Subject: Obama style gun control is coming!
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In
the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes
it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both
thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to
the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are
privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours
was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest
you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you
talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an
unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve
to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin
Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The
national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving
burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several
times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their
lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you
told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to
convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one
burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of
1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control",
demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned
handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable,
or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up
law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up
all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was
no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or
robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no
fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen
most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered
and licensed. Kind of like cars.
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
Oh, that is just soooo much better. I'm sure anybody who has protected
themselves from attack (or will protect themselves from attack) will be
glad to hear that saving oneself will only result in 40 months in jail.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:35:56 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
WTF??? Where does that crap come from? You made a blatently stupid
statement, and I called you on it by demonstrating that in the US and other
parts of the world guns are commonplace. Yet - there is not a warring
citizenry as you so foolishly claimed. Then... you come back with this???
Just what in the hell does this response have to do with anything? Oh - I
know - it's just a dig at the US and the second ammendment, right? Making
foolish digs like this does nothing more than expose your jealousy for what
you don't have.
Who cares that some countries do not allow guns to be commonplace. That
has nothing at all to do with the point - which... now read really
slowly... guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not create a
Think you can get your head around that?
Then why did you say it when you were trying to make a point?
I can get my head around the fact that you seem to be a highly stressed
person. I certainly wouldn't want to be a warring citizen with *you*.
Which brings me to my point. I like being able to go out whenever I want and
generally not have to fear that some unfortunate argument with another
citizen didn't result in my being blown away because he lost his temper and
happened to be carrying a gun. If however, I knew that most of my neighbours
packed a gun, then I'd do it too as a means of self preservation. All that
does is result in an escalation of armament and is not conducive to a
generally well balanced society.
As humans, we all lose our temper from time to time, it's the nature of the
beast. It happens to everybody. Why would I want to have most of the
general populace carrying a gun when they lose their temper? It doesn't make
I live in Toronto Canada. Much of the "gun news" lately has revolved around
people getting shot just because they were standing in wrong place at the
wrong time. While gangs and criminals have certainly been involved in a
number of these shootings, a fair amount of those shootings were done by
ordinary law abiding citizens who decided to carry a gun that day. There's
really only one way to deal with that.
And you know what? I like to think about winning the lottery and likely
relocating to the US somewhere. Somewhere they don't get snow or our
frequent frigid winter temperatures. But you know what else? If I did move
down to the US, sad to say that one of the first things I'd do was look into
getting licensed and buying myself a gun for protection.
I think that's a sad state of affairs and a poor reflection of the little
knowledge I do have about living in US society.
The fact is that there is very little of the kind of gun violence you seem
to be concerned about. I'd wager a dollar that there are more people killed
by moose in Canada each year than innocent people killed by people with
concealed carry permits in the US.
You could very well be right and I hope that's so. But, consider that I live
in Canada, I've only been down to the US twice and a number of years ago at
that. All I have to go on is what I read and what I hear, much of it might
be the same as heard and read elsewhere around the world. If I'm as wary as
I am and I live in a society so closely similar to that of the US, then what
fears are surfacing (real or imagened) in other parts of the world,
especially where society is so much different?
Yeah, those damned ornery moose carry pretty big guns. :)
...hahahaha, yup, but being from SoCal I wouldn't know for sure. What
I *do* know for sure is that by far most of the gun crimes are a
result of gang activity, at least in this area. People with
unlicensed/stolen weapons are the ones that *use* them on others, *so*
not the legal owners, as I am. Unfortunately it's far too late in
this country to put the toothpaste back in the tube...to take away our
"legal" weapons would open a pandora's box of crime perpetrated by the
elements who have the "illegal" weapons...piles and piles of 'em.
Just my .02
Yes, I can do that. It will take me a little time to find the news articles,
but from memory one shooting was a guy who took a bullet in head that was
meant for a bouncer who ejected a patron from a bar/strip club. The owner of
the gun was licensed to own the gun for target shooting. He was not licensed
The second that comes to mind was a woman standing outside a club so she
could smoke a cigarette and took a bullet from some guy who decided to spray
the entrance to a club after he was ejected.
I've got a few more in mind, but I'll have to read up on the details a
And a question for you. Will three recent examples suffice? And when I do
post the supporting data for assertion, what will it gain? Will you suddenly
admit to being in error in this discussion or will the information just be
depicted as some unusual anomaly?
A few minutes search. Sadly, it was all too easy.
Just so we make sure we're talking about the topic at hand, how many of
those were the result of non-criminals carrying weapons who just got into an
altercation? To be fair, I was able to count one for sure and perhaps a
second. While tragic, it doesn't seem to warrant the level of fear you seem
I stopped reading after the first link. Here's a real juicy quote from that,
and gives it real credibility:
"The percentage of students who reported experience with gun violence was
low in both Torontoand Montreal, both as victims (7.1% vs. 4.7%) and as
aggressors (3.0% vs. 2.5%)."
One in 14 Toronto students are victims of gun violence?
What a rabid bunch of nut jobs. If that truly is the case, the problem is
already out of control. But I'd bet that it's not, and it's only the
gun-phobes allowing themselves to spin out of control. They barely,
demonstrably had a tenuous grasp of reality as it was.
Just a reminder, the topic at hand here is your comment: "While gangs and
criminals have certainly been involved in a number of these shootings, a
fair amount of those shootings were done by ordinary law abiding citizens
who decided to carry a gun that day".
The only documented case here was someone paralyzed during a "gangland
hit". That's not your average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day as
you had previously asserted.
Case here was two people who were kicked out of a bar and returned later
armed. Again, not the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that day.
These were two people bent on mayhem.
This one might pass that criteria. It's interesting to read the highly
incendiary writing employed by the reporters. It appears that someone is
attempting to sway public opinion to support yet more gun control measures
(as in they won't be happy until all law-abiding citizens are disarmed).
My guess is that there are few or no reports when those law abiding
citizens deter or stop a crime because they are armed. Or, it gets
relegated to a back page story with an obligatory quote from a police
officer that they don't encourage citizens to arm themselves for
Not enough detail in many of these stories to fully assess, but those with
some detail belie your assertion that this was the result of "law abiding
citizens who decided to carry a gun that day". Significant number either
gang or drug-related, others look like the result of a pre-meditated crime.
Again, a nice incendiary "it's all the fault of the guns" article.
Especially like the picture of someone holding a gun up while wearing latex
gloves -- it gives the impression that if one actually were to handle the
gun bare-handed, all of the evil in the gun would seep into the person
handling it. Again, this does not match your assertion that a "fair amount
of these shootings are the average citizen deciding to carry a gun that
day." In fact, the article says just the opposite: "Last year's scourge of
gun violence, which was capped off by the fatal shooting of Jane Creba, an
innocent teen who was hit by a stray bullet in a gang shootout on Boxing
Day while shopping in the Yonge-Dundas area, was largely the result of gang
wars, police say. This fall's spate of shootings is a different beast,
according to police, fuelled by drug deals gone bad and personal beefs
between members of the same street gangs".
With the exception of one article, none of these articles point to your
assertion that a fair amount of gun deaths are the result of the average
citizen just deciding to carry a gun that day. Even in the case of the one
article, there is no evidence that this is the only time that person was
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Garbage. You make it sound like they went home, got the gun and came back.
They were kicked out of the club and returned *minutes* later. They were
average citizens out for a good time and decided to punish a bouncer for
throwing them out. Result, an innocent person was shot down by a person who
lost his temper.
Why don't you ask me how I know many of the intricate details? I live 300
yards from the Brass Rail. I've talked to a number of the staff who work
there since I see many of them around the area on a frequent basis.
I live in downtown Toronto. I play there and I work there. I experience it
every day. I know what goes on and am fully aware of the volatile nature of
many people here. And, I'm certainly not paranoid about it, just fully
...IMHO those who carry loaded weapons in a car and go out drinking
for the evening are not "average" people...not by a (forgive the pun)
long shot. And, were those guns registered to those "average" people?
This is a great example of drugs (alcohal) and guns don't mix.
I *loved* Toronto when up there in the late 70's for a brief visit. I
was still kinda wild and crazy, the bars were amazing and
prolific...I'm NOT a crusader, but since I stopped ingesting that
particular molecule I marvel at the drinking culture...but not so much
at how easy it is to lose control because of its influence...
Well, I'd have to agree with you, because nobody except the police are
registered to carry weapons. The only other registration that goes on here
is to own a gun and a permit to transport it to places like a gun club. And,
it's even more difficult than ever to get those permits.
That's one point that I'm trying to get across. When you add alcohol to any
situation, it usually exacerbates it. If the population at large has the
right to bear arms and they're more guns around, what happens when alcohol
is thrown into the mix?
Things *have* changed since the 70's, everywhere. There's an attitude of
entitlement and "don't screw with me" that seems to be very pervasive. When
I was a kid, a fight was using your fists and you might get the crap beat
out of you, but you usually lived. It seems when there's a fight these days,
someone always has a gun or a knife and a fight often results in someone
dying. It's just not the same anymore and I feel for kids in school who have
to deal with this shit day in and day out.
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.