The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Backfires on Dems - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 05-29-2003, 02:56 PM

Laid out by the Wall Street Journal what we already knew. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban wasn't about public safety, it was about politics.

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

LINK

Backfire

Democrats discover that gun control doesn't win elections.

Monday, May 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's no surprise that Republicans in Congress aren't eager to renew the ban on certain semiautomatic firearms due to expire next year. What's more interesting is why Democrats aren't raising much of a fuss about it.

Our suspicion is that the left has learned the hard way that gun control is a political loser. The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep. Mr. Clinton later said crossing gun owners cost his party more than 20 seats. In 1995, the House voted to repeal the ban, which wouldn't even have passed without a sunset provision, but the effort died in the Senate.

Then came the red-state rout of 2000. Democratic political advisers like Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign, have acknowledged that the gun issue "played a large role" in Mr. Gore losing several rural states in 2000. Those include his home state of Tennessee, Arkansas and usually Democratic West Virginia.

This probably explains why a Democratic presidential candidate such as Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, who pushed hard for the gun ban nine years ago, has been so quiet during the current debate. Most everyone save the party's urban liberal bloc--folks like California's Dianne Feinstein, Michigan's John Conyers, New York's Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton--wants the subject to go away. Otherwise reliable Vermont liberal Howard Dean is explicit on the point that gun control is a lousy issue for Democrats.

All of this is progress of a sort. It shows that the original ban was all about politics, not safety. Keeping assault weapons off the streets was never the real issue. Proponents knew that all but a small percentage of crimes involving firearms were committed with guns that wouldn't fall under the ban. They also knew the ban was easily avoided by making small adjustments to the guns.
But liberals didn't care about these details because guns were simply a wedge issue designed to scare suburbanites, and particularly women, into voting Democrat. Now that elections have repudiated the strategy, the party's enthusiasm has waned.

The trend in gun regulation is now in a much different direction. The bill that recently passed the House would shield gun makers from frivolous lawsuits claiming they're responsible for the criminal misuse of a legal product. Smith & Wesson, Glock and dozens of others are currently being sued in federal court in Brooklyn by gun-control activists and trial lawyers who want to hold them responsible for high homicide rates in poor black neighborhoods.

A jury rejected that claim earlier this month, but the presiding judge, Jack Weinstein, has the final say and is expected to find for the plaintiffs. Republicans want to end this indirect assault on gun rights, and some Democrats are now realizing it's in their political interest not to get in the way.

There's also a good lesson here for the business community, and it comes courtesy of the National Rifle Association's tireless efforts to protect Second Amendment freedoms. If the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers wants to fight off damaging regulation, they'd better learn to mobilize politically and show they can win elections. In Washington, political relevance is what matters most.

Kadath · 05-29-2003, 09:01 PM

Fuck, that law was toothless the day it was signed. The way it was written allowed gun manufacturers to make minute changes to their existing designs to avoid the ban. Gun control IS a lousy issue because America is filled with lousy people who need a gun to feel powerful(or empowered, if you like), safe, less impotent, whatever. If the law had been about safety it would have banned everything but hunting rifles at the very least. You don't need a fucking handgun, people, let alone an assault rifle. You're not in a militia. You aren't going to be called upon to defend your settlement from hostile Indians or the King of England. Give up your tools of rage.

I don't mean to say that all gun owners are lousy people, or impotent, or anything of the sort. I meant to say that people who need a gun to compensate for such problems, real or imagined, are not helpful to the situation in this country. It is currently your right to own a handgun, and I don't begrudge you that right, nor think you any less of a person for exercising that right. I do, however, want to change the way Americans look at guns, hopefully for the better

Lebell · 05-29-2003, 10:09 PM

Well,

I guess I'm glad you don't have a gun. Too much rage there

That reminds me, I have to clean my hand guns and my assault rifle on Saturday...

Kadath · 05-29-2003, 10:56 PM

See, now what's the point of that, honestly? What purpose does it serve? Do you feel better about yourself now? I hope you do, really I do. And if you call this being too personal or not civil, then we've got a problem.

This post was entirely too confrontational. I apologize.

Lebell · 05-29-2003, 11:22 PM

Actually, I feel pretty good about myself.

The purpose was to respond to a fairly angry post in a manner that was not angry, but did not let it go unchallenged.

And I DO have to clean my handguns and assault rifle on Saturday. My Kel Tek P32, SIG226 and Bushmaster DCM match rifle are filthy from shooting 2 weekends ago.

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
You don't need a fucking handgun, people, let alone an assault rifle. You're not in a militia. You aren't going to be called upon to defend your settlement from hostile Indians or the King of England. Give up your tools of rage.

It's disturbing that you are so willing to dictate the needs of others, and make such predictions of the future. Are you willing to dictate exactly how many cups of sugar that a family "needs" per day? How many cars they "need" to have? How many luxury items they "need"? Feel free to plummet down that slippery slope, but don't take any of us with you. If you are so sure that Americans will never need to know how to use a weapon and have one available, please let me know what the winning lottery numbers for tomorrow are. Thanks.

Throughout history, the first step to controlling a nation has been to physically disarm it. To take that step against ourselves is pure folly, and I don't understand why any reasonable nation would do so. In nearly every state that conceal/carry laws have been passed, violent crimes have gone DOWN. It doesn't take much to guess what would happen if the exact opposite -- disarming all law-abiding citizens -- would do to the violent crime rate nationwide. At one point Washington DC had the most strict gun control laws in the nation, and also the highest murder rate. Reactionist gun control laws do nothing but create more victims for the people who break the very same laws -- criminals.

Regardless of what you think about guns, or how afraid of them that you may be (that is often a factor), you are in a minority. Minnesota (an incredibly liberal state, by any comparison) recently passed a conceal/carry bill and it is only a matter of time before statistics supporting it in our state will be made available. Expect to see similar measures soon in other states that have the sense to look at what is going on around them.

Quote:

There's a very important and clear difference between patriotism and vociferous obedience to the administration's policies. I love America. I distrust my current government.

It's funny how in your sig you claim to distrust your current government, and yet rally to be disarmed by it. Please explain how on earth that makes any sense..?

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 01:39 AM

I'm limiting myself on how much I react due to an ongoing situation. I will say the following: Your argument about my saying what people need is foolish. I was referring, obviously enough, to the second amendment, which made provisions for citizens to own guns based on certain needs at the time, needs which no longer exist.
Thank you for citing one state to prove I am in the minority. (Oh, and what does "see what is going on around them" mean? Sounds a little ominous to me.) However, I freely and proudly admit to being in the minority. The masses are quite often wrong.
As for my sig. I do distrust my government, because they do as they will and don't explain why. I'm not so paranoid, however, to think that if the right to bear arms were revoked, the government would suddenly oppress the nation. Further, I'm not so delusional as to think that the only thing stopping the government from doing such a thing is the presence of a few guns.
More as events allow.

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Your argument about my saying what people need is foolish. I was referring, obviously enough, to the second amendment, which made provisions for citizens to own guns based on certain needs at the time, needs which no longer exist.

To suggest that the need no longer exists, is nothing but an unsupported assumption on your part. You can claim that the second amendment was only to protect "militia-men" but that would only be an interpretation on your part, one which has been argued for much longer than this board has been around. I'd be interested in hearing any sort of logic that supports your claim that the right to bear arms is no longer necessary. Crime and corruption certainly haven't been stamped out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Thank you for citing one state to prove I am in the minority. (Oh, and what does "see what is going on around them" mean? Sounds a little ominous to me.) However, I freely and proudly admit to being in the minority. The masses are quite often wrong.

Thank you for providing absolutely no evidence or logic to back up your ridiculous claims other than "the masses are quite often wrong" which in itself is flawed but quite telling. If you were serious about discussing this, there is plenty of evidence that I could reference, but it appears that you are just trolling again.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
As for my sig. I do distrust my government, because they do as they will and don't explain why. I'm not so paranoid, however, to think that if the right to bear arms were revoked, the government would suddenly oppress the nation. Further, I'm not so delusional as to think that the only thing stopping the government from doing such a thing is the presence of a few guns.
More as events allow.

It's not paranoia, it's called learning from history. Revoking the right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms is a stepping stone to oppressing a nation and a very important one. To think otherwise suggests that you are living in a different world than the rest of us are.

"A few guns" are not stopping the government from revoking our second amendment rights, logic and common sense are. If a selective ban of so-called "assault rifles" was reacted to in such a way as to give Republicans control of Congress, imagine the reaction to an all-out ban of the posession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would be.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 02:59 AM

Well, if I'm going to go out, I might as well go out with a bang, rather than a whimper. First of all, I take serious issue with you referring to my actions as trolling. Offensive. Now. Point by point, I guess, is the way these things are done.

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
To suggest that the need no longer exists, is nothing but an unsupported assumption on your part. You can claim that the second amendment was only to protect "militia-men" but that would only be an interpretation on your part, one which has been argued for much longer than this board has been around. I'd be interested in hearing any sort of logic that supports your claim that the right to bear arms is no longer necessary. Crime and corruption certainly haven't been stamped out.

It's not a question of interpretation. "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." That's the text.
As for crime and corruption, that's why we have POLICE. No need to take the law into your own hands.

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

Thank you for providing absolutely no evidence or logic to back up your ridiculous claims other than "the masses are quite often wrong" which in itself is flawed but quite telling. If you were serious about discussing this, there is plenty of evidence that I could reference, but it appears that you are just trolling again.

I didn't realize the onus was on me to prove the masses are quite often wrong. If you actually want evidence I'm sure I could dredge it up, but you're kidding, right? How about segregation? Slavery? That the Earth was flat, or revolved around the Sun? On and on and on. I consider this subject closed.

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

It's not paranoia, it's called learning from history. Revoking the right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms is a stepping stone to oppressing a nation and a very important one. To think otherwise suggests that you are living in a different world than the rest of us are.

Yeah, Canada, England, they're really oppressed nations.

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

"A few guns" are not stopping the government from revoking our second amendment rights, logic and common sense are. If a selective ban of so-called "assault rifles" was reacted to in such a way as to give Republicans control of Congress, imagine the reaction to an all-out ban of the posession of firearms by law-abiding citizens would be.

Your first point is no point at all. I didn't mean "oppress" to be translated as "take our precious, precious guns away" but rather take away our more important rights. And your logic that the ban was what led to a Republican Congress is faulty at best.

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
It's not a question of interpretation. "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." That's the text.

It is quite obviously a question of interpretation if you don't understand the difference between what a militia was at the time the Constitution was written, and now.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
As for crime and corruption, that's why we have POLICE. No need to take the law into your own hands.

Police do little to deter or interrupt crimes, they generally investigate and act after a crime has been committed. Also, the Police are part of the government and so (according to your own sig) shouldn't be trusted, right? Who is supposed to protect you from the Police?

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
I didn't realize the onus was on me to prove the masses are quite often wrong. If you actually want evidence I'm sure I could dredge it up, but you're kidding, right? How about segregation? Slavery? That the Earth was flat, or revolved around the Sun? On and on and on. I consider this subject closed.

Dredge away, and while you're at it find the last digit of pi, as you will have just as much luck at that as you will attempting to prove your point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Yeah, Canada, England, they're really oppressed nations.

Comparatively speaking, yes. If Quebec decides to forcibly remove itself from the rest of Canada, they will be much less prepared to fight for their freedom if necessary. The absense, at this particular moment, of an oppressive force in those countries does not make forced disarmament a "good thing" by any stretch of the imagination. Ask the Jews, South Africans, Tibetans, or Croats.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Your first point is no point at all. I didn't mean "oppress" to be translated as "take our precious, precious guns away" but rather take away our more important rights. And your logic that the ban was what led to a Republican Congress is faulty at best.

Perhaps you should read the article that was posted before you whip out the random-insult-generator. You may think that the right to picket Macy's for selling fur is "more important" than the right to protect yourself and your family, but, again, you are in the minority. Being forcibly disarmed is an unnecessary and hostile action towards a law-abiding populace under circumstance.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 05:45 AM

You know, I've been awake for 36 hours now. Maybe that's the reason none of what you say makes any sense. Maybe. I honestly can't tell if you believe what you're saying, or you're just arguing for the sake of argument. I mean, where does the comment about fur come from? What the hell does the last digit of pi have to do with examples that the masses are often wrong? You asked me for evidence, I rattled four off the top of my head. I've no doubt that trying to prove a point to you is indeed as likely as finding pi's terminating digit, so one thing we agree on. The difference between a militia then and now -- there isn't a militia now. The concept is antiquated, out of date. Police and the penal system deter crimes by their very existence. Quebec seceding? That worked well for the Confederacy, and they had guns. Random-insult generator? About the only thing that could be construed as an insult there was "precious, precious gun," which was in actuality a Simpsons reference. Are you attempting to form any semblance of rational argument?

Daval · 05-30-2003, 06:00 AM

I agree with Kadath, I've never understood the US's fascination with guns.

In Canada owning a gun is quite difficult. A license to carry is nearly impossible. Buying a gun is also a very difficult process that is highly regulated.

As a result? Our violent crime rates per capita are FAR FAR FAR lower than the united states.

Funny thing is that the same deal is in the UK where guns are just as restricted.

I have no problems with hunting, or sport shooting and that should be allowed, but I cannot even comprehend why someone would ever need an assault rifle, and noone besides law enforcement should ever be able to carry a concealed weapon.

hrdwareguy · 05-30-2003, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daval
I have no problems with hunting, or sport shooting and that should be allowed, but I cannot even comprehend why someone would ever need an assault rifle, and noone besides law enforcement should ever be able to carry a concealed weapon.

That reminds me, I need to let the concealed weapons office know what my new address is since I moved.

The crime rate here in Oklahoma has decreased since the passage of the Self Defense Act (concealed carry law) was passed.

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 08:10 AM

(looks at the conceiled carry paper work on his desk.)

Oh well, looks like I'm batting a thousand.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 08:41 AM

You know, I always hated the copout that statistics were meaningless because they could be manipulated to support anything, but this right here is the perfect example. On the one hand, we've got the crime rate in OK going down after the concealed carry law passed. Is that due to causes beyond (but possibly including) the law? Most probably. On the other, we've got Canada, with stricter gun laws, having a lower per capita violent crime rate than the US. Is that rate due entirely to those laws? Almost certainly not. Both sides need to admit that guns are neither the cause of, nor solution to crime. Gun owners, you like your guns and your right to own one. We gun control advocates, we don't understand that. I think we've effectively hit the wall of core beliefs. I'm bowing out of this one. But seretogis, you still aren't making any sense to me.

Simple_Min · 05-30-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Well,

I guess I'm glad you don't have a gun. Too much rage there

That reminds me, I have to clean my hand guns and my assault rifle on Saturday...

What justification do you have for owning guns?

Oh, because criminals have guns, right?

I guess since these criminals(terrorists) carry dirty bombs and nukes, I should have those as well...after all 2nd amendment states I have the right to be armed.

smooth · 05-30-2003, 11:44 AM

How does a concealed weapon deter criminals from mugging you?

Doesn't the idea of deterence hinge upon the offender knowing the consequences?

It seems to me that if you claim to be carrying a gun to intimidate or thwart crime against your person then you wouldn't want it stuffed inside your clothes where no one else could see it.

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 12:12 PM

smooth,

The serious answer is to your question is that muggers are less likely to mug you if there is a possibility that you might be armed. The "fear of the unknown". That is one reason why muggings are trending up in England and now Australia. Muggers know for a fact that their victims are unarmed.

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Simple_Min
What justification do you have for owning guns?

Oh, because criminals have guns, right?

I guess since these criminals(terrorists) carry dirty bombs and nukes, I should have those as well...after all 2nd amendment states I have the right to be armed.

Justification?

I have them because I want them and the second amendment allows me to.

Technically, that's all the "justification" I need.

Now if you ask why I want them, that's another question.

smooth · 05-30-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
smooth,

The serious answer is to your question is that muggers are less likely to mug you if there is a possibility that you might be armed. The "fear of the unknown". That is one reason why muggings are trending up in England and now Australia. Muggers know for a fact that their victims are unarmed.

Following that, wouldn't a mugger be even less likely to mug you if you demonstrated that you definately had a weapon?

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Following that, wouldn't a mugger be even less likely to mug you if you demonstrated that you definately had a weapon?

Absolutely true, but open carry is frowned upon in most urban settings and will usually get you arrested for something like "disturbing the peace" or even "brandishing".

The only place I know where you can successfully open carry in cities is Arizona.

Hence the only real option is concealed carry and that only where the law permits.

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Simple_Min
What justification do you have for owning guns?

Heh, what justification do you have for being afraid of law-abiding citizens owning and carrying guns?

Kadath: Get some sleep and re-read the thread tomorrow.

smooth · 05-30-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Absolutely true, but open carry is frowned upon in most urban settings and will usually get you arrested for something like "disturbing the peace" or even "brandishing".

The only place I know where you can successfully open carry in cities is Arizona.

Hence the only real option is concealed carry and that only where the law permits.

lol, sound like you need to move to Oregon.

When I moved up here from Cali (where the gun needs to have a trigger lock in a separate place than the locked bullets) I was shit shocked to see everyone driving around with guns and rifles hanging off their belts and vehicle windows.

My friend explained you can ride around all day with whatever you want as long as its visible (you can apply for a concealed permit). So right then I pulled over into a shop and bought an SKS with a fold down stock [*actually, I had to mess with a pin later on] and a fifty round clip. Loaded it up and tossed it on my backseat.

"I can do this?"

"Yep!"

...and away we rolled.

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 02:38 PM

Theoretically Colorado is open carry as well. But try it and you WILL get arrested in Denver for one of the offenses I mentioned above.

I didn't know that about Oregon, but then I never had much reason. Thanks for the info.

I do know in Texas that you better not have a rifle or shotgun in the ole pick up unless it is in a window rack where the cops can see it.

I am some what surprised that you have an SKS, smooth. Personally I'll stick with my AR-15, but that's just my preference.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Kadath: Get some sleep and re-read the thread tomorrow.

I'd like it if other people could weigh in on seretogis' incoherent reasoning, that I might know if it's the sleep. Your condescension notwithstanding, and all.

beerhead · 05-30-2003, 03:56 PM

looks like the value of all my banned rifles just when down, damnit

Slims · 05-30-2003, 04:39 PM

It was a stupid law, assault weapons just aren't traditionally used in crimes...they can't be concealed easily like a pistol can.

Besides, my mini-14 is legal, but if I put a bayonet lug on it....Poof! It's an assault rifle. To my knowledge, no recorded crime in the history of America has ever been committed with a bayonet attached to a rifle. It seems to me like most of the things covered in the ban are specifically aimed at ak-47 and sks type rifles...most notably thumb holes in the stock. I think people were scared of the image of the chi-com (?) chinese soldier with his sks and bayonet charging.

Frowning Budah · 05-30-2003, 04:58 PM

Lets see if I can take this in another direction. Lebell do you really think any one issue, even one as controversial as gun control is enough to sway a Congressional race?

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 05:09 PM

Frowning Budah,

Absolutely. As stated in the original article, it has cost several congressmen their sets as well as Gore the presidency. Was it the only issues that caused them to loose? No. But certainly it was one of the prime ones. (Big Dog admits it himself.)

Another hot issue that can cost a politician an election is abortion.

Personally, I always look at these two issues during an election.

Unfortunately, I vote Dem on abortion and Repub on guns.

Go figure.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 05:36 PM

No, it makes sense! You're for killing across the board!

Just kidding with you, man. Who is Big Dog?

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 05:47 PM

Big Dog = Clinton's nick name.

Yeah, I'm against capital punishment too

krwlz · 05-30-2003, 05:50 PM

Just want to throw our my two cents here. YesI have guns, yes I want more, and yes I plan on going through the hoops to get a pistol permit the day I turn 21. Why I want them? Ever shoot? its fun! Hunt? Fun! Shoot handguns? FUN! Get the point? Also I do find it assuring that I have means to defend myself...I am not out to kill people, simply protect myself and my family...

Now in regard to the article, I think its hilarious! Finaly Dem. keeping their mouths shut, because they do not have another 20 seats to lose...

toxic515 · 05-30-2003, 07:11 PM

There are such a huge number of issues and ideas to be addressed here, I hope that you will all forgive me if I miss a point somewhere along the way in this diatribe.

I'll attempt to start at the beginning, and not overly re-hash issues that have been addressed.

Kadath: Quote: I was referring, obviously enough, to the second amendment, which made provisions for citizens to own guns based on certain needs at the time, needs which no longer exist. (end quote)

Correctly stated that would say 'needs that do not currently exist' The purpose for the arms and militia was multifold, not the least of which was to rebel against our own government should it become too oppressive.

One of the things that we have abdicated to the government is our own self-protection. In essence this means that we 'trust' the government to protect us from violence. There are certainly numerous situations where it can clearly be demonstrated that the trust is misplaced, or mismanaged. At the moment I am not going to spend the additional time on the research to demonstrate police failings, but in the future, should that statement need backup, I'll take such time as I have. Bear with me for the moment.

Kadath : Quote: Yeah, Canada, England, they're really oppressed nations.

I know this was briefly addressed, but I'd like to take it further. For some time the UK has been looked to as the gold standard of gun control. Stringent laws, and a 1997 ban on handguns are part and parcel of a domestic strategy for safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring " a restraint on the personal liberty that seems, in most civilized countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy that particular magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of the British people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crimes. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons. As a result, the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy are credited with producing a low rate of violent crime. This illusion seems credible because most people don't realize that the country had an astonishingly low rate of armed crime before the guns were restricted.

Examples? Yes, conveniently, I did the research on that.. In a government study covering 1890 to 1892, for example, there were only 3 handgun homicides, an average of 1 per year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only 4 armed robberies in London, at the time, the world's largest city. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England?s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

500 years of growing civility ended in 1954, and violent crime has been growing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing" In the 2 years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose by 53%. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. I think Seretogis covered the point that the police do not do much to PREVENT crime.. In Britain, gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

Davel, I don't know where you are getting your statistics from, or how you are calculating them, but at least in England, where I've bothered to do the research, your argument doesn't hold water.

Now, I'm running somewhat shy of time, and I'd like to point out that I couldn't care less about assault weapons, the fact is that most hunting weapons are considerably more accurate and lethal. As far as handgun control goes, I personally am licensed to carry a concealed weapon here in Texas? Remarkably, I've never felt a need to do so, and only rarely put the gun in the car even for longer trips. Oklahoma and Texas both have demonstrated a decrease in crime, which may or may not be a result of the handguns. I think it's got to be looked at holistically, not in such a narrow context.

What concerns me greatly is the method and process that UK used to get where it is with the gun control, and I think that we here in the US must not allow it to happen.. You see, the 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. (seems sensible) Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police (classified until 1989) periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Blah Blah Blah, I think you get my point, it only gets worse. Additional hysteria and erosion of civil liberties IS a problem... Sure, society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender.

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

The examples go on and on.

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British and Canadian jibes about "America's vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate?

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America?s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect?s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defense," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.

Is America so foolish to be "fascinated" with guns? I don't know, but I don't think that I want to be like our friends. God bless them if they are happy, and Daval, for the record, I love Canada, and I love the UK, but I am happy and proud to be from the states here, and one of the glories of our independence and our sovereignty is the ability to be friends, but not need to follow or be exactly the same.

Kadath · 05-30-2003, 09:27 PM

Toxic, wherever you wrote that before pasting it in, it converted all your apostrophes to question marks. It gave your post a very questionable feel. That's 41 hours of sleep deprivation talking, folks. Pity me, please.
My other thought is, wow. You put a lot of work into that, and honestly I didn't have the energy to read it all right now. I plan to come back after sleep and take a crack at it, but such huge posts coming on the heels of increasingly shorter and shorter responses can have one of two effects. One, it can calm the mood by grinding the tempo way down, or it can kill the thread entirely. I know which horse I'm betting on, but I'm going to read the whole thing and respond anyway. I owe you at least that much courtesy.

toxic515 · 05-30-2003, 10:14 PM

Sorry Kadath, I wrote that in word, since this doesn't give me a spell check. And some segments were copied from other articles by other people. ( which I had italisized originally, just for the record, but that didn't come accross either... I tried to edit the apostrophes, clearly I missed a few, but there was a long time spent writing that and I just didn't apparently have the focus to edit it well when I pasted it into the window here. (long damned run-on sentance, I wouldn't have done in word either when I could organize my thoughts more clearly...) Sorry about the punctuation, I edited it, and think I've cleared most of those up now... and I understand about the long post, but I don't typically give short answers when they can too easily be rebutted without the research and factual information listed... and sadly, that has been known to kill a few discussions, for which I am truely sorry. To be fair, once a discussion has teetered into the short respose zone, the respondants have either said their piece completely, or they're not really thinking and responding to issues.

I enjoy a good debate / discussion, so long as no-one is getting terribly nasty.. (Your momma jokes kinda lose their lustre after a while, I guess.)

None-the-less, I feel strongly enough about personal lberty issues, that I wanted to try to present an informed and researched opinion. Get some sleep, and please, respond at your leisure, but at least read it all again and consider the real underlying issues..

Thanks, and peace!

all4sc · 05-30-2003, 10:22 PM

Good post toxic.

smooth · 05-30-2003, 10:59 PM

Your concern that our history of gun measures mirrors those of early English common law is noted.

I believe, however, that our society has achieved a level of technology that can appease diverse concerns that have become polarized in political discourse--public safety, individual rights, and a model of weapon control/dissemination that is in accord with our Constitution.

At least some of the lawsuits I have read about were filed in an attempt to increase gun manufacturers' culpability for thei product. They seemed to have been in response to major manufacturers' refusals to impose safety features upon themselves. After the lawsuits can establish the responsibility of the manufacturers then legislature can be utilized to mandate certain controls.

We can either allow technology to continue to strain against our norms (culture lag) or restructure our legal discourse to create an impetus for weapon manufacturers to adopt more advanced techniques to control and operate our weapons.

For example, nanochips embedded in weapons can ensure they are only fired by the intended owner. Our telephones, vehicles, and even computers have unique identification; we take those as a matter of course--not as an infringement on our rights.

Special interest groups have utilized political and legal discursive practices to divide the attention of the general public between various concepts--and given the impression they are mutually exclusive.

toxic515 · 05-31-2003, 05:30 AM

Smooth, Agreed. However, some of the technology for gun safety / identification is not quite ready for prime time, as they say. My argument was not at all against safer weapons, but against legislation on those weapons. We have plenty of laws as it stands, a veritable morass of government to maneuver. Pressure from the populace, and lawsuits argued effectively are very very effective tools for pushing change on the manufacturers.

Simple_Min · 05-31-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Justification?

I have them because I want them and the second amendment allows me to.

Technically, that's all the "justification" I need.

Now if you ask why I want them, that's another question.

I think they are one in the same. Where in the second amendment does it say a citizen can have a gun, by the way?

seretogis: "heh", what's wrong with trying to understand what someone else thinks? Such as why does someone own guns that are obviously not for hunting use but they still own? Who said i was "afraid" of a gun owner? Tsk tsk, shame on you for assuming I was for (or against) gun control.

reconmike · 05-31-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

For example, nanochips embedded in weapons can ensure they are only fired by the intended owner. Our telephones, vehicles, and even computers have unique identification; we take those as a matter of course--not as an infringement on our rights.

Smooth, The reason I am against this safety measure is, what happens if my wife needed to use my Colt Combat .45? It would not fire and she would be out of luck.

Quote:

What justification do you have for owning guns?

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.

I am a responsible gun owning citizen, with more weapon firing experience than most, my kids cant get to them and they are locked, except for the .45 that goes loaded into my nightstand at night. Why? I sleep betting knowing I can change a bad situation before the local police arrive.

Plus it makes me feel like a really big powerful man(sarcasm)

05-29-2003, 02:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Backfires on Dems Laid out by the Wall Street Journal what we already knew. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban wasn't about public safety, it was about politics. ------------------------------------------------------ LINK Backfire Democrats discover that gun control doesn't win elections. Monday, May 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT It's no surprise that Republicans in Congress aren't eager to renew the ban on certain semiautomatic firearms due to expire next year. What's more interesting is why Democrats aren't raising much of a fuss about it. Our suspicion is that the left has learned the hard way that gun control is a political loser. The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep. Mr. Clinton later said crossing gun owners cost his party more than 20 seats. In 1995, the House voted to repeal the ban, which wouldn't even have passed without a sunset provision, but the effort died in the Senate. Then came the red-state rout of 2000. Democratic political advisers like Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign, have acknowledged that the gun issue "played a large role" in Mr. Gore losing several rural states in 2000. Those include his home state of Tennessee, Arkansas and usually Democratic West Virginia. This probably explains why a Democratic presidential candidate such as Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, who pushed hard for the gun ban nine years ago, has been so quiet during the current debate. Most everyone save the party's urban liberal bloc--folks like California's Dianne Feinstein, Michigan's John Conyers, New York's Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton--wants the subject to go away. Otherwise reliable Vermont liberal Howard Dean is explicit on the point that gun control is a lousy issue for Democrats. All of this is progress of a sort. It shows that the original ban was all about politics, not safety. Keeping assault weapons off the streets was never the real issue. Proponents knew that all but a small percentage of crimes involving firearms were committed with guns that wouldn't fall under the ban. They also knew the ban was easily avoided by making small adjustments to the guns. But liberals didn't care about these details because guns were simply a wedge issue designed to scare suburbanites, and particularly women, into voting Democrat. Now that elections have repudiated the strategy, the party's enthusiasm has waned. The trend in gun regulation is now in a much different direction. The bill that recently passed the House would shield gun makers from frivolous lawsuits claiming they're responsible for the criminal misuse of a legal product. Smith & Wesson, Glock and dozens of others are currently being sued in federal court in Brooklyn by gun-control activists and trial lawyers who want to hold them responsible for high homicide rates in poor black neighborhoods. A jury rejected that claim earlier this month, but the presiding judge, Jack Weinstein, has the final say and is expected to find for the plaintiffs. Republicans want to end this indirect assault on gun rights, and some Democrats are now realizing it's in their political interest not to get in the way. There's also a good lesson here for the business community, and it comes courtesy of the National Rifle Association's tireless efforts to protect Second Amendment freedoms. If the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers wants to fight off damaging regulation, they'd better learn to mobilize politically and show they can win elections. In Washington, political relevance is what matters most. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-29-2003, 09:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Fuck, that law was toothless the day it was signed. The way it was written allowed gun manufacturers to make minute changes to their existing designs to avoid the ban. Gun control IS a lousy issue because America is filled with lousy people who need a gun to feel powerful(or empowered, if you like), safe, less impotent, whatever. If the law had been about safety it would have banned everything but hunting rifles at the very least. You don't need a fucking handgun, people, let alone an assault rifle. You're not in a militia. You aren't going to be called upon to defend your settlement from hostile Indians or the King of England. Give up your tools of rage. I don't mean to say that all gun owners are lousy people, or impotent, or anything of the sort. I meant to say that people who need a gun to compensate for such problems, real or imagined, are not helpful to the situation in this country. It is currently your right to own a handgun, and I don't begrudge you that right, nor think you any less of a person for exercising that right. I do, however, want to change the way Americans look at guns, hopefully for the better __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 05-30-2003 at 10:20 AM..

05-29-2003, 10:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Well, I guess I'm glad you don't have a gun. Too much rage there That reminds me, I have to clean my hand guns and my assault rifle on Saturday... __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-29-2003, 10:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	See, now what's the point of that, honestly? What purpose does it serve? Do you feel better about yourself now? I hope you do, really I do. And if you call this being too personal or not civil, then we've got a problem. This post was entirely too confrontational. I apologize. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 05-30-2003 at 10:20 AM..

05-29-2003, 11:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Actually, I feel pretty good about myself. The purpose was to respond to a fairly angry post in a manner that was not angry, but did not let it go unchallenged. And I DO have to clean my handguns and assault rifle on Saturday. My Kel Tek P32, SIG226 and Bushmaster DCM match rifle are filthy from shooting 2 weekends ago. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 01:39 AM	#7 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I'm limiting myself on how much I react due to an ongoing situation. I will say the following: Your argument about my saying what people need is foolish. I was referring, obviously enough, to the second amendment, which made provisions for citizens to own guns based on certain needs at the time, needs which no longer exist. Thank you for citing one state to prove I am in the minority. (Oh, and what does "see what is going on around them" mean? Sounds a little ominous to me.) However, I freely and proudly admit to being in the minority. The masses are quite often wrong. As for my sig. I do distrust my government, because they do as they will and don't explain why. I'm not so paranoid, however, to think that if the right to bear arms were revoked, the government would suddenly oppress the nation. Further, I'm not so delusional as to think that the only thing stopping the government from doing such a thing is the presence of a few guns. More as events allow. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 05-30-2003 at 01:42 AM..

05-30-2003, 05:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	You know, I've been awake for 36 hours now. Maybe that's the reason none of what you say makes any sense. Maybe. I honestly can't tell if you believe what you're saying, or you're just arguing for the sake of argument. I mean, where does the comment about fur come from? What the hell does the last digit of pi have to do with examples that the masses are often wrong? You asked me for evidence, I rattled four off the top of my head. I've no doubt that trying to prove a point to you is indeed as likely as finding pi's terminating digit, so one thing we agree on. The difference between a militia then and now -- there isn't a militia now. The concept is antiquated, out of date. Police and the penal system deter crimes by their very existence. Quebec seceding? That worked well for the Confederacy, and they had guns. Random-insult generator? About the only thing that could be construed as an insult there was "precious, precious gun," which was in actuality a Simpsons reference. Are you attempting to form any semblance of rational argument? __________________ it's quiet in here

05-30-2003, 06:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I agree with Kadath, I've never understood the US's fascination with guns. In Canada owning a gun is quite difficult. A license to carry is nearly impossible. Buying a gun is also a very difficult process that is highly regulated. As a result? Our violent crime rates per capita are FAR FAR FAR lower than the united states. Funny thing is that the same deal is in the UK where guns are just as restricted. I have no problems with hunting, or sport shooting and that should be allowed, but I cannot even comprehend why someone would ever need an assault rifle, and noone besides law enforcement should ever be able to carry a concealed weapon. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-30-2003, 08:10 AM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	(looks at the conceiled carry paper work on his desk.) Oh well, looks like I'm batting a thousand. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 08:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	You know, I always hated the copout that statistics were meaningless because they could be manipulated to support anything, but this right here is the perfect example. On the one hand, we've got the crime rate in OK going down after the concealed carry law passed. Is that due to causes beyond (but possibly including) the law? Most probably. On the other, we've got Canada, with stricter gun laws, having a lower per capita violent crime rate than the US. Is that rate due entirely to those laws? Almost certainly not. Both sides need to admit that guns are neither the cause of, nor solution to crime. Gun owners, you like your guns and your right to own one. We gun control advocates, we don't understand that. I think we've effectively hit the wall of core beliefs. I'm bowing out of this one. But seretogis, you still aren't making any sense to me. __________________ it's quiet in here

05-30-2003, 11:44 AM	#17 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	How does a concealed weapon deter criminals from mugging you? Doesn't the idea of deterence hinge upon the offender knowing the consequences? It seems to me that if you claim to be carrying a gun to intimidate or thwart crime against your person then you wouldn't want it stuffed inside your clothes where no one else could see it. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-30-2003, 12:12 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	smooth, The serious answer is to your question is that muggers are less likely to mug you if there is a possibility that you might be armed. The "fear of the unknown". That is one reason why muggings are trending up in England and now Australia. Muggers know for a fact that their victims are unarmed. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 02:38 PM	#24 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Theoretically Colorado is open carry as well. But try it and you WILL get arrested in Denver for one of the offenses I mentioned above. I didn't know that about Oregon, but then I never had much reason. Thanks for the info. I do know in Texas that you better not have a rifle or shotgun in the ole pick up unless it is in a window rack where the cops can see it. I am some what surprised that you have an SKS, smooth. Personally I'll stick with my AR-15, but that's just my preference. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 03:56 PM	#26 (permalink)
beerhead Upright	looks like the value of all my banned rifles just when down, damnit

05-30-2003, 04:39 PM	#27 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It was a stupid law, assault weapons just aren't traditionally used in crimes...they can't be concealed easily like a pistol can. Besides, my mini-14 is legal, but if I put a bayonet lug on it....Poof! It's an assault rifle. To my knowledge, no recorded crime in the history of America has ever been committed with a bayonet attached to a rifle. It seems to me like most of the things covered in the ban are specifically aimed at ak-47 and sks type rifles...most notably thumb holes in the stock. I think people were scared of the image of the chi-com (?) chinese soldier with his sks and bayonet charging. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

05-30-2003, 04:58 PM	#28 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	Lets see if I can take this in another direction. Lebell do you really think any one issue, even one as controversial as gun control is enough to sway a Congressional race?

05-30-2003, 05:09 PM	#29 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Frowning Budah, Absolutely. As stated in the original article, it has cost several congressmen their sets as well as Gore the presidency. Was it the only issues that caused them to loose? No. But certainly it was one of the prime ones. (Big Dog admits it himself.) Another hot issue that can cost a politician an election is abortion. Personally, I always look at these two issues during an election. Unfortunately, I vote Dem on abortion and Repub on guns. Go figure. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 05:36 PM	#30 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	No, it makes sense! You're for killing across the board! Just kidding with you, man. Who is Big Dog? __________________ it's quiet in here

05-30-2003, 05:47 PM	#31 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Big Dog = Clinton's nick name. Yeah, I'm against capital punishment too __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 05:50 PM	#32 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	Just want to throw our my two cents here. YesI have guns, yes I want more, and yes I plan on going through the hoops to get a pistol permit the day I turn 21. Why I want them? Ever shoot? its fun! Hunt? Fun! Shoot handguns? FUN! Get the point? Also I do find it assuring that I have means to defend myself...I am not out to kill people, simply protect myself and my family... Now in regard to the article, I think its hilarious! Finaly Dem. keeping their mouths shut, because they do not have another 20 seats to lose...

05-30-2003, 07:11 PM	#33 (permalink)
toxic515 Addict Location: Texas	There are such a huge number of issues and ideas to be addressed here, I hope that you will all forgive me if I miss a point somewhere along the way in this diatribe. I'll attempt to start at the beginning, and not overly re-hash issues that have been addressed. Kadath: Quote: I was referring, obviously enough, to the second amendment, which made provisions for citizens to own guns based on certain needs at the time, needs which no longer exist. (end quote) Correctly stated that would say 'needs that do not currently exist' The purpose for the arms and militia was multifold, not the least of which was to rebel against our own government should it become too oppressive. One of the things that we have abdicated to the government is our own self-protection. In essence this means that we 'trust' the government to protect us from violence. There are certainly numerous situations where it can clearly be demonstrated that the trust is misplaced, or mismanaged. At the moment I am not going to spend the additional time on the research to demonstrate police failings, but in the future, should that statement need backup, I'll take such time as I have. Bear with me for the moment. Kadath : Quote: Yeah, Canada, England, they're really oppressed nations. I know this was briefly addressed, but I'd like to take it further. For some time the UK has been looked to as the gold standard of gun control. Stringent laws, and a 1997 ban on handguns are part and parcel of a domestic strategy for safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring " a restraint on the personal liberty that seems, in most civilized countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy that particular magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of the British people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crimes. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons. As a result, the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy are credited with producing a low rate of violent crime. This illusion seems credible because most people don't realize that the country had an astonishingly low rate of armed crime before the guns were restricted. Examples? Yes, conveniently, I did the research on that.. In a government study covering 1890 to 1892, for example, there were only 3 handgun homicides, an average of 1 per year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only 4 armed robberies in London, at the time, the world's largest city. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England?s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them. 500 years of growing civility ended in 1954, and violent crime has been growing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing" In the 2 years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose by 53%. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. I think Seretogis covered the point that the police do not do much to PREVENT crime.. In Britain, gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it. Davel, I don't know where you are getting your statistics from, or how you are calculating them, but at least in England, where I've bothered to do the research, your argument doesn't hold water. Now, I'm running somewhat shy of time, and I'd like to point out that I couldn't care less about assault weapons, the fact is that most hunting weapons are considerably more accurate and lethal. As far as handgun control goes, I personally am licensed to carry a concealed weapon here in Texas? Remarkably, I've never felt a need to do so, and only rarely put the gun in the car even for longer trips. Oklahoma and Texas both have demonstrated a decrease in crime, which may or may not be a result of the handguns. I think it's got to be looked at holistically, not in such a narrow context. What concerns me greatly is the method and process that UK used to get where it is with the gun control, and I think that we here in the US must not allow it to happen.. You see, the 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. (seems sensible) Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police (classified until 1989) periodically narrowed the criteria. At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money." In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected. Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent. During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them." Blah Blah Blah, I think you get my point, it only gets worse. Additional hysteria and erosion of civil liberties IS a problem... Sure, society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender. The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife." The examples go on and on. In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon. In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal. In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin. The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British and Canadian jibes about "America's vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate? Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years." Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was established in 1967. The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible. The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors." Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America?s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times. Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect?s previous crimes. This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous. The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defense," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past. Is America so foolish to be "fascinated" with guns? I don't know, but I don't think that I want to be like our friends. God bless them if they are happy, and Daval, for the record, I love Canada, and I love the UK, but I am happy and proud to be from the states here, and one of the glories of our independence and our sovereignty is the ability to be friends, but not need to follow or be exactly the same. __________________ Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Last edited by toxic515; 05-30-2003 at 10:23 PM..

05-30-2003, 09:27 PM	#34 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Toxic, wherever you wrote that before pasting it in, it converted all your apostrophes to question marks. It gave your post a very questionable feel. That's 41 hours of sleep deprivation talking, folks. Pity me, please. My other thought is, wow. You put a lot of work into that, and honestly I didn't have the energy to read it all right now. I plan to come back after sleep and take a crack at it, but such huge posts coming on the heels of increasingly shorter and shorter responses can have one of two effects. One, it can calm the mood by grinding the tempo way down, or it can kill the thread entirely. I know which horse I'm betting on, but I'm going to read the whole thing and respond anyway. I owe you at least that much courtesy. __________________ it's quiet in here

05-30-2003, 10:14 PM	#35 (permalink)
toxic515 Addict Location: Texas	Sorry Kadath, I wrote that in word, since this doesn't give me a spell check. And some segments were copied from other articles by other people. ( which I had italisized originally, just for the record, but that didn't come accross either... I tried to edit the apostrophes, clearly I missed a few, but there was a long time spent writing that and I just didn't apparently have the focus to edit it well when I pasted it into the window here. (long damned run-on sentance, I wouldn't have done in word either when I could organize my thoughts more clearly...) Sorry about the punctuation, I edited it, and think I've cleared most of those up now... and I understand about the long post, but I don't typically give short answers when they can too easily be rebutted without the research and factual information listed... and sadly, that has been known to kill a few discussions, for which I am truely sorry. To be fair, once a discussion has teetered into the short respose zone, the respondants have either said their piece completely, or they're not really thinking and responding to issues. I enjoy a good debate / discussion, so long as no-one is getting terribly nasty.. (Your momma jokes kinda lose their lustre after a while, I guess.) None-the-less, I feel strongly enough about personal lberty issues, that I wanted to try to present an informed and researched opinion. Get some sleep, and please, respond at your leisure, but at least read it all again and consider the real underlying issues.. Thanks, and peace! __________________ Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Last edited by toxic515; 05-30-2003 at 10:25 PM..

05-30-2003, 10:22 PM	#36 (permalink)
all4sc Upright	Good post toxic.

05-30-2003, 10:59 PM	#37 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Your concern that our history of gun measures mirrors those of early English common law is noted. I believe, however, that our society has achieved a level of technology that can appease diverse concerns that have become polarized in political discourse--public safety, individual rights, and a model of weapon control/dissemination that is in accord with our Constitution. At least some of the lawsuits I have read about were filed in an attempt to increase gun manufacturers' culpability for thei product. They seemed to have been in response to major manufacturers' refusals to impose safety features upon themselves. After the lawsuits can establish the responsibility of the manufacturers then legislature can be utilized to mandate certain controls. We can either allow technology to continue to strain against our norms (culture lag) or restructure our legal discourse to create an impetus for weapon manufacturers to adopt more advanced techniques to control and operate our weapons. For example, nanochips embedded in weapons can ensure they are only fired by the intended owner. Our telephones, vehicles, and even computers have unique identification; we take those as a matter of course--not as an infringement on our rights. Special interest groups have utilized political and legal discursive practices to divide the attention of the general public between various concepts--and given the impression they are mutually exclusive.

05-31-2003, 05:30 AM	#38 (permalink)
toxic515 Addict Location: Texas	Smooth, Agreed. However, some of the technology for gun safety / identification is not quite ready for prime time, as they say. My argument was not at all against safer weapons, but against legislation on those weapons. We have plenty of laws as it stands, a veritable morass of government to maneuver. Pressure from the populace, and lawsuits argued effectively are very very effective tools for pushing change on the manufacturers. __________________ Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.