Well, it happened again...this time in Omaha, Nebraska. Some punk kid decided to kill a bunch of innocent victims before commiting sucide. :bad:

Here's the full story. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116784)

Stupid idot. I hope he gets a pineapple shoved up his butt on a daily basis as he burns in hell. :grr: :rolling:

When will the this nation learn? A bizarre view on gun ownership, and the availability of them is always going to result in people going on a rampage. There's too many nutters around to let the public own guns. I hope one day the USA learns......

When will the this nation learn? A bizarre view on gun ownership, and the availability of them is always going to result in people going on a rampage. There's too many nutters around to let the public own guns. I hope one day the USA learns......


Ain't going to happen.

They'll instead focus on his playing violent games and listening to metal. AS IT SHOULD BE!!! Violent games and metal are OF THE DEVIL! Sin in the flesh. It's a sad state in the world today to give such rot to children -- the entertainment industry should be ashamed. They should be made to pay for this just as the tobacco industry has been made to pay for its indisgressions!

... wait ...

I guess the tobacco industry hasn't paid anything yet, have they....

Nevermind.


:)

If I lived in America, I'd be constantly living in fear that people like this (http://mystanding.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-europe-country.html) are entitled to have a gun. Shocking. The whole situation needs looking at in America.

If I lived in America, I'd be constantly living in fear that people like this are entitled to have a gun. Shocking. The whole situation needs looking at in America.

First a slight correction. The guy is not "entitled" to have a gun. He is allowed to purchase a gun. There's a significant difference there.

OK, I'll grant that crap like this happens here a whole lot more than it happens anywhere else. I will further concede that anyone without a criminal past can obtain a gun in the US with relative ease, and this likely contributes to problems such as this. That said, you may be surprised that people don't live in fear in the US because every year a few nutters shoot up some people before ending their own existence. I mean, would you live in fear if you visited Finland based on the recent shooting there? I think not. Statistically you are way more likely to be killed in a car accident. Or struck by lightning. Or eaten by a shark (well, maybe not in Omaha). The point is if I lived in fear of people like this, I would also have to be terrified to drive to work on an interstate every day, because I'm much more likely to be killed in that manner than some kook like this.

Entitled - To give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim

You believe a person should have a right to own a gun? It's an appalling mindset to have in the opinion of, well... the rest of the world, pretty much.

Whilst I'm sure the people in that video I posted are not representative of the American people; she is think as a plank, and the guy can't even say 'HungAry' correctly. 'Hungry' indeed.... Talk about insular. How can people like this be allowed to purchase a firearm? Crazy, crazy, crazy stuff....

Maybe it's a semantic point. Having the right to do something is, IMO, different to being entitled to something. Having the right gives a choice of whether to or not, while (again IMO) entitlement has a meaning that is more obligatory or mandatory.

To me, if I was entitled to a gun, then someone should give me a gun dammit! Whereas if I have a right to own a gun then I have a choice of whether or not I want to purchase one.

But we really should be more specific here. It's not just the broad category of "guns". It's more specifically handguns. Tons of people, in countries the world over, own rifles for a variety of reasons (hunting, competitions, etc). The mian difference between a rifle and a handgun is not in lethality, but size. You can't walk down the street carrying a hunting rifle without everyone knowing that you're carrying a hunting rifle. A handgun on the other hand can be easily concealed. That's what makes this case so bizzare. He had a freakin' rifle. How the hell do you walk into the middle of the mall with a rifle without everyone seeing that you have a rifle and running away? Add to the fact that most malls around here have a police precinct attached to them (I imagine it's convenient for shoplifting crimes) and I wonder how he got to the middle of the mall without the police getting to him first.

Moreover since tons of people the world over own rifles, I do not think this is unique to the US. The arguement favoring gun control would hold more water if he was firing a 9mm for example. I guess my basic point is that there are tons of situations where being at the wrong place at the wrong time can cause your death. Having some nutter shooting me with a rifle is not something that keeps me up at night. DISCLAIMER: I do not own a gun, I have never owned a gun, and I have no intention of ever owning a gun. That having been said, I know tons of people who do own guns (mostly hunting rifles), and all of them are responsible gun owners. I don't see why the actions of a few mentally unstable individuals should curtail the ability of sane, responsible people from owning guns.

If I lived in America, I'd be constantly living in fear that people like this (http://mystanding.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-europe-country.html) are entitled to have a gun. Shocking. The whole situation needs looking at in America.

But then you could buy a gun, and you wouldn't need to be afraid anymore.

Although that reasoning doesn't seem to prevent the Bushies from telling us we should be afraid of Iran...

Isn't the statistic's on violent crimes in America that there is one occurring every 30 seconds or so?

Back on topic. The guy's suicide note said "I've been worthless all my life, and now I'll be famous"

Thats disturbing. Really.

But then you could buy a gun, and you wouldn't need to be afraid anymore.

I'm not so sure. Having a gun might help me somewhat, but it doesn't guarantee me anything. It's enough to be less proficient/lucky than the other guy or to be taken by surprise - and in a normal society, no one could get any work done if

@ The Shaman: :lol:

I'm not so sure. Having a gun might help me somewhat, but it doesn't guarantee me anything. It's enough to be less proficient/lucky than the other guy or to be taken by surprise - and in a normal society, no one could get any work done if

heh.

Yes. The problem with gun ownership is that it's not even remotely close to MAD. I can shoot you in the face without warning and then you can...oh. That's right. You don't have second strike capability. You're just dead. Tough luck.

Which saps the deterrent value.

But it's a moot point, really. America has, what, 200 million guns in private hands? No putting that genie back in the bottle.

The problem with gun ownership is that it's not even remotely close to MAD. I can shoot you in the face without warning and then you can...oh. That's right. You don't have second strike capability. You're just dead. Tough luck.

Which saps the deterrent value.

Yep. If anything, it might lead to a "I'll get you before you get me" mentality, which could result in even more shootings.

But it's a moot point, really. America has, what, 200 million guns in private hands? No putting that genie back in the bottle.

Especially give the strength of the gun lobby and the NRA.

ok, lets slow the rhetoric.

another crazy person has done a terrible crime and its time to blame the firearm again. lets not mention the fact that it was illegal for him to possess the firearm used.
(question 11f(12f on the new form 4473) "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you ever been commited to a mental institution ?" if you answer yes it is illegal to purchase the firearm.

lets totally ignore the 3000 times a day that firearms are used to prevent crimes. this figure comes from the dept of justice. do a search on firearms on the old boards and you should be able to link to the site.

what he did was horrible however that does not invalidate the legitimate uses of firearms .

on a side note, has anyone else seen the report that they found a live grenade at this same mall last friday.

Especially give the strength of the gun lobby and the NRA.

Ah, yes, those guys. :eek: The ones who can't remember that there are 9 other amendments within the Bill of Rights.

what he did was horrible however that does not invalidate the legitimate uses of firearms .

That is quite true, but the incident makes some posters worried that the illegitimate use of firearms is becoming only too prevalent, which may be due to very loose gun laws. We are not saying that there should be an all-out gun ban and guns are the tools of the Unholy-one-who-must-not-be-named, but a series of gun mass killings is indicative of a problem.

Guns may be used to prevent crime, just as cars may be used for innocent and necessary purposes. Yet just as how a series of horrible car accidents are a reason to examine a country's driving laws and motorways (even if it was a kid that borrowed the car), several gun mass murders in quick succession are a reason to examine its gun control laws and habits.

ok, lets slow the rhetoric.

another crazy person has done a terrible crime and its time to blame the firearm again. lets not mention the fact that it was illegal for him to possess the firearm used.

Same goes for you. We're not on some political pulpit here. The fact that he did have and use it means, if nothing else, that the control procedures currently in place failed in his case. To put it in other terms, it has been easy enough for him to obtain a firearm without being entitled to it. Now, I've heard the old "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" mantra often enough, but I believe you can agree that the law should make it harder to commit crime. Tighter gun controls and more practices will not eradicate illegal guns (especially on their own), but they can make them more expensive and less accessible, and thus out of the reach of at least some of the people like that one. If 20% of the people who commit a crime with illegal/stolen/borrowed weapon could not get it, I'd think it's still a net gain even if legal buyers have to wait a bit more for their request to be approved or need to attend a course every now and then. Gun rights should not be a sacred cow, you know - if the current gun laws are not efficient enough, then they ought to be improved. The question, I believe, is not "whether" but "how much."

nope, i'm sorry, there are thousands of gun laws on the books, it hasnt decreased crime, so what makes you think one more will?

just look at washington d.c. which has some of the most draconian gun laws in america and is in the top 10 most violent cities in america. thats why the are being sued in a case that is going to be heard by the supreme court in the coming months.
see, for some reason, people don't seem to realize that a person who is going to commit a serious crime isn't going to be bothered that they are breaking another law(illegally obtaining a firearm). remember, laws are just like locks, they are only for honest people. crooks dont care if its locked, they break in.

oh yeah, my figures are on the low side, as the justice dept stats say 2.5 - 3 million instances per year. so thats 6800 - 8200 times a day that a firearm is used to prevent a crime.

i am still trying to figure out how you walk all the way up to the third floor in a crowded mall with an ak-47 style weapon(granted they said he had it under a sweatshirt or hoody)? this is not a small or easily concealed weapon. thank goodness he was a bad shot. he easily could have tripled his number of murders. it was a very bad thing. he was a very disturbed individual & desperately needed help but somehow managed to slip through the cracks.

Ah, yes, those guys. :eek: The ones who can't remember that there are 9 other amendments within the Bill of Rights.

And can't even see which one of them nullifies the 2nd Amendment.

It's worth keeping in mind that the illegality of weaponry does matter to criminals. It means they have to get the weapon on the black market, which means it costs more (I've heard from people with, ah, experience, that you can triple or quadruple the cost of a firearm on the black market in DC, Chicago, etc. If you just want something cheap, you're still talking $1k)--or they have to steal one. It also means that using the weapon will get them in more trouble than they would have been in otherwise. Using a weapon in a crime carries an automatic jail sentence. Even if you leave it on the seat of your car while you're robbing the store. Cross state lines with a weapon, congratulations, you just committed a federal offense.

The idea that gun laws don't do anything to deter crime, or alter the nature of the crimes that are committed, is simply incorrect. It won't deter the stupid ones, but nothing will--and they won't, and don't, last. It will deter the smart ones. Criminals do care about the law when they commit a crime.

in a tragic way it is kinda funny. to buy a gun that you can legally buy (lets say a glock 17 9mm) for $450-$600, a crook will pay $800-$1200. yet conversely they can buy a fully automatic ak type weapon (which will set a legal buyer back 6 months,a mess of paperwork and several thousand dollars) for less than $1000 from the drug cartels.
it makes more profit for them to ship in ak's and other full auto types that can be bought in other countrys for less than (in some places) $200.

amaster , how can you say that criminals care about the law when by definition they obviously don't?

amaster , how can you say that criminals care about the law when by definition they obviously don't?
By definition only if you assert that willingness to break one law equates to willingness to break all laws, regardless of punishment.

But it's a moot point, really. America has, what, 200 million guns in private hands? No putting that genie back in the bottle.Well, there's always Chris Rock's solution. The problem isn't guns. It's bullets. All we need to do is impose a "bullet tax" of 5K per bullet. The police and military, as government organizations immune to the tax, would have no problem staying equipped, but your typical thug will only be able to use his .45 as a bludgeon. Problem solved. :)

ummm, drew if the are getting the gun illegally what is gonna stop them from getting the bullets the same way?

yeah i know you are joking just being devils advocate here

Nothing, but this idea that a law is ineffective because people break it is kind of ridiculous, isn't it? People speed. Does that mean speed limits are ineffective? People commit murder. Does that mean laws against murder are ineffective? Laws don't exist to stop people from doing things. They exist to deter them.

The whole "criminals can get guns illegally" canard is really just a diversion, anyway. For starters, in a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States over a period of 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms. Second of all, most illegally acquired guns in the US were acquired legally, in the US, first. In other words, if we banned handguns in the US, less illegal handguns would be available (or they would need to be smuggled in from other nations rather than stolen or purchased from shady US gun sellers)...which would make them even more expensive.

how about some sources for those studies please.
and you are missing the whole point. its like saying "oh someone commited a murder so we need to pass more laws to make murder more illegal"

just look at a little history, you used to be able to buy fully automatic tommy guns thru the mail yet we didn't have mass killings going on did we?
it all boils down to responsibilty, we dont blame the car when someone runs people down on purpose or the bat when someone beats someone with it. quit trying to shift the blame to an inanimate object.

For starters, in a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States over a period of 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms.This came from "Where'd They Get Their Guns? An Analysis of the Firearms Used in High-Profile Shootings." It was conducted by the violence Policy Centre, Washington DC, 2002.

and you are missing the whole point. its like saying "oh someone commited a murder so we need to pass more laws to make murder more illegal"Actually, no it isn't. Possessing a gun isn't a crime, and (with the exception of a few extremists) no one is trying to change that. Gun control advocates aren't trying to take away your right to bear arms. They are advocating background checks and a short waiting period. They do want to see an assault weapons ban, though, since no one wants to see the police roaming the streets with AK-47's and M-16's in order to keep pace with the street riff-raff.

just look at a little history, you used to be able to buy fully automatic tommy guns thru the mail yet we didn't have mass killings going on did we? I seem to recall a great bit of gun violence being committed by bootleggers with tommy guns. Let's also not forget the KKK back in the 1920's. Violence was really bad back then.

it all boils down to responsibilty, we dont blame the car when someone runs people down on purpose or the bat when someone beats someone with it. quit trying to shift the blame to an inanimate object.Cars aren't designed to kill things and neither are bats*. Guns are designed to kill things. Only guns are to blame for gun violence. I'm not blaming all violence on guns, just gun violence. How, without a gun, can one commit gun violence, anyway? This position [that guns are not to blame for gun violence] is not only untenable, but it's really kind of silly, isn't it?

*Incidentally, we do regulate cars. We control who can own them (if the state denies you registration, you cannot legally buy a car), who can drive them, how old people have to be to drive them, where people can drive them, when people can drive them, how fast people can drive them...

I seem to recall a great bit of gun violence being committed by bootleggers with tommy guns. Let's also not forget the KKK back in the 1920's. Violence was really bad back then.


Heh. There was more than one occasion around WWI when the national guard (or federal troops; I forget which) used HMGs on rioters.

Drew,
I think America ought to do something about the state infringing on the right to drive cars! Minimum age? Drivers licenses? Mandatory insurance perhaps? Madness! Liberty!

Baseball bats require strength and agility, especially when used outside of an ambush scenario and against multiple opponents. Same for knives, where you have to add skill. The thing with guns is uniquely that every bozo can kill with a gun. You can be a total weakling, as long as you can hold a gun, are able to aim it and pull the trigger you have a reasonable chance of hitting your opponent at short range and inflict serious injury.
That's how first crossbows and then firearms revolutionised warfare - no more it was just the fighting classes who received combat training who could effectively fight (say, with bats and knives). Peasants, shortly trained and using salvo fire, could simply sweep the expertly trained and armoured knights from the field of battle. A gun has reach and can hit before a melee fighter can close in. In that sense the firearm was a great equaliser. That's the big appeal.

All that's what fully justifies making a distinction between cars, baseball bats - and guns, and coincidentally suggests that the failed analogy between the three as made by martaug is almost mischievous.

Also, Drew's point of the cops in an arms race with riff-raff is a very good one. The apparent underlying assumption of the 'guns vs. crime' theme is that, as all criminals are heavily armed, a law abiding citizen needs fire power superiority or at least equality to stand a chance. IMO this view has a lot more to do with threat perception that reality. In that sense, the difference between fire power superiority and equality depends on the perception. After a particularly harrowing crime time season you might not feel safe with anything less than a Gatling gun.
And then there are those who think of weapons as an insurance against the always oppressive state as some on the US right do here is no point in wanting to be armed en par with the cops or Feds. That is also a very American theme.

Same for knives, where you have to add skill. Interestingly enough, our government places limits on knives too...

So does ours. Carrying a knife longer than 7 centimetres (2.7 inches) or a non-folding knife of any length is a crime. This means that you may carry a Swiss Army knife in public.

In certain areas in Copenhagen the police may stop people at random and search them for illegal weapons. Good thing our government protects us so well.

There were a number stabbings in Denmark over the weekend, by the way. As on most weekends. With illegal knives. I guess we need stricter laws and more power to the authorities.

Drew,
I carry a swiss army knife all day. The legal limitation applies to folding knives only. As Monty hinted on, that has to do with stabbing and the blade length you'd need to reach the average artery. Beyond that length the knife is considered to be a weapon. That means you still could carry one, if you have a weapon permit.

You can buy longer, fixed knives, but for that you need to be older than 18. To carry them around you'd need to have a good justification, say, that you're fishing or hunting. That will usually be implausible in shopping mall and city settings.

There were a number stabbings in Denmark over the weekend, by the way. As on most weekends. With illegal knives. I guess we need stricter laws and more power to the authorities.

There are murders most weekends. I guess that means laws against murder are pointless.

Apples and oranges... Murder violates the rights of the victim. Whose rights are violated if you carry a weapon without using it?

Apples and oranges... Murder violates the rights of the victim. Whose rights are violated if you carry a weapon without using it?If you aren't going to use it, why would you be walking around with a sharpened, 8 inch Rambo replica dagger? The law doesn't kick in 3 seconds before you violate someone's rights. It tries to be a little pre-emptive in order to serve its other function-- maintaining public safety.

Apples and oranges... Murder violates the rights of the victim. Whose rights are violated if you carry a weapon without using it?

Not apples and oranges. Carrying a knife illegally is, well, illegal. Murder is illegal. The illegality doesn't prevent some people from carrying knives, nor does it prevent some of them from killing each other.

So - if it's not apples and oranges, then it's the same thing. So whose rights are violated if I carry a knife in my pocket?

There are other uses for a knife than murdering somebody with it.

Irrelevant. Your argument was that the illegality of certain knives does not prevent people from carrying and using those knives.

So what? No law prevents people from doing that which is illegal.

No - laws don't prevent anyone from violating them; they just stop law-abiding citizens from doing what they prohibit. But not criminals. Which is the point.

And I fail to see how that point is irrelevant, just as I fail to see how knives and murder are equal.

drew, the violence Policy Centre is the group that thinks repealing the handgun ban in washington dc is going to cause dc to lose their ranking as the safest city as far as GUN SUICIDES go. not that the city is safe as far as gun violence goes( top 10 ) they seem to think that denying millions the right of self defense is ok as long as it reduces suicides?
you notice they never claim the handgun ban makes dc any safer as it doesnt.(remember it is in the top 10 most dangerous)

you need to look at the records a little closer violence in the '20s was so much lower than modern times look at the rate per 100000 population.

and your part about car ownership is wrong. you can own as many cars as you like, you never have to get them registered and never have to have a drivers license as long as you keep them on your OWN property. a man with a few acres can drive his cars as fast as he wants and as crazily as he wants without a license all he wants.
also your ARTIFICAL categorization of "gun violence" is, well...just dumb, violence is violence. there is no difference between being shot to death, beaten to death, stabbed to death or any other style. trying to create a subdivision just to validate your idea doesnt make it right.

ragusa, over here a CCP(concealed carry permit) is only good for handguns, it doesnt cover any other weapon. i know you are from germany so it may be different there :)
my overall comparing of cars , bats and guns is valid in that you see that people aren't blaming the INANIMATE OBJECT in some instances but they do with firearms(still just an inanimate object) are you aware just how little force is required to cave someones head in with a bat? anyone over 90 lbs is quite strong enough. and restricting knives by length is funny as one of the easist ways to kill someone with a knife is by cutting the carotid arteries on the frontsides of the neck. an inch is all you need. cut them both and the person is too busy trying to cough the blood out of their lungs to even attack you.(gag reflex, you know?)
anyway totally off topic. the small number of bad uses of firearms doesnt negate all the good uses that happen everyday.

you need to look at the records a little closer violence in the '20s was so much lower than modern times look at the rate per 100000 population.I never said there was more or less violence. I said there was a lot, and I actually made no implication one way or the other about whether there was more or less violence in the '20s, but since you brought it up, I did look it up. Through the 20's and 30's, our murder rate hovered around 8-9 per 100,000, peaking at 9.7 murders per 100,000 in 1933. In 1998, after 6 years with a pro-gun control president and an assault weapons ban, the murder rate was 6.9 per 100,000. They track this stuff, you know. With the repeal (or, more accurately, the non-renewal) of the assault weapons ban and a very anti-gun control president, these crime rates, unsurprisingly, are on the rise again.

and your part about car ownership is wrong. you can own as many cars as you like, you never have to get them registered and never have to have a drivers license as long as you keep them on your OWN property.I used to sell cars, and if someone had a block on vehicle registration or no insurance, the law prohibited me from selling him a car.

a man with a few acres can drive his cars as fast as he wants and as crazily as he wants without a license all he wants.Can he do it on a highway or downtown?

also your ARTIFICAL categorization of "gun violence" is, well...just dumb, violence is violence. there is no difference between being shot to death, beaten to death, stabbed to death or any other style. trying to create a subdivision just to validate your idea doesnt make it right.I'm not the one who implied that gun violence doesn't have anything to do with guns. You are. That said, these mass shootings we've had wouldn't have happened without guns, so your point about violence being violence is also moot. Columbine, VA Tech, or the shooting that is auspiciously the topic in this thread would not have been anywhere near as bad as they were if the perpetrators brandished knives instead of guns. They certainly wouldn't have been severe enough to make national headlines. The DC sniper would have probably been a bit less effective, too, if he were restricted to crossbows, blowguns, and throwing stars.:rolleyes:

anyway totally off topic. the small number of bad uses of firearms doesnt negate all the good uses that happen everyday.I'm a little unclear about what the good uses of firearms that happen everyday are. Would you please enlighten me?

look at the dept od justices own records that show firearms are used 2.5-3 million times a year to prevent crimes. that good enough for you

no, the rates are not on a rise show proof otherwise

you do not have to have insurance to buy a car, granted if you have a registration block you will have to clear that up.

you are the one who brought up the artifical category of gun violence not me.

ah, you were a car salesman? that explains a lot.

question: whats the difference between a car salesman and a serial killer?












you can feel bad for the serial killer!

Martaug: Read a newspaper. It's common knowledge that violent crimes have been on the rise since the turn of the century. If you think you don't need insurance to buy a car, you apparently have never actually bought one. Not only do you need insurance to buy a car (and you need a license to get insurance), but you also need it to register your car.

look at the dept od justices own records that show firearms are used 2.5-3 million times a year to prevent crimes. that good enough for youActually, this comes from a University Survey conducted by Gerry Kleck, PHD which only had 4,978 respondents. Here (http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm) is a link to a rather telling interview with Dr. Kleck. Some highlights; 1.33 percent (56) of the 4,798 respondents reported using a gun to defend themselves against a crime. This figure was then extrapolated against the entire US population. Of these instances, 72% of them occurred at home, where the gun owner needn't have been carrying his weapon. 8% of uses involved some sort of sexual crime, about 29% involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault, about 33% involved burglary or other theft at home, 22% involved robbery, and 16% involved trespassing.

The statistical viability of measuring 5,000 survey respondents against the entire population of the US (most of whom not only do not own guns and have not, themselves, been the victims of any of the sorts of crimes listed above) aside, this number is a mere pittance compared to the number of crimes that are committed with legally owned firearms each year. It's also telling that you are far more likely to accidentally hurt a family member with a firearm at home than you are to actually defend yourself with it.

:borg: I now see the light. As weapons are just inanimate objects and only humans kill, there's no point to regulate weapons. Machetes, AKs, RPGs, IED's for everybody.:borg:

Give everybody that Militia Chic (tm). I guess there is just no reason why Americans should live any different than people in Colombia, Somalia or Baghdad.

nope, i'm sorry, there are thousands of gun laws on the books, it hasnt decreased crime, so what makes you think one more will?

Not more, but better thought out and enforced. Of course, arguing whether law X or Y would decrease or would have decreased crime is a mostly theoretical exercise - no one in their sane mind would suggest we repeal all laws to try it out and know better.

Anyway, most of my points have been made by Drew and Rags, so I won't reiterate those. Still, If you want to be able to own a weapon, then imo it makes a lot of sense to have you undergo a decent background check (which would mean a 2+ weeks waiting period - even today administrations aren't exactly fast) and periodical examinations/training to make sure you remain fit to use it properly should the need arise. Sure, you may have to wait a little to get a tool that allows you to nearly effortlessly kill a large number of people in a short period, as well as prove that you're mentally stable and know how to, you know, operate the tool you're given. It's not the government taking your guns, it's not losing the right to defend yourself (which in itself does not require having a gun, although it can be enhanced by it), it's an inconvenience.

As for my view on automatic firearms, I think I've mentioned it before - these belong in the army, national guard and heavy-duty law enforcement (SWAT etc). You do not need an AK-74 SU for self-defense, and it is only too good for mass killings. Besides, at some point the cops are supposed to have an advantage.

Still, If you want to be able to own a weapon, then imo it makes a lot of sense to have you undergo a decent background check (which would mean a 2+ weeks waiting period - even today administrations aren't exactly fast) and periodical examinations/training to make sure you remain fit to use it properly should the need arise. Absolutely. I think, though, that a 2 week waiting period is plenty sufficient, both as a "cool-off" period and to allow for a thorough background check. I don't really see any reason to make it longer. The one thing I'd like to see is that this waiting period apply not only to handguns but also to rifles and shotguns.

hmmm, so drew, you are telling me the 2 vehicles i bought ('03 dodge srt-10 & '07 corvette z4z) that i never insured and never tagged are figments of my imagination? thats funny, just walked out to the storage garage and touched them.

well drew, i dont know what papers you read but as this chart from the dept of justice shows: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
total violent crime is less than half what it was in 1994 or any year when clinton was in office.

also my stats about the use of firearms used to stop crime come from the same site not the small study you show.

shaman, so a woman(5'2" 120 lbs) who has just gotten away from an abusive husband/boyfriend(6' 200lbs) & has a restraining order against him, should have to wait 2 weeks to get some protection for herself? i hope your mother/sister/daughter is never in this situation.
qoute by the shaman :
"As for my view on automatic firearms, I think I've mentioned it before - these belong in the army, national guard and heavy-duty law enforcement (SWAT etc)."
you need to go to a auto firearms shoot. the civilians(who represent 95% of all the competitors) outshoot your proffesionals all day long.

shaman, so a woman(5'2" 120 lbs) who has just gotten away from an abusive husband/boyfriend(6' 200lbs) & has a restraining order against him, should have to wait 2 weeks to get some protection for herself? i hope your mother/sister/daughter is never in this situation.

Me neither; then again, I would rather I didn't see my friends shooting his S.O or being shot by them over a dinner table scandal. Anyway, let's go with your example. First, there's the chance that the restraining order will, you know, work and he won't touch her - being an abusive husband doesn't mean he has the guts and bile to consciously break that order. Second, if she's thinking about protection from today to tomorrow, then she's better off asking the police or staying at a friend - in 1 day, she's not going to learn how to use a gun well anyway. Speaking of which, I'd have thought that she would have applied before she even told the cops about him (which, from what little I know about abusive relationships, takes a while). Certainly, it may be that you're right - but just as short or no waiting can save people, it can also kill them. I'm sure you've heard enough anecdotal evidence of that, right?

you need to go to a auto firearms shoot. the civilians(who represent 95% of all the competitors) outshoot your proffesionals all day long.

Even if that's so, you don't need to be a crack shot to buy an assault rifle if it's legal, nor does it mean the law enforcement agencies shouldn't try to limit these weapons. First, they are perfect for mass shootings, which usually happen at surprise and at close range - you can kill a lot more people a lot faster with an Uzi than with a hunting rifle. Second, this gives the cops a useful advantage - they can expect any armed opposition to be slightly less dangerous (if automatics are at least more expensive). I'm not exactly a lifelong fan of how the police works, but I'd rather its members were not outgunned every time they are on patrol. It's not good for confidence.

My primary reason, however, is that I don't consider it necessary. For me, the main cause for having a firearm is self-defense, and that puts some limits on what weapon you have. A machine gun or an assault rifle is not a sensible defense weapon.

...but as this chart from the dept of justice shows: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
total violent crime is less than half what it was in 1994 or any year when clinton was in office.

Sorry, Marty, but it doesn't show that at all. It shows a marked decrease every year after 1994 - which iirc was the year that some gun-control measures passed - followed by a stabilization around 2000-2001, a decrease that happened almost exclusively in the Clinton years. Violent crime rate in 2003 was about the same in 2000 (the last year of the Clinton presidency), so I don't see how you can make such a claim. Actually, the decrease in the 1993-2001 period implies that Clinton's law enforcement policies did a pretty good job. Of course, I can't in all honesty attribute it to gun control, either - there was also an underlying trend in more crimes being recorded, which would imply more efficient police work (given comparable levels of total violent crime) and probably a ton of other factors, but still I'd say that data doesn't really support your position.

Shaman,
there's the chance that the restraining order will, you know, work and he won't touch heryou make a good point. It is all about the assumption that law doesn't work, anyway, that you need a gun. You need a gun, because the criminals, (who aren't called criminals for no reason *hint*) after all break the law - including firearm regulation laws. So they are always armed. Also, criminals are always violent. You need a gun because the police will always be too late to protect you, etc.

All this babble about statistics, inanimate objects, shooting skills are IMO second layer rationalisations that to address leads reliably nowhere.

It's a Hobbesian world the US pro gunners live in. In my view there is a profound paranoid streak in this. For them the question of gun ownership is a zero sum game: Either you are armed, or the dragon will come and eat you. For those leaning toward the direction of militia movement that dragon can also be the state or federal government. Be prepared! Better safe than sorry! Sorry? Dead!

In Denmark alone (a country with strict weapons laws), at least ten women have been murdered by their ex-husbands or ex-lovers this year. The police was not on the scene of the crime to stop them, because the police cannot be everywhere. The fact that the killers were apprehended after the fact is little consolation to the grieving relatives, and none at all to the dead women (unless you believe in a life after death, which I don't. That's why I consider murder to be such a horrendous crime). In several of these cases, the men had restraining orders after making threats against the women. In none of these cases were the men allowed to carry the murder weapons.

The law didn't protect the victims. In fact the law prohibited the victims from protecting themselves. I'm not convinced the law is my friend. The state is neither omniscient, omnipotent or (contrary to popular belief) omnibenevolent.

hmmm, so drew, you are telling me the 2 vehicles i bought ('03 dodge srt-10 & '07 corvette z4z) that i never insured and never tagged are figments of my imagination? thats funny, just walked out to the storage garage and touched them.No. But I am telling you that you didn't buy them from a dealer (unless you, yourself are also a dealer or the vehicles were non-functional when you purchased them). ;)

Regarding the rest of the stuff you had to say, I think Ragusa and The Shaman covered those bases just fine. No need for me to repeat them.

no i'm not a dealer. i bought them with certified checks from my bank account and had them trailer to my house where i put them in storage, as they are investments. i plan to sell them in 25-30 years when they are classics/antiques.
the only reason you would need insurance would be if you wanted to drive the car off the dealer lot under your tag or a temp tag.

ragusa & shaman, you really need to get out into the real world more. go to any battered spouse support group to see how effective restraining orders are. as for planning out their protection, most battered spouses live day to day in fear until the day they finally realize they have to run to save themselves(and possible their children).
i dont know how it is in germany or bulgaria but here in the states ask any cop it is NOT his duty to protect you from harm. sorry to burst your little liberal bubble you live in.

qoute by shaman:
"Me neither; then again, I would rather I didn't see my friends shooting his S.O or being shot by them over a dinner table scandal. "
GROW UP. anybody who equates battering to a "dinner table scandal" is obviously so immature as to negate any argument they could possibly make

I’m going to swallow my pride here and admit that I’m wrong.

As I see it, in countries such as the US (and similar nations like Arab countries where they actually fire celebratory bullets into the air) that have virtually no restrictions on who can own a gun, and never have had restrictions, there is no point in trying to impose gun control laws. The political backlash would be enormous, and anyway, it would be as futile as the proverbial Dutch boy trying to stop the dam from bursting by sticking his finger in the dike. Yes, more people per capita will die than in countries that have generally restricted firearms, but so be it. Such is the price of “freedom”, and sometimes you need to fight fanaticism with fanaticism.

So basically, gun control works only on a country-by-country basis. Just be careful if you live in a "no gun" country and want to visit an armed one.

15 dead battered women a year vs. 15,000 dead firearm victims a year.

This is the level this discussion should be held at (numbers), not at the emotional "but think of the battered women and <insert pitiable, defenceless group here>"! Going down that route is really easy, but keeping 15 pitiable women alive compared to 15.000 other people dying at the same time because of your "protective measures" (hypothetical example), doesn't really add up. There is no ideal solution to this problem, only a solution where you come out with fewer fatalities in the end. And where guns are involved, there are never fewer fatalities.

The fact is, more guns cause more murders, because killing with a gun is easy and effective. Another fact is that arming battered women will only make it more likely that their abusive spouses will come at them with their own guns (because seriously, if the wife has a gun, it's very likely that the husband does as well - and if not, he'll get one).

The possible outcomes then are:

a) that they'll kill each other
b) that only one of them will wind up dead once they get into an argument
c) that the husband will also kill the children as well as the wife
d) that the wife or husband will kill at least one child accidentally with the gun
e) that the children will find the gun and kill at least one of them accidentally
f) several others, but I think you get the point by now

In an ideal world, the weak would buy guns and scare the people wanting to do them harm away.

In real life, and in the US, the people wanting to do the weak harm bear their own guns, and most likely have far more experience using them than the weak. And in the same situation where the weak might just wind up beaten but alive if guns weren't involved, with guns involved, they likely wind up dead.

So the "think of the battered women" arguments really don't hold water.

15000 dead firearm victims a year vs (lets see, 2.5 million crimes stopped... say 10% would have been killed) 250000 lives saved, yeah i will take that.

tal your arguments just dont hold water to me however it has been apparent for a long time that we are on opposite sides of this issue and will NEVER be able to agree.

one thing i find funny(in a weird way) is the "200 million guns" that liberals through around. they have been using that figure since the '80s, i'm pretty sure it is probably over 400 million by now. i shoot idpa & ipsc events. now between them, there are a minimum of 40,000 members. i'm on the small side with a collection of slightly more than 4 dozen firearms, most members have more. so from just this small group you have (40,000x50) 2.5 million firearms. i personally know at least 7 individuals whose collections number over 200 weapons each & 1 gentleman who has almost 500( including almost a dozen h&h shotguns worth more than $75,000 each)

In real life, the strong DO have guns. We have had three firearms episodes in my town over the last few days, in two cases with automatic weapons fired more or less at random at one house and one block of flats. Fortunately, nobody got killed so far. It goes without saying that the possession of automatic weapons is illegal in Denmark.

We have also had a number of cases this year with (armed) criminals breaking into homes at night and beating up and robbing the inhabitants. In one case, a man was left with tape over his mouth and nose. He suffocated before his wife could get free.

Gun prohibition prevents honest citizens from having guns, not criminals. And I doubt if it saves the lives of any citizens that the criminals know they are safe to commit crimes.

EDIT: Maybe I should repeat that I simply don't trust the good intentions of government. At best, government can apprehend a very few criminals "red-handed" and more after the fact. It can even get a conviction in most cases when they are brought to court. But I strongly suspect that government's real motive for weapons control is not to protect the citizens from themselves (or protect criminals from honest people), but to protect government's monopoly on the use of violence.

15000 dead firearm victims a year vs (lets see, 2.5 million crimes stopped... say 10% would have been killed) 250000 lives saved, yeah i will take that. Tal was using a hypothetical construct, and his numbers weren't real. You are taking him rather ridiculously out of context.



one thing i find funny(in a weird way) is the "200 million guns" that liberals through around. they have been using that figure since the '80s, i'm pretty sure it is probably over 400 million by now.Nobody knows precisely how many guns there are in the U.S. The only way to know with any accuracy would be for the government to perform a surprise raid on every household, all buildings, and every likely hiding place simultaneously. This article explains quite clearly why that is. (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html) That said, the best estimate still places that number at between 190 and 300 million; in other words, the estimate that we have over 200 million guns (back in the '80s, the estimate was actually almost 200 million) is actually quite accurate. When assuming that the number of guns would have doubled over the last 20 years or so, you are forgetting several things. First of all, a great many of our total guns are actually heirlooms. Second, most gun owners own several guns, so the guns in our country are concentrated in less hands than you think, meaning that the number of people who are actually buying guns is also much lower than you think. Now, if you live in one of the "gun happy" regions of the country, it probably looks to you like most households and most people have guns because, in your neck of the woods, they do. :) Not only are our guns concentrated in few hands, but those hands tend to live disproportionately in certain regions of the country.

i personally know at least 7 individuals whose collections number over 200 weapons each & 1 gentleman who has almost 500( including almost a dozen h&h shotguns worth more than $75,000 each)If they are collectors, chances are that most of their guns would have been antiques or one of a kind weapons. While some would have been new, I doubt most of them were. If I purchase a gun from another gun owner, the total number of guns in the country doesn't actually go up. Even if a used weapon is purchased from a dealer, that number still won't go up, since the dealer would have gotten it from a private gun owner, too.

Now, if you live in one of the "gun happy" regions of the country, it probably looks to you like most households and most people have guns because, in your neck of the woods, they do. :) Not only are our guns concentrated in few hands, but those hands tend to live disproportionately in certain regions of the country.


Ding ding. I quite literally don't know anyone who owns a gun. Not as far as I know, at any rate. When I was in elementary/junior/high school, I knew a whopping one family that owned guns.

There's far too many wacko's around to allow guns to be easily accessible. It's as simple as that.

If more people die due to cars, then so be it, accidents happen and you can't legislate for it. But when any old Tom, Dick or Harry can easily obtain (buy, or steal) a firearm (a device designed purely to end lives) then you're going to get innocents dying. As far as I'm concerned, there's no 'so be it' argument to gun-death stats as human life is too important to 'so be it' when murders happen.

I don't think that because there's 200+ million guns in circulation in America, that makes it impossible to police. It just makes it extremely difficult, and a long term job. First, stop selling them in shops. Second, introduce a new license on them (something like, only obtainable via a specific governing body, and only then if needed for job purposes or if properly trained and licenced in their use). Third, hold a gun amnesty in all America's states. Then, start policing it. Anyone found with a firearm without the appropriate licence above will have a heavy fine and jail term. maybe even random bloody spot checks by police later down the line. Whatever, so long as it makes life more difficult for gun owners. It would take time for the US to bring themselves into line with other modern civilized countries regarding this, but it's not impossible.

BarmyThere's far too many wacko's around to allow guns to be easily accessible. It's as simple as that.Of course you are totally wrong. There are so many whackos around that you need a gun.

Gun prohibition prevents honest citizens from having guns, not criminals. And I doubt if it saves the lives of any citizens that the criminals know they are safe to commit crimes.

There's no such thing as gun prohibition in any civilized countries today, there are merely varying degrees of ease in obtaining them and in the time required for all the necessary checks to be performed.

The "they want to take yer guns away!" redneck scare tactic is just that - made up to whip the ignorant gun-toting masses into thinking that a sensible regulation of firearm sales would mean that they'd take all their guns away and that they wouldn't be able to buy any more, making them weak and defenceless. This is merely a propaganda tactic to make sensible discussion with such people impossible, because they make up their minds based on made up horror stories before they even consider the issue.

i dont know how it is in germany or bulgaria but here in the states ask any cop it is NOT his duty to protect you from harm.

It's you who needs to get out in the real world more. My father is a retired police officer, after 30 years, and he swore on oath to "uphold and laws and protect the public" of his given jurisdiction. This may vary from state to state. In fact, this is the mission statement:

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office is unequivocally committed to the concept of service to our community. We are further committed to translating this concept into reality through the willful demonstration and embodiment of those qualities of courtesy, efficiency, courage, perseverance, and exemplary professionalism which the public has every right to demand of those who they have empowered to protect and serve them.


So, yes, it is their "duty" to protect the public. I would also suggest that if you ever receive a court restraining order that you take it seriously. Prison is not a real fun place, and I don't think they will give you access to SP from your cell. :)

Tal,
you poor fool simply don't understand the nature of the treat gun control poses. Propaganda? No way (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gatway.gif)!

PS: Alternative link added (http://home.earthlink.net/~knightgallery/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gateway2tyranny.gif).

Rags: 'image hosted by tripod'

But don't worry, it's still witty and convincing.

chandos, call your local police dept and tell them you need protection. they will tell you it is not their job to protect you.they have a job to do and holding your hand aint it.

tal, your statement just shows your ignorance. if you look at the typical gun owner you will find that they are well above the average in education and income. you may not call it prohobition in name but it equates to the same thing.
barmy......you are either being sarcastic or are drunk again.
drew, kinda funny all the firearm manufacturers keep making tons of money if they are not selling their products. also look at how much ammo winchester and federal produce every year for the civilion market. we are talking 2 BILLION rounds a year. sorry dude, poor people aren't buying that much.

By 'protect you', do you mean 'stand behind me holding a magnum and sporting a stern look'?

Of course police are there to protect you, but not in that manner. If you have a concern about your safety, call them, they'll check it out. If someone nicks your stuff, call them. Other countries seem to get on fine like this. Or is your problem that you don't trust the police? Prefer to take matters into your own hands? That's the problem with people with mindsets like yours.. far too vigilantish! (is that a word?)

barmy......you are either being sarcastic or are drunk again.

And why's that? Whaty I said was perfectly fine. It wouldn't do for me to be drunk at this time really, at work talking to customers.

It's not nice seeing your argument crumble around you and being massively outnumbered, not fun at all. That's why you're turning to ad hominem and throwing insults around, trying to belittle. It's pretty natural human response sometimes, so don't worry, I don't hold it against you.

drew, kinda funny all the firearm manufacturers keep making tons of money if they are not selling their products. also look at how much ammo winchester and federal produce every year for the civilion market. we are talking 2 BILLION rounds a year. sorry dude, poor people aren't buying that much.Of course they are selling their products. Of course they are making money. But they aren't selling 10 million a year to American civilians, which is what it would take for the number of civilian owned US firearms to double over the course of 20 years. Nor would they need to in order to turn a profit. ;) To give some perspective, Americans, nearly all of whom drive and own a car, aren't even buying that many cars each year...and cars, unlike guns, need to be replaced quite often.

chandos, call your local police dept and tell them you need protection. they will tell you it is not their job to protect you.they have a job to do and holding your hand aint it.You are being ridiculous again. Of course it isn't the job of the police to follow you around and pre-emptively stop any and all potential threats and dangers from ever happening to you. If that were the case, the state would need to employ at least one police officer for every person living in the United States...which is obviously not possible (not to mention beyond ridiculous).

Police protect people by patrolling (looking for crimes in progress) and responding to civilian calls for help. Seriously, if police don't exist to protect people, we may as well just disband them, since they serve no other purpose of which I'm aware.

ragusa & shaman, you really need to get out into the real world more. go to any battered spouse support group to see how effective restraining orders are. as for planning out their protection, most battered spouses live day to day in fear until the day they finally realize they have to run to save themselves(and possible their children).
i dont know how it is in germany or bulgaria but here in the states ask any cop it is NOT his duty to protect you from harm. sorry to burst your little liberal bubble you live in.

Don't apologize, you haven't done anything. First, as others have mentioned, a policeman's duty is to protect "the public" and uphold the law, and most instances of someone harming you - outside of self-defense - fall outside the law. Therefore, the cops are supposed to protect citizens in such cases. How effective they are/can be is another issue - probably ours are worse than yours. Second, you again try to twist my words. Did I say that people shouldn't have guns, period? I don't think I did. I said that there should be a decent waiting period for a background check and some regulations on how people obtain and maintain guns. So Jenny Sue has been living in fear of her abusive husband for years, she has spent weeks if not months waiting for that restraining order, but she could never get a gun because she had to wait 15 days for an approval? Yeah, just how likely is that? I'd say it's complete BS, to be honest.

I didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but you don't seem to get it. I'm okay with gun ownership, see some value in it, and I may, at some point, get a gun myself - but I want to keep it in reasonable boundaries. A respectable and responsible person, the kind of person who would stop a crime with a gun, will - and should - still be able to get a gun even if the gun control laws in the US were harsher than they are now. The whole purpose of such laws (which can, of course, be good or bad, depending on how they is phrased and enforced) is to make sure that the people who have guns are responsible and stable enough to use them properly. If a waiting period or a background check is prohibition for you, by the same standard you should say driving is prohibited - because you usually need a lot more than that time to get a driver's license.

qoute by shaman:
"Me neither; then again, I would rather I didn't see my friends shooting his S.O or being shot by them over a dinner table scandal. "
GROW UP. anybody who equates battering to a "dinner table scandal" is obviously so immature as to negate any argument they could possibly make

I'm not sure if I used the right phrase here. I've heard of dinner table scandals that grew into someone beating up their wife, so such a scandal can end up as battery, or worse. It may be immature behavior on the part of the person who assaults their spouce over something like that, but so is stalking and trying to kill your ex-wife, especially when you have a restraining order. Both are immature, hurtful and tragic - and people do it. That I should present a theoretical and anecdotal argument should not surprise you when you've done the same - especially if my argument is a spin-off of yours.

Of course, tbh what is no less important than who gets the gun is who uses it. The law isn't the best way to influence that, but a state doesn't have many other options to influence that.

Barmy,
taking things in the own hands is direct, effective, final and produces always adequate results (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html). That's because citizens fortunately lack the distance, self restraint and professionalism that lamentably results in policemen toning down the amount of violence used, thus creating far greater deterrence than cops. After that incident I wouldn't even dare ring the door bell to ask for the way in that neighbourhood - some armed lunatic might just shoot me through the door to be safe rather than sorry.

Barmy,
taking things in the own hands is direct, effective, final and produces always adequate results (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html). That's because citizens fortunately lack the distance, self restraint and professionalism that lamentably results in policemen toning down the amount of violence used, thus creating far greater deterrence than cops. After that incident I wouldn't even dare ring the door bell to ask for the way in that neighbourhood - some armed lunatic might just shoot me through the door to be safe rather than sorry.

Holy crap Ragusa, that news story is horrendous. Watching the clip, the guy shouted 'they're getting away!' then let off 3 shots with a shotgun. Just let them get away man, jesus! Yeah, that's it, shoot a guy over a stolen DVD player. What a nutjob. Case in point why Joe Public shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

tal, your statement just shows your ignorance. if you look at the typical gun owner you will find that they are well above the average in education and income. you may not call it prohobition in name but it equates to the same thing.

I wasn't making any statements about typical gun owners in the US, so I'm not sure what you're replying to, but I'm sure you know! :shake:

As for the "above average in education and income", uh, let's see your source. Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

And no, having to wait for something for a few days so that necessary checks are performed is not called prohibition nor does it "equate to the same thing" no matter how ridiculously you try to misrepresent it.

Or maybe I'm just too patient? Perhaps next time I see wait time 4-6 weeks on an item I want from Amazon I should sue them for illegal prohibition. It's the same thing!!!

:lol:

if you listen to the end portion of the tape he says they came in the yard with him, a 70 year old man vs 2 burglars? yeah thats gonna get charges pressed(not!) hmmm, 70+ years old means he probably saw action in korea. also people from that generation have a different "take"(or mindset) on a lot of things including property as a lot grew up with nothing yet never stole anything in their life. i dont know if the shooting was warranted as i like all of you was not there when it happened. he may truly have felt in fear for his life once he got outside

on the castle law, most states it only applies to your home but in some(like south carolina for example) it includes your entire property!

yeah thats gonna get charges pressed(not!)There absolutely will be charges. He walked out of his house -armed with a shotgun- with the specific intent to kill two people who were running off with some of his neighbor's stuff and proceeded to do exactly that. He didn't warn them. They didn't threaten him. In fact, they didn't even have time to threaten him. He just walked out his front door and opened fire. If that's self defense, so is murder.

AMaster,
I fixed that link and added an alternate one. One should work, if not try again some time later.

There absolutely will be charges.

I don't know, to be honest. He may get the jury on his side, and it's not like most people will feel good about sentencing an old guy in his 70's who, excessive force or not, technically prevented a crime. I think he'll probably be charged, but there's a chance that Martaug is right on that one. It mostly depends on what he meant by "having no choice" at the end of his talk - if the jury decides that one of those guys did something that could be a credible threat he'd probably get off the hook.

In such a situation I'd probably shoot in the air and shout at them. If he did that, and they came at him (not too likely), I wouldn't consider it a crime.

AMaster,
I fixed that link and added an alternate one. One should work, if not try again some time later.

That's priceless. Thanks.

chandos, call your local police dept and tell them you need protection.

Ah, yes. I have on several occasions. And have had several people arrested as a result. Some of us believe the law has some value. And if you mean, "they have a job to do," like handing out traffic tickets, they even took time out from that....

posted by tal:
I wasn't making any statements about typical gun owners in the US, so I'm not sure what you're replying to, but I'm sure you know!

really? so this comment byyou : "The "they want to take yer guns away!" redneck scare tactic is just that - made up to whip the ignorant gun-toting masses ". so you can call someone ignorant without implying they are dumb?

also have you not seen my post about the supreme court taking the case against the handgun BAN which has been in effect in washington D.C. since the '70s(which by the way has not reduced their crime rate at all. in fact they are one of the top 10 most violent)

about the average gun owner, hmmm, lets see, i'm fairly average in my shooting and buying habits. i buy 3-4 firearms a year averaging about $1000 per gun. i shot at least twice per week(500 rds each time) so i go through about 50,000 rds a year just in practice. this doesnt include my competition rds, which are another 5,000 or so.
have you priced ammo lately? even buying case lots, it averages about $215 / 1000 rds. with S&H i'm looking at almost $12,000 a year in ammo. throw in range fees and entrance fees & i'm easily spending over $16000 a year in disposable income. kinda hard to do when you are at or below the median income. most if not all the people i shot with are much more highly educated than i(most have at least 4 years of college). i make almost 3 times the median income in the US and i'm on the low end of most of the guys(& girls) i shot with. sure there are people there who make less but they are a much smaller group. i will try and find the study about it and post a link.

oh and no countries having gun bans? have you looked at australia or japan recently? also check your history, every country that has had genocides has enacted a gun ban before the atrocities took place. have a good day!


@ chandos, oh really? you called the police and told them you needed somebody to come stay at your house to protect you and they just sent somebody out to wait around until the criminal showed up? BS.

posted by tal:
really? so this comment byyou : "The "they want to take yer guns away!" redneck scare tactic is just that - made up to whip the ignorant gun-toting masses ". so you can call someone ignorant without implying they are dumb?


The OED tells us that

Ignorant: Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned.

dumb:9. 3. N. Amer. A foolish or stupid person. Also dum(b)-dum(b). colloq.

So, yes, you can.

martaug,
from what I read on the web there is a huge military surplus market in the US, where you can buy surplus military ammo at snappy prices. Nothing as splendid as Winchester of Federal ammo, but it'll do. It ought to be for muderous purposes as adequate as for recreational ones. Don't you tell me that you go out at the range firing those Starfires (or whatever else). Also there is a large re-loading market for the price conscious do-it-yourself shooter.

about the average gun owner, hmmm, lets see, i'm fairly average in my shooting and buying habits. i buy 3-4 firearms a year averaging about $1000 per gun. i shot at least twice per week(500 rds each time) so i go through about 50,000 rds a year just in practice. this doesnt include my competition rds, which are another 5,000 or so.So, where's the data proving that the average gun owner fires about 50,000 rounds a year? My boss owns 4 guns...and hasn't fired a single shot in 5 years. I bet he thinks he's average, too.

posted by tal:
I wasn't making any statements about typical gun owners in the US, so I'm not sure what you're replying to, but I'm sure you know!

really? so this comment byyou : "The "they want to take yer guns away!" redneck scare tactic is just that - made up to whip the ignorant gun-toting masses ". so you can call someone ignorant without implying they are dumb?

martaug, I think you need to read carefully what I wrote and respond to what's written, not what you think is written. I have nowhere said that rednecks are "typical gun owners" in the US. That's your wording. Which also happens to be completely contrary to what you're trying to convince us all of, that "if you look at the typical gun owner you will find that they are well above the average in education and income".

Now either the typical gun owners (according to you) are rednecks, or they're well above average in education and income. But, obviously, they can hardly be both.

And to answer your question, yes, there are certainly plenty of people who are ignorant but not dumb. The two are by no means necessarily connected. But it all boils down to semantics, of course, and how you define ignorance. But I'd rather not play any more word games with you.

also have you not seen my post about the supreme court taking the case against the handgun BAN which has been in effect in washington D.C. since the '70s(which by the way has not reduced their crime rate at all. in fact they are one of the top 10 most violent)

Was that supposed to be a joke? Or are you really expecting a gun BAN (the horror!) to work on a small island in a sea of guns? That's about as stupid as expecting that making dry counties or towns will eliminate alcohol consumption in them. :rolleyes:

about the average gun owner, hmmm, lets see, i'm fairly average in my shooting and buying habits. i buy 3-4 firearms a year averaging about $1000 per gun. i shot at least twice per week(500 rds each time) so i go through about 50,000 rds a year just in practice. this doesnt include my competition rds, which are another 5,000 or so.

If buying 3-4 guns is considered average where you live, then I have to wonder what is considered excessive in your parts. But I guess being able to arm your entire line down to prehistoric times just from your family's private armoury is a special achievement of sorts. Most people in Europe compensate with expensive cars instead. ;)

have you priced ammo lately? even buying case lots, it averages about $215 / 1000 rds. with S&H i'm looking at almost $12,000 a year in ammo. throw in range fees and entrance fees & i'm easily spending over $16000 a year in disposable income. kinda hard to do when you are at or below the median income.

What some people waste tons of money on never ceases to amaze me. But then again, you could make your own bullets for certain less sophisticated guns. Not that you need to conserve money, obviously.

most if not all the people i shot with are much more highly educated than i(most have at least 4 years of college). i make almost 3 times the median income in the US and i'm on the low end of most of the guys(& girls) i shot with. sure there are people there who make less but they are a much smaller group. i will try and find the study about it and post a link.

That's great for you. But extrapolating an average from your group of shooting friends only works for the average in your group. It's certainly not something you could apply to the entire nation.

oh and no countries having gun bans? have you looked at australia or japan recently? also check your history, every country that has had genocides has enacted a gun ban before the atrocities took place. have a good day!

Dear me, you've found 2 actual exceptions to the rule (unverified by me), out of a few dozen countries! That totally kills my argument, because we're all arguing that there should be a total ban of guns in the US.

Oh, wait, we aren't. :rolleyes:

martaug,
read this (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html), from a very much pro-gun site. Nevertheless, the man is absolutely right. You ought to listen to him.

Amazing what an extensive bookmark collection is good for. I knew I'd need that link rather sooner than later.

oh really? you called the police and told them you needed somebody to come stay at your house to protect you and they just sent somebody out to wait around until the criminal showed up? BS.

I don't recall saying much of the trash you posted above, since I was not at home on any of those occasions, but you can continue to live in whatever fantasy it is in which you currently reside. However when I was younger I never needed to call anyone, since one lived in our home. But when it comes to "BS" you are certainly the expert.

Not trying to get an old thread going again just felt the need to update.
No charges to date have been brought against joe horn & a fair amount of information about the 2 men has surfaced.
"Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres, 38. They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic." granted this was from wikipedia so that has to be taken into account
If they had no criminal record it would have went a long way towards getting charges pressed against mr horn.However with them having griminal records & apparently members of organised criminal enterprises this really helps his claim of protecting himself

The way I see it, it doesn't make his claim of self-defense much better, rather it discourages people to push for the rights of the victims (in this case). Even if they had just run away, I think few prosecutors would bother, not to mention anything about a jury.

It's somewhat hypocritical, but not entirely surprising.

If they had no criminal record it would have went a long way towards getting charges pressed against mr horn.However with them having griminal records & apparently members of organised criminal enterprises this really helps his claim of protecting himselfTheft is not murder. We don't give the death penalty for theft, and having a criminal record for (non-violent) theft doesn't really make you a threat. Given that all they were doing was robbing someone else's house, shooting them was far too extreme a response...even for Texas. Most importantly, these thieves weren't actually threatening the guy (they were actually fleeing) in this particular case, so their criminal records are actually irrelevant for determining whether or not he violated the law. Given time, I think we're going to see this guy get indicted (or, at least, they'll tweak the castle law).