I have to admit that I don't know too much about this law, except for information from www.shootfirstlaw.org, (http://www.shootfirstlaw.org,) which was created by anti-gun peoples, so this website may be somewhat biased, but what disturbed me was:

Nothing in the law would preserve the right of an innocent bystander who was shot in the incident to pursue a civil action against the shooter for negligence in the handling of a firearm. The shooter could receive immunity for shooting recklessly into a crowd, as long as he reasonably believed he was in serious danger. and

Under the "Shoot First" law, as long as the shooter "is not engaged in unlawful activity" and is "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be" the shooter has the right to use deadly force. Therefore, if a fistfight escalates to lethal violence, the shooter could receive immunity under the law even if he initiated the confrontation, as long as he "reasonably believed" that firing the gun was necessary to prevent a "forcible felony" or "great bodily harm" to himself. Hopefully these are blown out of context, but it seems a little extreme to me, as it would be easy to justify killing someone.

I support the right to defend one's self, but why on earth would someone need to carry a gun in public?

To finish off, an old saying gaelic saying translated for you all:

"Who needs bravery, when you have a sword"

Is this not more like AoDA material? Well anyway I think that sort of laws sucks. The way we have it in Finland is good enough for me. You are allowed to respond only with equal force as the one who assults you. Meaning that if you are shooting someone in a fistfight you're committing a crime. As for the need to carry a gun I've allways felt that people who carry guns around for protection are paranoid but I suppose it's their right as long as they don't actually use them.

It is sort of taken out of context. Generally speaking when your life is in danger you are allowed to use deadly force to stop it. So if you are being attacked by a mugger, you could shoot the bastard.

However, the right to use deadly force ends when your life is no longer in peril. For example, if the mugger sees you pull the gun out, and runs off into a crowd of people, you can't indiscriminately fire into the crowd of people hoping to kill the mugger, because when the mugger flees, your life is no longer in peril.

The problem I have here is that it doesn't seem right that a person who shoots to defend himself is free from any civil action if he harms someone other than the attacker. I can understand that he would not be criminally liable to someone, but if you seriously injure or kill an innocent bystander, even if it was inadvertent, you may still be on the hook. This law may have to be reviewed.

Secondly, I think it is my American duty to point out that not all Americans are gun-totting freaks who walk around with hand guns strapped to their waists. While I know many people who own rifles for hunting purposes, hardly anyone I know owns a handgun that he actually carries with him.

I know a few who own a handgun for self defense, but it is always in their home. For those people that do take handguns out with them, all except one person out of dozens of people I know are police officers, and thus are permitted to carry a concealed handgun in public even when they aren't on duty. The one person I know who regularly carries a handgun on his person is because his job includes the responsibility for collecting and dropping off money at convenience stores, and sometimes he has to do this late at night. Because of the potential danger in his occupation, he was able to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

I guess that's the last point I have to bring up. Not everyone can go and get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. There has to be some reason for it. You either have a job that could reasonably put you in greater than normal danger of being attacked, or you could have a civil duty to protect the public (as is the case of a police officer) even if you aren't on duty. You can't get such a permit just because "You want to carry a handgun".

I believe the decision to shoot to kill should only be taken in danger of death, rape or severe bodily harm or perhaps a valuable mass of property is danger that can't be averted otherwise. But not a fist fight, come on. I firmly believe that any citizen should be allowed to incapacitate the assailant rather than accept a beating (in short, you should never be legally required to undergo a beating and you should be allowed to shoot the bastard in the legs rather than allow him to throw a punch at you, so long as you haven't provoked him), but firing away in the crowd is something that should get you in psychward, not jail. And surely not in a crowd with a firearm.

Personally, I would gladly shoot dead a murderer or rapist before taking the risk that he could succeed. I would have no problem placing a thug before the choice between leaving me alone and earning a bullet. But firing in the crowd? Using a deadly gun on a loud agressive idiot? That's too much.

Here, here! Oh, how it warms the heart so to see other do in fact view the world in similar ways as my own.

This thread reminded me a news story about 7 years back. I was shocked that this (1) happened a few miles from where I have family, (2) happened on an off ramp I frequent while visiting said family, and (3) happened at all! Its that amazing!

Road rage leads to paint being trading on the interstate. Happens sometimes, its crazy, but it happens. Both vechiles pull off the the side of the road. Both are middle class/upper-middle class citizens. A woman was driving the lead car and a man was driving behind her.

When they pulled over, they both parked and turned off their cars. The man exited his vehicle, went to the trunk and produced a tire iron. He then walked, not ran, walked to the woman's car and began to beat on her trunk. I don't believe that he broke any winds, thus making threat to her person, but I may be wrong.

The woman simply sat in her car waiting for the man to finish beating the hell out of her car. She did not exit. Call the police, call her husband or friends. She just sat there.

When he turned to go back to his car, either because he was finished or to go get something else (hearsay) the woman exited her vehicle armed with a handgun and fire, get this, 13 times at the man!

He was hit 4 times, none immidiately lethal. She THEN called the police and paramedics.

She was arrested for attempted murder in the first degree based on the fact that she had ample time to decide and plan how to kill this man while he was damaging her car.

Here's what I thought after seeing this on the news. She could have done one thing to make this self defense and perhaps have it stand up in court.

She could have gotten out of her car and said, "Hey, buddy." wait for him to turn fully around and then shoot. It was obvious that she tried to kill this guy for a number of reasons, all of which are dumber than hell. Shooting him in the back made it anything but self-defense. Shooting him from the front may have made it self-defense in Kansas.

Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?Sure. Shooting a fleeing enemy is not self-defence. Any form of vengeance is not self-defence. If he's decided to go away and you shout "hey, buddy" and shoot him when he's done turning, it's obvious that your motive is vengeance rather than defence. Of course, there may be the motive of apprehending the criminal and bringing him to justice or an aftershock vindictive reflex (there might have been a reason why she sat still in her car -- perhaps she was terrified), but using potentially lethal force on a retreating man is by no means self-defence. Firing a lethal shot at someone whose intent is to cause property damage but no immediate injury, let alone mortal danger, is excessive. A further analysis of the event could reveal if the woman, in her mind, was fighting or striking back. It's possible that her mind was still locked in the "combat mode" and in that case, it wouldn't be appropriate to charge with a plain attempted murder. Still, it seems that the prosecution's case is strong and the explanation that she planned the assault or killing in her car when he was damaging it is quite probable. This doesn't answer the question if a woman shut in a car being damaged by a thug is capable of thinking straight and making rational decisions or if that ability is reduced.

Damn. 13 shots? Most hand guns don't even have the capability of holding 13 rounds. Some military and police issued firearms do, but not too many regular handguns a civilian would have access to. That makes it even worse, because it suggests that in order to fire 13 times, she had to stop and reload, or at least replace the clip. I suppose she could have modified the gun to accept a 15-round clip, but that's illegal too. Then again, if you're up on attempted 1st degree murder, the fact that you have a modified handgun charge against you is probably the least of your concern.

Yeah, but it can mess things up in your big charge. You can't pretend to be a good girl if you have an illegal gun. You can't claim self-defence if you pepper the guy with the whole clip, reload, repeat, as you already said. Someone was playing a cowboy here...

The stangest thing is I've never heard of a handgun holding 13 rounds. It's not like 13 is a multiple of anything either, so it's not even a combination of multiple loadings. I know of handguns that hold 6, 9, 12, and 15 rounds. (And no, I have no idea why they are all multiples of three. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a handgun that holds 10 rounds either.) There's no easy way to get to 13 doing the math. Even if she modified the handgun to accept a 15 round clip, why would you stop with two rounds left in the gun?

With some Sigs and Glocks it could be a 12 round clip with a round chambered.

Even if she modified the handgun to accept a 15 round clip, why would you stop with two rounds left in the gun? ? Because she was practising the day before and already shot those two rounds ? And the whole incident happend as she was on her way to get herself some new clothes and new ammo.

Ah yes, Hack has hit upon it. If you have a 12 round clip, once you get one of the 12 rounds into the chamber, you can then place an additional round into the bottom of the clip. Of course, as far as I'm aware, THAT'S ILLEGAL AS WELL.

I'm not a gun owner (nor do I ever plan to be), but I believe if you look at the statistics the places with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates. It is the old saying "An armed society is a polite society."

Most if not all of the anti-gun lobby works on emotion as opposed to facts. Remember when Bush didn't resign the assault rifle ban? People were screaming that we would all die from machine gun totting maniacs. Instead the crime rate went down, according to the FBI. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/04prelim.pdf)

I personally like the "shoot first laws". That crazyness of people responding with equal force is lunacy. Does that mean a 110 pound women is supposed to respond bare-handed when attacked by a 275 pound man? If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, are you supposed to interrogate them to find out if they are just there to rob you or rape and kill you? I have never understood the logic. If I caught someone in my house in the middle of the night, I can guarantee that they will get at least a few swings of my bat at their head.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it goes both ways. If it's easy for you to arm yourself with a gun, it's even easier for a criminal to do so. And he'll probably have a bigger one than you. So what happens when two people with ah, opposing views meet with guns in their hands? Usually one or both end up dead.

Crime rate is one thing, but firearm death statistics are a whole different thing.

I believe that the high capacity magazine ban expired late last year or early this year, so high capacity mags are legal again unless individual states have their own laws.

Additionally magazines that were manufactured prior to (IIRC) 1994 are not subject to this law, and the law only impacts magazines, not guns. It should be noted there is nothing in the design of most pistols manufactured during the high cap ban to prevent them form using preban and "for law enforcement use only (LEO)" high capacity magazines as the law did not impact the pistol, it only applied to the magazine. Magazines manufactured during the ban were almost always identical in outer dimensions to their pre ban and LEO high capacity counterparts, but were structurally different internally.

Finally there was nothing in the Federal Law that prohibited loading a gun manufactured during the ban with a pre-ban high cap magazine, though this can impact the outcome of trials for other alleged crimes committed with the gun and can make civil suits more likely, with the logic being that the person with the high cap mag was "bloodthirsty", "overaggressive" or was "looking for trouble instead of looking for safety".

That crazyness of people responding with equal force is lunacy. Does that mean a 110 pound women is supposed to respond bare-handed when attacked by a 275 pound man? No. When your life is in threat you hardly think about law anyway now do you? Excessive force however is unacceptable. Shooting a burglar in the head when he's stealing your tv is simply wrong and usage of excessive force. If you can prove that you were in a self defence situation it's unlikely that you spend even a day in prison.

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, are you supposed to interrogate them to find out if they are just there to rob you or rape and kill you? I have never understood the logic. No, but you're not supposed to shoot them in the back either. When you wake up the first step is to call the police. If he attacks you then you respond with all available force, you don't go and whack the guy with a baseball bat when he's walking out with your television. It's very very rare for someone to break into your house with the intention of rape and murder. I can't remember a single such case happening in this country.

That's not a problem Taluntain. What you do is shoot him first. No warnings, just open fire. If the idiot is in your house late at night, they deserve nothing but the lead you send his way.

Provided you manage to sneak up on him without alerting him to your presence... that's quite a big if. Not to mention the great potential for abuse this way. Anyone who'd want to get rid of someone would only need to get them into their house at night, shoot them, call the police and then claim they were in their house stealing or uninvited.

Not that I think that people breaking into someone else's house should be protected in any way. As far as I'm concerned, anything but killing them should be allowed without repercussions. If you manage to sneak up on them you can always shoot not to kill.

If it's easy for you to arm yourself with a gun, it's even easier for a criminal to do so. Gun control has never done anything to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All it has ever done is make a nice steady supply of victims.

As to should someone be shot and killed for stealing a t.v. my answer is yes. Criminals may not fear the law or the death penalty, but they sure as hell fear being shot.

Sometimes perhaps it's preferrable to leave the common folks unarmed so that they will obey the bad guy with the gun until it's over instead of playing heroes (often with a genuine heroic spirit) and getting killed. Especially if they are young, they may not realise what they are doing and lie down their lives in a meaningless gunnery over a relatively trivial matter. If you're the mother or father of a young man in early twenties, do you prefer him to hand the mobile phone, watch or wallet to the criminal and walk away uninjured or to pull the gun out and get crippled or kill on a random chance? Probably the former, but he will probably prefer the latter...

Let's say you catch someone breaking into your house. Cant you just say "Freeze, I have a gun" or something instead of shooting the supposed burglar dead? Hasnt there been cases when people have shot their own spouses in the dark simply because they couldnt see who they were shooting at?

If somebody came over and beat on my car, I'd turn on the engine and back over them. Nothing beats the irony of a trunk that hits back. :evil: There are so many other things you can do besides pull out a gun and empty it at someone.

And as for chev's mugger, I'd capitulate so long as he was at least marginally reasonable. Watch, wallet, cell, etc.; but I keep my ID and other things that he just plain can't use. But if the blowhard starts demanding ridiculous things like my house keys (when he either doesn't even know where I live, or has already gotten into the house without them), I'd pop a cap in his a$$.

Gun control has never done anything to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All it has ever done is make a nice steady supply of victims.That's nonsense. It's certainly kept them out of the hands of petty criminals and burglars here, I can tell you that much. At worst they come equipped with knives here, but none of them go around carrying guns.

It's certainly kept them out of the hands of petty criminals and burglars here, I can tell you that much. At worst they come equipped with knives here, but none of them go around carrying guns. Probably only because they can't afford them. :shake: Gun control is good, but with the black market in play, after a certain point it has very little effect on whether criminals can get guns or not, while simply making it a heck of a lot harder to get one legit. There are always loopholes to be exploited, barring such extreme measures as outlawing firearms completely (which will never happen here in the US, and I'm glad for that).

What are you basing your opinion on? Mine is based on verifiable, decades long practice of relatively strict gun control where I live. And a bustling black market with guns where everyone can get one doesn't exist here. Neither do petty criminals own them en masse.

So I find such statements somewhat hard to believe unless they're actually backed up by some concrete evidence. Which I'm not sure anyone from the US could get from personal experience considering the gun laws there...

And a bustling black market with guns where everyone can get one doesn't exist here. :jawdrop: You mean you've never heard of gun shows? No checks, no limits, no safeguards of any kind except the ones that the shopkeepers impose on themselves out of conscience. And it's legal. But still most petty crooks don't bother to get a gun because a knife would work just as well (or in close situations, better) and costs considerably less. They would also be easier to ditch if you need to, because they cost so much less to replace. It's not the gun-control laws so much as the affordable alternatives that keep guns out of criminals' hands.

Um... what's that got to do with what I asked in my previous post?

And yes, I've heard of gun shows, but we don't have any here either. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Also, do you have any statistics to back up your claims that most petty crooks in the US are not armed with guns? Considering how easy the access to them is, and how much more effective they are than knives, I find that hard to believe. Both knives and guns, sure. But only knives for small-time crooks in the US? I don't think so.

Gun shows are just a legalized black market. Anyone can get a handgun or "hunting" rifle if they've got the money.

And while they're certainly more effective at long range, and can do more lethal damage, guns simply aren't necessary for most crimes. The survival instinct turns people into wimps; threaten them with a letter-opener and they'll collapse in a wimpering pile on the floor. ( :shake Well, not really, but you get my point.) As chevalier said, it's not worth your life for a few measly belongings.

Now, I'm not saying most crooks don't have guns, I'm just talking about the low-level muggers that you're likely to find. People robbing a store or a bank would likely have guns for the range factor, but simple muggings or B&E don't require that level of firepower, and can be easily pulled off with a knife to the throat or a simple threat of violence.

They also don't require the level of brainpower we're putting into this discussion. :heh: While we have the opportunity to analyze the situation and find all of the loopholes, most petty criminals don't put that much thought into it. The simple impediment of finding someone who will sell them a gun on the sly takes too much time for those who need money quickly to support a habit. Those who actually put the thought into it would probably be committing more serious crimes, for which a gun is almost required, but the little stuff would be easier carried out with the non-existent hassle of a knife from a drug store.

Well, I was talking more specifically about burglars and such, which I'm sure you know are the epitome of repeat criminal behaviour. And I'd say most of them in the US come armed with guns when they break into other people's homes. It's only natural, considering there's a good chance the home owner will have a gun him or herself.

places with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates. Thats not always true, we have restrictive gun laws for cities, but since most of us (the Irish) live in the countryside, most would keep a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

I would say that most guns in the cities here belong to Republican or Loyalist terrorists, and crime in general is very low in Ireland, even if you count 'terrorist crimes'.

It would appear to me that people have guns in the US due to a lack of trust from from their fellow citizens, or else guns would not be such a big deal. When I return home from work, I don't expect to come home to my house being burgled, or being attacked in the middle of the night, and I live on the edge of a housing estate.

I have to point out once again, that not everyone in the U.S. is walking around carrying a gun. In fact, for the 99+% of law abiding citizens, hardly any of them are carrying a gun. Most people who own guns do so for home defense only. Most law abiding citizens cannot even obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun on their persons.

That means that the only people (except criminals) who have them are people like police officers, who are authorized to carry their handgun even while off duty, and people who work in such conditions where it is reasonable to need a gun. Examples of such are people who make money pick-ups and drop-offs for businesses. Armored car drivers always carry handguns, many security officers do, and if you have to work late at night and go to dangerous parts of town, you can probably get a permit to carry a handgun.

But that's it. Yes, I can go to a gun show and buy any type of gun I'd like. However, the only thing I'd be able to use it for is home defense. Now obviously the problem with this line of thinking is if you are already a criminal committing felony level crimes (such as breaking into people's homes, robbing banks, etc.), then the crime for illegally carrying a handgun is small potatoes by comparison. The most an illegal possession of a handgun can get you is 5 years in prison, and seeing as how burgularly or grand larceny (robbing a bank) carry stiffer penalties than that, committing such crimes while using a gun is not much of a deterent.

My personal opinion is that the only people who stop owning guns because of gun laws are honest people. Criminals, by dint of their activities are not dissuaded by gun laws and will obtain them anyway. Since most law abiding people aren't allowed to carry guns anyway, the idea that two people can have a disagreement and draw firearms on each other isn't a very realistic point of view.

@ Darkwolf - I know that there are definitely means to get a handgun with 13 or more rounds in it. My confusion was that 13 seems like an unusual number to fire it total. I didn't think about loading one in the chamber, which seems the most reasonable explanation. I doubt the woman would have reloaded, and barring a 12-cartridge magazine with one already in the chamber, it seemed that 13 was an usual number to fire.

Well, in a situation specific to the US, they will get them anyway, sure. But as I pointed out, nowhere else is it that easy to obtain a gun as in the US.

You've also misunderstood my post. I was talking about a situation where a criminal gets into your house. By "two people with ah, opposing views" I meant one with the view that the stuff in the home he's broken into is up for grabs and/or that the people inside are his playthings, and the other person with a diametrically opposing view, i.e. the home owner.

I would very much like to see evidence backing up the claim that most burglars in the U.S. have guns. Guns cost money. It is not like we give coupons for them along with the welfare check. Most burglars cannot afford a gun, and the fact that they get substantially longer prison terms if armed is enough to see that they don't.

Can no one see the simple logic that -- if there is a law allowing people to shoot home invaders -- criminals will be less likely to invade homes? The concept of deterrence is important here.

I see. I thought that when you said two people with opposing views you meant something similar to the example cited earlier, where the woman pulled out the gun on the guy after the traffic encounter. Or in a bar fight. Or whatever. But I didn't think you meant a burglar breaking into your house.

In such a situation, every police officer I have ever talked to has said in such a situation, you shoot to kill. If you are absolutely positive that the person is not a friend or a family member (and let's face it, if it's in the middle of the night, wouldn't a friend or family member call first?) then you shoot. No warning shots, no yelling, "stop or I'll shoot", just fire. If he's in your house, you can even shoot him in the back if needs be. Ideally, you would shoot him from the front, because then you can make up any story you want for an explanation.

"Officer, I called out 'Stop or I'll Shoot' and he spun around and reached into his pocket. I thought he was going to draw a weapon, so I shot him. If I waited to verify that he had a gun, he likely could have shot me first."

Even if the guy didn't have any weapon at all, there's no way you're getting in any trouble for that. Pretty much the only instance where you can get in trouble for shooting someone who has broken into your home is if he attempts to flee. You cannot shoot someone who runs out the back door as he is running from your porch.

The law is very clear in the U.S. It states that it is reasonable to assume that an intruder in your home is hostile, and potentially armed. By definition, you and your family's life is in peril so long as he is in your home. Thus, you are within your rights to use lethal force to defend your home. That's why you can't shoot him in the back as he runs from the house, because at that point, your life is no longer in peril.

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle.

Aldeth, that is also why it is wise to have an unregistered gun to stick in the burglar's pocket. ;)

How devious! I like it!

(Just kidding of course.)

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle. Didn't you ask the same question about 6 month ago?

Obviously, that would depend on the country. But Italy, particularly Southern Italy, anyone who does not have a rifle to hunt? Then in my country, it might happen you meet someone on the train, riding on a bike or just walking past you with a gun or a rifle. Nothing unusual really.

In fact, I actually start to believe that in Europe, it's generally easier to get and have a gun then in the USA.

At the end of the day, the mythology makes all the difference. This burglars at home and killing them stories sound just so absurd and ridiculous. Practically, I know no one having even considered such ideas. Quite the contrary, as the careful and diligent way to keep the weapon demands to keep the munition far away from the rifle or the gun when not using the weapon. And that's military law. And no one would mess with military law.

And that's, in my mind, the reason why there are so much rifles and so few shootings. Every burglar can rest assured that owner of the house won't shoot at him, because otherwise he would be caught disobeying a military order. And that's not funny.

But why would that matter if you aren't in the military? And if the intent was actually to use the weapon, then is it not logical that you can access both the rifle and the ammunition quickly? I can understand keeping them separate - that makes sense - but keeping the two "far away" seems like a very nebulous definition. Far away relative to what? Does that mean you can't keep them in the same house? In the same room? In the same drawer? Hardly seems like an enforcable law.

Regardless if rifles ARE common in Europe, then what difference does in make if you shoot someone with a handgun or a rifle, other than the fact that you'd probably be more accurate and do a lot more damage with a rifle.

It's easy to get an illegal gun in Poland, I think, but not a legal one. Hunters have it easier but they get their licenses through hunting clubs, so I guess there's some special screening. Other folks get their permits from the police unless carrying a gun is part of a job.

Edit: Perhaps I should mention the great self-defence limits crisis we were having recently. And I doubt it's over yet. Basically, the jurisprudence looks strange and inconsistent. It looks like there's not much consensus between judges.

[ October 03, 2005, 22:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Take the military part as a given. That's more than 0.5 million guns and rifles that are connected to the military. If not, its' get mainly cantonal and a little federal and that means a lot more complicated. But as a approximation... taking the rules of the military and the gun-clubs/gun-societies as usus, i.e. the way one should handle a weapon, might more or less describe the situation.

Far away -> I've been instructed with the example to put one in the attic and one in the cellar. And you have to do some regular shooting. That's plenty of time to rehash the rules.

Enforcable. Ex-post enforcable. Usually, a shot gets fired by accident. In this case, there was a clear way to handle the weapon diligently. That's pretty tough then to get rid of the negligience and please the courts and the assurances if any damage was done. And please the military.

Gun/Rifle. -> It's not supposed to defend your privately against some intruders. I'm talking mainly about rifles... because I don't have a handgun.

The difference in the mythology, that's the intersting part. As the roots are the same, yet the concept of defending private property instead of defending the community or the country, that's the difference.

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle. I think some Finn mentioned in another thread allready that it's easy to get a gun in Finland and that's true. I'm not sure however how the correct procedures exactly go and I'm not sure how difficult it's compared to the US. Never the less a bigger percentage of Finns owns a gun than Americans (I remember reading this from quite a few places but it's some time ago so I can't name a source, they'd be in Finnish anyway). Crimes involving shooting are still quite rare though.

And most crimes involving shootings in Finland are not deliberate in the sense of mugger/robber/et ceera having a gun; it's usually someone getting drunk, getting pissed off, and going after his best bud with a shotgun. (can't really offer statistics forr that, though)

You say that like shotgunning a dear friend while pissed is a bad thing.

Can no one see the simple logic that -- if there is a law allowing people to shoot home invaders -- criminals will be less likely to invade homes? The concept of deterrence is important here.You really have an utopian view of the criminal society... they'll just stop breaking into homes because of the possibility they'll be killed in the process of committing a crime? Yea, right. That possibility has always been there. Such a law would only make sure that every criminal would come armed with a better weapon than the home owner, and would be more desperate and likely to shoot first. That's the simple logic.

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle.Actually, I was talking about the ease of obtaining weapons such as handguns, machine guns, all sorts of attack rifles, etc. Weapons that have no other function but to kill other people.

Hunting rifles are obviously something else entirely, and there are plenty of them in Europe. But a rifle is not a convenient weapon to lug around if you intend to use it to harm someone or use it in criminal situations on a regular basis, for obvious reasons. You just can't hide a rifle on your person or in a bag like you can a handgun or an UZI. Someone will notice you carrying a rifle around and report it. You can't comfortably run away carrying a rifle - again for obvious reasons. And you can't quickly reload it and have a whole magazine full of rounds in either. Ultimately, even hiding it or getting rid of it would be a problem simply because of the size.

In Ireland guns are common, as most of us are farmers and/or live in the countryside. Hand guns and automatic weapons are not permitted. I would even go as far as to say that a higher percentage of Irish would be armed than Americans.

Guns are not needed in urban areas for the general public (wild boars do not generally roam the cities). Thats why Ireland does not have high gun crime, such as drive-by-shootings and armed robbery is very rare.

I think we are not running around shooting each other as we still have high regard for family values, though not as much as, say 10 years ago.

And you seem completely clueless about the use of force.

What difference does it make if a criminal has a better weapon? If he has a .357 magnum, does it mean that he can magically disappear when the homeowner shoots a 9 mm at him?

No. Even a stupid criminal -- and they do not tend to be rocket scientists -- knows to avoid a shootout.

If you look at crime statistics in the U.S. at least, you will see that criminals are less likely to try to steal in areas in which legal gun ownership is high.

There is no meaningful distinction between "hunting rifle" and "Weapons that have no other function but to kill other people" unless you're talking about handguns or full auto guns.

Your points will come across better if you provide something to back up your claims, rather than insults, and focus on the entire point of people's posts, not just a segment that suits your purposes.

Please provide a link to the statistics you're talking about.

And yes, if you had read my post carefully, you would notice that handguns and "full auto guns" and such are exactly what I'm talking about.

I tend to respond to insults with insults -- e.g., condescending "you really have a utopian view of the criminal society" -- and I believe I cited as many statistics as you have. Use Google if you really want them -- I do not have time to educate you.

handguns, machine guns, all sorts of attack rifles,That rather looks like you are talking about something in addition to handguns and machine guns, doesn't it?

You also really have a skewed perception of what an insult is. Calm down, take a deep breath, go read the AoDA rules sticky, and try again. Your baseless arrogance is verging on rule-breaking, and the next time I'll discuss it with you will be in a PM as an offical warning of rule breaking.

As for specific statistics, I don't base my points on them, whereas you do. So if you expect your counter-argument to carry any weight, provide a link to back up your claims, or don't bother replying. Certainly not with the kind of rude and arrogant style you've done in your previous post.

As for what I'm talking about - firearms. All shapes, kinds and sizes. It hardly makes any difference considering the only necessary distinction thus far has been between a hunting rifle and everything else.

If you look at crime statistics in the U.S. at least, you will see that criminals are less likely to try to steal in areas in which legal gun ownership is high.
This is a prime example of why statistics can be so misleading...

The reason is that legal gun ownership is much higher in rural America (i.e. the "Red States"). There are a lot less burglaries in rural America. Burglaries are much more common where people congegrate; congregation of people leads to less animals like deer and skunks, so there are less guns.

Actually, you can look at simple handgun ownership and reach the same conclusion, Late Night Thinker.

Taluntain, [snip]

[If you have anything further to say to me as a moderator, please consult the regular forum rules you've agreed to follow upon registration on how to do it. -Tal]

[ October 05, 2005, 15:17: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I'm in England,
It's extremely difficult to get hold of any form of gun, about the only ones allowed are shotguns (max 12 bore I believe), you need to prove you need it which mostly limits the availability to farmers
(self defense is not good enough) and you need to show you have a secure enough store where it will be kept at all times if not in your possession. I guess there will be a limited number of hunting rifles, but again you'll need a license which will require proof of where you will use it. Auto/Semi auto and handguns are banned & I wouldn't know how to get hold of one.

Crime statistics for the whole of the UK detail just over 3% domestic burglary for 2003/2004, though this includes break-ins where nothing was stolen (about half of this 3%). About 11% of the total included violence/threatening behaviour.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk

I've just done a little digging, and I came up with an interesting figure. 12. That's the number of people in Slovenia who have been murdered with a firearm in 2004. And even of these 12, most (if not all) have been murdered by southerners or criminals coming to Slovenia with guns smuggled from one of the former Yugoslavian republics.

Admittedly, we only have a 2-million population, but it just goes to show the difference strict gun ownership laws can make. Please keep in mind that Slovenia is heavily forested and that there are dozens of thousands of hunters with rifles around. To my knowledge, none of the murders have been committed using a hunting rifle.

I also notice that there is a higher proportion of rape and burglary in Slovenia than in the U.S.

I think that is relevant to the discussion. (From site nationmaster.com.)

What is the % chance of being burgled in the US? I couldn't find figures.

Is there a breakdown of how many of these turn violent (either to burglar or owner)

Edit, tried the Nationmaster site, interesting.

Well it gives different figures to the UK's own statistics so I'm not entirely sure how it works, but it claims a 1.38% chance of being burgled in the UK, compared to 0.71% in the US. Murdered by Firearm is 0.000% in the UK, and 0.002% in the US.
Murdered full stop is 0.004% (US) 0.001% (UK). Rapes is 0.03% (US) vs 0.014% (UK).

OK, it's difficult to really compare two countries, but I would think the UK is as close a match to the US demographic you will get and still have the gun law differences to be able to make a comparison. Certainly more comparable than Slovenia (no offense intended Tal)

[ October 05, 2005, 17:32: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/si/Crime
and
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

The data compared is woefully out of date (5-6 years old), but still... generally, with the exceptions that St. James noted, Slovenia seems to fare much better than the US when it comes to violent crime and the percentage of prisoners.

But there are some strange discrepancies... The rape victims number on the list is higher for Slovenia than the US, but at the per capita listing, it's 0.04 per 1000 people for Slovenia and 0.30 per 1000 people for the US... which puts the US way ahead with the rape likelyhood. Going by those figures, it's about 7x more likely for a woman to be raped in the US than in Slovenia.

The burglaries percentage isn't that much higher in Slovenia... about 0.80% more than in the US.

Figures must have changed, it now shows 86 rapes for Slovenia in 2000, compared to 89,100 for the US for 1999, %'s as Tal shows.

so:

Guns may have an impact on the chance of being burgled (This doesn't tally with countries such as Spain who have a much smaller likihood) but you are more likely to be murdered or raped?

Statistics are great, but woefully meaningless.

This just in from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm) ; Gun crime (where guns are forbidden) is up 6%


Official police figures indicate violent crime is up. Violent offences in England and Wales reached record levels in 2004-5 with police recording one million crimes - up 7% from the previous year. Police figures show 1,035,046 violent incidents against the person, excluding sexual offences and robberies.

Total recorded crime fell 6% to 5.6m incidents, but gun crime was up 6%.

Minister Hazel Blears stressed overall crime fell, saying the apparent rise in violent crime merely reflected better reporting and recording of offences.

Ms Blears, a Home Office minister, also told the BBC that the separate British Crime Survey, which interviews people to ask if they have been crime victims, showed a decrease in violent crime.

But shadow home secretary David Davis said the police figures were "further evidence that the government continues to fail on violent crime".

"With violent crime continuing to spiral out of control, it beggars belief that the government's only response is to unleash 24-hour drinking on our town and city centres," he added in a reference to proposed drink law changes.

Pilot call

There was no great demand for extended drinking times, he told the BBC.

"I see no reason to go ahead with 24 drinking until we've actually piloted, tested out some of the methods the government is proposing."

For the Lib Dems, Mark Oaten said violent crime was "directly linked" to drink.

"Our concern is that extending opening times for up to 24 hours will make the problems of alcohol-related crime worse, not better," he said.

Ms Blears said the government had already promised to keep 24-hour licensing under review when it is introduced in November.

She rejected the call by Mr Davis to pilot the liberalisation in selected areas arguing people from outside would flood in to take advantage of longer drinking hours.

The police figures show there was a 20% fall in burglary and a 17% drop in car thefts. There were just under 11,000 gun crimes, up 6%, and 73 people were killed with guns over a 12 month period - five more than the previous year.

Sexual offences rose by 17% to 61,000 but this was said to be partly down to reforms of sex crime laws and efforts by police and politicians to encourage more victims to come forward.

The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Chris Fox, meanwhile has defended police detection rates of 26%.

He said policing was not just about catching criminals - it was about preventing crime in the first place.

"There are millions of people who have not been a victim of crime that would have been if we hadn't focused on reducing crime," he said.

Crime survey

The government has also published the British Crime Survey, based on interviews with 45,000 people, which suggests violent crime is down 11%.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he was "extremely encouraged" by the "very positive" figures in the British Crime Survey - which the Home Office regards as more accurate.

"Although the BCS records an 11% decrease in violent crime, I recognise that this remains an issue of concern for many people and the increase in police recorded violent crime contributes significantly to the fear of crime," he said.

The BCS estimates there were 10.8 million crimes in the year, although crimes against businesses and the under-16s are excluded.

Another estimate of crime in England and Wales published three weeks ago by the Home Office suggested there were 14.7 million crimes committed against children and adults in England and Wales in 2003-04.

Mr Clarke highlighted the government's Violent Crime Reduction Bill which he said would give new powers to police and local authorities to tackle violent criminals "and ensure they are effectively punished".

"We have made significant progress on violent crime, but I accept that more needs to be done and the government is determined to achieve further reductions," he said
My favorite part was when the blamed the increase on violent crime on better reporting and record keeping.

Sorry to skip back to almost the beginning of this topic but I'd like to know if anybody has some recent(2003-2004) information on fully automatic weapons. I know that when I got my Mac-10(full auto .45 submachine gun) I had to fill out about 30 forms and send the US government $200 and promise not to take it across state lines without asking first. I just wanted to know if this is still the deal or not.

In case anybody was wondering I'm not a gun toting idiot. I'm actually a collector of firearms.

You have to get a class III license and pass a background check -- and yes, pay a bunch of money -- but IIRC that is still how the process works. Actually, if you did that recently your license might enable you to purchase another class III device w/o going through the whole process against. I'm not sure.

Of course, those outside the Anglosphere's tradition of individual rights will recoil in horror that anyone outside of the military could possibly be trusted with such a weapon, but I think I can live with that.

edit: Nevermind, question was answered in the post already.

Actually, I do have a different question: how much did that thing cost? Idle curiosity, of course ;)

[ October 26, 2005, 20:01: Message edited by: AMaster ]

As to the law in Florida, it simply means that outside of your home, you no longer have to wait until injury is done to you. Now, if you are in fear of your safety, it is not illegal to use deadly force to counter (this does not apply to guns exclusively)
It will still be investigated if it happens, but it does not cause an automatic arrest like it used to.

Taluntain,all you have to do is look at when florida passed their ccw laws and the sudden increase in the number of foreign tourists being mugged and robbed.This was a direct result of the crimanals not knowing if a resident was armed or not,whereas most(if not all foreign tourists were unarmed). It made national news due to the sudden increase.

Aldeth, i don't know where you got your stats because only 4 states ban concealed carry , 10 have restrictions on it and 36 are either shall issue or may issue states.

Felinoid, i don't know what state you are from(if you are in the US) , but here in N.C. you have to use a gun permit to buy a pistol at a gunshow just like at a gunstore. Also just like a gunstore purchase,the call in a ncic verification to buy a rifle if you do not want to use one of your gun permits on the rifle. Most people do this becuase you only get up to 3 gunpermits at a time(you can get 5 if you state that you building a collection). It also varies county to county as to how long it takes to get your permits. My county takes 3-4 days , while the neighboring county takes 3-4 weeks! Also our sheriff will approve class 3 permits whereas the neighboring county's sheriff will only approve for one of his friends or law enforcement.(this is a fact as i know 11 officers who have class 3 weapons in that county and know of 2 individuals who moved to the county and could not get a permit even though they had exemplary backgrounds.

martaug, I'm not saying that applying the same laws most European countries have had for decades would magically solve the situation in the U.S. NOW. I believe I pointed out early on that considering what the situation in the U.S. is currently, it's really too late for even the strictest gun laws to make any difference. The amount of firearms and people with access to them out there is already so great it'd make little difference if they were all but outlawed. The black market alone could fuel everyone's needs just fine.

To be honest, I haven't a clue what could be done in the U.S. that would make a positive difference. The time for fundamental changes that could have led to that is 100+ years in the past. America as a whole chose guns over safety (or just because of perceived safety, though reality is completely different in 99% of cases these days) a few hundred years ago and nothing's really changed since then.

Going right down to the roots of the gun-good mentality, it's probably so simply because historically it was easier to just give everyone the right to arm themselves to the teeth and tell them to look after themselves than work on building a society where the majority of people wouldn't feel the need to have lethal firearms in their houses to feel safe. The problem is that this privilege wasn't revoked while there was still at least a slim chance of doing so.

Aldeth, i don't know where you got your stats because only 4 states ban concealed carry , 10 have restrictions on it and 36 are either shall issue or may issue states. Ummm... yeah. I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about with "my statistics" but I never implied that it was impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun, or suggested that most states do not issue one. Most of the states require you to state some reason though for wanting to carry a concealed weapon, and that reason has to be at least minimally better than "I want one." Sorry if I implied in some way that it was impossible to get a concealed weapon permit.

Aldeth, sorry i didn't mean to sound so harsh in my previous post. I was just answering the statement about most people not being able to get a concealed carry permit. Also, in N.C. as well as all of the states that have reciprocal ccw laws with n.c. there is no requirement as to why you wish to have a ccw permit. here you have to take an 8-10 hour course(usually offered at the nearest gun range) that covers the basic safe handling of firearms ,as well as the legal requirements as to using your firearm to defend/protect yourself and others. Then you have to go to your local sheriff's office and get them to take and submit to the FBI 2 sets of fingerprint cards and wait for them to issue the ok(this has averaged about 3-4 months)after that you go back to the sheriff's office to pay the fee and get your ccw permit. Kind of weird but a ccw only allows you to carry firearms concealed
but not a knife! (really weird) also if you have ever been to a store and seen one of those little tags in the window that reads "no weapons allowed" ?,well if you enter such a marked business WITHOUT a ccw permit and a concealed weapon it is a misdemeanor but WITH a ccw it is a felony ( a case of the law stating that you should have known better since you had to go to class to learn where you can and cannot carry). Again i do apologise if i came off to strongly in my first post to you.
taluntain, a good reference to show just what happens when ccw permits are allowed is the book (and the research materials used for it) more guns,less crime by john lott. it shows empirical evidence that when the populace has the right to carry concealed that there is less crime across the board(murder,rape,assault,robbery,home invasion) even the justice departments own statistics show that firearms are used to halt 2.5 - 3 million criminal acts/year from happening. I personally know 3(yes 3!) women who have stopped assaults and/or rape attempts to themselves through the use of a firearm(carried legally concealed on their persons) As all of them have stated,they would have pulled the trigger if they had to. luckily enough, the mere sight of the firearm and the determination to use it if needed was enough to stop the criminals and cause them to flee.
weird little tidbit on the law,in N.C. your house is considered your safe zone i.e. if someone breaks in,you can shoot them to protect yourself and/or anyone else present,while in S.C. your entire PROPERTY is considered your safe zone(geez, if you have 2-3(or more)acres of land thats a heck of a safe zone!

martaug, show me 10 books claiming that guns are beneficial and citing data to back them up and I'll show you 10 that state exactly the opposite with different data to back them up. The existence of books saying that guns are the best thing that can happen to anyone really proves nothing apart from the fact that someone had an agenda (and probably the support of the gun lobby) while they were putting together the book.

Which, of course, isn't to say that the pro-guns people are the only ones able to put together books to suit their purposes, but it's a lot easier to get support and money from the gun lobby for them.

I don't know if you've read all of this topic (or even just the last few posts), but I've put in some figures from my own country by comparison and you can see that in the wide majority of cases, the crime rates for rapes, murders etc. here are a lot lower than in the US. So if you want to get down to the cold, hard numbers, you automatically lose that argument.

Taluntain, i am not saying that if everyone had a firearm that there would be any less crime(as i hope that you don't think that if all guns were outlawed there would be any less crime). what i am trying to illustrate is that, contrary to what the anti-gun groups would have you believe, it is not the gun committing the crime and that far more of them are utilized to help even out the force equation between a woman,elderly person, etc. vs 1 or more individuals that are more prone to violent activities. Personally, i can not even begin to imagine how someone can blame an inanimate object for someones actions. I freely admit that i am one of the "gun nuts" that sarah brady and her ilk like to try to demonize all of the time, that is her right and i would do nothing to prevent her from exercising that right. From everyone of your posts on the subject that i have seen, it appears that you are of the opinion that firearms are a bad thing to have in a civilised society.? I hope that this is the correct impression. Having a history in the gun culture and a past in law enforcement, i can tell you from personal observation that if every gun on the planet was destroyed tonight at midnight, that the crooks would have built an improvised one by 1am. Firearms are not the problem , personal responsibility and education are. As you may have noticed from my extremely low post count, i spend a lot of time lurking and just observing(had an earlier account when i was on aol but lost access to all of my info due to an apt fire). Completely off-topic but there used to be a poster who went by cog on the board years ago, is he still around under a new persona?

In honor of the gun control thread:

Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns. This appeared on another thread, and I wanted to make a point about this regarding Jefferson. How many here would like us to dismantle the US military? No hands raised, I did not think so.

Jefferson believed that a standing professional army was a threat to liberty. This flies in the face of all those who believe that a standing army "keeps America free." He thought that citizens should be armed because they would be safe guarding America's defense. Thusly, they needed to be ready to form the militia that ward off attacks by foreign powers. Here are a few more Jefferson quotes:

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Given Jefferson's dislike of standing armies it's easy to see why he believed that American citizens needed the "right to bear arms." And why it was important that the government put no restraints on its citizens in this regard. I felt it was necessary that Jefferson's remarks be seen in their proper context. They are, in part, why the "right to bear arms" is in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. I'm not arguing that Jefferson is right or wrong, only that his point should be more clearly drawn regarding the contitutional rights on this issue.

[ November 02, 2005, 07:19: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

martaug, I've already addressed pretty much every single thing you bring up again in previous posts in this thread, but ok, let me do it again, briefly.

.. hope that you don't think that if all guns were outlawed there would be any less crime Less crime in general, probably not, but certainly less violent crimes. Every thug can play a badass mofo when they have an uzi in their hands. When all you have is a knife it's a different matter.

what i am trying to illustrate is that, contrary to what the anti-gun groups would have you believe, it is not the gun committing the crimeToday, a criminal couldn't commit an armed robbery of a bank without a firearm. Now tell me how the gun is not an integral part in commiting such a crime, and many similar ones. The "guns don't kill people, people do" slogan is something that the gun lobby came up with to shift all the blame on people. But guess what, people don't have the ability to shoot bullets out of their fingers just yet.

... far more of them are utilized to help even out the force equation between a woman,elderly person, etc. vs 1 or more individuals that are more prone to violent activities.Maybe in the U.S. (do you have any data to back that claim up?), but certainly not anywhere else I know of.

From everyone of your posts on the subject that i have seen, it appears that you are of the opinion that firearms are a bad thing to have in a civilised society.?Wide availability and easy access to guns in a civilized society are a bad thing in my opinion. I don't have anything against guns if it's properly hard to get access to them.

Firearms are not the problem , personal responsibility and education are.As I've pointed above, I believe firearms are an integral part of the problem. When you can easily buy a gun on practically every corner, personal responsibility and education come a far, far distant second.

[ November 02, 2005, 22:04: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I'm not a gun owner (nor do I ever plan to be), but I believe if you look at the statistics the places with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates. It is the old saying "An armed society is a polite society."I beg to differ, an armed society is a scared society.

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle.It's not hard at all, it just isn't legal, that's all. There are special stores where you can legally purchase rifles, but you need A) a permit B) proof you belong to some sort of hunting/shooting organisation, and C) an awful lot of patience, it will take like forever until you get all of the above through the authorities. That's why 90% of all firearms here were purchased on the black market. It's much easier, faster, and cheaper.

Taluntain, yes i do have stats for my posts. they are from the dept of justice and the fbi UCR program(Uniform Crime Reporting). firearms are used in 42%, knives and other weapons 18% and plan old strong-arm bluffing in 40%!!. as to your uzi comment, there are very few of them around, the only ones i have seen(other than a few in military and foreign military units) have been in the hands of gang-bangers and organised crime members. Most serious gun people don't like the uzi for the simple fact it is a spray and pray weapon. your just pulling the trigger and hoping to hit something. sorry, i'll give you 6 guys with uzi's and me with my benelli shotgun, at more than 10 yards i will come out the survivor everytime. Just having a gun doesn't mean you have the ability yo use it. It's very different when you are part of a military unit and are firing at a faceless enemy as apposed to being face to face with someone within 7 yards and having to pull the trigger(trust me, it changes you a lot.)most people(including a large percentage of crooks) don't have it in them to take that final step, most hope that the sight of the weapon(be it gun,knife,club,whatever) is enough to gain compliance with their demands. Sorry,as i was taught, you never draw a weapon until you have the full intention to use it immediately. If history is an example every major mass murder by a government has followed the disarming of the citizenry. i guess taluntian, that you and i will never agree on this subject because my beliefs are based on personal experience.Oh yeah the state of vermont does not have any type of restrictions as to gun ownership while the neighboring state of new hampshire has very restrictive laws, guess which one has greater crimes in every category.

martaug, well, uh, how about linking to that data then? That's the norm if you're trying to convince someone. ;)

As for uzi's, I was just giving that as an example. It doesn't really matter if it's an uzi or just a regular gun. They can kill just the same. But you've pointed that out yourself...