ON guns. Intresting link/survey included

[Oz]

Only bad men have guns!

 

[Leslie]

ohgodit'sanothergunthread

 

[Professur]

Only bad men have guns!

So every cop, security guard, and soldier is 'bad'?

Maybe we should give them bows and arrows?

 

[Oz]

So every cop, security guard, and soldier is 'bad'?

Maybe we should give them bows and arrows?

Nah, send 'em to america for six months..............teach them bad language *sigh*

sarcasm

 

[Professur]

bleach, I think it's past your bedtime.

 

[Oz]

sorry dad.......can I have five more minutes?

 

[Professur]

Only if you remember to brush your teeth.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Just a quick question..........how many crimes involved the use of guns?

I'm a Brit you see.........lived in three different cities and have never been an eye witness to crime involiving guns, just like to know the statistics before I make my mind up

Depends. Perhaps you should rephrase the question to "How many legally owned firearms were used in a crime?" Once you lay the question out in that manner, it takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

 

[Aunty Em]

I went to high school in a small town of just over 2,000. From what I've heard, everyone said the same thing before a kid walked in the school and shot four people, one fatally (the Principal). That was 1985. It was one of the first school shootings in the nation, and it horrified everyone. However, the event seems to be easily forgotten. I'm not saying that you're wrong. Simply put, just watch what you say. The phrase "famous last words" comes to mind. Just because it can't doesn't mean it won't.

I get your point, but this is a small "town" of 156k citizens.

Policing and crime
What's crime like in your area? (2002/2003 figures)

Colchester Borough Council /English average

Population 156,000 / 138,540
Households 63,700 / 57,610
Theft of a vehicle per 1,000 population 2.4 / 4.8
Burglaries per 1,000 population 4.7 / 6.7

 

[MrBishop]

Thats true Bish, perhaps he was insinuating that he wouldnt have ever gotten into the position in the first place had he been armed?

I doubt it. Read his reply to me.

Nevertheless there are many work places where you can carry a firearm. Many people who have work environments where it is prohibited do it anyway (the rationale is they would rather be fired than shot).

Sorry...not in Canada. You'd have to be a cop or certain security companies (Brinks) to carry one at work. BTW...they wouldn't just get fired...they'd get arrested too!

Lastly, you make a good point. The chances of living through a point blank gun battle are only %50. However the chances of living through it if you are unarmed are less than %20.

If you're unarmed...there is no gunfight. You lift your hands up, give them what they ask for and the chances of survival are 99.99527%

I am more concerned with having it for cases where your not already under the gun. For example, spree killers when you are a witness or cold blooded murder when you are a witness. Also for situations where you would see a suspicous person approaching and you would have the ability to get your hand on it in prepardness...

So...you witness something and become a vigilante. or...better yet, you shoot an innocent coming at you and looking mighty suspicious, but he is only trying to give you back your wallet that you forgot at the phone booth. (you) "Oh...he looked like he was going to hurt me" (cop) "Why?" (you) "Well...he's black and look how big he is!" (cop) "You're under arrest for the murder of a police officer"

Nuff said

Its not a gaurantee...but it puts the odds greater in your favor and the overall knowledge to criminals that they are likely to be shot on the spot for committing crime by armed citizens has to be a deterrent.

It would also make criminals more likely to shoot you first and then rob you...you know...just in case the clerk had a gun.

 

[paul_valaru]

I hate guns.

I've fired them, hated it.

make ALL guns illegal, and give everyone knives, see how brave these criminals are when they have to see your face, the pain in your eyes.

and everyone has a fighting chance.

When I see "You can have my gun when you take it from my dead hands" I want to help arrange it.

 

[MrBishop]

have a quote back for you on this idea:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." -- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938​

Then please post only statistics that offer both points of view....and not ones wich are so blatantly biased​

Feel free to introduce stastics of your own. Anomylous entity

Hey AE! Sig Heil!!!!

Here's the thing....just because those particular ideas come from a governament whose ideas we despise, doesn't mean that ALL of their ideas were wrong!

Hitler, despite how you or I feel about him, still managed to kick-start the economy, stop crime, regulate the train yards etc....LONG before the first Jew died! Gun control IS A GOOD THING!

 

[paul_valaru]

I'm just gald I live ina counrty with proper gun contol laws, though i would prefer a total ban on all firearms

 

[Gonz]

Gun Control means hitting what you aim at.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

I doubt it. Read his reply to me.

I did, that is exactly what he was saying. Had he been armed,the gun would have never been put to his head.

Sorry...not in Canada. You'd have to be a cop or certain security companies (Brinks) to carry one at work. BTW...they wouldn't just get fired...they'd get arrested too!

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if the gov could 100% gaurantee me that no criminal would ever be armed with a gun I might capitulate to this line of thinking. Does your gov make that gaurantee to you? Are you %100 sure only cops and security have guns?

If you're unarmed...there is no gunfight. You lift your hands up, give them what they ask for and the chances of survival are 99.99527%

What fantasy world are you living in? The likely hood that they would just kill you in cold blood is very very high, and your chances of survival are 0%.

It would also make criminals more likely to shoot you first and then rob you...you know...just in case the clerk had a gun.

They dont need an excuse...they will kill you even if you are unamred.

I once saw an interview with a gang member who "killed a man because he looked at me too hard"

So...you witness something and become a vigilante. or...better yet, you shoot an innocent coming at you and looking mighty suspicious, but he is only trying to give you back your wallet that you forgot at the phone booth. (you) "Oh...he looked like he was going to hurt me" (cop) "Why?" (you) "Well...he's black and look how big he is!" (cop) "You're under arrest for the murder of a police officer"

The use of deadly force for the defense of others (and in cases of rape) is not considered being a vigilante. Its is completely legal and (as far as Im concerned) a moral obligation. In much the same way that lying by not telling the truth (a lie of omission) is similiar to watching some one be murdered and not helping is morally and ethically reprehensible. Its not at all dissimiliar to me finding a man having a coronary and cardiac arrest and not attempting to do CPR on him.

As far as your other concerns, the likely hood of a mistaken identity like that is a non-issue.

The laws are very clear. The use of deadly force is only allowed when a lethal weapon is present in the hands of the assailant. So your example is completely wrong. In that case the guy doing the shooting deserves to go to jail for murder. On the other hand if the "big black guy" was holding a large knife or a gun, then you could shoot him and the law would be on your side. At that point its the "big black guys" fault for showing the gun or a knife.

The concealed weapons course are also very clear on this. Displaying your gun is considered "assault with a deadly weapon". Never draw or display your gun ever period. If you do so in a threatening gesture or just out of stupidity, you become the criminal and its legal for someone to shoot at you! Likewise, its only legal to shoot someone else if you are in "immenent danger" that being seeing someone who has pulled their weapon.

Come on, this isnt rocket science.


Bish.

Please educate yourself on the statistics of accidents on this nature by legal CCW liscense holders (its virtually non-exsistent) and of the laws regarding the use of deadly force before you jump to such erroneous assumptions.



nuff said

.

 

[paul_valaru]

Gun Control means hitting what you aim at.

Unfortunatly what happens a lot is the kid who finds the gun is looking down the barrel when he pulls the trigger by mistake, and wallpapers the room with his brains.

Or the person who took you gun hitting what he aimed at, which is an innocent family.

I know most smart gun owners lock up there guns, keep the ammo sepeate, trigger locks, etc.

But when it comes to firearms, i always look at the lowest common denominator, which is the idoiot you see in the news.

People want guns to protect themselves, for other people with guns, I say make guns illegal, period.

then you argue that criminals will still have guns, while decent law abiding citizens can't protect themselves. that is what th police are for.

If a criminal is caught with a gun, make the punishment HARD, even his he never fired the thing, caught with a gun, 15 years.

then prisons cost to much, well, amke them earn there keep, like the tent prison isn one of the states, cheapest, and most uncomfortable place to do time.

But we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment

It';s not cruel and unusual, it's jsut uncomfortable, and there is no law that says a prisoner has to be comfortable.

rant ends

 

[Gato_Solo]

I hate guns.

I've fired them, hated it.

So don't buy one.

make ALL guns illegal, and give everyone knives, see how brave these criminals are when they have to see your face, the pain in your eyes.

and everyone has a fighting chance.

When I see "You can have my gun when you take it from my dead hands" I want to help arrange it.

Then you are no better than a common criminal. You proscribe murder for someone who is exercising their constitutional right. If it was free speech, I'm sure your answer would be different.

 

[Gonz]

then you argue that criminals will still have guns, while decent law abiding citizens can't protect themselves. that is what th police are for.

If a criminal is caught with a gun, make the punishment HARD, even his he never fired the thing, caught with a gun, 15 years.

The police are there to clean up the mess & take reports after the damage is done. They don't stop 99.9(infinitum)% of crimes. They can't. Too many bad guys & too many places.

Agreee with the make criminals pay. That should happen anyway. Truth in sentencing.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

[double post

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Unfortunatly what happens a lot is the kid who finds the gun is looking down the barrel when he pulls the trigger by mistake, and wallpapers the room with his brains.

The laws are becoming more and more stringent with stiff punishments for gun owners who do not keep their guns locked properly around minors (I support this).

Or the person who took you gun hitting what he aimed at, which is an innocent family.

He can just as easily get a knife, or a ball bat, or a car, etc etc...there is no end to what a cirminal can use to murder with.

I know most smart gun owners lock up there guns, keep the ammo sepeate, trigger locks, etc.

But when it comes to firearms, i always look at the lowest common denominator, which is the idoiot you see in the news.

Agreed. But this is the denominator which I think the laws should seek to address. Not the responsible citizens who ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM.

People want guns to protect themselves, for other people with guns, I say make guns illegal, period.

then you argue that criminals will still have guns, while decent law abiding citizens can't protect themselves. that is what th police are for.

The courts have already ruled that police are not liable nor are they accountable for the protection of individual citizens, both in the supreme courts and in the smaller courts. The idea of "police preventing the crime" is a complete fallacy and a non issue.

If a criminal is caught with a gun, make the punishment HARD, even his he never fired the thing, caught with a gun, 15 years.

then prisons cost to much, well, amke them earn there keep, like the tent prison isn one of the states, cheapest, and most uncomfortable place to do time.

100% Agreed...make the CRIMINALS do the hard time, not law abiding citizen.

The problem isnt the guns, most murderes get right back out on the street (thanks to good ol bill clinton).

But we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment

It';s not cruel and unusual, it's jsut uncomfortable, and there is no law that says a prisoner has to be comfortable.

Agreed...for the CRIMINALS.

But the law abiding citizens should be allowed to defend themselves how they see fit.