Guns are bad...

[Lopan]

I only post it 'cause it's funny. Ask around...I got the name "Postal boy" because of my stand against guns. Then again, I live in a different country... different ideology and reality. I don't own a gun ('cept for a pair of air-rifles), though I do own a machete, three bayonettes, a compound-bow, and for special occasions for break-ins involving my family....

a sound-proof basement, 100-mph tape, a sturdy steel chair which can be bolted to the ground, a collection of sterile and unsterilized scalpels, a spare car-battery, jumper-cables, a bucket for water, numerous pliers, hammers, a nail-gun, several power-tools, a big liquid-proof tarp, a large mini-van, access to a woodchipper and a plot of land with no real neighbours

We don't even lock our door most of the time. Infact theres a pair of step ladders just outside the window of this room, propped against the kitchen window. The lower half is just covered in corrugated plastic, whilst we finish painting the sash window.

Crime is non existent here, but even when i lived in South East London, I didn't have the kind of fear some of you guys exhibit.

 

[Winky]

"the kind of fear some of you guys exhibit"

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Crime is non existent here, but even when i lived in South East London, I didn't have the kind of fear some of you guys exhibit.

Groovy. May it always be such.

I, on the other hand, interract daily with rapists, murderers, kidnappers, dope dealers....real gems of society. Sometimes they do things that compel me to begin a process which ultimately ends with their reincarceration. That's been known to piss people off. 99.9% of the time, they do not hold a grudge after their eventual release. But there's always that one in a thousand.

Knowing this potential, I'm sure you would stick to your gun...oops, poor choice of cliche. I'm sure you would take a shot in th...dang, happened again, so sorry to offend. I'm sure you would offer the poor soul gingersnaps and Earl Grey, thus totally averting any potential confrontation, then languish arm in arm around the merry ole fireplace and sing Kumbaya.

I, on the other hand, would be taking the other road. And upon the waste of internal organs' eventual arrest (or funeral, his choice) I could once again rest assured that he won't be back for more.

So we approach the dillema in different ways. Shoot me.






Oh, that's right...you can't. And wouldn't if you could. Bollocks, eh?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I'd be interested to see the percentage of gun use for murders and homicides broken down by degrees of the crimes. First-degree murder, for example, is the rarest and most serious form of the crime, and involves a lot of premeditation. I'd venture to guess first-degree murder is commited with guns at a higher rate than, say, second- or third-degree murder.

From my experience, there is little difference between degrees of murder and weapon utilized. The difference is a legal one.

First degree murder is charged when certain aggravating circumstances are present. The weapon could be a gun, a knife, a club, a thimble, a dog's chew toy...doesn't matter.

Lesser degrees of murder are charges if some of those circumstances are either not present, not proven, or not founded by the judge/jury. They carry lesser sentences, but again the weapon could be anything.

Lesser included offenses, such as Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, and the like are further reductions of the Murder statute. They become applicable when even fewer aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation, malice, intent, motive, heinousness, and dozens of others are absent. Again, no distinction made for weapon.


I could kill someone with a baseball bat, one blow to the head, instant death, no suffering on the victim's part, and be guilty of first degree murder. I could then kill someone else using an assault rifle and be found guilty of Manslaughter. I could then kill someone by running over them with a car and be guilty of Criminal Responsibility for the Felony of Manslaughter. In each instance, my sentence just reduced.

Laws vary by state and country of course. Maybe in some places there is a distinction for using a firearm in a crime ending with a death. If so, then those laws apply. But in a general sense, the weapon makes no difference, be it a quick gunshot to the medulla or a slow torturous death by rusty dull butter knife.

Thank you for your attention. You'll receive my bill in 30 days.

 

[Gonz]

the kind of fear some of you guys exhibit

The people wo live in areas similar to those you describe you live don't have many problems either. The difference is, if the idiots from elsewhere decide to get their jollies raising hell, our calm & polite farmers & ranchers & sub-suburbanites can shoot back, ending the melee.

 

[Winky]

after their eventual release

Yep so they have the right to do it all over again.
Thanks Liberal Judges.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Doomie do you have a point?

Are you aware of the facts behind this issue?

You mean the fact that under current law, being a suspected or KNOWN terrorist does not prohibit a person from owning a gun? Yeah yer right theres no point worth mentioning at all there... proceed with your gun worship.

So now we should discriminate?

God he confuses me.

yes Id say its probably a good idea to discriminate against terrorists when they want to buy guns to shoot us with. Terrorists who arent allowed to board planes because they are on watch lists but that can get a glock without any warning bells going off. But the NRA doesnt believe in discrimination right? They say even if its a terrorist on a list we need to destroy the purchase records within 24 hours...

 

[Gonz]

Well, if we stop terrorists who will stop the terrorists?

Police not required to protect individual citizens. In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

 

[Winky]

ok TD you've done your best to show you don't have a clue what this is all about.
Thank you for playing...

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Gotta love "no yer wrong. thats all I have to say" posts.

 

[Inkara1]

From my experience, there is little difference between degrees of murder and weapon utilized. The difference is a legal one.

First degree murder is charged when certain aggravating circumstances are present. The weapon could be a gun, a knife, a club, a thimble, a dog's chew toy...doesn't matter.

Lesser degrees of murder are charges if some of those circumstances are either not present, not proven, or not founded by the judge/jury. They carry lesser sentences, but again the weapon could be anything.

Lesser included offenses, such as Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, and the like are further reductions of the Murder statute. They become applicable when even fewer aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation, malice, intent, motive, heinousness, and dozens of others are absent. Again, no distinction made for weapon.


I could kill someone with a baseball bat, one blow to the head, instant death, no suffering on the victim's part, and be guilty of first degree murder. I could then kill someone else using an assault rifle and be found guilty of Manslaughter. I could then kill someone by running over them with a car and be guilty of Criminal Responsibility for the Felony of Manslaughter. In each instance, my sentence just reduced.

Laws vary by state and country of course. Maybe in some places there is a distinction for using a firearm in a crime ending with a death. If so, then those laws apply. But in a general sense, the weapon makes no difference, be it a quick gunshot to the medulla or a slow torturous death by rusty dull butter knife.

Thank you for your attention. You'll receive my bill in 30 days.

Oh, I knew that the charge of first-, second- or third-degree murder has nothing to do with the weapon used (if any). I was just curious as to what the percentages are.

My theory is this: a high percentage of first-degree instances involve guns, since mob hits, gang shootings, school shootings, etc. (stuff that was planned in advance) fall under that category. Lesser degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc. involve guns less often, since that's where you'd classify things like a fatal blow to the head during a bar fight, domestic voilence, and so on. The lesser degrees of murder are more common. Where this gets to is that people who plan out a murder use a gun because it's convenient for them; if they want to kill someone and no gun is available they'd plan around that. Meanwhile, the lower degrees have a low percentage of gun involvement, meaning the absence of guns wouldn't impact that rate a whole heck of a lot.

How far off does that theory seem?

 

[Winky]

Alright the whole thing while it 'sounds' good onna 60 second news sound bit goes like this.

“People on the FBI terrorist watch list are buying guns.”

Do ya know what you have to do to get put on this list???

Outline the reasons under current law that you would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm M'Kay

then line the two up and tell me:

"what's wrong with this picture"?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Oh, I knew that the charge of first-, second- or third-degree murder has nothing to do with the weapon used (if any). I was just curious as to what the percentages are.

My theory is this: a high percentage of first-degree instances involve guns, since mob hits, gang shootings, school shootings, etc. (stuff that was planned in advance) fall under that category. Lesser degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc. involve guns less often, since that's where you'd classify things like a fatal blow to the head during a bar fight, domestic voilence, and so on. The lesser degrees of murder are more common. Where this gets to is that people who plan out a murder use a gun because it's convenient for them; if they want to kill someone and no gun is available they'd plan around that. Meanwhile, the lower degrees have a low percentage of gun involvement, meaning the absence of guns wouldn't impact that rate a whole heck of a lot.

How far off does that theory seem?

I believe I posted the statistics from the Justice Department a few months back, and guns were tied with hands, feet, and various body parts, for the amount of murders per capita. I even made a facetious comment about banning humans, and the thread died there. I won't bother to look it up again, because it won't matter to those who want to tie gun bans to every evil thing in the world, nor will it change those who believe that everybody should have access to firearms.

Now, TD...your post about terrorists being allowed to own guns...are they terrorists, or suspected terrorists? If they are only suspected, meaning that they haven't done anything illegal, then your argument is lost from a legal standpoint right off.

 

[catocom]

I think that was the same thread, Gato, where you said how quick you could gut someone.
I remember thinking that I needed to take you deer hunting with mr sometime.
(you know, to lighten the load that has to be carried out of the woods.)

 

[Gonz]

A sharp knife & hungry scavengers can be your friends

 

[Gato_Solo]

I haven't found the thread, mostly because I'm not looking, but I can remember now that it wasn't murder...it was violent crime, and guns were outnumbered. It still stands to reason, though, if guns are used in violent crime less often than hands/feet/ et al, why are guns being singled out?

Also...A person is more likely to die from a knife wound than a gun wound.

Go to page 110...

 

[freako104]

I guess because it is easier to target guns. sad but true

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Now, TD...your post about terrorists being allowed to own guns...are they terrorists, or suspected terrorists? If they are only suspected, meaning that they haven't done anything illegal, then your argument is lost from a legal standpoint right off.

allow me to quote your favorite news source fox news:

The report showed that from Feb. 3 through June 20, 2004, 35 known or suspected terrorists purchased guns in the United States.

So known terrorists can buy guns willy nilly but Cat Stevens cant set foot on american soil? Makes sense to me...

Oh and we can stuff people in the bottomless hole that is Guantanamo just for being associated with or suspected of being involved in terrorism but we cant keep records of terrorists making gun purchases for more then 24 hours thanks to the wonderful NRA. Again... makes sense to me...

 

[Gonz]

People in the states are covered by the Constitution. Terrorists & their thug buddies, fighting us somewhere NOT in the states are Guantanamo guests.

 

[Raven]

Simple fact is banning guns will never happen for the reason 'It could be used to commit a lethal crime'. That way you'd have to ban every blunty, sharp or pointy object known to man too just to be safe.

As some old toff over here said (I can't quite remember who but I think it was Prince Phillip....such a way with words he has ) 'If you ban guns because someone may get shot you might as well ban cricket bats because someone might get beaten around the head'. Quite right too. Anyways my stance on it all is you are a lot less likely to get shot if theres others around you who are carrying too.