Depends what you call crime.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/13388/3

I was responding to the ludicrous notion that swords are as dangerous as guns. Guns can easily hit someone from 30 paces. Swords? Knives?
Don't you live in NYC? It's probably a hobo.
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...22/-1/archives

This should be moved to Politics, as it's clear that this is no longer about Weaponry, and that it no longer adheres to the purpose of this subsection.

From the Rules of Tilted Weaponry:

Jinn, this is something to contact the moderators about, not post in the thread.

Did already, thanks.

and it serves as a friendly reminder that's not staff to be mindful of forum rules.

Gun-free areas like the businesses who are planning to fight this are rarely designated as such because the owners honestly believe that it will prevent shootings, they're there because it theoretically transfers legal responsibility for paying medical bills and punitive damages away from the owner and to the person doing the shooting.
If you're out of danger and not an LEO, you have no duty to return and attempt to confront an armed individual, and likely even less of a right to do so. Cut off everything after 3 and you've got the right idea. Carrying a gun is so you have something better than just accepting it if you think you're about to die. The intent of the law is not to let you run to the parking lot, load up, and run back in thinking you're [your favorite action hero's name here]; it's there so that people who wish to be armed in places where they are allowed to be armed can do it without having to worry about being fired for locking a gun in the car and going to work unarmed.

That said, this is an idiotic law. Now, instead of a bunch of people either carrying in violation of company policies or locking a gun in the car in violation of company policy,* there will be large numbers of people who will lock guns in their cars while at work. In one of our most heavily armed states, all criminals in search of guns to steal will have to do is find the places with "no guns" signs and start breaking windows knowing that at least a few cars in any decently-sized lot will have guns in them.


* - I'd place a conservative estimate of the number of people who legally carry, are prohibited from doing so by policies but no law, and carry there anyway because they value personal protection more highly than their jobs, at around 75%

I've asked several Fort Lauderdale city cops and they all seem to be in agreement (whether green or veteran) that their only concern about the law is this. The guns in the cars will end up in the street and they'll end up with a lot of paperwork.

Oddly enough, I agree with you here.

Of course, in my perfect world, those with the properly issued concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry their guns into work.

As it has been said, the problem is nutwacks, not concealed permit owners, who have had to shell out a couple of hundred for classes and permits, had an FBI background check, and increasingly a mental health record check.

I actually feel safer with the latter around.

Oddly enough, the UK doesn't agree with you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331099.stm

Some over there think banning swords isn't enough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

You know the first murder was committed with a rock. Hmmmm....

I'd consider myself lucky to live in a country where the most dangerous weapon is a sword.

i'm curious how many times you gun owners have had to use your weapon. i'm guessing it's the same number of times as me (and I don't own one)

Interesting how perspective is.

I would consider myself fucked to be living in a country where only the police and military had guns, because I could be living in China, Cuba, North Korea, the (former) USSR, etc.

As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun and I prefer the power to remain with the people.


Thank God, never.

But I personally know three people who could have been seriously fucked up if they hadn't been able to show (not use) one.

and what were the circumstances surrounding those encounters?

Or you could be under the oppressive British or Japanese regimes. I think you need a bit more of this "perspective" you speak of. Crime is relatively low in the UK and quite low in Japan, and they are most certainly not police states. They enjoy similar freedoms to people in the US (without things like domestic spying and being held without trial, like we have here in the US).

The UK and Japan prove conclusively that gun bans are not synonymous with oppressive governments.

If I keep losing sleep because of the noise, I'm going to pop the woodpecker that's been breaking into my house right above my window and call it self-defense.

But seriously, I've been in four situations where I was only a few minutes from being in businesses when they were robbed by an armed attacker. Having spoken to the employees after the fact, I am confident that the only safe course of action for all involved had I been there would have been for me to comply with the robbers' demands to stand back, memorize whatever I could about them, and call the police with a description as soon as they left.

Considering that at least one was by a gang member, and gang-related violence has been on the rise in the area (53 shootings and stabbings last year,) I find it comforting to know that that if a situation turns bad, I have a way to fight back, because at this rate, I am more likely than ever before to find myself in a situation in which I will be in the same room as an armed criminal. Hopefully if it happens, it will be a textbook situation with everyone staying calm, the cashiers or tellers handing over the money, and the local PD arresting the morons ten minutes later.
The difference between domestic spying in the US and the UK is that the UK has the police do it. I wouldn't say they have all the freedoms that we do, for example over there it's a crime to own a TV without a license.

will, when your government charges you with assault and battery for defending yourself, even with fists, then yes, that is an oppressive government.

Is this referencing some obscure occurrence? Or are you describing a situation where someone used excessive force defending him or herself? There is such thing as excessive force in defense, you know.

i'm describing every event of self defense I have ever read about for at least 2 years.

You mean every self defense you've read in the last two years that involves fists? Is that like one? Maybe two?

no, i mean EVERY case of self defense, whether its fists, feet, bottles, sticks, bats, rocks, knives, etc. I've not read a single case where somebody in the UK, who used physical force to defend themselves, were not charged with some sort of crime.

Since I was talking about the UK, the cases with weapons that are illegal (guns and swords) in the UK probably wouldn't count.

so by that stance, in the event of some sort of mass shooting (because criminals fail to follow gun possession laws), if the cop nearest me was killed and i picked up his gun to shoot the bad guy, I should be charged with murder because I constructively possessed a gun that didn't belong to me?

I'm not familiar with mass shootings in the UK since the ban. Perhaps you're projecting problems here in the US onto our friendly neighbors to the north east.

Ad no, that wouldn't be murder. There may be a lesser charge in dealing with discharging a firearm, though. The UK has self defense exemptions in it's laws just like we do.

So MSD... the headline in the paper reads "MSD shoots armed gang member in store holdup". The rest of gang members find a listing for MSD in the phone book... and you still feel safe?

In Canada there are relatively few shootings. The criminals can get guns, because, well, that's the nature of being criminals. They get drugs and steal cars and lots of other stuff.

I still feel safe, there aren't that many criminals around and I don't have to fear my neighbor retaliating in a hail of bullets to my loud exhaust or shooting through the door when I go to take him a letter that the mailman stuck in the wrong mailbox.

If you've seen MSD you know he doesn't need a gun to fight crime.

If memory serves, dude's got a tater-zooka.

Perhaps that's the answer. Let people have spud guns. The trigger happy will still be happy.

this is so typical of peoples attitudes today and I really can't understand it. What is the rationale for believing that criminals are better, saner, and more controlled human beings than your neighbor who you are worried that he might actually mow down half your house in a hail of bullets because you play your music too loud? Somebody please tell me why this is?

See, that's totally on point right there.

Whether you live in a shall-issue CCW state, or work on a college campus that allows CCW, live in Florida with this new ordnance, or any of the several states that allow open carry...

...some psycho motherfucker with a gun is not going to care about the law. He's just going to take his guns(s) inside whatever building it is, and start shooting.

I feel that the Second Amendment (you know, the par that starts with ...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... was never intended to allow Joe Smucatelli citizen to carry a gun whenever or wherever he wanted, concealed or no, regardless of his profession.

That being said, overall I really feel this will make little or no difference in the amount of gun crime overall in Florida, gun thefts out of parked cars, or lucky-ass (and straight-shooting) CCW owners stopping crime.

Makes for some AWESOME news and debate during an election year, though. :thumbsup:

Feel? or know? because if you have some historical proof, like something from the framers of the constitution saying anything about it not being an individual right, several constitutional scholars would love to see it.

"A well regulated Militia" - an organized, armed fighting force
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - not being under government control
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - shall not have their guns taken

Put it all together:
An organized fighting force, separate from the government, shall not have their guns taken away from them.

That is how the amendment reads. To suggest it means anything else is to ignore the very words which were crafted by some of our nation's great leaders and passed both by the infant House and Senate. The actual words above simply must override highly suspect correspondence and notes from the time which are quoted by those who wish to taylor the meaning of the amendment to their own wants. The verbiage is perfectly clear.

Know.

I read it quite literally. I understand how it's also read as an individual right (which I heartily excercise myself), which may or may not be a stretch. But hey, the Tootsie Pop principle applies: the world may never know.

Again, the Florida law won't going to make any dramatic impact either way on gun crime numbers. But the media and political groups will have a field day with it. At least until the next hot topic comes along...

so what you're trying to say is that every constitutional convention, every debate from each state, every document from every founder and framer, and the federalist and anti-federalist papers all declared that all men have the right to keep and bear arms, then when james madison wrote the bill of rights, he snuck in a boondoggle and lied to an entire nation about the 2nd amendment?

i'm pretty sure i would NOT feel comfortable knowing my co-workers were packing heat

would you feel comfortable if it was only you 'packing heat'?

What I'm saying is that the words which were crafted by some of our nation's great leaders, passed by both the House and Senate, and then passed the president's desk are perfectly clear. Are you claiming that somehow they—some of our nation's great leaders, members of both the House and Senate—were all wrong and that some federalists' and anti-federalists' writings, which have not been verified to have even been authored by said federalists and anti-federalists, override the actual wording of the document? That's just silly.

Your impression of the Second would look like this:
"The right for the people to bear arms, being necessary for a free state, shall not be infringed."

That's not how it reads. Members of a well organized militia are guaranteed a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

yes they are, WE have the right to arms.

whats silly is you not clearly understanding that the 'bill of rights' applies to individuals.....every amendment applies to the rights of individuals. to believe that the 2nd applies to a government regulated force of soldiers while the other 9 apply to individuals is silly.

that is not what it reads and you know this. it says 'the right of the people, not 'the right of a well regulated militia'. also, when this amendment was written, WE (that means 'the people', you AND I, were the militia. We are STILL the militia. We are the militia because YOU and I are the soveriegn of the state. WE are necessary for the security of a free state, therefore OUR right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not being a member of a well regulated militia, I don't have that right.
So you're saying some of our nation's great leaders and members of both the House and Senate were "silly" for wording it in a way that you disagree with?
Actually, the amendment starts out with "A well regulated militia". Maybe you've missed it.
This was written when my forefathers were still scattered across Europe and Asia (Russian), so it wasn't referring to me "when this amendment was written". The militia is well regulated. I am not a member of a well regulated militia, you are not a member of a well regulated militia, therefore it's not referring to us.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Whoever wrote this clearly needed a professional editor. (Yes, I've seen the other drafts.) It is unclear phrasing and should not therefore be read literally. It needs historical and cultural context. It needs reinterpretation. It needs changing. It's about time to amend the amendment. It seems open to widespread abuse.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
yes, we do. you included.

no, i said YOU were silly for trying to read it as a militia right instead of a right of the people. plain text and all.

not at all. it tells us that a well regulated militia is necessary, therefore our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. see militia code above.

yes it did, yes it does, and yes you most certainly are as well as I am.

yes, some of the most brilliant minds in our history of a nation needed grammar skills. :orly:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the grammar. It is unclear phrasing.

Some of the most brilliant authors (yes, American authors included) required heavy editing before they were published. They still do. When it comes to something like an amendment to a constitution, it needs to be clear. If it were clear, would you and willravel be having this debate? :orly: