quoted thread. Your comparison is very misleading.

From the DOJ link...
Note: The serious violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide.

From the Canada Statistics link...
. "Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person. "Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm" is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm. "Aggravated assault level 3" is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.
2. Includes unlawfully causing bodily harm, discharging firearms with intent, abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers and other assaults

Even if you include the 'other sexual offenses' which amount to 12 victims/100K, that would not suddenly make Canada a safer place.

Also, in the US, at least when I worked for a major metropolitan police force, attempted murder was also classified as aggravated assault. Attempted murder is almost always a transitory crime label. Police officers and detectives book the suspect under attempted murder when it is unknown if the victim will survive or not. If the victim dies, it changes into murder or homicide. If the victim survives, it changes into aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon.

[wwidgirl]

From the DOJ link...


From the Canada Statistics link...


Even if you include the 'other sexual offenses' which amount to 12 victims/100K, that would not suddenly make Canada a safer place.

Also, in the US, at least when I worked for a major metropolitan police force, attempted murder was also classified as aggravated assault. Attempted murder is almost always a transitory crime label. Police officers and detectives book the suspect under attempted murder when it is unknown if the victim will survive or not. If the victim dies, it changes into murder or homicide. If the victim survives, it changes into aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon.

Does aggrevated assault include everything that is included in the assault levels? Assaults levels 1-3 make up a lot of the numbers so what is included here is very important.

I still contend that you cannot compare these two sources as the data gathered do not adhere to the same criteria.

[takao]

for those interested in the german numbers..i found the official ones from 2002
http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2002/index2.html
a short summary in english is available too

http://www.bmi.gv.at/kriminalstatistik/statistik_2002.asp
austrian statistics but only in german

if somebody is interested

[Frohickey]

Does aggrevated assault include everything that is included in the assault levels? Assaults levels 1-3 make up a lot of the numbers so what is included here is very important.

I still contend that you cannot compare these two sources as the data gathered do not adhere to the same criteria.

Its just the way the numbers were presented in the original sources. If you were adding the numbers together anyway, the difference between (A+B)+C and A+(B+C) is still zero.

[wwidgirl]

Its just the way the numbers were presented in the original sources. If you were adding the numbers together anyway, the difference between (A+B)+C and A+(B+C) is still zero.

But how do you know that the crimes included in assault level 1-3 (CAN) are all included in the category of "violent crime" (US)?

[Desertrat]

Out of curiosity, how many of the folks here who favor gun control laws as strict as we now have in the U.S. have ever:

1. Done any notable or regular amount of shooting?
2. Attended or had a table at a gun show?
3. Spoken regularly with, or ridden with, their local police?
4. Have, or know somebody who has, a Handgun Carry License/Permit?
5. Has hunted more than just once or twice, or who is well-acquinted with hunters?

It's probably quite obvious that I'm an "All of the above". :) #1 since around 1941.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Competing item of curiosity: How many people here who oppose all forms of gun control have ever had someone in their own household point a gun at their head?

[skunk]

I've never wanted or needed a gun and I know nobody who has one. Armed police are on call, but rarely needed. Cops on the beat are unarmed. I prefer it that way.

[Frohickey]

I've never wanted or needed a gun and I know nobody who has one. Armed police are on call, but rarely needed. Cops on the beat are unarmed. I prefer it that way.

Call the police (9-11) and call pizza delivery... see which one gets there first.

[Frohickey]

Out of curiosity, how many of the folks here who favor gun control laws as strict as we now have in the U.S. have ever:

1. Done any notable or regular amount of shooting?
2. Attended or had a table at a gun show?
3. Spoken regularly with, or ridden with, their local police?
4. Have, or know somebody who has, a Handgun Carry License/Permit?
5. Has hunted more than just once or twice, or who is well-acquinted with hunters?

It's probably quite obvious that I'm an "All of the above". :) #1 since around 1941.

'Rat

Hmm... I'm an "All of the above" though, just barely. Only hunted 3 times in my life. Thank God for Campbells Chunky soups. :p

[skunk]

Call the police (9-11) and call pizza delivery... see which one gets there first.
In case you hadn't noticed I'm not on your side of the pond. There's no local police station here any more anyway: none needed. And I don't like pizza. And what has this got to do with anything?

[Frohickey]

Accompanying item of curiosity: How many people here who support all forms of gun control believe that an inanimate object could make demons out of good men, and saints out of evil men?

[skunk]

Accompanying item of curiosity: How many people here who support all forms of gun control believe that an inanimate object could make demons out of good men, and saints out of evil men?
You talking about the Almighty Dollar? :)

But seriously, that "inanimate object" - I presume you are referring to some appendage or other - just makes people more dangerous to themselves and others. No moral judgment required.

[pseudobrit]

an inanimate object could make demons out of good men

Happens everyday. It's called money.

[pseudobrit]

In case you hadn't noticed I'm not on your side of the pond. There's no local police station here any more anyway: none needed. And I don't like pizza. And what has this got to do with anything?

He's trying to tell us that government is bad.

[skunk]

He's trying to tell us that government is bad.
And pizza is good?

[Frohickey]

Happens everyday. It's called money.

Ah, so that is why you are always for anything that takes money away from people that earn it. But always, you want the money to be accumulated by government, so that must mean that government is evil. :p

You know, if money causes evil, then you should send your money to me, I'll rid the money of its evil tendencies, and I'll return it to you, after I take an exorcism fee. :p :p :p

[Neserk]

And pizza is good?


Pizza is like sex. When it is good it is *really* good. And when it is bad? It is still pretty good.


:D Sorry, had to throw that one in!

[takao]

1. Done any notable or regular amount of shooting?

P-80 (military version of the glock 17):
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_p80.shtml

MG-74 ( modernized austrian version of the MG 42):
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_mg74.shtml

StG 77 (Steyr AUG):
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_stg77.shtml

and other stuff like a anti Tank RPG (that only once) and a few real hand grenades

i didn't get to shot with the heavy MG ..you know nobody wants to take it apart afterwards for cleaning ;)


2. Attended or had a table at a gun show?

no

3. Spoken regularly with, or ridden with, their local police?

the father of one of my friend is policeman..i speak with him from time to time

4. Have, or know somebody who has, a Handgun Carry License/Permit?

the policeman can carry one if he wants in his free time ... but he said "i don't want to carry that thing around all the time" ..he never had to use it during service _ever_ (with using i include: drawing the gun and pointing at someone)

5. Has hunted more than just once or twice, or who is well-acquinted with hunters?

what has hunting to do with gun laws ? do you think _serious_ hunting is forbidden with stricter gun laws ?... we have a lot hunters here but they need hunting license + weapons owner ID

are they allowed to bear arms outside the forest ? no

here there is weapons ownership ID card which you need if you are sport shooting/hunting and you have to keep your gun/ammo seperatly locked at home (police are controlling this randomly), all your guns are listed on your Weapons Ownership card and you have to take psychological tests every 3-5 years and i guess you have to take a security course too (organized by police...but thats only for new gun owners ..those who have them for years don't need that)

if you want to bear arms in public you need an extra license,multiple psychological tests (which need to be freshed up every year),extense security courses etc. tests etc. etc. only a few people besides police/army have them...example bodyguards of dangered VIPs etc.

[Desertrat]

Thanks, takao, Frohickey. I was just curious.

A common problem in many discussions is that those who don't know anything about guns will use "facts" in arguments about them that just aren't factual at all.

For instance, you hear the term "Cop Killer" bullets. This is a media invention, mostly; such have never been made. Not at all. At the time of the brouhaha, no policeman had ever been wounded, much less killed by a teflon-coated, steel-cored bullet. (The weird thing is, these cartridges were only sold to police.)

Then there was the "Assault Weapon" ban. This outlawed an AK-type rifle from having a bayonet lug, among the more notable requirements. This, inspite of the lack of driveby bayonettings. :D In this same law was a ban on magazines ("clips") of more than ten-round capacity. Apparently the lawmakers were unaware that it is not at all difficult to fire a shot and hit the target; reload with a fresh magazine, and fire and make the next hit in one second. (A regular part of weekend shooting by thousands of people in competition matches.)

Now there is chatter against rifles which can fire the .50 Browning Machine Gun cartridge. This is due to a fear of its long-range capabilities. To use it at long range, however, requires more precision than making a goal in basketball across the full length of the court; the trajectories are of the same shape. Civilian use in the U.S. is pretty much limited to those who have some $4,000 or more in disposable income. They mostly are members of clubs who compete over precisely known distances at stationary targets from fixed rests. Few--if any--"assassins" are going to try to sneak around with a 15-kilo, 1.5-meter long rifle. (There are too many 100-year-old hunting rifles which are more than half as effective. Think "Mauser", "Steyr" and "Lee-Enfield")

For the record, I know of no NRA member who would object to laws which could actually have any effect in reducing crime. The arguments are mostly over efficacy.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

IJ, I don't know anybody who opposes "all" forms of gun control. I subscribe (at a minimum) to the ideas found in the Anti-Federalist Papers. :)

At age twelve, I learned that when pointed at me, a .22 rifle had a hole as big as a trash can. That lesson came in handy, 20 years later on Charles Whitman Day.

To have any weapon proposed to be used against you is at the least a scary thing. However, I note that if an antagonist is within some 20 feet, a common kitchen knife is as dangerous as a gun. Within six feet I can disarm a person with a gun; against a knife I'm near-helpless; at a minimum, wounded.

'Rat

[takao]

well i have nothing against hunters,sport-shooting etc. those people who want that can do it here too as long as they keep there guns safe ...
it is the same with knives here...pocket knives with longer blades than 7 cm (i guess or was it 8 ?) are forbidden too.just like long surving-knives/military knives (there is a restriction to 14-15 cm i guess)
same for swords ... your not allowed to have those sharpened etc.
ninja throwing things (how are they called in english?) are forbidden to bear liek other throwing knives
this japanese combat thing 2 sticks forbidden with chain is forbidden too..to have in public... they are only allowed for shows etc.
etc etc.

so weapon laws are not only about guns thanks for bringing up that point desert rat

but the big difference is that it is easier for somebody to pull a trigger than to kill somebody with a knife...for that you need a lot of guts or need to be _real angered_...

what about this psychological tests gun owners have to take here ? isn't that a good idea ? i mean you can still get a gun if you really want one
combined with courses for a gun ownership ID..
i mean you need a license for driving a car..so what wrong with a "driving license for gun owners" i really like that idea ...

[mactastic]

1. Done any notable or regular amount of shooting?

At least a couple times a year I go visit a friend and his dad in the Shasta area. He's a gun dealer, he sells on consignment. Literally everywhere you turn in his house there are guns, knives and various forms of weaponry. When I go, we inevitably go shooting, followed by cleaning of the weapons. I don't know if that's notable or regular, but I'm not ignorant of how a gun works.

2. Attended or had a table at a gun show?

Been to a couple. Never had a table.

3. Spoken regularly with, or ridden with, their local police?

Friend of mine was a cop. I rode with him many times. It's amazing what you can get away with in your private vehicle if you can flash a badge at the cop who pulls you over...

4. Have, or know somebody who has, a Handgun Carry License/Permit?

Don't have one myself, but I do know two people who do.

5. Has hunted more than just once or twice, or who is well-acquinted with hunters?

Well, I've gone bow-hunting a couple times, never gotten anything though. Not much in the way of hunting, mostly when I head to the wilderness I'm interested in covering ground and/or finding a summit to climb.

I'm considering my first firearm purchase actually. The more wilderness camping I do, the more I want my own protection. Up till now I have been unwilling (actually mostly unable) to plunk down $500 or so, but since I've actually got a job wherein I can indulge some of my interests and I'm thinking about trying to cover a significant portion of the John Muir trail next summer the issue has come up. Plus I'm gonna need a good safe...

[SlyHunter]

[From the age of 15 I shot everything from bb guns, 22, 12 gauge, m-16, 50 cal, and law. Stripped everything down clean and repair except for the law and 50 cal.

never sold guns in or outside of a gun show. Cops use to hang out at my house when I was a kid. My step father had a monopoly of parking in downtown Orlando and somehow built up a friendship with allot of them. He also did private eye work but it was boring stuff mostly.

Carried a gun for 5 years (not counting my military time) while working as a security guard.

Never hunted other than refrigerators, paper targets, and one woodpecker. The guy accross the street hunted both bow and rifle for deer. I did the math once and found it was cheaper to buy a whole cow from a grocery store or butcher then to go thru the crap of equipment, permits, and other stuff to legally shoot your quota of 1 deer. If the quota was higher it would've been more worth while but he did it for fun and food. I never saw any fun shooting any living thing and would only do it for food or defense. Most of my extended range family members are big time hunters and gun toaters up north in middle of the woods where nobody will arrest you for openly carrying a weapon irregardless what the law about it actually was.

The secret of 50 cal weapon is to mount it and target trees at varrying distances marking on your tripod where those trees are. Then later when/if the enemy comes at you, you note which tree he's next to and sweep the area based on your markings. Its not really a good weapon to aim at people and actually think your going to hit him. Its best vs vehicles.

[skunk]

The secret of 50 cal weapon is to mount it and target trees at varrying distances marking on your tripod where those trees are. Then later when/if the enemy comes at you, you note which tree he's next to and sweep the area based on your markings. Its not really a good weapon to aim at people and actually think your going to hit him. Its best vs vehicles.
Well thanks, Sly. That'll come in really useful in Richmond Park... :)

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I don't know anybody who opposes "all" forms of gun control. I subscribe (at a minimum) to the ideas found in the Anti-Federalist Papers. :)

Well you loaded the question, so to speak, by asking it of people "who favor gun control laws as strict as we now have in the U.S." As we've discussed so many times before, gun control in the U.S. is a patchwork a relatively weak and ineffective laws. It virtually doesn't exist in the U.S., when compared to other western nations. So perhaps I didn't quite understand what you meant by the question. What's more, I don't see the connection between being a shooter and having an opinion about gun control.

Now, we've had enough arguments about gun control on this board to know that your statement isn't entirely accurate. We could both name several people who've made absolutist Second Amendment arguments, and persist in making them even when it's pointed out that no court has ever agreed with their interpretation of the Constitution.

Finally, I notice that my alternate question was studiously ignored.

[Frohickey]

if you want to bear arms in public you need an extra license,multiple psychological tests (which need to be freshed up every year),extense security courses etc. tests etc. etc. only a few people besides police/army have them...example bodyguards of dangered VIPs etc.

How about the criminal that would rob, maim and kill you? Do they need to get an extra license and take multiple psychological tests before they *can* bear arms in public?

[Frohickey]

I'm considering my first firearm purchase actually. The more wilderness camping I do, the more I want my own protection. Up till now I have been unwilling (actually mostly unable) to plunk down $500 or so, but since I've actually got a job wherein I can indulge some of my interests and I'm thinking about trying to cover a significant portion of the John Muir trail next summer the issue has come up. Plus I'm gonna need a good safe...

Protection against 4-legged animals (bears,mt lions,etc)/no-legged animals (venomous snakes) or protection against 2-legged animals (Cary Stayner wannabes).

There are inexpensive one-handgun gun-boxes that are permanently mounted in hidden places with good strong locking mechanisms.

Did you know that the National Parks system does not allow the carrying of concealed or loaded weapons by visitors (http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/e-mail/weapons.htm)? There is an organization (http://www.ourcivilrights.org/) that is trying to change this.

[Frohickey]

Well thanks, Sly. That'll come in really useful in Richmond Park... :)

What Sly mentions is the common use of what is known as a 'range card'. You know what the distance is to various landmarks from your position, and you aim/adjust your aim according in order to hit the target.

[Frohickey]

Well you loaded the question, so to speak, by asking it of people "who favor gun control laws as strict as we now have in the U.S." As we've discussed so many times before, gun control in the U.S. is a patchwork a relatively weak and ineffective laws. It virtually doesn't exist in the U.S., when compared to other western nations. So perhaps I didn't quite understand what you meant by the question. What's more, I don't see the connection between being a shooter and having an opinion about gun control.

Now, we've had enough arguments about gun control on this board to know that your statement isn't entirely accurate. We could both name several people who've made absolutist Second Amendment arguments, and persist in making them even when it's pointed out that no court has ever agreed with their interpretation of the Constitution.

Finally, I notice that my alternate question was studiously ignored.

Gun control has always been made in an appeal to control crime. And this is a flawed concept that needs serious rethinking. Who are the ones that will follow gun control laws? Who are the ones that will follow anti-murder laws? Who are the ones that will follow anti-robbery laws?

Even the US vs Miller case upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms, and in an honest reading of the case, the only weapons that are protected from infringement are weapons used by the military. :eek: Gun control people conveniently gloss over this fact and focus on the 'militia' aspect of the case.

[takao]

How about the criminal that would rob, maim and kill you? Do they need to get an extra license and take multiple psychological tests before they *can* bear arms in public?

well robbery with guns is nearly non existent here... as far as i remeber there are sometimes cases with taxi drivers which get threatened... from behind with knives

criminal will always get weapons......BUT if there are less guns around in the beginning it is much more difficult to get them...

are there parts in your country/city where you don't want to go at night without a gun ?

[Frohickey]

well robbery with guns is nearly non existent here... as far as i remeber there are sometimes cases with taxi drivers which get threatened... from behind with knives

criminal will always get weapons......BUT if there are less guns around in the beginning it is much more difficult to get them...

are there parts in your country/city where you don't want to go at night without a gun ?

So, you are not really averse to crime or robbery, you are just against crimes that use guns. Did I read that correctly?

Banning weapons, which can enable victims to confront their attackers, makes things easier for the attackers.

[Frohickey]

Competing item of curiosity: How many people here who oppose all forms of gun control have ever had someone in their own household point a gun at their head?

Not me. I teach proper gun handling techniques and courtesy to members of my household.

[IJ Reilly]

well robbery with guns is nearly non existent here... as far as i remeber there are sometimes cases with taxi drivers which get threatened... from behind with knives

criminal will always get weapons......BUT if there are less guns around in the beginning it is much more difficult to get them...

are there parts in your country/city where you don't want to go at night without a gun ?

You must try to forgive Frohickey. He is one of a particular class of Americans who can't seem to grasp the idea that most people in the world live with neither guns nor fear.

[Frohickey]

You must try to forgive Frohickey. He is one of a particular class of Americans who can't seem to grasp the idea that most people in the world live with neither guns nor fear.

You must also forgive IJ Reilly. He is one of a particular class of americans who can't seem to grasp the idea that most people in the world do not fear inanimate objects.

[Krizoitz]

So, you are not really averse to crime or robbery, you are just against crimes that use guns. Did I read that correctly?

Banning weapons, which can enable victims to confront their attackers, makes things easier for the attackers.

What a horrible argument, honestly. Just because we want to limit gun use doesn't mean we aren't also averse to other crimes. Simple because you oppose one thing more than others doesn't mean you don't oppose the other things.

If you can limit crimes caused with guns, then you can move on to other crimes.

[takao]

So, you are not really averse to crime or robbery, you are just against crimes that use guns. Did I read that correctly?

Banning weapons, which can enable victims to confront their attackers, makes things easier for the attackers.

well it's not banning weapons its restricting weapons theres a differnce in that...

1.well robbery is no danger for your live or is it ?

2. if the chance is high that the robbed person has a gun -> the criminal will get a gun to to rob him
if the person don't have a gun will the criminal has to get a gun too ? maybe not...

3. there are lots of unarmed ways of fighting/ways to unarm a armed opponenton short distance...(where most robberies happen) where the chance of surviving is _better_ than drawing a gun (and there are also things like pepper sprays etc. to knock out opponents..)

answer my question: are there parts in your country/city where you wouldn't go at 3 am without a weapon ?

do i fear violence/crime ? yes ... do i fear it so much that i feel unprotected without a gun/pepper spray? no
i fear crime the same way like i fear war, deadly spiders/snakes,a white tiger suddenly appearing in my kitchen, terrorism,power abuse,car accident,gun owners....
do i fear this fears so much that i let them control my life ? no... i still will only lock my door when i am asleep or not at home ...

[Krizoitz]

This has drifted away from the earlier argument. Takao makes the excellent point that if you have less guns even criminals will have a hard time getting them. In any case, its pretty obvious that the more guns the more gun related crimes. So here's a few questions.

Are the large number of gun crimes worth the few that might be prevented by people carrying concealed wepaons?

What benefit do guns in society provide?

Do those benefits outweigh the costs?

[mactastic]

Protection against 4-legged animals (bears,mt lions,etc)/no-legged animals (venomous snakes) or protection against 2-legged animals (Cary Stayner wannabes).

Well, you know me... I figure I can handle most two-legged predators without a gun. I'm more worried about bear encounters than an assault attempt in the woods.

There are inexpensive one-handgun gun-boxes that are permanently mounted in hidden places with good strong locking mechanisms.

Yeah I've seen them. I might need a little more room than that though... ;)

Did you know that the National Parks system does not allow the carrying of concealed or loaded weapons by visitors (http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/e-mail/weapons.htm)? There is an organization (http://www.ourcivilrights.org/) that is trying to change this.

Yes, I've heard that. I'd only take it when I'm going into the real wilderness, not some NP campground. Besides, wouldn't a trigger lock on an unloaded handgun keep them happy?

[Frohickey]

What a horrible argument, honestly. Just because we want to limit gun use doesn't mean we aren't also averse to other crimes. Simple because you oppose one thing more than others doesn't mean you don't oppose the other things.

If you can limit crimes caused with guns, then you can move on to other crimes.

There are already plenty of laws that prohibit crimes, be it with guns, bats, fists, etc. Just enforce these laws. Make jail time be very hard time, making small rocks out of big rocks. Or make the punishment for the crime equally difficult. Murder should get you death, not 5 to 10, with no chance of parole.

[mactastic]

I believe you've come up with a new punishment Frohickey. Death, with no chance of parole!

[takao]

There are already plenty of laws that prohibit crimes, be it with guns, bats, fists, etc. Just enforce these laws. Make jail time be very hard time, making small rocks out of big rocks. Or make the punishment for the crime equally difficult. Murder should get you death, not 5 to 10, with no chance of parole.

please no discussion about death penalty...
:rolleyes: how many are waiting for their execution in the USA ?
and how many are waiting for death penalty somewhere where it is comparable.. like the EU ?

[Frohickey]

well it's not banning weapons its restricting weapons theres a differnce in that...

1.well robbery is no danger for your live or is it ?

2. if the chance is high that the robbed person has a gun -> the criminal will get a gun to to rob him
if the person don't have a gun will the criminal has to get a gun too ? maybe not...

3. there are lots of unarmed ways of fighting/ways to unarm a armed opponenton short distance...(where most robberies happen) where the chance of surviving is _better_ than drawing a gun (and there are also things like pepper sprays etc. to knock out opponents..)

answer my question: are there parts in your country/city where you wouldn't go at 3 am without a weapon ?

do i fear violence/crime ? yes ... do i fear it so much that i feel unprotected without a gun/pepper spray? no
i fear crime the same way like i fear war, deadly spiders/snakes,a white tiger suddenly appearing in my kitchen, terrorism,power abuse,car accident,gun owners....
do i fear this fears so much that i let them control my life ? no... i still will only lock my door when i am asleep or not at home ...

Robbery is a crime against a person, not a crime against property. Theft is a crime against property. Plus, there is no guarantee that if you give a robber what he/she wants, that you will escape harm. There are graves with people in them that complied with the robber, and still got murdered after the robbery.

If there is a high chance that the victim has the means to protect themselves, a robber might just rethink their choice of employment.

Unarmed ways of fighting, or running away. How about people in wheelchairs? How about people with difficulty moving about? Pepper spray does not always work either. Some people are not affected as others with pepper spray or chemical sprays. Just like some people are not affected by multiple taser hits, just like Rodney King.

Yes, there are parts of the country where I wouldn't go at 3AM without a means of escape or protecting myself. But there lies the crux of the issue. While, *I* might have the choice of not being in that part of the country, *OTHERS* do not have the choice. Some people live there. Should they live there in fear for their lives then? How magnanimous of you to deprive them of the means to protect themselves. :eek:

I fear crime, same way as black ugly spiders, and nude photos of Janet Reno, and no, I do not let my fear control my life. But, and here is the big one, I fear giving *OTHERS* control over my life, and the means with which to protect it. That is the crux of the issue. You want control over my life.

[Frohickey]

I believe you've come up with a new punishment Frohickey. Death, with no chance of parole!

Once again, you flunk Reading Comprehension 101.

[mactastic]

Murder should get you death, not 5 to 10, with no chance of parole.

My understanding of grammer says you can pull a dependant clause out and still read the sentence intact. It appears YOU flunked grammer 101, I read this statement to mean:
Murder should get you death, <dependant clause extracted>, with no chance of parole.

If you'd like, I can get the professional opinion of an English teacher.... :D

[takao]

Robbery is a crime against a person, not a crime against property. Theft is a crime against property. Plus, there is no guarantee that if you give a robber what he/she wants, that you will escape harm. There are graves with people in them that complied with the robber, and still got murdered after the robbery.

1.why does somebody rob another person ? because of the person or of the money ?
2. well then learn self defense...

If there is a high chance that the victim has the means to protect themselves, a robber might just rethink their choice of employment.

they _might_...but are they doing this ?... if that argument would hold true america would have very small rates of robbery...


Unarmed ways of fighting, or running away. How about people in wheelchairs? How about people with difficulty moving about? Pepper spray does not always work either. Some people are not affected as others with pepper spray or chemical sprays. Just like some people are not affected by multiple taser hits, just like Rodney King.

are people in wheel chairs robbed more often than normal people ? remember: people who rob not only go for the easiest target..they go for the target which might have _money_ and is _easy_....
yes pepper spray doesn't work always but even a gun fails sometimes or do they work 100% .. equipment always tend to fail when you need it ;)


Yes, there are parts of the country where I wouldn't go at 3AM without a means of escape or protecting myself. But there lies the crux of the issue. While, *I* might have the choice of not being in that part of the country, *OTHERS* do not have the choice. Some people live there. Should they live there in fear for their lives then? How magnanimous of you to deprive them of the means to protect themselves. :eek:

just ask yourself _why_ these parts of your country exist


I fear crime, same way as black ugly spiders, and nude photos of Janet Reno, and no, I do not let my fear control my life. But, and here is the big one, I fear giving *OTHERS* control over my life, and the means with which to protect it. That is the crux of the issue. You want control over my life.

i don't mind what your doing in the USA ...you know i'm far away ;)
what if others can protect your life better than you can do it yourself ?
i not only want myself living in security but also others..without fearing each other....
if everybody was bearing guns..sure it might be safer but it would be safe like the cold war between soviet union and the USA ...it would be like a cold war in society

in the USA, one of the richest countries of the world, nobody needs to fear ...but everybody choose to fear :confused: i guess i just can't understand that

is there a citypart where i wouldn't go at 3 am without arms ? no

but i guess i am spoiled...i live 25 meter away from the central police headquarters of tyrol......... ;)

i had to run around with a assault rifle for 8 months ...and i hated every single minute... (except 2 months of border patrol where we really helped our country by controlling cars/persons or boring dark woods)

live you life but keep your guns in your pocket .... ;)

[Frohickey]

what if others can protect your life better than you can do it yourself ?
i not only want myself living in security but also others..without fearing each other....

live you life but keep your guns in your pocket .... ;)

Are you talking about police or personal bodyguards? Police are not by your side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Personal bodyguards cost plenty of money too. Are you saying that the lives of poor people are worth less than the lives of rich people who can pay for their own personal bodyguards? They are capable to being their own personal bodyguards. Also, time and again, court cases have said that police have NO DUTY to protect individual members of society, just the society at large. How do you reconcile this with your belief system?

If people are *able* to carry concealed weapons, and they remain concealed and not used against people to initiate violence, how is that harming your security? If anything, they help *your security*, even if you choose not to carry. Criminals now have to be more wary as to who might be a difficult victim and who might be an easy victim. Just the fact that people are *able* to carry, not everyone is carrying, makes you safer.


Okay, scenario time.
A) CCW is not allowed by law.
Criminals know CCW is not allowed, they can go to town, robbing and raping knowing that potential victims are likely to be unarmed. The ones that are armed are off-duty police officers, and these are less than 1% of the population. Criminals need to only watch for the 1% (police officers) or fellow criminals that are violating the CCW law, or difficult targets (bodybuilders, self defense instructors, etc)

B) CCW is allowed by law.
Criminals know CCW is allowed, they have to watch out for people who might be armed. This would include the 1% (police officers), difficult targets (bodybuilders, self defense instructors, etc), and between 0-99% of people that *might* have chosen to CCW. Their pool of victims just shrank, and it might be slim pickings, and time to go get that job sweeping floors and wiping tables for Uncle Joe's restaurant.

[Desertrat]

takao, there are many sad and tragic aspects to what we've done to ourselves in this country.

In many of our cities' slum areas, the firemen will not respond to a fire until police have checked the area to see if it's a "real" event or if it might be a false call where somebody will shoot at the firemen. In these sorts of areas, cops always work in pairs, day and night. It is common in some cities at night for there to be helicopters with "Sunlights" overhead when there is a response by police, firemen or emergency medics.

Mostly, these are slum areas populated by blacks and latins, the "ghettos" and "barrios".

The majority of armed crime here involves getting the money to buy drugs, or to control one's area for selling drugs. Away from that, there are by comparison many fewer shootings.

At the website for the Center For Disease Control, a federal government entity, you can find the data for "who did what to whom, and with what". The data is given by race, among other categories. The homicide rate among blacks is some 2/3 to 3/4 of the total. Per 100,000, the homicide rate among whites, asians and latins is roughly the same as the overall average of Europe.

In many smaller towns and in rural areas, most live life pretty much free from any danger from Bad Guys. Even such things as family violence tends to be somewhat milder--bare hands, rather than weapons.

As far as the psychiatry, the law prohibits selling a firearm to anybody with a history of mental health problems, commonly defined as involuntary incarceration in a mental health facility. Unfortunately for the issue of firearms availability, these records are withheld under privacy laws and are commonly unavailable. There is also the underlying issue here that you're innocent until proven guilty, and cannot be punished for what is yet undone. This holds for the sane as well as the nutzoid. However, there is a trivial amount of hostility with a firearm by those who at the time of purchase had a (later-discovered) record of mental health problems. It is far more common for the gun legally to have been in a household for some number of years before some sadness happens.

Something else to remember: Our courts have held that the police have no responsibility for the safety of any individual citizen, absent an action occurring within their view. The only person here who is responsible for your safety is you. I'm pretty doggoned competent at self defense, for one near 70 years of age. I would be relatively helpless against three or four young and healthy Hostiles, whether or not they have weapons of any sort whatsoever. (In 1993, some 2,400 people were killed by the use of fists and feet. That was just in the state of New York.) To me, then, a pistol is just another form of insurance. I've never had a major car wreck, but I have insurance. I've never had a house burn down, but I have insurance.

A street-cop saying is, "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." A saying yet believed by the elite of the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Rangers, is, "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size." I teach pistol shooting. It is quite soul-satisfying to watch a woman come to the realization that she has become the same size as a 300-pound National Footbal League lineman. She can control her own destiny...

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Oops! Sorry, IJ. I had assumed it was clear from the "at age 12" thing that nobody within my house had ever pointed a gun at me--whether carelessly or with some evil intent. There have been guns around my family's houses since the 1800s, but we're peaceful folks.

I've never had occasion to draw upon anybody, either. My ex-wife recited from the Scriptures to an intruder in our house one time, holding her towel around her with one hand and her Ruger Blackhawk with the other. He got the message, and left peacefully.

On another occasion, we had a drunken intruder into our yard. She wouldn't take a drink with him, and was somewhat upset when he threatened to shoot her. When he also threatened to shoot her dog she became irate and sought assistance from Mr. Ruger--the intruder left, which was wise. It's not a sign of intellectual brilliance to threaten an animal-lover's dog.

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

takao, there are many sad and tragic aspects to what we've done to ourselves in this country.'Rat
I must agree. I wouldn't dream of owning a gun. I have a stout knobkerry in the hall, that's all. What a paranoia-inducing lifestyle you all have over there. I had no idea you were all so afraid of each other. :eek:

[Desertrat]

skunk, most of the fearful are those who for one reason or another have decided without much depth of thought that "Guns are bad!"

By and large, most of the people I know who shoot--but do not carry with any regularity--don't exhibit much worry. I'm licensed, but don't carry. I just casually avoid those areas where there might be some necessity for the use of my "insurance".

One can live without fear without compromising any values. As a for-instance, I tend to leave a bar at, say, around 10:30 PM, because most fights break out around 11 PM or later. Those who prey on drunks tend to gather near closing time, and by then I'm long gone; gone home to a cup of coffee and a good book or some INet time. (When I owned a bar it was a whole different deal, but that's another story.)

I found it interesting that the famous red/blue map of counties won by Gore and counties won by Bush are pretty much uniform as to crime rates: Those counties which went for Bush had the lowest rates. I bring this up not as a Bush/Gore thing (it's totally irrelevant) so much as the map is a tool which geographically illustrates where our worst problems lie in this country. If you don't live in or near a major city, the rates are relatively low; basically, they parallel Europe's.

I've used "we" in prior comment because I'm sort of a "we" type of guy about this country. City or rural, we're one motley crew...After all, our whole heritage is that we're the world's outcasts, outlaws and rabble-rousers.

:), 'Rat

[Krizoitz]

"Guns are bad!"

Explain to me how guns when not used by
a) people at a shooting range or other well organized gun shooting event
b) police or military
are not a bad thing?

Explain how the few times that guns are used by individuals to protect themselves out weighs the larger number of times they are used to commit violent crimes.

Explain to me how we are better off as a society if we have guns.

The problem with gun control laws isn't that they aren't enforced, its that they have been made ineffective by the gun lobby. Maybe if the gun lobby didn't oppose every gun control law we could make some effective oens that would still allow responsible gun owners (i.e. collecters and gun club members) to have guns.

[Frohickey]

I must agree. I wouldn't dream of owning a gun. I have a stout knobkerry in the hall, that's all. What a paranoia-inducing lifestyle you all have over there. I had no idea you were all so afraid of each other. :eek:

Its not a paranoia-inducing lifestyle. Its a self-dependency lifestyle. :D

The other thing you have remind yourself is...
A gun, a quality piece runs around $500. Some even more.
Shooting and maintaining proficiency takes some more $$$.
So, the likelihood is that the person that buys and owns guns is someone with disposable income, might actually be well-to-do person.
A gun enthusiast would be even more so.
Are you actually afraid that these people would suddenly commit crimes against people, going on a robbing rampage? :eek:

I, once was at a local Silicon Valley gun store, perusing the gun department counter and frustrating the counter person trying to keep the glass counter drool-free :D, when I saw a Fortune 500 tech-industry CEO looking over an HK USP9, and starting to get the paperwork started on buying it. I didn't have the nerve to tell him polymer guns are gunk, not to mention, a HK USP45 would be better . :D :D :p

[IJ Reilly]

Oops! Sorry, IJ. I had assumed it was clear from the "at age 12" thing that nobody within my house had ever pointed a gun at me--whether carelessly or with some evil intent.

I came this close to being shot by a roommate, who thought I was a burglar. I'll tell you, since you've never had this priceless experience, that staring down the wrong end of a rifle barrel while you plead with a highly agitated armed person for your very life, is a thing you don't quickly forget. You see, even people who aren't gun owners have life experiences that color their opinions of such matters.

[Frohickey]

Explain to me how guns when not used by
a) people at a shooting range or other well organized gun shooting event
b) police or military
are not a bad thing?

Explain how the few times that guns are used by individuals to protect themselves out weighs the larger number of times they are used to commit violent crimes.

Explain to me how we are better off as a society if we have guns.

The problem with gun control laws isn't that they aren't enforced, its that they have been made ineffective by the gun lobby. Maybe if the gun lobby didn't oppose every gun control law we could make some effective oens that would still allow responsible gun owners (i.e. collecters and gun club members) to have guns.

Guns used to protect your life, like the original post where the woman car dealer saved her life and her daughter is a good thing.

No explanation is required. Estimates for defensive uses of guns range from 500K to 2M a year! That makes the criminal use of guns a drop in the bucket. And most of these uses did not involve the firing of the gun. Explain to me *WHY* you heard about the Columbine School shooting and how it ended, and *WHY* you have not heard about the Pearl, MS school shooting and how it ended.

Lets see. If we didn't have guns, we wouldn't have been able to kick skunk's ancestors out of this country back in the late 1700s. :D :D :D You have to agree, BBQ meat is better than boiled meat. :eek: :D :D

The problem with gun control laws is that THEY DON'T WORK. What good is it to have gun control laws that penalize law-abiding people who are not the problem to begin with? You want to control crime. The way to do that is make crime exact a very heavy toll on the criminals that commit them. Death penalty, hard labor, no comforts such as weight lifting equipment, television, radio, books, magazines, hot showers, cable tv, etc. If only prison life were twice as difficult as amish life...

[Frohickey]

I came this close to being shot by a roommate, who thought I was a burglar. I'll tell you, since you've never had this priceless experience, that staring down the wrong end of a rifle barrel while you plead with a highly agitated armed person for your very life, is a thing you don't quickly forget. You see, even people who aren't gun owners have life experiences that color their opinions of such matters.

So tell us about the details of this incident?
Were you on good terms with the roommate, you were not late on the rent, or peeing on his pillow, or anything like that? :eek:
Did you enter the domicile via the door, like every normal person does?
Did you identify yourself when asked to do so? Were you asked to identify yourself?
Did you choose to share a room with a psychologically-unstable roommate? Were there mind-altering drugs involved? Did you ever offer to share said mind-altering drugs with the roommate? :p

[takao]

Are you talking about police or personal bodyguards? Police are not by your side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Personal bodyguards cost plenty of money too. Are you saying that the lives of poor people are worth less than the lives of rich people who can pay for their own personal bodyguards?
They are capable to being their own personal bodyguards.

are guns for free ? no they cost money to buy ..keep them up...shooting training...perhaps buy another one for at home ...more training
this already seperates ;-)
sure a gun is cheaper than bodyguard...but a gun is not for free, isn't it ?

how much does a gun & ammo cost ? i have no idea because i haven't found a store here..which sels either of them...

Also, time and again, court cases have said that police have NO DUTY to protect individual members of society, just the society at large. How do you reconcile this with your belief system?

i always found that funny... court making laws...
sure they can't protect them like bodyguards ...but they can protect them as members of a society,only by presence on the streets...
( and why does the american system still need bounty hunters ? i saw that multiple times on TV...._that_ was absolutly disturbing for my beliefs)


so i'm running out of time..need to get on the bus...

nice scenarios but is it working with more guns compared to less guns ?
here we have a lot less guns per 100.000 than in the states... is it working ? yes
with 250 million guns in the US it should be _alot_ safer over there....

[Krizoitz]

Guns used to protect your life, like the original post where the woman car dealer saved her life and her daughter is a good thing.
Guns are used to take life.


No explanation is required. Estimates for defensive uses of guns range from 500K to 2M a year! That makes the criminal use of guns a drop in the bucket. And most of these uses did not involve the firing of the gun. Explain to me *WHY* you heard about the Columbine School shooting and how it ended, and *WHY* you have not heard about the Pearl, MS school shooting and how it ended.

2M a year huh? Seems a little absurd I'd like to see some details on that. Given the information from police I've talked to it doesn't seem to make sense, so I'll have to see a little more data to make me believe that one. Oh as for hearing about Columbine, maybe its because I have a cousin who was one of the ones who was injured. Don't you go talking to me about Columbine. She's lucky to be alive. She almost died because of the proliferation of irresponisble gun owners. Problem is the gun lobby doesn't want reasonable gun control laws, they don't want any.


Lets see. If we didn't have guns, we wouldn't have been able to kick skunk's ancestors out of this country back in the late 1700s. :D :D :D You have to agree, BBQ meat is better than boiled meat. :eek: :D :D

Different time period, different type of guns, do you really think a bunch of NRA gun nuts would be able to stop a full fledged invasion? Nope, not a chance. The colonists were fighting the British at an equal level of technology. Civilian owned guns are like an apendix. Useless and potentially deadly. And I'm not talking about people who go to gun ranges and/or collectors. Those people have found pretty much the only reasonable excuse to own a killing machine. Instead you're talking about allowing the average Joe to carry around a gun on the streets. Have you not seen road rage? How about we have people with guns instead of just fists. See another problem with guns is they have this tendency to shoot OTHER people.


The problem with gun control laws is that THEY DON'T WORK. What good is it to have gun control laws that penalize law-abiding people who are not the problem to begin with? You want to control crime. The way to do that is make crime exact a very heavy toll on the criminals that commit them. Death penalty, hard labor, no comforts such as weight lifting equipment, television, radio, books, magazines, hot showers, cable tv, etc. If only prison life were twice as difficult as amish life...
See the problem is that punitive punishment doesn't seem to do a great job of preventing crime either. You seem to believe that the death penalty would reduce crime. Great kill the ones who commit crime, that will bring back the people who they killed. Instead we get rid of the guns. With gun control laws that haven't been hamstrung by the gun lobby.

[Desertrat]

Krisowitz, you're ocming late to the argument. I'll repeat some prior stuff.

In 1985, the Univ. of Fla Press published the first of several investigatory, statistical studies by Wright, Rossi & Daly, "Under The Gun". A primary conclusion was that there was no evidence that any gun control law ever passed by the Florida legislature had ever had any effect on crime rates. (As to any accusation of bias, they stated they began their efforts with attitudes of neutrality to mild hostility toward firearms.)

Somewhere around 1990, Prof. Gary Kleck, of Florida State University published the results of his telephone survey of (IIRC) some 5,000 households in various ZIP code areas of the U.S. Kleck is a statistician. He might still be (in his own words) a card-carrying member of the ACLU. He concluded that there are a minimum of 800,000 times a year in the U.S. where a firearm was somehow used to end or prevent a crime. This could be as trivial a "use" as a lie of claiming, "I have a gun! Go Away!", on up to actual shooting. He stated it was possible that the actual number could be as much as three times as large, or 2.4 million. This compares with 600,000 gun-relate crimes in the year of his publication.

I ask you: What laws do you know of which are not being enforced? And, if laws are not being enforced, or are inefficacious, what good are more laws? It seems to me to be an obvious corrolary to ask who obeys laws in the first place? The only purpose of a law is to provide a method of punishment for a deed which has been done. Laws don't prevent bad actions except among the already law abiding.

You cannot stop crooks from having guns, anymore than you can stop crooks from smuggling dope and the purchasers from illegally ingesting it. We cannot stop the importation of tons of drugs into the U.S., nor stop the flow of millions of illegals; how do you expect to avoid the smuggling of guns, once a notable black-market demand develops?

You state: "Explain how the few times that guns are used by individuals to protect themselves out weighs the larger number of times they are used to commit violent crimes."

The twofold answer is quite easy: First, you have the few vs. larger reversed. Second, I use the common anti-gun remark, "If it will save just one life..."

Do I not have a right to survive some hostile encounter? Forget the Second Amendment. It has zilch, zip, nada to do with one's right to live, the right to excercise what the federal courts have held is a Civil Right. Look to the Fourteenth Amendment, for "equal protection under the law" as the basis for the federal effort shown in the movie "Mississippi Burning". The courts have held that the cops aren't required to protect me, yet I have Civil Right to live. Ergo, I must be allowed the means to protect my life.

You are welcome to put yourself into any condition of possible victimhood as you desire. I don't require that you exercise any responsibility whatsoever. I have a different view about responsibilities and rights.

'Rat

[takao]

how do you expect to avoid the smuggling of guns, once a notable black-market demand develops?

i guess there is already a notable black market for guns nearly everywhere...
i wonder what weapons are on the black market for guns in the USA are dominant ...aren't it weapons which have been manufactured in the US ?...
here the black market AFAIK is dominated by east european weapons or american weapons...

i jsut wanted to add that

[Desertrat]

As far as smuggling, it seems logical that it's a mix of availability and difficulty of transport. SFAIK, there is little in the way of imported, illegal-type weapons.

In the U.S., takao, it is a federal felony offense of a five-year minimum incarceration for anybody with a felony record to handle or possess any ammunition or any firearm at all. A felon cannot in any way even touch a firearm or ammunition.

Our Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) hs testified in public hearing before Congress that some 85% of guns used in crime are illegally acquired. Of the remainder, most were legally purchased by a qualified buyer in the years before any criminal misuse was made of them. They further testified that some 1% of criminally misused firearms were of the AK-style, the so-called "Assault Weapons".

To legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, you fill out the BATFE Form 4473, known as the "Yellow Sheet", which in part requires photo identification. To lie in your responses is perjury, subject to ten years incarceration and a $20,000 fine. The dealer then calls the FBI and you're run through the computer for a "Good Boy" check. (This is commonly done in a very few minutes.)

Subject to certain restrictions, an individual can sell to another individual without the FBI check. However, if the gun is subsequently misused in crime, the seller can be accused of "selling with the knowledge that the firearm would be used in criminal activity" which means, "Know your buyer!" It has been estimated by the FBI that such sales account for at most one percent of crime guns.

Illegal acquisition as mentioned above includes stealing guns or buying stolen guns. This is the primary method. There has been a very minute amount of purchase from licensed dealers by felons who will lie on the Yellow Sheet.

We are a nation of 300 million people. It has been estimated that some 40% or more of all households have one or more firearms, or possibly as many as 70 million people as direct owners plus wives and children. There are many estimates of the number of firearms here, guessing up to some 200 million. What is on record in BATFE is that the numbers grow by some five million, annually. At any rate, the idea of an annual psychological checkout of gunowners just isn't in any way feasible, physically or politically.

Now, we know as fact that any one robber will commit robberies many times a year until he is caught. This might be, for instance, fifty times in a year. (Hey, just look at it from his view: "I get paid weekly, OK?") If you think back to my earlier post's comment about 600,000 misuses per year, the number of criminals suddenly reduces by the number per year per criminal. In other words, out of 300 million people, we don't have very many criminals, but they're rather active. This leads into a discussion of our criminal justice system, and I just won't go there. :)

Nuff fer now...

'Rat

[Frohickey]

sure a gun is cheaper than bodyguard...but a gun is not for free, isn't it ?

sure they can't protect them like bodyguards ...but they can protect them as members of a society,only by presence on the streets...
( and why does the american system still need bounty hunters ? i saw that multiple times on TV...._that_ was absolutly disturbing for my beliefs)

with 250 million guns in the US it should be _alot_ safer over there....

You can save up to buy a gun, and ammo. Bodyguards cost a heck of a lot more.

Police do not have to protect anyone, even if a crime is being committed in front of them. Remember the Central Park groping that happened, where 5 or 6 women were groped and sexually assaulted by a large mob, while the cops looked on?

American system has bounty hunters, but those are really bail bondsmen collecting on bail jumpers.

US has 250M guns in private hands, thats almost 1 per person. Swiss have the same amount, or close to it. They are very safe too.

[Frohickey]

Guns are used to take life.

She almost died because of the proliferation of irresponisble gun owners. Problem is the gun lobby doesn't want reasonable gun control laws, they don't want any.

Different time period, different type of guns, do you really think a bunch of NRA gun nuts would be able to stop a full fledged invasion? Nope, not a chance. The colonists were fighting the British at an equal level of technology. Civilian owned guns are like an apendix. Useless and potentially deadly. And I'm not talking about people who go to gun ranges and/or collectors. Those people have found pretty much the only reasonable excuse to own a killing machine. Instead you're talking about allowing the average Joe to carry around a gun on the streets. Have you not seen road rage? How about we have people with guns instead of just fists. See another problem with guns is they have this tendency to shoot OTHER people.

See the problem is that punitive punishment doesn't seem to do a great job of preventing crime either. You seem to believe that the death penalty would reduce crime. Great kill the ones who commit crime, that will bring back the people who they killed. Instead we get rid of the guns. With gun control laws that haven't been hamstrung by the gun lobby.

Guns are designed to shoot a projectile. It could be to deliver a tranquilizer dart on a rampaging gorilla, or shot to down tasty BBQ ducks, or to shoot at a gangbanger shooting at you, or to murder an innocent. Its a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no mystique about it. There is more of a mystique over Macs than there is about guns.

You mean, proliferation of asocial young adults that do not value human life.

You already have people with road rage with cars. Throughout the United States, with the 34 states with CCW laws, there has not been an incident of road rage by a CCW permittee that has culminated in the death of innocents. Not one. Study after study have shown that CCW permittees are more law-abiding than the general population. In fact, they are more law-abiding than police officers! :eek:

Make it difficult to commit a crime, you will have less crime. Simple as that. You make gun control laws that criminals are going to disobey anyway, and you have just disarmed innocent victims that could be armed to make them into difficult victims.

[Desertrat]

There's a thread running at http://wwwthehighroad.org about Bounty Hunters. One thing that is overlooked is that in order to get a Bail Bondsman to put up the money for you (generic "you") to be released from jail, you sign a contract. In it, you agree that he has the right to do whatever is necessary to force you to appear in court. He is merely enforcing a contract to which the Bailee agreed to. Bounty Hunters are only used when somebody has fled and has reneged on their sworn word.

The fact that some Bounty Hunters are sleazoid cretins and walking justfications for retroactive birth control is beside the point. The great majority are not.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

i guess there is already a notable black market for guns nearly everywhere...
i wonder what weapons are on the black market for guns in the USA are dominant ...aren't it weapons which have been manufactured in the US ?...
here the black market AFAIK is dominated by east european weapons or american weapons...

i jsut wanted to add that

There, its probably because guns are illegal or banned. People still want them and are willing to pay for them, hence the creation of the market.

Here, in the US, there is a commercial market for guns for law-abiding, non-prohibited people. There is no incentive for these law-abiding non-prohibited people to participate in the black market. Any black market in guns here in the US would be for prohibited people, and for arms that are in the prohibited category, like short barrelled guns, automatic guns, silenced guns, destructive devices, explosives, etc.

[Krizoitz]

Make it difficult to commit a crime, you will have less crime. Simple as that. You make gun control laws that criminals are going to disobey anyway, and you have just disarmed innocent victims that could be armed to make them into difficult victims.

And getting rid of guns makes it pretty difficult to commit gun related crimes. If you reduce the number of guns then even criminals aren't going to be able to get them.

Takao has brought up a point that so far you haven't addressed. If having guns available reduces crime, how come the US has more gun crimes per capita?

[SlyHunter]

And getting rid of guns makes it pretty difficult to commit gun related crimes. If you reduce the number of guns then even criminals aren't going to be able to get them.

Takao has brought up a point that so far you haven't addressed. If having guns available reduces crime, how come the US has more gun crimes per capita?
Cirminals will always be able to get guns. Their not any harder to make than coke, heroin, or a variety of other things that are also illegal.

[pseudobrit]

If we didn't have guns, we wouldn't have been able to kick skunk's ancestors out of this country back in the late 1700s. :D :D :D

Or subjugate and annihilate entire races of people.

My ancestors weren't in this country back in the late 1700s. They were in Ireland being subjugated. Later, the people in that country murdered, assasinated and terrorised their way to (partial) independence.

[Frohickey]

And getting rid of guns makes it pretty difficult to commit gun related crimes. If you reduce the number of guns then even criminals aren't going to be able to get them.

Takao has brought up a point that so far you haven't addressed. If having guns available reduces crime, how come the US has more gun crimes per capita?

Genie is out of the bottle with regards to guns. Remember, guns are pretty much 17th century technology, with some minor improvements and mass production advances and stuff. Gun related crime is not the problem. Its crime that is the problem. Solve the problem, not the symptom.

Does the US have more violent crime per capita? Did the US see an increase or decrease in violent crime per capita when gun-carry laws were instituted? Time to look at the penal system and the punishment meted out to the types of crimes. I'd like to have a statistic of how many victims used various weapons to kill their attackers, versus how many victims the attacker have had until the final one.

Remember, its of no consolation to the 5'2" petite woman who just withstood rape, and is in the process of being strangled with her pantyhose that the rapist did not use a gun because of draconian gun control laws.

[mactastic]

If having guns available reduces crime, how come the US has more gun crimes per capita?

I've heard it said that it's because of our mixed ethnicity. :mad:

And even in this forum you'll hear that if you remove the black-on-black crime the numbers even out. Which is the same as saying it's because of our mixed ethnicity.

If only we could remove those pesky blacks.....

[takao]

Police do not have to protect anyone, even if a crime is being committed in front of them. Remember the Central Park groping that happened, where 5 or 6 women were groped and sexually assaulted by a large mob, while the cops looked on?

i don't remember this..you know this stuff doesn't get mentioned in our news...

when i read this i was like "Oh my god....please let him say 'that was only a joke' in the next paragraph"... they policemen only stood their when those women were crying for help ?..... thats sounds just so completly unreal for me..
:eek:

here when somebody gets attacked by somebody else and you stand there only watching without helping the person...well in front of the court you can get the same punishment as the attcker ...because it is your obligation (?sp i mean "Pflicht") as a _citizen_ to help the other person when the person is attacked..
if 2 guys get in a fistfight and you are standing there watching and not trying to get them apart .. and somebody gets seriously injured then the police can arrest you...
these things are called "omitted assistance" (sp?) = "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" ..when you aren't able to help the person (perhaps because you are outnumbered) it is you obligation to call the police ...

it is similiar to the law that you _have_ to help somebody who just got injuried in a car accident etc. without exceptions

i guess when a policeman does something like "standing there and watching" while somebody gets attacked and even injured...he will get into serious trouble... not only loose his job but also has to stand in front of court because of that... he might even have to go into prison for something like that

...police refusing to help... that really scares me.... i really hope i don't get attacked when i visit the US sometimes (i plan to visit them sometimes in the next 6 years...i'm a student i'm shrot on money untill i graduate ;)....)

[takao]

Genie is out of the bottle with regards to guns. Remember, guns are pretty much 17th century technology, with some minor improvements and mass production advances and stuff.

he you can do a lot things but 17th century technology ? ... in the 17 century guns were already in use since centuries even in europe

the biggest advances were made between 1850 and 1950...

look at some of those guns designed in ww2 ...those designs are still used every day all across the globe... i can make enough examples if you like

except rockets and some ammunitions there weren't really much development in the last 50 years ...

[Frohickey]

when i read this i was like "Oh my god....please let him say 'that was only a joke' in the next paragraph"... they policemen only stood their when those women were crying for help ?..... thats sounds just so completly unreal for me..
:eek:


Central Park assault (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/14/central.park.assault.01/#3)
Remember the LA Riots? People were being assaulted (Reginald Denny) while police held back.

Cops are human too.

In the end, you are the only one responsible for your own safety.

[Frohickey]

I've heard it said that it's because of our mixed ethnicity. :mad:

And even in this forum you'll hear that if you remove the black-on-black crime the numbers even out. Which is the same as saying it's because of our mixed ethnicity.

If only we could remove those pesky blacks.....

I'm not the one that dug out the numbers, but if thats what the data says, who am I to argue. If Steve Jobs says that he wants a 3GHz G5, and my oscilloscope tells me that its only 2.995GHz, what can I do. I have to abide by the data I get. :p

If only blacks would not commit crimes...
If only blacks would get and stay married...
If only blacks would have one sex partner only...

Me... I'll take Halle Berry. :eek: :D
Or, Tyra Banks :D :D

[pseudobrit]

If only blacks would not commit crimes...
If only blacks would get and stay married...
If only blacks would have one sex partner only...

I'm speechless. I can only hope I'm missing the joke in this statement and you're not being serious.

[mactastic]

I'm speechless. I can only hope I'm missing the joke in this statement and you're not being serious.

Somehow I doubt you are...

[Frohickey]

I'm speechless. I can only hope I'm missing the joke in this statement and you're not being serious.

I don't want Tyra Banks cheating on me. :p
So, yes, I'm serious.

[Desertrat]

The black-on-black problem is factual. I'll accept the word of such people as Leonard Pitts, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. And Jesse Jackson, for that matter.

How to solve it? I don't know. I do know it redounds to the detriment of the vast majority of blacks who are not at all involved in any sort of crime. Were I a guessing sort of guy, I'd say first, rework our whole deal as to the War On Some Drugs...

As to firearms technology, the Spencer Repeating Rifle with its lever-action mechanism and its cased cartridge began the modern firearms era, IMO. That was introduced at the time of the U.S. "War of Yankee Agression". :D I'd say the introduction of Paul Mauser's bolt action and the Winchester lever actions was the next step. I have an 1891 Spanish-made Mauser that could have been at San Juan Hill, SFAIK. It functions as well today as it did when it was made. And the "Cowboy Gun" is far deadlier at longer range than any semi-automatic AK-clone "Assault Weapon"--but it's far more socially acceptable.

'Rat

[takao]

As to firearms technology, the Spencer Repeating Rifle with its lever-action mechanism and its cased cartridge began the modern firearms era, IMO. That was introduced at the time of the U.S. "War of Yankee Agression". :D I'd say the introduction of Paul Mauser's bolt action and the Winchester lever actions was the next step. I have an 1891 Spanish-made Mauser that could have been at San Juan Hill, SFAIK. It functions as well today as it did when it was made. And the "Cowboy Gun" is far deadlier at longer range than any semi-automatic AK-clone "Assault Weapon"--but it's far more socially acceptable.

looks interesting ...
additional to the mauser i would put the Dreyse needle Rifle at that list too

yeah and of course automatic guns..

well an assault rifle only needs to be accurate up to 300 meters.. a mauser is far meo accurate than a modern military rifle but it is not usefully to have that accuray because most firefights are fought on 100-150 meters
only exception...
only exception is the swiss army rifle (StGw 90) which is designed for even rages up to 500 meters...very exact,accurate,precise made gun which beats M-16 etc. by far but their biggest advantage is also their biggest disadvantage...because the gun is so precise it fails more often (and of course is more expensive to made)
after only 1000 shots in a row the gun is blocking all the time...and that's on a shooting range .. not in the field

[Desertrat]

Yeah, the Dreyse was an advace, but it was a bit fragile for field use.

Many modern military Main Battle Rifles will shoot inside two minutes of angle, or roughly ten inches at 500 yards. 27 cm at 500 meters, roughly. The sights are commonly too coarse to allow that sort of precision in aiming...

US Army tactical doctrine has been for Infantry to be able to use aimed fire to control the area within 200 yards while they call for air or artillery support. USSR doctrine was to flood the zone with infantry-supported armor with the infantry attacking "up close and personal"--which made the AK47 quite suitable for their tactics.

I tend to be more interested in hunting rifles than in the general run of military rifles. I've owned and shot civilian versions of the U.S. M16 and the German G3, and handled some of the others. In general the military stuff offends my sense of aesthetics. :) Now, rifles like the old Krag-Jorgensen and the Springfield 1903, or the U.S. .30 Carbine or the Garand are enjoyable to shoot.

I tend to "tweak" with (minor gunsmithing) my pet hunting rifles until I can regularly get three-shot groups of 1/2 minute of angle. Same sort of thing with my reloading; I meddle around until I can custom-tailor a load that works with the spring harmonics of the barrel. :) Keeps me out of the beer-joints at night.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

I tend to "tweak" with (minor gunsmithing) my pet hunting rifles until I can regularly get three-shot groups of 1/2 minute of angle. Same sort of thing with my reloading; I meddle around until I can custom-tailor a load that works with the spring harmonics of the barrel. :) Keeps me out of the beer-joints at night.

'Rat

You see. We need to enact sweeping gun control laws so that people at the beer joints don't shoot each other to death when they get rowdy. Oh wait, that will also affect Desertrat, the peaceful wanna-be gunsmith, tweaking his pet hunting rifles for ultra-precision shots, in the garage at night.

But if it only saves one life of a beer-joint visitor, its well worth it.

...HEY!!! Get yer stinking hands out of my keyboard, and get your leftist liberal drivel out of my house!!! :eek: ;)

[mactastic]

But if it only saves one life of a beer-joint visitor, its well worth it.

I'll be sure to remind you that you've used this rationale a couple times now...

[takao]

Many modern military Main Battle Rifles will shoot inside two minutes of angle, or roughly ten inches at 500 yards. 27 cm at 500 meters, roughly. The sights are commonly too coarse to allow that sort of precision in aiming...

US Army tactical doctrine has been for Infantry to be able to use aimed fire to control the area within 200 yards while they call for air or artillery support. USSR doctrine was to flood the zone with infantry-supported armor with the infantry attacking "up close and personal"--which made the AK47 quite suitable for their tactics.

I tend to be more interested in hunting rifles than in the general run of military rifles. I've owned and shot civilian versions of the U.S. M16 and the German G3, and handled some of the others. In general the military stuff offends my sense of aesthetics. :) Now, rifles like the old Krag-Jorgensen and the Springfield 1903, or the U.S. .30 Carbine or the Garand are enjoyable to shoot.

actually i have no idea about angles and this stuff i only have been competition shooting once ..that was during my service.. we were 'shooting rings'..30 shots..... bulls eye = 10 and from there 9 8 etc. i don't remeber the distance ...i think it was 300m
i scored a lousy 263 (or was it 259?) ...but in the end our leutnant owed us a case of beer because a few of us were better than him ;)

<offtopic>
the austrian tactics we get thaught are actually absolutly ridiculous ...we never got really trained for calling in air support or artillery(you know in a war we probarly would have lost both things before noon)... we were never trained urban warfare...and we were never trained attacking

we got excessive: digging-out-holes-and-fill-them-up-again-and-then-dig-them-out-again-training, car-washing-excercises, ultra inhuman mow-the-lawn-in-front-of-the-flag-pole training, making-10-copies-of-every-piece-of-paper--and-throw-away-5-of-them-because-somebody-wants-it-this-way work.

actually that was only about 25% of our service
perhaps 50% percent was pure waiting for orders( which got translated into "sleep" after basic training)
and 25% we were actually having training (aka. the first 2 months)

the endless joy of : getting woken up at 6 ...getting ready untill 7.30 when your 'working day' starts... having everything what you need to do the whole day already finished by 9.30 ....and then sitting around in a small room face to face with your commanding staff seargent with nothing to do untill 16.15 when your day ends....

after 2 weeks you are a master in putting on the "i'm completly stressed and have too much to do" face in the same second as the leutnant opens the door seaching for a 'volunteer'

and after 6 months you might start your day completly wasted from last night/unshaved,have your first beer before noon in the cellar beneath the machine guns together with the seargent responsible for the weapons ,take a 3 hour sleep after lunch in one of the unused beds in one of those unused rooms and look from the inside to be relaxed when you day ends at 16.15 pm when you go back to you own bed.. sleep untill 10 pm when you stand up for showering/shaving and getting ready to hit the clubs..where you meet your commanding staff seargent again completly wasted ...

"drink as much as possible during doing as less as possible"...the inofficial doktrin of the austrian army
</offtopic>

which automaticly leads to the ultimate combat strategy against the austrian army: drop beer with parachutes....lots of beer... for about 6 hours and then move in and pick up the guns

[Frohickey]

<offtopic>
the endless joy of : getting woken up at 6 ...getting ready untill 7.30 when your 'working day' starts... having everything what you need to do the whole day already finished by 9.30 ....and then sitting around in a small room face to face with your commanding staff seargent with nothing to do untill 16.15 when your day ends....


Your Austrian officers must have attended US military school.

The operative name if 'Hurry up and wait'. :D :D :D

[Desertrat]

There's a lot about the military that probably hasn't changed since before the days of Alexander of Macedon...

"Minute of angle" (MOA) is merely angular measure. A circle is 360 degrees; each degree has sixty minutes. Skipping the math, a minute of angle is 1.037" at 100 yards; roughly ten percent more at 100 meters. To make it simple, it's most easily taken as one inch at one hundred yards. So, one inch at 100; two at 200 and on out, if a rifle shoots "One MOA".

FWIW, the world record for tight-group accuracy was set by Gale McMillan with a rifle he built. (Shooting from a benchrest) 0.09 inches for five shots at 200 yards. The measurement is the center-to-center average of the five-shot string.

'Rat