but you are powerless to resist, should the government decide that the free press, speech, religion, and assembly is outdated.
Which really means that you are only free as long as the government lets you be free.

First, this is a hypothetical situation. While I do think that the government is trying to take away freedoms, they have been largely unsuccessful. While the Patriot Act does test the boundries of reason, it is still widely considered wrong and there are many people, myself included, who have take active rolls against it.

Also, even though the government has guns, I am one man standing among many. I would not be alone in the fight against tyrany IF my freedoms were to be taken away.

The fact is that the situation that you propose is only hypothetical, as right now there is no need for weapons to defend our freedoms. We have tools such as the law and the ability to protest.

Two words. Guantanamo Bay.

Two more words.

Special Rendition.

Freedom, don't make me laugh!! :lol:

UK has absurdly high violent crime rates however, something that actually greatly increased, in some cases tripled, once gun restrictions were placed.

It's all imaginary and hypothetical at the moment, the worst part of this whole issue is that it's only a mistake we'll be able to make once.

Okay, here's the thing:
1) Guns are used as weapons by people with ill intent to threaten or cause harm. While this is illegal, current law enforcement is unable to fix the problem completly. I think we can both agree that at least part of the reason that they are unsuccessful is the obvious failures of gun control laws. There are only a few general ways to stop the forementioned people from aquiring guns: I say these are a complete gun ban, or better gun control, while you say allowing everyone to carry. I suggest that better control and monitoring of gun production and sales will improve the success rate of those trying to stop illegal gun sales and use. I say that holding those that produce guns liable for what is done with them is a way to force the industry into being responsible. I say that a more difficult test to get firearms would benifit all. You say that a sort of mutually assured destruction standpoint to gun control; if everyone has a gun, then everyone will be less likely to use it because they'd be afraid of being shot themselves. My question to you is: wouldn't this make you, the victim, less likely to fire on criminals out of the feear of being fired upon yourself? Also, wouldn't the career criminal simply do what's necessary to be a successful criminal in a world covered in guns? Couldn't he or she just toss a gernade into your window, then rob what's left of your house or other escilation? Or maybe they could snipe you through an open window? In other words, I think that your solution is begging for escelation.

2) How likely is the government to take away your freedoms by force? Doe ths US military and police really have the manpower to take away our freedoms?

I'm not sure what you regard as 'absurdly' high violent crime rates - but they have nothing at all to do with gun restrictions being, or not being in place. There has never been a weapon-carrying culture in the UK. The statement you make is both foundless, and fails to recognise that there are a vast number of more important factors that would be the 'cause' of any apparent rise in violent crime figures since the '20s and '50s.

On a slight tangent, it does seem to me to be stretching the argument a little to be drawing on figures that are over 50 years old.

No, it's unlikely - and yes, they have the manpower to do whatever they like. It's just a matter of isolation, and taking things one person at a time.

Not I. Law enforcement will NEVER be able to 'fix' the problem. All they can do is enforce the laws. The reason they are unsuccessful is because the rest of the wheels of justice do not punish criminals the way they should.

and yet a complete gun ban has not worked for D.C. or chicago. There will never be a way to stop bad people from acquiring a gun, never. The only thing that can prevent most crime from bad people with guns will be good people being allowed to carry one for their defense.

criminals are not afraid of the police, in fact, they are more afraid of their victims being armed. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
I wonder if those in new orleans thought the same thing? How about Mayor Daleys gun grab in chicago? what will san francisco do about those that refuse to turn in their arms? 'free speech zones'? 'sneak and peek' search warrants? warrantless wiretaps?

You've used these reported figures twice here - my concern with them is that if you think about those statistics, it means that between 40 and 60% of criminals <b>don't give a damn</b> whether their victim is armed or otherwise.

Regardless of whether you agree with gun control or not - it really is an unconvincing statistic.

Thats just one stat that comes out of a book by James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their
Firearms”

It's a good read.

Those wheels of justice are the failures that I speak of. I am well aware of the function of alw enforcement (thus the word "enforcement"). I would suggest that the legislature and judicial branches have a lot to do with the problems in gun control, and that those out ther like you who seem to have an appretication, familiarity, and knowledge of guns and their various functions and effects should take action in doing what you can to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. I will do what I can, but I do not have a lifetime of experience with guns like you do. I've only fired a gun once, and it was at a friends ranch. I do not have experience or training.
I need to specify something: complete gun ban = nationwide gun ban, at least to me. Also, you have a very pesimistic view towards disarming criminals. I'll bet you that if someone were to really apply themselves, they could find an illegal arms dealer (someone who sells guns from their trunk). With that person, one could find a supplier and thus cut off one of the many arms supliers to criminals. While there may not be a way to completly stop the problem, there are certianally ways to slow the flow of guns to the streets. Wouldn't that be worth a try?
nezmot and I are in agreement that these stats don't really give a lot of support to your argument. A 60% is a D-, and 40% is an F. Are there comparitiable statistics about how other forms of defence score with convicted felons? Are there statistics about defensive home measures such as bars on windows and security doors? Are there statistics about tasers, aerosols, and other nonlethal weapons? How about big dogs? Without a comparison to other options, there really is no function to your statistics.

Absolutely its worth a try. At least it would be a welcome change to fighting crime instead of banning ownership.

There are but I will have to get them together and post them later after work. Defensive home measures are not 'bad' or worthless. It's just that they are not enough. Personally, I don't think there are ever 'enough' safety and security measures, but thats just me. home security is one thing, but its after those are breached that is an issue. Tasers, sprays, and nonlethal weapons require very close contact and, as such, are not as safe as something used from a considerable distance. They are also not as effective as lethal weapons. Big dogs are great, for alarm systems. They are not so great at protection. I know this from personal experience as MY big dogs only dangerous attributes are its tail (that might knock you out if it hit you) and its tongue, by licking you to death.

Your sentiment of sparing life is admirable, but concerning people who care so little about life that they have no problem killing 85 year old grandmothers and 1 year old children, it is totally unwarranted. It is these types of violent and dangerous people that should be exterminated at every opportunity.

I'm beginning to think that we are making the same argument, but simply have different perspectives. If it were possible to have ONLY responsible gun ownership without worrying about criminals (or bad governments, organizations, etc.) getting their hands on guns, then I would be the first to sign up. I don't want to take away rights that people believe are theirs. You are a responsible gun owner (based on what you've written), and it wouls seemingly serve no one to take your weapon. The problem is that just like you say a gun ban won't work, neither will guns for everyone. There has to be SOME element of control or responsibility. That is why we have background checks and waiting persiod when purchasing guns here in the US. The problem is that these measures, while usefull, are not nearly as effective as they should be. Changes must be made. Steps have to be taken to ensure that guns fall into responsible hands. Do you know how many unrigestered guns there are in the US alone?
My beagle is pretty much the same.
And this is where we differ. You want to exterminate people? The fact that I disagree with the death penatly aside, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not we execute members of society. If you are a responsible gun owner, you will seek to DISABLE your assailent, not execute them. There is a big difference betwen the two, similar to the difference between a responsible gun owner and a gun nut.

IF we are to have a safe, civilized, and happy society then we can tolerate no evil. Now, when I say 'exterminate', I do not mean that I become judge, jury, and executioner. I am simply saying that those who commit heinous acts of violence upon people do not deserve the life that they have been given. As a responsible gun owner, my position is that I will seek to STOP the threat to my life, my families lives, or any innocent bystanders life. Does that mean that to 'disable', I should go for the knees? No. To me, it means I rely on what works to stop a threat, which is usually two to the chest and if that doesnt stop it, then two to the head.

Do I 'want' to kill the threat? No, but I will not shy away from it if necessary. I prefer the 'extermination' to be done through the justice system as an example to that criminal element, but I also want that criminal element to know that it CAN happen at the hands of their victim if necessary.

I know it may not seem that way, but you are playing the part of judge, jury and executioner based on your last sentence. those who commit heinous acts of violence upon people do not deserve the life that they have been given suggests that you decide that they do not deserve their lives. Do you believe that the criminal gave you the right to make this heavy decision by attacking you? If so, then I would request on behalf of the criminals that you do absolutely everything you possibly can to save the lives of all parties involved in the situation. I beg that you do everything you possibly can to spare them their lives as you defend yourself or your family. Do not shoot them in the chest when a shot in the leg, arms, or shoulders will stop them, please.
Those are both potentially and specifically lethal shots. I see no reason for using lethal force when you have a weapon such as a gun.
You would make a statement by taking a life?

I'm afraid I may have misjudged you.

It is my 'personal' belief that those who rape and murder others are not worthy of their own life because they do not respect the lives of others, but I do not believe that I am the judge, jury, and executioner all in one. I do believe in a system of justice, but the one we currently have isn't working all that well. Did the criminal give me the right to decide to take his life when he attacked me or others? yes, I do. It's called self defense or defending others who weren't able to defend themselves.

are you a presbyterian by any chance? There are always situational factors that one has to take in to account when employing lethal force. If someone is being brutally attacked and I draw my weapon, if that individual then stops and sits there afraid that I will shoot them, then I will keep him there until police arrive. If that individual refuses to stop even though i'm aiming at him, I will shoot where it will ensure the threat is stopped. That is usually the chest (biggest target area and unlikely to hit anyone else).

That is precisely the point of a gun. To meet lethal force with lethal force.

Yes, I would. If my 'statement' prompts others with criminal intent to take pause and reconsider, then my 'statement' was worth it.

I do not see how. You already know I'm a proponent of the death penalty. You already know that I'm a former active duty marine. I would do the same for anyone. I don't know you or your family, yet were I to ever chance upon a scene of one or more people trying to victimize you or yours, I would stop them, by whatever means necessary and if that entails taking the life/lives of someone intent on causing you or yours harm, then so be it. That is how we take care of our fellow man against the predators of this world.

Maybe so. Mind you, I don't think that they ever had gun ownership equivalent of the US. After all, their police don't traditionally carry guns.

But what about Japan, Australia, and other European countries. And as a friend said (he was working on crime stats) - these are very unreliable. The less work the police do, the less crime is recorded, and hence (statistically speaking) the less crime there is.

But yeah.. Crime stats are all we have to go on I suppose.

I find it interesting and maybe I am just misreading, but it seems that DK argues for everyone owning a gun.

I am hypothetically believing that is the case. If I am wrong I sincerely appologize, and I am not trying to attack DK personally, but the issue that I see here, which is people not believing they must tell others that they NEED to own a gun for protection and if they do not own one then they are asking for trouble.

Now the issue I have is if that is the case, then why can they not respect the other side of the coin and the people that believe gun ownership in any case is wrong?

Or at the very least, a person's belief (such as my own), that I simply choose not to own a gun because I don't want to. I respect those that do own, because it is their right to do so.

Why can they not respect my freedom NOT to own a gun?

Why must I be warned and asked how I will defend myself and blah blah blah....? It is my choice and freedom just as it is theirs.

I do not need to be warned or treated with disrespect or talked down to or treated as some low life that cannot handle the gun and is so dense and weak that without a gun I could never protect anyone or anything.

I know the risks of owning a gun, I know the risks of not owning one and I choose not to own one. That is my choice. I do not sit and preach them, I may give my reasons why I do not own a gun or want one in parks, bars, amusement parks, schools, privately owned businesses where the owner exorcises his right to ban them in his establishment and so on, but I make my point and move on.

So why do I not seem to get the same respect I show for those that choose to own, from those that choose to own.

As I said before this issue, like abortion, alcohol, gambling, drugs and a few others, are personal choices that are about respecting the other person's choice.

And what these issues have boiled down to in the past few years are the extremists demanding they be heard and that they get what they want.... and so neither side (on any issue) really shows respect or care about rights to the other side. And the people that are neutral and respectful get yelled at from both sides and treated like we don't know anything or we are too weak to take a stand.

I am not weak, I just do not care about this or the above issues enough to push one way or another until my rights are affected..... (i.e. no choice or someone telling me I have no right to tell them I do not want guns on my property)..... I choose to want to focus on, speak out on and work on bigger issues like education, healthcare, the infrastructure, the economy and issues that affect me and my children.

I don't need either side dictating to me how my opinion on gun ownership is wrong or lectured on why I need/do not need to own a gun.

You may be someone who is perceptive enough to sort out correctly what is happening, as far as who the aggressor(s) is in the scenario you described, quickly (assuming that you come on scene at an opportune time that is early enough in the sequence of events to afford you time to make and act on reasonable assumptions), and then to control your projection of force in a way that avoids shooting both the perp and the victim.

Consider that police have trouble doing that.....plain clothes officers are sometimes mistakenly shot by uniformed colleagues. Consider that police are trained to police, and to prudently and minimally resort to firearm use.

I may be mistaken, but I assume that your military training was more similar to my stepson's military combat training. At his graduation from a 16 week, enhanced basic training course, his commander described the company of graduates as your former civilian sons and daughters who have been trained to kill. We relearned in post invasion Iraq that combat troops are ill suited for policing duties.

The boot camp graduation description of my stepson's company...civilians transformed into trained killers, actually triggered speculation as to what the military experience does to a person who later tries to transition back to civilian life. Police officers, who receive less intense training than combat troops, have statistically higher rates of divorce, domestic difficulties, than the general population and they tend to lose most former friends who are not employed in law enforcement.

My impression is that you cannot conceive of an outcome where you decided it was appropriate to insert yourself and your firearm into an altercation in progress, where the result was that you did more harm than good, as far as the wellbeing of whoever you perceived was being victimized.

My stepson is now part of an elite military combat unit. I see how three years in the military has changed him. Most likely, he is on the cusp of experiencing a combat environment. Even without that experience, I expect that he has changed to the point that he will have difficulty transitioning unevently back into civilian life. Somebody has to serve in the capacities that you and my stepson chose to serve in. With no intent to detract in any way from the contribution you have made by your service, for all of our benefit, I have to wonder if the military does all that it ought to do to help "debrief" the intesity of the aggressive "mindset" that it intentionally instills in the folks that it transforms and refines into soldiers.

It might be fairer to you if the military trained you to "stand down" around the time of seperation from service, with the same enthusiasm and knowhow that it trained you to "stand up". I don't recognize a commitment to potentially be your "protector". It is a burden for police officers to have that responsibility, it takes a toll on their personal lives, and they get paid to do it.

If a consequence of their work is that they always have a sense that they are "on the job", it isn't fair to them, or to the people who try to love them.
If your service training has left you with that sense of yourself, that isn't fair to you either, IMO. I suspect that the military could be of greater assistance, if it wanted to. They may have decided that it is to their potential advantage, to send you back into civilian life, along with the thinking that you described above. It's slick of them if they imparted that thinking in you, knowing from their collective experience that most former soldiers never recognize it as a burden that amounts to a post service, quality of life issue.

I can see how alot of my arguments could be construed in that fashion, so I take no offense at your perceptions of that, nor do I see it as a personal attack.

What I see as the issue is one side (anti-gun) saying that 'civilians' have no business, are not professional (qualified) enough, or not competent enough to use a gun while the other side argues the complete opposite. As I present my case for the 'pro-gun' side, I stress that the right to individual self defense is paramount because that right exists for me to exercise. When the anti group tries to deny me my right to self defense, or to only allow lesser alternatives, I have issue with that. The hard part about determining what/who has rights is having to look at it as NOT what you are allowing some to have, but what you are denying to others.

I have the right to use a gun for self-defense/defense of my family. Everyone has that right, whether you choose to exercise that right or not, is completely up to you, but it is not anyones right to deny me/mine that right to life. The anti-gun crowd feels that it is. The ones who are 'on the fence', like you Pan, are simply choosing not to exercise your right to own/use a gun for self-defense while not denying it for others, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

Host, a very good overall post with great thoughts. This one hit home with me and I wanted to put it out there what I think about the reasons why I carry.

In the past, when I lived in Illinois where carrying is not allowed, I've had the unfortunate experience of domestic violence in many shapes and forms. Husband/Wife, Boyfriend/Girlfriend, and even Brother/Brothers wife. I've often had to step in to schoolyard/back alley fights between kids, and sometimes even adults, to try to stop someone from getting seriously hurt. It doesn't always work out. I ended up in the hospital once because some jackass who weighed 50 lbs more than I did, felt that it wasn't my place to stop him and his buddies from beating a friend of mine, so he tried to gouge my eyes out with his fingers. I was blind for a week. I'm lucky to see out of both eyes and could have lost the left one that nite. It took only 2 minutes for the local cops to show up and cause them to run off, what would have happened to me if it would have been a minute longer? I don't like to think about it much, but it did prove to me that nite, that any tool I can use to defend myself, or others, should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

Now, when I look at the part of your post that I quoted, I actually do acknowledge that there is always the possibility of making a mistake and causing more harm than good, but I also have to balance that with the thought of someone being victimized/killed and knowing that I did nothing to stop it. I've accepted that I may have to live with the spectre of a mistake the rest of my life, but it pales in comparison to the nitemares I would have if someone died that didn't have to, because I did nothing.

If it had been a state that allowed carry laws, that guy might have shot you instead.

that would have been murder, wouldn't it? Had there been carry laws, I could have shot and defended myself from the possibility of losing my eyes. Of course, if there had been carry laws, the fight wouldn't have started in the first place. The fear of being shot tends to limit that kind of violence.

See, this is the issue I have with the gun grabbers. Instead of supporting the right of people to defend themselves, they try to tell you its better to be maimed and MAYBE killed than to allow people to carry guns.

I ask you, IF he'd shot me, he would have been breaking the law anyway, so why would he worry about following a carry law? He wouldn't have worried about it. Laws preventing people from carrying guns are not going to stop people who are intent on breaking the law anyway.

Yes it would have been murder. He would have broken a law - just like he did when he assaulted you. Would the fight not have started? Maybe, maybe not. But you probably wouldn't have felt safe enough to step in and stop the attack. You see if 3 guys have guns and you only have one, it's always going to be you who loses out. You can be the best shot in the world, hit people in the face, chest or wherever, but if there's a gang - you lose, each time. Unless you get your own gang. But that's besides the point.

Am I telling you it's better to be maimed and maybe killed, than to carry a gun? Nope. I was just pointing out that in the situation you described, it could have turned out worse if the guy was packing.

Why would he worry about a carry law? Because if he's a criminal in a state that has a carry law - he HAS to carry a gun. If he's a criminal in a non-carry state, he doesn't NEED to pack, and is going to be less likely to. Instating a carry law means that all criminals are forced to carry weapons. If you want your criminal underclass to feel the need to arm themselves, then fine - but if there are more of them than there are of you, you lose - no matter what you carry.

you really believe that, don't you? So those states that are not 'shall issue' states, all of their criminals are unarmed? sorry, that logic makes no sense. criminals don't care about whether they are in a carry state or not. They use a gun because it makes being a criminal easier when you're victim is unarmed. a carry law doesn't 'force' a criminal to carry a gun, they are going to anyway.

So did the guy who nearly blinded you carry a gun? Would you have been more or less in danger if he and his friends were carrying?

I'm not saying that non-carry states = gun free criminals - what I am saying is that they wont feel as though they HAVE to carry a gun. However, if someone is planning on running foul of the law in a carry state, they'd be a fool not to carry. Because they know the other guy will be. In that case, they have to be sure you either outnumber, or outdraw their victim. Nobody has been protected.

Having a gun in your pocket can help you feel much safer as you walk home, but it's a comfort-blanket. If you're going to get mugged, you're going to get mugged. There really isn't anything you can do about it. The only difference is that if you draw your weapon, you're more likely to get shot.

No, as far as I know, people in illinois who obey the gun laws don't carry. Now, the sad thing about this is that I knew this guy. Grew up with him and his family. Would I have been in more/less danger? The way I see it, this 'gang' thought that they could just use numbers and size to bully two people they saw as easy targets. If Illinois was a carry state, they just might have rethought their little plan if they thought we might be carrying. Nobody, not even a criminal, wants to get shot.

Whether its a carry state or not, if a criminal can get a gun, they will use it. They will use it because an unarmed person staring down a gun will comply quicker and quieter. The only thing that makes MOST of them pause, is the thought that their 'victim' may be armed and possibly shoot them.

I have posted dozens and dozens of real life incidents where people have used guns to save their lives or the lives of their families. Your assumption that a mugger will just stop after he/she gets what they want is just that, an assumption, and as a victim, having a gun could save your life. Criminals are more afraid of their victim being armed than they are the cops. Criminals also don't regularly practice with their illegally obtained firearms, unlike law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry theirs.

Do you think it might be easier for a criminal to carry a gun where they are commonplace among civilians? Do you think it might be difficult for a criminal to carry a gun where no one but police officers carry gund? These are yes or no questions that might give you an idea of where we are coming from. Please answer the questions honestly.

Yes, having a gun *could* save your life - or, it *could* get you shot. No assumptions there. The mugger is *much* more likely to stop after he is happy that his victim is unarmed - because he doesn't want to be shot in the back as he's running away.
According to your quote from earlier, only between 40% and 60% of them are bothered either way, the rest (the remaining 40%-60%) don't care.
How do you know? Plus, in a mugging/robbery/crime situation, practice has nothing to do with it. A criminal however is more likely to have experience of someone pointing a gun at them. A criminal is also more likely to have experience of pointing a gun at someone else. Sure, a law-abiding person may be able to hit a target at 50m, but how many crimes are committed at a range of 50m? The psychological effects of pointing/having a gun pointed at you are something it is very hard to train for. This is something that civilians (thankfully) generally have little experience of, in contrast to cops and criminals.

Furthermore, criminals are perfectly capable of attaining firearms legally too. Nobody has a sticker on their forehead telling the authorities who is a bad guy or a good guy. But it has to be said that obtaining (and carrying) a gun is easier, (either through legal or illegal channels) in states that sell more guns.

for those that do not lock up their guns, yes, its easier when the criminal steals them from the civilian.

chicago has effectively forbidden gun ownership, yet criminals posess, and use, them on a daily basis. gun ownership is illegal in D.C., yet criminals use them on a daily basis. No, I do not think its difficult at all for a criminal to get a gun in either place.

there are your honest answers. Now, answer this question honestly.

Does it matter if guns are 'controlled' yet criminals still easily obtain them? Do 'controlling' guns make law abiding citizens more safe or less safe by denying them effective self defense?

and by stating this, you are telling people to just 'trust in the odds'. If you die, then you die, so sorry, but thats the odds.

which is all the more reason you should carry to defend yourself. If a criminal is not worried about their victim being armed, its much more likely that they are going to kill you anyway to prevent a witness.

This is all wrong. MOST, not all but most, criminals don't pursue expertise in firearms. They want to be in and out as quick as possible. In an actual crime experience, practice has EVERYTHING to do with it and if criminals actually HAD more experience in having a gun pointed at them(not sure where you actually came up with that one) then they probably would give up being a criminal. A citizen who actively practices at a range doesn't just shoot at 50m targets. they shoot up close and personal also, like 7m and less. Now, the actual dealing of an actual gun being pointed at you/having to point a gun at someone will weed out the ones that shouldn't carry right away. I've met a couple people who got their CCW, actually had to deal with being a crime victim, then store their gun in the closet or outright sell it because they couldn't deal with it. More civilians shoot rounds downrange than most cops. less than 25% of the cops I actually know practice on a weekly basis, unlike civilians who are serious about their self defense. Their are civilians I would rather have covering my back in a hostile situation than I would in having the police there. Criminals? BS. criminals are more experienced in pointing a gun at someone instead of having it pointed at them.

All states sell guns, and it's illegal to sell to convicted felons. considering that background checks are also required to buy guns at shops and shows, most criminals get their guns off street sales. It is a very stupid criminal indeed to go out, legally purchase a handgun at a shop or show (they are not cheap) just to use it in a crime when they can buy a practically untraceable gun off the street for less than half the price.

That's not what I asked. I asked if it would be easier to carry. The question had nothing to do with acquisition. If you are to answer my question, then answer the question I ask, not the question you want to hear.
Again, that's not what I asked. Neither of my questions had anything to do with the acquisition of the guns, they had to do with a criminal on the street carrying a weapon. Again I ask: Do you think it might be difficult for a criminal to carry a gun where no one but police officers carry guns?
Question 1: As I've said before, the current system of gun control is broken and either in neeed of repair or replacement. I have no illusions about how many guns are in the hands of people who have no buisness having guns.

Question 2: Guns are hardly the only form of self defence, so your second question is fundamentally flawed. 'Controling guns' should be an effort to keep guns from the very people you seek to defend yourself from. We seek the same result. Also, what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet.

My apologies. I did misread your question. My answer is no. It would NOT be any easier for a criminal to carry in a carry state vs. a no carry state. criminals conceal their weapons, they do not wear them open.

This would be a NO again. Since criminals conceal their weapons, it is not any more difficult for a criminal to carry a gun in a no carry state as it is in a carry state.

The national firearms act of 1934. The gun control act of 1968. The registration restrictions in chicago. The ban on handguns in morton grove. The pending handgun ban in san francisco. The gun ban in D.C. The firearm owners protection act of 1986. The lautenburg amendment of 1996.

I did not say that guns are the only form of self defense, just the most effective. Gun controls flaws at this point are that the 'laws' in place only prevent or inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining them. The only good form of gun control is to enforce heavy punishments upon the criminals who use them illegally.

As the burden of proof is on both sides in this discussion, I will need to see some statistic on how many criminals conceal weapons. Also, there are many places in the US where every citizen has the legal right to conceal their guns.
-National firearms act of 1934: the registration, and the taxing of the transfer, of a class of weapons described as NFA Title 2 weapons. This does not keep guns from the hands of law abiding citizens any more than the price of a gun.
-Gun control act of 1968: prohibited the direct mail order of firearms by consumers and mandated that if a person wants to buy a gun from other than a private individual, he or she has to go to a Federally licensed firearms dealer to buy the gun. The Act also bans unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their State of residence, although long guns (rifles and shotguns) may (under Federal law) be acquired from Federally licensed firearms dealers located in other States, provided this is allowed by both the State of purchase and the State of residence. So this also doesn't keep guns from law abiding citizens. If you're keeping score, thats 0/2 so far.
-registration restrictions in chicago: do you want to be more specific?
-D.C. gun ban: gun ban is different than gun control. They are not the same.
-Firearm owners protection act of 1986: Prohibits the following from owning guns: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, anyone who is a fugitive from justice, anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution, any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship, anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. In other words, criminals and such cannot get guns. You are making a strong case! That's 0/4, yes?
Lautenberg amendment of 1996: prevents people with any ‘domestic violence’ convictions from ever owning a gun. So how does that keep guns from law abiding citizens? It doesn't.

None of the cases you cited were cases involving taking the guns from law abiding citizens. You see tyrany where there is none.
Wrong. Preventative measures are the only way to save lives. Arming everyone is an act of desperation that only leads to danger and the spread of fear. I know that while we disagree about gun control, we do agree about the current presidency. What is the greatest tool of the Bush administration? Fear. Would you want to use his weapon?

Will, are you seriously trying to tell me that criminals carry their weapons openly in this country? If you are, then there are bigger issues here that deal directly with you.

If a branch of government cannot make something illegal because of the constitution, the next method of removing it from society is to make it too expensive. Look at how the current administration/DoJ is attacking online pornography for an example of this. The NFA has had this exact effect by making it near impossible for the average income citizen to be able to afford the $200 tax. It's also caused the supply of these to go down making the costs very expensive.

You missed a few.
Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases - a registration system, a precursor to confiscation.

Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns. - The basic removal of inexpensive handguns market to those who don't have alot of money.

establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers - Back in the days before a 'nanny' state, a 16 year old could go buy a rifle or shotgun. In the more rural areas, this was the mark of a boy becoming a man. Not any more.

Not the way I see it.

In 1986, Mayor Daley and the chicago council passed several ordinances. One of them being that there would be no more handgun registration in the city limits. This was grandfathered so that all those that were registered before a certain date could be kept, all others must be turned in. Later, it was extended to long guns. Now, with the Firearm owners ID system, any citizen of chicago that buys a gun gets a visit from the friendly neighborhood jack booted thugs and a search warrant. This keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only, since criminals do not go out and buy guns legally leaving a paper trail.


Semantics, they are the same. Gun Control is a Gun Ban with limits. Gun Bans are a total attempt at gun control. They are indeed the same.

This removed the right to own a gun from a huge group of people whos sole crime could have been a couple of bounced checks. This is an egregious example abuse of power to limit who owns a gun instead of trying to keep it out of violent criminals hands.

This was the only thing it had right, so you get half a point here.

restraining orders are rubberstamped on the word of the supposed victim and therefore you are removing the right from a person who's accused of something with no proof.

Criminals cannot get a gun through legal means, it also makes criminals of people who make simple mistakes and get made examples of. what a great justice system you support.

Yes I am, the real score is 3.5 to .5, my favor.

Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons. Restraining orders require little to no proof, making it possible to deny a right to someone who never actually committed a crime.

Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons.None of the cases you cited were cases involving taking the guns from law abiding citizens. You see tyrany where there is none. [/QUOTE]Here you are wrong, as I plainly showed you. You should do more research or use more credible resources instead of relying on biased information. If you want a real life example of removing guns from law abiding citizens, just take a look at post hurricane katrina. Let me know if you need a few links.

You are wrong, you can take all the preventative measures in the world and unless you live in a mini fort knox, Your life can still be taken by a criminal with a gun/knife/baseball bat. A gun can and will still save your life.

The last part is just your spin. I DO want criminals to fear me, it makes them decide to go elsewhere. In the world we have today, arming everybody is the only answer. You could only get me to acknowledge and decide to turn in my guns on one condition, guarantee me that no criminal will ever be able to lay his hands on a weapon against me. Can you do that? Didn't think so.

Unless we have the statistics, your talking down to me is meaningless.
Then Porsche is guilty of keeping fast cars from law abiding citizens. I'm sorry, but if there were to be a law that prevented people rom getting guns, it would keep all people from getting guns.
You aren't going to convince anyone by citing examples of 'precursers'. Apollo 11 was a precurser to the first mission to Mars, but we're not there yet.
Same argument as above.
If they can't vote, then they shouldn't have weapons.
So it's a gun ban. A gun ban is not gun control. Gun control is an effort to regulate of the sale and use of rifles and handguns. A ban is not regulatin, it is a ban. Also, it isn't semantics because you were answering a question that I asked: "...what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet."
If you are sent to prison for a year or more, you can't get a gun. If yoiu bounce checks repeatedly, you can go to jail. It's no abuse of power, it's simple common sense.
Without photos of bruises, police reports, doctor's reports, tape recordings of telephone conversations, etc. the judge usually won't grant a restraining order. The decision on a restraining order is no less important than a court ruling. There cannot be a restraining order without proof.
Your 'people who make simple mistakes' are criminals. Do you want criminals to have guns or not?
You should contact a local lawyer about restraining orders. They have a lot of useful and tested information on them, and could teach you a lot.
Do you know what resources I used? Nope. I didn't list any because I found all of it in my encyclopedia. If you want to argue with the encyclopedia, go right ahead. No need to shoot the messsenger. None of your examples showed guns being taken from law abiding citizens, so I don't know why you see this hidden menace with the intent of taking your gun. If you become a criminal, they will be within their legal right to take your guns and make sure you can't legally purchase guns.
This is the fear I was talking about. So you're saying that even if I had military protection and several foot deep steel doors (fort knox) a criminal will come and get me? A gun is not a magic shield of protection. Guns are machines built to kill people. A gun is what you are afraid of, and yet you are willing to get a gun yourself for the purpous of defence. That is truely confusing.
You mean spin like half your posts? Spin like posting articles that feature people getting killed and saying "See, a gun would have helped them!!!"?

I never aked you to turn your gun in, so stop trying to make it seem as if I had.

Edit: This is becoming adversarial again. My intent is to teach and learn on the subject, not win or lose. I apologize if anything I've written has been inapropriate to these ends. Know that I have a great deal of respect for you and have no wish to bring harm (potential or otherwise) or discomfort to you and yours.

ok will, you are right. I have no statistics and do not know the number of criminals who carry their guns openly in america. I'll find that and post it up here for you.

This is a complete apples and oranges comparison. Porsche does not make their automobiles expensive because of numerous regulations. They put a price on their product by supply/demand/costs. the government makes products and services MORE expensive by taxes/regulations/controlling supply.

how about examples of the past? I've posted numerous examples, but that would never happen in america, would it?

why not? we let them drive, we let them get married?

A gun ban IS gun control by different means. They both are intended to keep guns out of civilian hands. One by restrictions on the person, the other by restriction of living in a municipality. Same effect.

There is nothing common sense about making laws to keep guns out of violent felons hands and collecting non violent misdemeanors in the process.

Then you're sorely lacking in experience and knowledge on domestic violence restraining orders. This even affects people who were inappropriately convicted for spanking their kids. It's a bad law to begin with and it's effects are even worse with sympathetic judges who issue restraining orders on the words of a vindictive spouse/significant other.

I don't want violent felons to have guns. Somebody who makes a simple mistake in a victimless crime should not lose their constitutional rights.

Thats why I want to be a lawyer myself, I know how to find this info.

[QUOTE=willravel]Do you know what resources I used? Nope. I didn't list any because I found all of it in my encyclopedia. If you want to argue with the encyclopedia, go right ahead. No need to shoot the messsenger. None of your examples showed guns being taken from law abiding citizens, so I don't know why you see this hidden menace with the intent of taking your gun. If you become a criminal, they will be within their legal right to take your guns and make sure you can't legally purchase guns.

If you were a prisoner there, I'd say no. But in the really real world, you have to go out on a near daily basis, right? Again, A gun is NOT a magic shield, nor is a taser or mace, but it greatly increases your odds of survival. Guns are a tool to defend yourselves, much like a baseball bat is made to hit home runs. It's who uses it and how that makes the difference.


I've taken no offense by anything you've written in this thread. No apologies are necessary. If it seems adversarial, well, thats because it is. You say you aren't asking me to turn my gun in, technically thats true, but you also say that you think gun bans will work, you want to run for office to make those changes, so I make the natural assumption that you want me to turn my gun in.

My intent is to teach and learn on the subject as well, maybe we're so ingrained in our beliefs that we will never come to terms.

Fair enough. This could be a way of controling the flow of weapons to people with lower levels of disposable income.
My point is that it hasn't happened yet. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
If you're not considered by the law to be mature enough to drink alcohol, fight in a war, or vote for your representatives, then I don't see how they could be considered legally responsible enough to purchase a rifle or shotgun. If the aim is safety, then wouldn't you want them to have small arms anyway? A rifle or shotgun is hard to hide from a criminal (or anyone for that matter).
Same effect does not mean same cause, and they don't even have the same effect. Gun control is set up to make sure that dangerous people can't get guns. Gun bans are set up to make sure no one gets guns. Those are two very different situations.
I;ve read this 4 timees now and I think I need claraification. I think what you mean is that as far as gun control violent and nonviolent criminals should not be grouped together. I think that stalkers are just as dangerous with guns as gang members. They are both antisocial and could have the intent to use guns.
I have to go with the judicial system on this. If you are given a restraining order, then you are legally a danger or threat to someone. Someone who is a legal danger to someone else should not be given a firearm. I disagree with many court rulings, but they are legal. Gun control can't be on a case-by-case basis.
We've already agreed to disagree on the constitutional legitimacy of the 'right to bear arms', so I'll leave this alone.
I'm not convinced that a gun greatly increases your odds for survival.
I don't support gun bans. I hate guns and support gun control, but I don't support gun bans. I see no reason to take your gun from you. I see reason to better monitor the flow of weapons, but not the seizure of all guns from everyone. The reason I supported the San Fran gun ban (which rhymes) is because it was their decision. San Francisco voted on it, so it's theirs to deal with. It's not the place of you, me, or the NRA to say that their votes didn't count.

When I run for office, my first order of buisness would be environmental measures. Then I'd focus on traffic, then population growth control. Then I'd work on full disclosure of all city matters (to let the interested citizens have better understanding of what's going on in City Hall). Gun control is hardly a city matter. Even if it were, I wouldn't support a ban. I know how crazy our police are, and a bun gan would cause a civil war.
I hope not. I hope that I am not so sure of my beliefs that I cannot be open minded. I suspect that our upbringings account for a great deal of our differences of opinion.

That didn't help the Jews in Nazi Germany. What should they have done differently?

The Sudan. Cambodia. Somalia. Etc.

Are we in Nazi Germany? I don't think so. IF things like Waco were still happening, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but they're not. Th government doesn't currently have the power to enact the same types of programs as Nazi Germany.
All cases involving 3rd world countries. Apples to oranges. Our military is too closely conected to home to have a military vs. civilians war. My uncle works at the Pentagon. He and I may not see eye to eye when it comes to the president, the administration, gun cotnrol, etc., but I know he would never turn on me just like I'd never turn on him.

Well for a start, the Nazi party got into power after they went out on armed rampages and were strong enough to commit their acts of brutality because they had weaponry that matched the government police/troops who might have been able to stop them if there had been any kind of gun control in place at the time.

If they hadn't been so freely able to arm themselves, the chances are that Hitler would never have gotten into power. But that's it - this thread has now been officially Godwined - and the prize goes to magictoy - well done!

Actually, they do have the same effect. They do not work to keep guns out of the criminals hands. They only work to make it harder or impossible for law abiding citizens to have them.

correct.
they are. I'm not saying that they aren't, but i've read enough stories and seen enough vindictive people that go get a restraining order in a divorce case for spite, despite the fact that there never was any abuse to begin with. It usually goes a long way in to settling custody issues after the fact.

so you support oligarchy. If a court decides a case wrongly, then tough shit? it's legal and we must live with it?

would they if the people were disarmed? thats the point, I think.

and yet, we have THIS video of troops and police disarming civilians.
Or This video of CHP tackling an old woman and forcibly removing her from her home.

Gun control and gun bans don't work to keeep guns out of the criminals hands? Listen I am really trying to find middle grouand and am making an effort to understand what you're saying, but you've gotta give me some sort of wiggle room here. You have to admit that gun control and gun bans have kept some criminals or bad people from getting guns. You have to admit that, I mean that's reality. Whether or not they are effective on the whole is up for debate, but they do stop SOME criminals from getting guns.
But like I said, we can't make laws that assume that the courts are wrong. We have to fix the problems in the courts and then make the laws accordingly. Gun control can't be a case by case thing.
I don't support oligarchy, but we have to fix the problems with the judicial system ourselves (as responsible citizens), not simply make laws that ignore it.
As stated above by Nezmot, "the Nazi party got into power after they went out on armed rampages and were strong enough to commit their acts of brutality because they had weaponry that matched the government police/troops who might have been able to stop them if there had been any kind of gun control in place at the time." Thdere has to be checks and balances of control between government and the general populace. Firearms for everyone is a great way to destroy our species.
What about the 256 million cases in which that didn't happen? I mean yes www.gunowners.com has some great articles, but I suspect that that same bias of sources you were talking about before is present here.

Ok, I can agree with that. SOME criminals are stopped. IMHO, not enough are stopped to make the laws worthwhile and we should be examining other methods.

checks and balances between the populace and the government? Will, in the united states, the government gets their power FROM us. WE are the last check on government run amok. The only checks and balances that should exist are between the three branches of gov. Just like in pre WW2 germany, a large enough civilian populace took matters in to their own hands, dissassembled their government and created another one.....a really crappy murderous one, but it was within their power to do so....just like our ancestors did in the revolutionary war. just like we should in todays times.

so I can use hypotheticals, right? also, IMHO, all sites have some bias which is why I look at dozens before I decide to use information so I can glean the biased from the reality. gunowners.com was used this time simply because I knew they had the links for those videos, which were from CBS and a local channel.

Well I'm glad you recognise that at least some criminals are stopped. Don't forget that I think that current gun control laws need an overhaul.
Wait, what are we talking about here? I though we were talkng about gun control, not a civilian coup.

we are/were. this was an aside to the nazi/hitler/populace not as armed as the military thing. we don't need to continue with this particular bit.

I am unable to find a reference that gives the above statement any credibility. I AM, however, able to find much documentation of the ascent of the Nazi party by the systematic abrogation of the people's rights. For convenience, I used Wikipedia. I imagine most people will skim over this, because it's common knowlege, except, apparently, to you.

Link

I didn't see a word about "armed rampages" being a significant factor.

I hope you will post references to back up your theory, as I did for mine. And congratulations for using Godwin's Law as a "substitute race card" when all else was failing.

Magictoy, that is what we call a threadjack. Despite the fact that dksuddeth and I are the best of adversaries in this thread, I'm sure both of us would agree that there are similarities between the rise of power by the Nazi party in germany after WWI and the current actions of the US administration. The fact is this thread is about gun control and the gun control people's opinions of pro gun people, not about the events leading to WWII.

Ha!

majictoy, you wanted links to help your understanding of Hitler's rise to power, these too are from wikipedia. The event I was thinking of was the Beer Hall Putsch - which, though it failed in the short term (sending Hitler to prison) it managed very well to display his later methods, which after forming part of the coalition government, he unleashed on the Night of The Long Knives (Where despite the name, the para-militaries involved, predominately used guns) to effectively sieze control of power, destroy his dissenters and successfully intimidate any remaining political opponents into silence.

But as willravel said - please don't threadjack - your points were slapped down because they were poorly formed (there was no gun-control in place, so the Jews were able to arm themselves anyway) and factually incorrect, not to mention irrelevant to the conversation in hand.

You know - I've been thinking about this further.

Perhaps, in certain societies and conditions, it is not feasible to control guns.

Despite my prediliction towards gun control - I can imagine that legal guns may be more useful or even necessary, in other societies, countries and situations.

April 29th, tomorrow, marks the anniversary of the Los Angeles riots. A day when an overwhelming number of gun control advocates finally grasped the meaning of the second amendment and attempted to do something that they never thought they would ever do. Buy a gun to protect themselves from the approaching thousands of angry and violent people looting and burning their city. Having to buy a gun because the police were not there to protect them, and they weren't coming either. They were ordered out of the area for their own safety.Imagine the horror they started to feel when they were told that they had to wait the required 15 days to purchase a weapon.

The second amendment is not JUST about protecting a free state, it's about the individual right of a person to keep and bear arms for their defense and the defense of the state.

The thing is dk, that if there was adequate gun control way back when, the LA Riots would not have been so violent, or so lawless. Guns point both ways.

But, I accept that in the US, things have gone too far - there are too many guns freely available for anyone, be they criminal, rioter, law abiding citizen, or paranoid parking-lot sniper to get their hands on.

In that world, you're damn right I would want to be armed.

Isn't that a shame though? To live in so much fear that you have to plan ahead for the day when you have to shoot your countrymen in order to defend your family and your own property.

That is not something to be proud of.

Any country who's citizens feel these levels of fear and distrust among their own people, is in serious trouble. No wonder there are so many stories of people shooting first and asking questions later.

the thousands of people running around looting and burning weren't using guns, they were able to use sheer numbers as a mob to be violent and target people and shops. Gun control HURT people because they weren't able to get guns for protection. Others were told this huge lie about the police would be there to protect them, and they weren't. People died not because the mobs had guns, but because they, as victims, did not.

i've got a growing philosophy in my head, that if we stopped coddling violent criminals and incarcerated them for 25 to life, or life without parole for any crime in which they use a weapon, then we'd have less to fear. I also believe, despite the doom and gloom scenarios by anti-gun people, that there would be less crime if more people were armed. Now, do I think that will bring about some peaceful utopia? no, not at all, and we'd still have all the gang violence in the inner cities BUT, and I know this sounds nuts, these gangbanger drive by shootings would soon stop after a few trained civilians emptied a magazine or two in to the cars of these idiots that spray bullets all over a city block trying to kill some other gangbanger. Even the gangbangers don't want to get shot and if they think that initiating a drive by could get them killed by someone they didn't see with an automatic, they'd certainly reconsider.

would this result in deaths? certainly. But the cost in lives would be far less than doing absolutely nothing or worse, disarming those that WANT to be safe.

I certainly hope that a "few trained civilians" wouldn't even think of emptying "a magazine or two" into passing cars, regardless of who is inside them.

If that car has 4 people in it and 3 of them are pointing shotguns/handguns/rifles out the window to kill someone else, I certainly hope that someone would empty a magazine at the car. I know I would. I'd rather kill those 4 idiots intent on a drive by than to have their spray of lead take out another kid having a birthday party.

You know, I don't begrudge you your viewpoints on guns and all that, but as you increasingly post on these types of subjects your rationality seems to unravel. Even cops don't do stupid shit like you're suggesting, why would you think your neighbors (although I have this suspicion you don't live near drive-bying gangsters and haven't ever seen a drive-by other than in a movie) would want more bullets flying around their street?

I don't begrudge you yours either, although I certainly don't agree with them. You can question my rationale all you like, it's not going to bother me. I know at times I'm wrong, I know at times I'm right. This is one of those times I'm right.

You say cops don't do stupid things like that? You don't watch or read the news much i'm guessing.
Remember Amadou diallo? An african immigrant that was shot and killed by new york cops on his porch. 4 cops fired 41 bullets at him and he was unarmed.

The north hollywood bank robbery shootout - these two morons had automatic weapons and were just spraying lead all over the place. Now, what would you rather have, these two continuing to indiscriminately shoot the hundreds/thousands of rounds they had in all directions or 2-4 people with automatic arms firing back at them in their direction trying to stop them?

I know, like most people who have been led to believe that we mere humans are incapable of handling such an episode without totally crumpling down in to a catatonic mass of human flesh, never to recover from such awful violence are totally inferior to the superhuman law enforcement because they wear body armor and qualify with a pistol once a year, you choose to have two psychotics running loose in the streets killing people instead of having any civilian fire back because that would just cause pure pandemonium and might get someone killed. :crazy:

I've never been around a drive by, had to live in downtown south dallas for a week once though. I hadn't heard that much gunfire since my last time on the rifle range as a marine. Nobody wants more bullets flying around, but any intelligent person that wants to stop those that are shooting up the place should know that the only thing thats going to stop them is their fear of being shot back at.

I think one of the issues being overlooked is that the main problem of gun violence today (i.e. - criminal activity) is being perpetrated by illegal guns. That is a key issue because pro-gun people are not pro-criminals, they are pro the right to have their own guns to protect themselves from said criminal.

Point 2, we should definitely look up and compare statistics. While not perfect, it would be a great start in furthering this discussion. For example, comparing crime rates (with gun or whatever) in carry states vs non-carry states so on and so forth. I always wonder, in Texas where they can carry (right?), is crime less? (such as muggings etc).

Consider this: If a burglar was standing between two houses, contemplating which one to rob. One house has an NRA sticker on the door and the other has Greenpeace sticker...which one would he rob?
(I know this is kind of silly but I wanted to interject a little bit of lightheartedness to the thread).

First of all, since you don't know my stance on guns, don't make asinine comments about whether you agree with them or not (inverting my comments doesn't demonstrate much thought in your response). The most I've done is subject your arguments to scrutiny. You probably object to that position, with little wonder, since they haven't held up to any close examination so far.

Secondly, if you are military trained, I'm surprised you would advocate indiscriminant magazine dumping into soft targets. but whatever, like I said, your responses increasingly clarify your irrationality on this subject.

I watch and read the news all the time. Neither of your examples approximate the norm of police behavior, were roundly criticized when they occurred, and in the north hollywood example, specifically, the streets were closed off and it was in a business district so I don't even see how that's relevant to whether citizens should respond to gun-weilding criminals with a hail of bullets.


BUT, I'm not here to debate the finer points of your position on this or tangentially related subjects, my point in posting was to clue you in to the fact that you often step right up to the line of rational discourse in these subjects and sometimes, like these past few comments, you fall right off the cliff. Tone down the rhetoric f you want anyone to take you seriously.

The answer to your question, from self-report data, is either or both.
A burglar (not robber), is going to enter your house when he's pretty confident you're not home. The NRA sticker is most likely to result in your life being jeopardized, however, since the burglar is on alert that the situation could become lethal. And since he's more desperate, and possibly more used to hurting other people than an average houseowner, we can make an educated guess as to who is going to be more inclined to harm the other if a confrontation does ensue.

...not to mention your sticker just alerted the burglar to a potential stockpile of arms in the residence...

...stockpile of weapons, or birkenstocks? which house would you burglarize?


regarding the stats, they collide for a variety of reasons, but it's not disputed that a large portion of weapons related crime is due to accidents and suicides from guns in the home along with unauthorized access to arms by criminals. now you can try and compare the numbers between crime alleviated and those unfortunate incidents, but the dispute is volume, not an if.

Ah...my little question was intended for humor but I see it has taken a philosophical bent *chuckle*. There are a host of flaws to my one-liner but I get your point. Still, believe all things being equal, most people take the path of least resistance. looking at the two options, perhaps choosing to rob the birkenstocks would be less work than a potentially armed guy (with itchy trigger finger), assuming your average Joe burglar is unarmed.

Regarding the statistical question, I think it's worth a look. Otherwise this type of debate just sort of goes in circles eh?

For examples, excluding accidents and suicides would be a preliminary step I would think. And differentiating between crimes committed with lawful guns vs unlawful (if they even keep such a statistic) would also be wise. Something like that.... of course looking at stats is only a part of the discussion but a potentially valuable addition.

Yeah, I realize it was humor intended...but there's some underlying assumptions that were worth exploring in my opinion.

But directly to your points, yeah birkenstocks may be easier to steal (or presumably the person wearing them would be an easier target) but they aren't worth anything on the street. Regardless, your house will be burglarized when the burglar thinks you aren't home and selection would be based on perceived worth of the job rather than danger (since danger is controlled for by your absence).


The problem with going to the statistical data is that its conflicting and a large number of people don't know how to consume it. It's difficult enough to have discussions over statistical findings with people trained in that area, and its not as if academics see this as a settled matter either. Basically what will most likely happen is members here will go round and round over the numbers instead of their ideas, and injecting them into conversations hasn't been very valuable in the past.

And yes, "they" keep stats on crimes committed with lawful guns versus unlawful ones.
Gun control proponents usually get their arguments maligned by gun possession advocates. More often than not, people agree that lawful possession and responsible wielding are doable--even if they don't personally choose to carry. But then something needs to be done to restrict the avenue through which criminals illegally obtain weapons, and that's the gist of the argument for a lot of reasonable people who recognize that criminals are the ones who pose the greatest danger to the general populace when it comes to firearms.

in 86, the FOPA (firearm owners protection act) was signed in to law and part of that law was the prohibition of posession, manufacture, or importation of machine guns manufactured after May 1986.
The argument of 'what sane person needs an automatic weapon' CAN be a valid one, but I propose the following...

shadowy street gangs (like MS-13) who come from countries where automatic weapons are easily available bring them across the border in to our country. Now, don't tell me that these would be stopped because we all know how dedicated our federal government is in stopping border crossings.

So, how many illegal automatic weapons are in this country? Couple that with all of the 'reconquistas' who are the militant variety who COULD get an automatic weapon illegally.

With over 20 million illegals, there is no telling how many could suddenly rise up and start 'taking back their country' or some such crap. How many civilians would be killed, by illegal automatics, IF this happens? In sizable numbers, law enforcement would be sorely outmatched and we've all seen how rapidly the feds are to dispatch military units with the L.A. riots and Katrina.

Civilian ownership of automatic weapons would be the ONLY thing to save people and hold off a massacre of unprecedented scale.



Now, some might say that the police will handle it, or the national guard and military are supposed to deal with issues like this, but did that work for the LA riots of 92?


someone tell me the good reason why gun control, which truly only affects those that will abide by the law, is a good idea?

I'm only talking about legalizing small tactical nukes...."packaged" as artillary rounds and tank gun rounds....you can't be too careful.

The above quote box is displayed to make the point that any weapon can be inserted to make the argument that the civilian population neccessarily needs to be armed with anyhting that it can carry....because the threat is so large and unpredictable. Armor piercing rounds, C-4 plastic explosives, anti-tank weapons, and shoulder launched anit-aircraft missles can also be inserted as weapon du jour, in the above quote box.

The problem is that this won't solve anything, it won't lower the risk level, the "legal" weapons will be stolen or wrenched from the hands of the panicked civilian who deems it appropriate to us one of these on the perceived threat.
Why is it that all police are not armed with an Uzi, and H&K, or a B.A.R.?
The military is trained to fire three round bursts. Zealous civilians with too much fear and money and too little training don't need automatic weapons, anymore than they need flamethrowers or hand grenades.

IF a 'dirty bomb' is used, it won't matter much anymore after that. Nukes can't even be considered an option, not on our own soil. to go with the total arms not infringed argument, if you could afford to build and maintain a nuke, why shouldn't you?

until somewhere between 1934 and 1968, most men of any age knew how to use their weapons. It that particular time period though, a subversive element of this country managed to convince a sizable percentage of the urban population that they didn't need to be responsible for their own protection anymore. That self defense, especially with guns, was a repugnant idea and that we now had policeman who could take care of that responsibility for us. This was a wholly unamerican, and now a complete national security risk, idea. It's not only damn near destroyed us as a nation, but it's turned us from a free society in to something thats just steps away from the statist society that england has.

Did a gun control law stop this?
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

If you want an answer to californias crime issue, there it is. Instead of keeping an obviously dangerous felon in jail, he was released AFTER being convicted of possessing a sawed off shotgun. That alone is an NFA violation and should have faced federal charges. And one year? one damn year?

all the screaming for tougher gun control laws is a waste of energy if you're just going to let the bad guys back out on the street.

wow, thanks for clearing up California's crime issue. I'll be sure and let everyone know on my floor first thing in the morning...

...we can all go home now, I bet if we had just kept him in jail for the whole four more months he skated without serving, he wouldn't have committed any more crimes.

Of course, maybe you meant we should have kept him in prison for life for possession of a sawed-off shotgun?

The irony is that you post thread after thread about firearms rights, yet call this person an "obviously dangerous felon" due to the fact that he possessed a shotgun in violation of current laws. Where does legitimate flouting of the law begin and end in your mind? Does one have an inherent (god-given, is the word I believe you used in discussion with me earlier) right to possess weapons or only those the state allows him or her to possess?


EDIT:
If you make it to the end of the article, the author provides some objective data:
The first thing you'll notice is that, while pre-releases rose considerably, the percent of people who served their full sentence ALSO increased. Presumably, this indicates that low-risk offenders were released while enabling the jail to house more eggregious offenders who would otherwise have been released early.
*perhaps we can discuss the profile of these various offenders in another thread before making sweeping assertions regarding the "crime" problem in Cali and the US, generally.*

the second chart indicates that in 3.5 years only 16 people committed murder after they were released early. While any murder is a murder too many, the fact that nearly 150,000 inmates were released in that same time indicates that the stories employed to make the point that potential murderers were being released wholesale is not only inaccurate, it's so far from the norm that it's not even on the map (run the numbers on a calculator just to get a sense of how ridiculous it'd be to make conclusions by using early-released murderers as a policy guide).

All of the offenses listed COMBINED only comprise 1% of the inmates released. And only 10% of the total population were re-arrrested at all (for what, we're not privy to in this data set). However, you're arguing, based on this, that a better solution would be to house 90% of the released population (which was never re-arrested) and 99% of the population (which didn't commit a violent crime again)?


The only thing we can conclude policy-wise from this data-set is that if we were to implement the changes you seem to be implying, our jails would EXPLODE! And we wouldn't even obtain a significant reduction in the crimes committed for our troubles and expense.

The other clear point is that roughly 1 out of 100 inmates will reoffend in a violent crime. 1 out of 100,000 will commit a murder. The problem then becomes how we determine which one?

dksuddeth, I first posted about "Fred" last month....there is a link to get to the column that he wrote about buying a house in Mexico...in the first post on the Living in Mexico thread.....

Anyway....if he's right about where we're headed, in his newest column:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MultiCulty.shtml ....

(A.) It is abundantly clear why he moved to Mexico.
(B.) We are going to experience a much uglier and violent future in America.
(C.) Your strong advocacy for being well armed is a "no brainer"!

Fred moved to Mexico....I don't think that he is racist...just observant and realistic about the consequences of what he observes. This country is *ucked!

my two points are

1) To prevent offenders from re-offending, use LONGER sentences, especially for crimes that involve weapons, like a sawed off shotgun

2) The 2A is an inherent right, but it is not without it's limits, just like any other right. If it's abused, you punish the individual and if that individual cannot be trusted with a weapon, you don't let him out of prison.

I'll find a quote from one of the founders and post it later, but it said something to the fact that carrying arms is a right, but those that abuse the right and commit crimes with firearms will face the stocks or the gallows to ensure that they can't do it anymore.

dksuddeth,

you're not making much sense to me
Moreno didn't commit a crime WITH a firearm, the ONLY crime Moreno committed was possessing an illegal weapon. then he was released, then he killed someone.

how long should someone get for carrying a weapon the state says is illegal?
1 year? 2 years? 5? what will it take, in your opinion, to prevent such a person from ever committing a crime again? if you can't answer that definatively, what's the purpose of even saying your point #1?

are you seriously going to dig up a quote from someone saying that if you carry some types of weapons you should face the stocks or gallows?

doesn't such a position contradict your earlier arguments that it's socially irresponsible to prohibit people from owning certain weapons?
or do sawed-off shotguns fall within your personal scope of invalid weapons?
and if they do, why can't handguns fall within mine?

actually, he committed a crime as well as possessing an illegal weapon. drug possession, along with an unregistered NFA weapon, should have been grounds to hold him til trial.

The way the current brady law is makes it illegal for a felon to possess a gun. Now, how many felons actually follow that law? I'm guessing that there's a sizable percentage, but the real issue is the felons who don't plan on following the law anyway. That's why I'm of the position that the real determination for gun rights should be 'can this person be trusted in society again?', because if a person is going to commit another crime, a stupid gun law isn't going to stop him. So if the person CAN be trusted in society again, he should get all of his rights back. The soft hearted liberals have reduced these sentence standards which is a partial cause of the high crime in society as it is today.

yes, but only to show that firearm crime wasn't rampant back then because you didn't get a second chance to commit a crime with a gun. you were either imprisoned for life or you were hung/executed.

it does, but only because it has to at this point. Until we can make changes in sentencing and imprisonment standards, there has to be some sort of 'qualifier' to own a gun, not that it works anyway.
sawed off shotguns are a valid weapon, but they are required to be registered with the BATF and a $200 tax payed for each individual weapon, according to the National Firearms Act of 1934

dksuddeth,

You need to reread the article because it appears you are confusing Moreno's second conviction with his first. I mean, this is the article YOU posted; the least you could do is transpose the facts from one website to another correctly when we're discussing it, agreed?

Moreno didn't originally commit a crime WITH a firearm, the ONLY crime Moreno originally committed was possessing an illegal weapon (a sawed-off shotgun). THEN he was released, and while possessing a bag of marijuana, shot Dennard with a "rifle."


The main problem's I'm having with your position are that 1) the state determines what weapons are lawful and/or registerable and 2) the state determines who is fit to carry weapons and who isn't

both of these are unteneble if we hold to your original position that weapon weilding is an inherent right (albeit with responsibilities) and that the main reason for such a right is to protect our inherent liberties.

both of these scenarios would not prevent a tyrannical state from arising.
in the first point, the state would simply round everyone up and seize weapons they felt created a significant threat. I don't see how you would move around that issue. AFAIK, weapons registries are opposed by weapons and privacy rights advocates.

in the second point, the state would simply classify those likely to present opposition as threats to society, effectively nullifying their check against government power. using your standard, how would we have been able to distinguish between you and moreno (pre-crime)? are you of the opinion that I'm inherently more dangerous to society than you even though I've served four years in the state penitentiary...or have I regained your trust to defend our collective and my individual liberties now that I'm completing my doctorate?


none of this is coherent on the theoretical level--wherein you argued that weapons possession and usage is a god-given, inherent right and obligation. at that level, it simply wouldn't matter what the state thinks of your point 1 or 2. in that world, we would allow people to carry and weild weapons as they saw fit and punish them for behaving inappropriately. much like the quote you may or may not eventually dig up (relevence being the key here, whether we operate within a world where we react to crime [founder's quote] rather than proact [preemptive detainment--your position]).

I'll concede on mixing up the two offenses. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

On the weapon registration. It is a federal law (NFA 1934) that shotguns with barrels under 18" in length must be registered with the ATF, owner must pay $200 revenue tax, and the county sheriff needs to approve, in writing, that the weapon can be owned. I don't agree with this law, but there it is.

In California, the state does indeed get to narrow the list of what weapons they will allow their citizens to own and which ones they can't, but this cannot override any federal laws. For example, fed law states that nobody can own a machine gun manufactured AFTER May 1986, so california couldn't negate that law for their state. They can add weapons to the list of restricted or banned weapons, as they have done with their own version of the assault weapons ban.

With regards to inherent rights of keeping and bearing arms (carrying), the 9th circuit court of appeals has effectively handcuffed all citizens in the 9th circuit jurisdiction with the decision that the 2A is ONLY a right of the states to maintain a militia. Until the supreme court gets off of its duff and makes the ruling consistent with congressional findings of historical fact, nothing can be done about this. Just because the courts rule a gun ban or gun control law constitutional, does not mean they are right.

there are very limited avenues of crime prevention. We do not live in 'the minority report', but there are some situations where action can be taken to prevent a greater crime.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
--- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State (1878)
I was mistaken as to who said this but there it is. Don't interpret this too narrowly and construe 'army pistols' with it meaning 'well regulated militia'.