The incidence of home invasions sky rocketed too... victim disarmament at it's finest. It's also a social experiment that no researcher would be allowed to conduct on ethical grounds.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
The U.S. Government Is Trying To Take Away Your Pocket Knives!
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
That's only temporary.
Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.
Huh!
Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.
Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
As anyone with any common sense would realise. However, by and large, they are used to threaten rather than to kill (other than each other - Hooray) and any shootings still make the front page of the nationals.
Street deaths and domestics are still down to the use of knives and other weapons.
Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Inasmuch as there have been only two documented crimes since 1934 committed by federally-registered automatic weapons (and one of those was by a police officer using a department weapon), the interesting question is: Does the registration itself prevent crimes or are the crimes themselves so rare as to make registration an unnecessary burden?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Not in the UK, you don't.
"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who in
1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded his home. He was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he became a cause célèbre for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"Nor in some states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, D.C.)
In other states, you may use reasonable force only if it impossible to retreat.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Right.
"The gun is registered to you, it was used in a crime, you have not reported it stolen. Now come along with us to the station house. There are some questions we'd like to ask you. Dress warmly, we'll be in the basement."
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
What, the Supreme Court ruling? You really think that you're going to get the Second Amendment repealed?
Chicago and other localities are asserting that the Supreme Court ruling only restricts the Federal government, since it applied to DC, which was a Federal preserve. There is another case in progress now that will, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, settle that matter.
And when a nonregistered firearm is found in the hands of a felon then legal recourse exists too. If you have a point to make you have obfuscated it well.
Perhaps if you think that gun bans are a good idea, you should.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
It all depends on your definition of reasonable force.
IIRC one was shot in the back!
Without seeing all the evidence and reading the in depth court proceedings it is difficult to pass judgement but there were reports at the time that he had made public statements designed to lure them to his home so that he could do away with them.
There have been other cases since where householders have used more appropriate levels of force and after questioning have been released without charge. Those cases, of course, don't make such headlines.
It is, I admit, a very grey area but, by and large, courts are tending to favour the householder unless there is clear evidence that he has overstepped the mark.
Punching a burglar to the ground, on the basis that you fear for your safety is one thing but, however much you might feel it is your right to do so, kicking his head in while he is lying there isn't.
Anyway, back to woodworking.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Does fixing up a Fender Presision Bass I found at a flea market for a hundred bucks count?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Yes, I've read news articles from the UK about efforts to treat knives the same as firearms. If memory serves they've already gone that route in Australia, get caught with a tiny keychain knife there and you have a problem. I suppose it's only a matter of time until steel-toed work boots require a permit.
With what, a cricket bat? A National Rail sandwich lashed to the end of a stick might make an effective club....
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
All this hocus pocus about hand guns makes me laugh.
That is equivalent to "I've never used a table saw guard and I still have all my fingers, so it must be safe."
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Bad example, back-shooting burglars who are attempting to flee doesn't qualify as self-defense.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
True enough, but firearm related homicides were at the same low level in Great Britain even _before_ their strict gun control laws were enacted; by some measures, they have gone up since then.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent landmark
2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws. What's to stop DC from putting in regulations so onerous that they amount to a ban (which is what they've already discussed doing)?If criminals being armed while law-abiding citizens are disarmed is "interesting," I guess so.
Ummm, what?
You don't need registration to accomplish that. A law requiring firearms transfers to be done through dealers does the same thing. The last owner of record has to explain why his gun was found at a crime scene, if it turns out he sold it without going through a dealer then he can be prosecuted for that.
Hmmm, interesting that some folks would like to see U.S. law become more like the law in those places however. Naw, no way it could happen here....
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
You mean like OSHA requiring construction vehicles to have an ear piercing beep when backing up, then requiring ear muffs so the beeps don't hurt your ears:-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
you should. this old saying comes to mind:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Are you making a Zip gun?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
I think he means the roadblocks, circumventions, and delaying tactics thrown up by the D.C. betters are only temporary - not the 2nd Amendment.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Times change, people change.
It's simply back to the rewrite desk until they get what's needed to withstand all legal challenges.
Who knows, maybe that's what will happen.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices will be _pissed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms regulation. The ruling specifically stated that regulations constituting a defacto ban were not acceptable. The Supremes generally don't like it much when having made such a statement the legislators try it anyway.