OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 2 of 12  
CW wrote:

The biggest problem the bad guys had in the old west were the civil war vets. They had experience at being shot at and shooting back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, if you remember when Florida had all the problems with the thugs robbing, shooting, and killing tourists, it was caused by liberalization of Florida's concealed carry, and liability laws.
It wasn't safe for the thieves to random pick a Florida resident as a victim, because suddenly they tended to be armed. So, they started preying on the tourists, because they knew they wouldn't be armed.
As to rates of homicide, and gun ownership in the "Old West", there aren't any good statistics, but it should be remembered that a large portion of the adult male population were veterans of the civil war, and were not only armed but trained, and veterans of some of the bloodiest fighting ever seen. I doubt any of them took much guff from anyone, or allowed bullies to exist with impunity. The movie scenes where the "bad guys" ride into town, and terrorize the populace just didn't happen. They would have been cut down in minutes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Which is just what happened to the Jessie James gang when they tried to rob a bank in Minnisota.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here's one I just received:

<snippage> This is a poll as to whether or not we believe guns should be banned after this shooting. Hit it, we are barely winning. Anytime one of these polls comes up anywhere in the nation there should be emails sent to every member of the NRA and anyone who doesn't want their constitutional rights stepped on.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-0124-miami-shooting-poll,0,2714959,post.poll
And a word from Down Under:
Australian Gun Law Update Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts . ... ..
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under.
It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now available:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm was legal.
(NOTE: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)
While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'
This story of well-intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.
But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Americans may want to take note before it's too late!
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snipped>
It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to legal gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage? Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
Jeez ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Has it ever done so anywhere? Iraq is under military occupation and martial law and yet the criminals seem to be having little difficulty obtaining weapons that pose a threat to armored vehicles.
The UK has an outright ban on handguns. That hasn't prevented their use in crime.
Please tell us of ONE place where there was a decrease in the use of firearms in crime subsequent to the implementation of the restrictions you propose.
If your "little hurdles" were likely to accomplish anything other than annoy the law abiding it would be one thing, but they have not proven to be effective so why continue to waste time and effort implementing them.

How about we arrest people who illegally own or use guns and put them in jail? Or is that too old fashioned for you? Was tried under Reagan, seemed to be having an effect, but Clinton decided to discontinue the program. IIRC Janet Reno wanted to continue it. The deal was that any criminal caught with a firearm went directly to Federal court, did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and did not get out of jail until his sentence under Federal firearms charges was up, at which time he could _then_ begin serving his state sentence for whatever other crime he committed.

Please explain how making the law abiding jump through hoops inconveniences criminals.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That seems indeed like a good idea. Let's all support that. In the mean time let's also prosecute and jail those that sell illegally, and include those manufacturers that look away when they sense illegal distribution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Very good. Perhaps you should join the NRA, as the NRA did and does support that.

Certainly. The trouble is catching them.

Which manufacturers "look away when they sense illegal distribution"? How do they "sense" this distribution? Certainly if a manufacturer is colluding in unlawful activities action should be taken against them, however firearms manufacturers in general sell only to the government and to companies and individuals who hold Federal Firearms Licenses, so they have precious little room for "illegal distribution". If those licensees are violating the law, it is the responsibility of the government and not the firearms manufacturers to police them.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:02:29 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Oh please... more of the manufacturer's responsiblity gibberish. Ok... something to back up this notion that manufacturers are "looking the other way" when they "sense illegal distribution". The problem with your proposals is that they can often sound like they hold a certain resonableness - but they don't once you realize they are based on rhetorical nonsense.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You make a good point. Since they made a law against robbery, not a single gas station or store has been robbed. Banks lo longer need vaults.
There are plenty of hurdles. Law abiding people abide by them, others won't no matter how many or how high they are. Passing laws does not prevent crime, it only prescribes the punishment. Responsible gun owners seek training and learn how to use them properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I recognize sarcasm, sometimes ...

Let's apply the laws and finetune them to catch criminals, not enhance commerce by looking away. (see my other response).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Who is "enhancing commerce by looking away"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote: ...

There are sufficient laws in place that if folks followed them there would be very little to complain of.
Hence, it's clear adding laws isn't the solution.
Enforcement is an issue primarily of criminals exist by evading arrest else they're not particularly effective in their chosen endeavor.
Beyond that it's one of sufficient resources primarily. What percentage is owing to graft, etc., that would seem to be your above target is, while not zero, a minute fraction of the total problem overall albeit it may be a significant issue in certain specific jurisdictions.
The upshot is that more laws don't fix problems once a minimum number are in place. Those who advocate them as a solution simply are wishing for something that can't and won't happen.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:56 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Not only does it not seem clear, it has never worked. In part, it won't work because the amount of guns stolen from legal ownership is not as high as you might believe in order to formulate your hypothesis that you can curb illegal use by controlling legal use.

Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the underlying problem is not too many guns of questionable ownership, the what is the underlying problem? That people tend NOT to do the right thing?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are people in other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving firearms from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide rate than the UK or Japan or many other nations.
Whatever the problem is, "too many guns of questionable ownership" doesn't seem to be it. The main effect of firearms regulations seems to be to waste police time on matters peripheral to the real issue. It doesn't help that the agency charged with enforcing the Federal laws has a cowboy mentality.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually the US ranks very low in the violent crime rates, as compared to other industrialized nations, and since their weapons ban, the rate in Australia, has shot up considerably. Check out this link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID !902
Bullies tend to be cowards, and attack those less likely to defend themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

So explain the higher homicide rate.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why-the-fuck are you always asking people to explain everything to you? Are you slow?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:00:31 +0000, J. Clarke wrote

Many of us see this as a charter to arm criminals against a background of now more vulnerable disarmed citizenry. It seems to be very effective in this regard. Of course the real reason for the legislation is that an oppressive / occupying force / police state can only function if there is no chance of effective revolution... think back to why the US constitution has the "bearing arms" subject matter raised at all. Fear of Redcoats etc.
Gotta go.. the Bluecoats are coming..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.