Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

[J. Clarke]

You've missed the point. If one has to pass examinations then the examinations can be used in a discriminatory or unreasonably restrictive manner--in parts of the US they were used to prevent minorities from voting--the tests were designed in such a manner that the scoring was a judgment call, and in the judgment of the scorers no black person was literate no matter what answere he gave while any white person was literate even if he couldn't read. In parts of the US there have been requirements for such examinations to be taken in order to be allowed to own a firearm. The tests were given very rarely in unexpected places with no prior announcement and the number of applicants allowed at any given session was very small--in effect the only people who were allowed to own firearms were those who had enough political influence to be informed by word of mouth.

Accidental shootings in the US are quite rare. More people die in bicycle accidents than in firearms accidents, but we place no restriction on the ownership of bicycles (and we should--an amazing number of bicyclists don't seem to be aware that they are expected to obey traffic laws).

Oh, how is it "easily circumvented"? The only manners I am aware of by which it has been "circumvented" are straw man sales, which are felonious crimes, and private party transactions which are not regulated mainly because Congress knows damn well that trying to regulate them has about as much likelihood of success as an attempt to herd cats.

A requirement for a license would not prevent either class of sale.

Further, according to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court, the ownership of firearms is a right, it is not a privilege, and so is no more subject to licensing than is free speech.

Many states in the US have "must issue" carry permit laws that state that anyone who applies for a carry permit must be issued one unless he is a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm. Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10 other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?

[Upscale]

Happens in gang fights all the time. One person pulls out a gun and then so do all the others. But then, they're gangs and that's not what you're referring to.

However, if you and a dozen friends were all armed and your best friend pulled out a gun to defend himself, there's a excellent chance you would too. If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip by, wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too? If your first inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun in the first place? Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're prepared to take different steps.

[J. Clarke]

Two casualties, the guy that drew the gun and the guy that he drew it on. If the second guy hadn't screwed up then there'd be one.

No "shooting up the place".

About what it always was only between the press and the Internet things get more sensationalized.

[Jay Pique]

I think there needs to be far more vigilante justice doled out.

JP

[J. Clarke]

Not a good idea. That's how the Klan got started.

Armed self defense is not vigilante justice.

[todd]

Like you said...not exactly the topic at hand.

As my father says, "and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle". You can make all of the "if" statements you want, but the fact is that it just doesn't happen.

todd

[todd]

Oh, sure...run to the worst-case scenario. I'm thinking about more of a Charles Bronson sort of vigilante. ;-)

todd

[Swingman]

"Upscale" wrote >

Purposely not dignified with a capital letter.

[Mike Marlow]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely what(?) to prevent these types of incidents? Do you really feel that the perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of a gun? Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of thinking that does nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to impare those who aren't your typical, or even your remotely typical culprit.

[Axel Grease]

Not if you wish to survive the situation.

Deeply flawed premise... Pulling out one's weapon is the second thing to do. Ducking behind cover is first. If possible, running a VERY short distance to cover is a good way to get to that cover. Running far is a good way to get shot in the back by a bad guy or a cop.

Poppycock. Prepared or not, if you are not armed, your choices are more limited. Duck, hide, evade, and sneak are the ONLY options left. For people who are not young, agile, or otherwise similar to soldier material, running to evade is not a viable option. Whether armed or not, the first defense is to avoid places where psychos and junkies frequently go hunting victims. When that does not work, the armed individual (defender) must use guile, skill, calm judgment, and great care to survive. The initial aggressor (bad guy) has most of the advantages.

A situation of that kind went the right way one night in Alabama a few years ago. An armed older ("senior") fellow and his family were at a restaurant eating. Bad guys entered and held the patrons at gunpoint to rob them. Hoping to not increase the danger to his family, the armed older fellow was going to go peacefully along with being robbed. Then the bad guys began herding people into the freezer room of the restaurant. Knowing that other recent robberies had occurred where the victims were murdered in the freezer rooms in restaurants, the armed older ("senior") fellow drew his weapon and shot the robbers, killing 2 of them. A couple of "good guy" people were wounded (bullets can pass completely through bad guys and hit other people), but no "good guys" died. The dead and wounded bad guys were later identified as the murderers in the previous restaurant robbery/killings. A horible nightmare was minimized by a peace loving, armed man. It happens all the time in situations where no shots have to be fired, but those seldom get reported.

Bless that armed older fellow who had his gun on him and used it. Desperation, guts, a gun, and no place to "run and hide"... in Life and Death situations, the real world is infinitely variable, but seldom like abstract mental constructs (dreams based on limited or erroneous information), TV, or movies.

Axel

[Han]

Mike Marlow wrote in news:nd7lzf4t9axe$. [e-mail]:

Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and those that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer guns to commit crimes with.

No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see above.

Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.

Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years back. Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the fare for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their illegal weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed by the police. Either as a result, or because of changing demographics or because of other reasons, the crime rate went down. I happen to believe that nabbing bad guys had something to do with it. So good laws and good law enforcement will help. It's not the whole thing, of course. And laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.

I'll crawl back into my hole now ...

[Stuart]

I'm afraid it's one of the problems caused by having a labour (left wing) government and who the idiots are who keep voting them back I don't know but it aint me!

[Stuart]

Quite so. The UK has really strict gun laws but it make not one iota of difference to the criminal fraternity.

[J. Clarke]

Lock it up as well as you want to, if someone wants it they will steal it. Pass a chain through a window, run it around the gun safe, hook it to the trailer hitch on your truck, drive away, and the safe comes right out, through the wall. Toss it in your truck and drive off and open it at your leisure.

Then there are the firearms that disappear from police evidence lockups.

Then there are the ones that come in with the drugs.

What of it? Iraq was a police state before the US invaded, and yet it seems, despite Saddam's best efforts before the US arrived and the US military occupation's best efforts since, that any Iraqi who wants a gun (or bomb or RPG or just about any other kind of weapon) has one.

Nabbing bad guys is fine. But I don't see what it has to do with guns.

[Lew Hodgett]

Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.

Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies who have to clean up the mess after a shooting.

And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type pieces.

Lew

[Mark & Juanita]

... and from what I have read, you are really at the mercy of the thugs. Honest citizens cannot be armed and cannot even defend themselves without being prosecuted, while the thugs don't get very heavy sentences.

A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.

[Stuart]

[jo4hn]

Read up on it at

definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

[Wes]

The problem is that the people at the front that could see things are likely being pushed by the rear columns that do not know what is going on.

Wes

[J. Clarke]

And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying firearms that they have never shot?

And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?

Which presumably you've never shot if you don't have any problem with a box of shells costing 250 bucks.

By the way, how much tax would you charge on a can of powder or a box of primers? And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel weights?