PDA

View Full Version : Where were they...?


Chesty Morgan
9th Jul 2016, 09:14
As someone pointed out on the hastily deleted Texas shooting thread Texas is an open carry state.

It is oft repeated by the defenders of the 2nd that the gun owning heroes (self styled?) would prevent a Pulse like mass shooting because they'd all charge in like the Cavalry and drop the bad guys (just like in the movies right?) before they could have killed anyone. Or words to that effect.

So, where were they all? And why didn't they prevent the murder and injury of 11 cops?

ORAC
9th Jul 2016, 09:39
It's a march against police overreaction. Police have been gunned down, their colleagues are running around guns drawn.

Seriously, who in their right mind would pull a gun? The one person who was photographed with a rifle prior to the shootings hurriedly surrendered it, and himself, as soon as possible.

It's not as if there weren't enough cops around.

vapilot2004
9th Jul 2016, 10:18
Thank you CM for revisiting the conversation.

To take your point further: the shooter was killing and wounding not just any group of average citizens armed per NRA/Conservative American beliefs, but in fact succeeded in doing so against a trained and well-armed police force. They were unable to stop the madman with his (likely) high-powered assault-weapon at the scene. That alone clearly weakens the NRA argument of arming your average citizens to defend themselves and innocent people standing nearby.

This latest incident and those of mass shootings in America's recent past further support the need for a nationwide ban on civilian ownership of assault weapons.

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 10:20
http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2016/07/08/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-08%20at%204.43.58%20PM_0.png

If the theory of the "armed citizen" holds good, and if Dallas PD aren't a racist bunch of armed thugs, then surely they should have welcomed this guy instead of marking him as a target for hundreds of death threats....
.... Except, he's black.

That's the problem, right there. That and the rather sick mentality that personal issues can be resolved with guns.

vapilot2004
9th Jul 2016, 10:30
That man, I believe, identified himself to Dallas PD and was later cleared. Not to switch your narrative Caz, because it is, unfortunately, a part of non-white American life... I offer a good perspective from the NY Times on the Chief of Police in Dallas, Texas:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1257952630/Chief_Brown_-_Dallas_PD.JPG
Dallas Police Chief David Brown, a Reformer, Becomes Face of Nation’s Shock
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-chief-david-brown-a-reformer-becomes-face-of-nations-shock.html)

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 10:40
Not doing a very good job of ridding the Dept of murderous racism, is he?

Is that why he was appointed? Surely not.

Ascend Charlie
9th Jul 2016, 10:41
Funny how a march against police rapidly turned to "Why aren't the cops protecting me from this madman with a gun??"

Trossie
9th Jul 2016, 10:43
AC, well said!

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 10:45
"Why aren't the cops protecting me from this madman with a gun??"

Whose words are you quoting?


Most of the protestors seemed to me to afraid of the murderous cops. That's what the protest was all about, wannit?

vapilot2004
9th Jul 2016, 10:46
Not doing a very good job of ridding the Dept of murderous racism, is he?


It is a nationwide problem. A complexity of interwoven issues that involve race and guns And dirty politics all the way up to the national level in America.

Chesty Morgan
9th Jul 2016, 10:49
Seriously, who in their right mind would pull a gun?

Nobody. And that sort of makes the point. Many times we have heard that armed citizens would prevent this sort of thing happening, that is the creed of armed America is it not? Yet...

Cazalet33
9th Jul 2016, 10:51
It is a nationwide problem. A complexity of interwoven issues that involve race and guns And dirty politics all the way up to the national level in America.

Well said.

vapilot2004
9th Jul 2016, 11:39
Thank you, Caz. It is a sad reality.

lomapaseo
9th Jul 2016, 13:32
My view is that the Dallas cop shooting was not a race issue as much as it was a gun nut issue.

We should expect to have a lot more of these.

vapilot2004
9th Jul 2016, 13:46
We should expect to have a lot more of these.


No doubt Lomapaseo, no doubt.

Thanks to our dysfunctional political system and other national diseases such as "gun culture", "playing to the base aka message to the 'least smart' among us" and at the top of the list, a lack of cajones in half of Congress where the power to start these United States on a road to change for the better, is not only at hand, but is part of their damn job.

Sallyann1234
9th Jul 2016, 14:09
Is there really any point in calling for a change to the US gun culture, either inside or outside the country?

- The NRA and other bodies with vested interests have too powerful a lobby to allow effective legislation on gun control.

- The country is saturated with firearms of all types and it would simply be impossible to collect or otherwise control a significant proportion of them.

- Many owners would simply hide or 'lose' their guns when called upon to give them up. Some would consider it an offence against their rights and physically refuse.

So it's just something that the US will have to live with. Those of us outside the USA can be either saddened by the gun crimes or be offensively cynical, or both. But neither response is going to change the situation.

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 14:23
It is oft repeated by the defenders of the 2nd that the gun owning heroes (self styled?) would prevent a Pulse like mass shooting because they'd all charge in like the Cavalry and drop the bad guys

Oft repeated? There's some I'm sure, to include the guy I'm not voting for, but none of the gun owners I know subscribe to that. Don't try to tie my ownership rights to the actions of one man, nor the beliefs of some gun owners.

There's a reason snipers rule a fixed battle space and are a force multipliers. Note, even the cops used a differing method to kill the sniper. Quite ingenious I might add. That no armed citizen fired back (at least no reports of such) despite their presence indicates a degree of discipline, an understanding they were at a tactical disadvantage and that it wasn't their place to do so. If your looking to find a lesson about law abiding gun ownership, that should be your takeaway. You're not however.

The law/2nd doesn't delve into your pet peeves CM.

Simplythebeast
9th Jul 2016, 15:45
Imagine the confusion caused if armed citizens joined in a situation that the Police already believed was a multiple coordinated, triangulated attack. Its dark, there are echoes of gunshots all over the place, officers are being killed and Joe Public comes onto the scene with his legally carried semi automatic rifle. Complete madness.
As for the idiot who attended a peaceful demo with a rifle strung around his neck (because he can), no wonder he was declared a suspect as the incident commenced..... Are these people completely mad? No need to answer that one.

yotty
9th Jul 2016, 21:29
Was the killer in possession of a legal firearm?

lomapaseo
9th Jul 2016, 23:16
Was the killer in possession of a legal firearm?

If all he had to do was point shoot and kill several before reloading the answer is

Yes.

It's the weapon of choice when you have the time to use it on the unsuspecting.

Chesty Morgan
9th Jul 2016, 23:34
Oft repeated? There's some I'm sure, to include the guy I'm not voting for, but none of the gun owners I know subscribe to that. Don't try to tie my ownership rights to the actions of one man, nor the beliefs of some gun owners.


Yep, check out the Florida nightclub massacre thread. Just like on every America has yet another gun massacre thread, and there are a lot, there are many posts stating that a) it wouldn't have happened if there were more armed citizens or it didn't happen in a gun free zone and b) said armed citizens would have taken him down before he could say gun control yada yada yada you get the point which I'm sure you'll try to twist yet again.

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 23:47
Then this thread is about a couple of anonymous posters on an online forum.

Who were the ones on the thread you mentioned that subscribe to that theory? I'm curious as to "many posts".

which I'm sure you'll try to twist yet again.

Where have I advocated the view that armed citizenry would have taken him down?

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 00:00
Is there really any point in calling for a change to the US gun culture, either inside or outside the country?

- The NRA and other bodies with vested interests have too powerful a lobby to allow effective legislation on gun control.

- The country is saturated with firearms of all types and it would simply be impossible to collect or otherwise control a significant proportion of them.

- Many owners would simply hide or 'lose' their guns when called upon to give them up. Some would consider it an offence against their rights and physically refuse.

So it's just something that the US will have to live with. Those of us outside the USA can be either saddened by the gun crimes or be offensively cynical, or both. But neither response is going to change the situation.

(My) bold, mostly true, SallyAnn.

If we could muster the courage, and get about half of the ignorant cowards in Congress to stop shaking in their boots every time the NRA comes calling, passage of smart legislation could stem the incoming tide of guns without affecting 2nd Amendment rights. Assault-style weapons should also be banned for civilian ownership. It's really common sense. Something you may have noticed is lacking in an all-to-large proportion of the American Electorate and in those they choose to represent them in Congress.

The story begins in the 1970s when gun manufacturers were allowed to flood the market with cheap handguns. That's around when the NRA shifted significantly from a gun-safety and marksmanship group to the overly political one they have become now.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 00:09
Assault-style weapons should also be banned for civilian ownership. It's really common sense.

Perhaps to you and your ilk. I've done nothing illegal with mine, don't punish me as if I have.

For the owners of banned and unregistered weapons refusing to turn them in or register voluntarily, the war against an overly-armed America would then become one of attrition - slowly, but eventually taking unregistered and illegal weapons off the streets.

Really? There's plenty of wars on guns going on currently, plenty of laws that take weapons away from owners be they legal or illegal yet there's no shortage. What you're doing is offering opinion as fact.

It would go something like: You have a (now) illegal weapon? Turn it in. Keep it and face fines and jail.

That example exists today, how's it working out? Take a survey in Chicago and let me know the results.

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 00:21
I have no problem allowing certain Qualified civilians owning assault-style weapons, West Coast, and said so in the thread deleted by SAS. But you will be VETTED, must Register them, be Trained, and know the government will want to keep you in their, err, Sights. Consider it a firearm TSA-PRE pass for those that qualify.

The only war going on regarding guns, aside from the carnage we see and hear about on the news day after day, is a war on the cowards in Congress by the NRA and those (I won't use the word "ILK" as you have) that support them.

The skirmishes involving municipal and state laws are fairly useless endeavours, and your argument loses when free movement within the US is (doh!) considered.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 00:45
On the contrary, the city of Chicago has an all out failing effort on guns. Not working out so well for them.

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 00:53
Obviously Chicago needs to beef up security at all of the many border crossings into the municipality. :p

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 01:00
http://i68.tinypic.com/2m7zor6.png

:}

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 02:12
Rudy Giulani started "stop and frisk", which really did put pressure on gangsters and took a lot of guns off NYC streets. And reduced violent crime by the criminals not having instant access to weapons. It was hated by the Left, by deBlasio and the ACLU as a civil rights violation. Vapilot2004, if you will support real gun control on the real problem, we can talk. If you just want to disarm lawful citizens, not remove guns from criminals, you don't have a solution, you have a political position.

GF

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 02:38
GF, I have read about Mr. Giuliani's Manhattan success story. Should something of that nature manifest nationwide, well, it would certainly be interesting to say the least. New Yorkers are a unique lot. Then again, the idea might be useful once some national legislation on guns is passed.

I can see the headlines now: "Police State!" -Fox News Sunday, "GUN OWNER:ARRESTED, CONSTITUTION:GUTTED!" -The Washington Times, "Watch as Police chase and capture 2 overweight Americans in Wal-Mart parking lot during a routine gun check in Central Florida." -Chicken Noodle News (CNN), "White woman taken into custody, screaming, 'My cold dead hands!' over and over as police confiscate her illegal collection of machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons after a confrontation with Mexican-American neighbor over salsa music goes sour." -The Dallas Morning Herald ;)

While it should be obvious, the only way for gun control to work effectively in the US is on a national level. Before legislation can even be discussed, let alone drafted, Congress needs to grow some balls and stand up to the gun lobby.

Nobody is talking about disarming citizens here as far as I have read so far. Let's not go from 0 to 100 in one go, NRA-style.

Let's instead talk about limiting access to those mass killing machines, assault weapons. And let's talk about registering every single gun we can in America and add a voluntary surrender (not the best phrase, right?) of controlled and surplus firearms similar to the Australian model. Next, we need bullet control. Want some ammo? Sure thing, bub. Can I see your ID and swipe to query the national database?. Thanks.

I cannot buy a bottle of my favourite whisky without sometimes having to show ID, yet I can buy as many assault-weapons, handguns and ammo, legally at countless gun shows around the country as I desire, with green American dollars being my only required form of ID.

After all is said and done, we may ultimately be left with reduction by attrition, but reduction we shall have and at least there is some attempt to correct the misdeeds and bad decisions of our collective past.

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 03:17
Let's see:

The idea might be useful..... So, you would support a nation-wide "stop and frisk" program? Hmmm... No where do the anti-gun types try to address the 4500 murders done by 6% of the population. I guess for the lefties blacks killing blacks (or white police) is just something they do.

"Limit access to...assault weapons". You do know that rifles, of all types including "assault weapons" (difficult to define) account for a very, very small percentage of gun deaths, virtually none of the 18,000 suicides. So that's not a solution to the major part of the problem.

"Voluntary surrender...similar to the Australian model. You do know there was NOTHING voluntary with their confiscation program?

"Bullet control". Considering the present holes in the cheese of accounting for all the people who shouldn't own guns, how will this work? My state with drastic, silly gun laws will NOT report mental illness including violence proneness to the NICS due to sensitivity to harming the mentally defective. Right now, would you deny people with NO record of illness, arrest or conviction access to a perfectly legal firearm or ammo? If so, you would arm the Cali Islamic killer. A police officer near me was killed by a fellow cop during a visit to the later's former girlfriend's apartment to get his possessions. Under what standard would you deny the police a firearms permit?

Society eventually gets down to trusting its citizens and policing the failures. Not convicting people before they do harm. Listening to most, if not all, politicians tells me the First Amendment is far more dangerous than the Second.

GF

pattern_is_full
10th Jul 2016, 03:20
Most of the protestors seemed to me to afraid of the murderous cops. That's what the protest was all about, wannit?

Just to clarify this and some other misconceptions:

The Dallas Police Dept. was not the reason for the protest march. The march was in response to police shootings in places hundreds of miles away, in Louisiana and Minnesota.

DPD actually has a pretty good recent record, and in fact many of the protesters were weeping at the deaths of the cops who had so recently been escorting and defending them. Or posing for pictures with them: http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img/photos/2016/07/08/dallaspdtwitter_r900x493.JPG?122770e84b36f1c039d5c4c2ca15c2d 8bc4ecd52

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/dallas-police-numbers?utm_term=.dfQR7l70R#.irQLQDQJL

During this protest march, the DPD specifically and intentionally avoided wearing heavy armor and riot gear, to reinforce their own peaceful intent and appearance. Leaving themselves much more vulnerable to the gunman's fire when it came. An honorable and worthy decision - but one that increased the mortality.
_____________

That of course does not run counter to the original point of this thread - just how much good "armed citizens" can do, when even trained and alert cops can be caught off guard.

A gunman with evil intent will have the initiative. He (rarely she) will choose the time and place for an attack, and can, with rapid-fire, high-capacity weapons, do a lot of damage before anyone (no matter how well armed, trained and prepared) can react and respond effectively.

By definition, such attacks will always be "ambushes."

This gunman was ex-Army, with combat experience from Afghanistan. Obviously, he had standard training and experience not just with his weapons, but also in combat tactics, choosing the "ground" for combat, knowing the cover available, drawing out the enemy, establishing and preparing fallback positions, etc. etc.

It is worth noting that the one time, post-1900, that U.S. citizens actually used firearms to overthrow a "tyrannical" government (Athens, TN, 1946) - they were also primarily trained and experienced veterans, newly-returned from World War II. In that case, they also (temporarily) out-maneuvered and overpowered a police force.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 03:37
Obviously Chicago needs to beef up security at all of the many border crossings into the municipality.

Worth consideration. Run that up to your party's candidate and have her email it....oh wait,

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 04:23
Worth consideration. Run that up to your party's candidate and have her email it....oh wait,
You're kidding! Good one - "email", West Coast. You make me smile.

Nah, let's just stick to smart national legislation, of which the Democrat on the ticket will no doubt support. Can't say the same for the guy the Republicans have managed to presumptively nominate. My party? FYI: Turned 18 in time to vote for Bush Sr. Switched from Republican to Independent voter during Clinton's second term. I didn't vote for him the first time, but did so the second.


The idea might be useful..... So, you would support a nation-wide "stop and frisk" program? Hmmm... No where do the anti-gun types try to address the 4500 murders done by 6% of the population. I guess for the lefties blacks killing blacks (or white police) is just something they do.
Racism, poverty, inner-city violence fueled by the two-pronged failed war on drugs and easy access to cheap handguns are the principal known causes of the overwhelming majority of those 4500 people's deaths, GF. Add in what researchers refer to as "Gun culture", and we will have accounted for nearly all of them.

Frisk and Search? I dunno. What do you think? What about "Knock knock, Good Morning. ATF. Random firearm compliance search, sir. May we come in?", too?


"Limit access to...assault weapons". You do know that rifles, of all types including "assault weapons" (difficult to define) account for a very, very small percentage of gun deaths, virtually none of the 18,000 suicides. So that's not a solution to the major part of the problem.
Assault weapons are easy to identify once cowardly politics is moved aside, that part is academic. The bullets for mass shootings nearly always come from those vented and air-cooled muzzles.

18,000 suicides? Do you include the mass-shooting suicides in your count? And come to think of it, aside from the fact of how one aims such a weapon at oneself, a rapid-fire weapon is not the best thing to use to commit suicide me thinks. Trigger control could be an issue after the first round leaves the barrel and hits its mark.

But, I agree, handguns do most of the killing in these here United States, but that shouldn't preclude the need for going after assault weapons at the same time - especially considering the speed and amount of firepower these weapons are capable of discharging even in the hands of an amateur trigger man, let alone the radicalized American-born individual that is pissed off at the world around him - that's the new fear we should be talking about, and if it isn't it should be.

"Voluntary surrender...similar to the Australian model.
It was mandated by law of course, but I understand the majority turned their weapons in voluntarily - same sort of language as used when a criminal turns themselves in you see.


Bullet control". Considering the present holes in the cheese of accounting for all the people who shouldn't own guns, how will this work? ............
National legislation and accountability from citizens, government, and manufacturers. We did it with cars, we can do it with guns and ammo.


Under what standard would you deny the police a firearms permit?
Sorry, say again please? We're talking about civilians, yes? In any case, I would imagine the officer's employers would be supplying the ammo and, yes, theirs would be tracked as well.

Society eventually gets down to trusting its citizens and policing the failures. Not convicting people before they do harm.
Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Insecurity, TSA, and the 4th Amendment, notwithstanding of course.


Listening to most, if not all, American crime reports tells me the Second Amendment is far more dangerous than the NRA and Conservatives told us.

:ok:

Pinky the pilot
10th Jul 2016, 05:29
but I understand the majority turned their weapons in voluntarily

Only under threat of prosecution and immediate confiscation of all firearms legally possessed if we did not surrender those previously legal firearms.

It was certainly not voluntary in my case! :=

vapilot2004
10th Jul 2016, 07:03
Only under threat of prosecution and immediate confiscation of all firearms legally possessed if we did not surrender those previously legal firearms.

It was certainly not voluntary in my case!

Clearly an odd choice of wording on my part. My Apologies. It is from a common phrase used by US Law Enforcement and the Justice System for when a suspect "voluntarily surrenders" themselves to police - as in walks into the police station when a warrant is known to be issued on him.

At any rate, the idea should be pursued in the states. I am in awe of your country's courage and common sense approach to the problems they were facing.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 08:02
Then this thread is about a couple of anonymous posters on an online forum.

Who were the ones on the thread you mentioned that subscribe to that theory? I'm curious as to "many posts".


About a couple of posters but you don't know who? Why don't you go and read it.

Whilst I used one thread as an example it's a generally accepted and wide spread consensus that arming your country folk is supposed to prevent this kind of thing.

Where have I advocated the view that armed citizenry would have taken him down?
I don't know, where?

ExXB
10th Jul 2016, 09:02
OK, so you don't like ideas from others. What do you suggest?

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 14:51
About a couple of posters but you don't know who? Why don't you go and read it.

I did CM, and I'm asking you to name them. You make this sound like we're lining up to guard the supermarket. There's only a handful if US posters on gun threads, some are for gun control, some against, a minority have beliefs that you ascribe to us.

You just got caught CM.

Whilst I used one thread as an example it's a generally accepted and wide spread consensus that arming your country folk is supposed to prevent this kind of thing.

I suspect even the reasonable gun control posters here would distance themselves from your statement. You've crossed over from offering opinion to drama queen.
How did you take the pulse of over 300 million people to arrive at you conclusion? Watching Fox News again?

I don't know, where?

Exactly given I've not advocated what you'd love for me to. You're kinda new to these threads, more of a hit and run player with sensationalist postings when you do participate. Learn the personalities and positions of your opponents, there's not that many, it's not that hard or time consuming.
Now, go ahead and blast me in your retort, but please take the time after to ponder what I've asked of you. It will make the discussions more interesting and add some credibility to your posts.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 15:11
Why do I need to name them? Can't you read?

Did I just get caught out? Is pprune your only source of knowledge? It's not mine. By the by a consensus is just that, a general agreement, it doesn't require asking every single individual in your country. And on that point how do you come to your conclusion? Did you ask all 300 million? Thought not. Feel free to try and prove I'm wrong though. You can't, it's my opinion.

Finally, nowhere have I suggested that you have advocated armed citizenry "taking him down" so I don't understand your entirely over elaborated final pointless point.

lomapaseo
10th Jul 2016, 15:38
I kept telling my wife that it's really not as bad a risk as it was in the Wild West movies that John Wayne made famous.

Then along comes another comparison

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News (http://www.pressreader.com/usa/orlando-sentinel/20160710/281758448619885)

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 15:40
Splendid, a somewhat reasoned response.

Did I just get caught out? Is PPRuNe your only source of knowledge?

Not at all. My source of opinion lies in part with being a gun owner in the US. Multiple weapons at that, to include what many would call an "assault weapon". I came from a military background where weapons were prevelant. I live in an area where guns and hunting is common. I keep myself abreast of what's happening locally, statewide and nationally. I've offered my opinion to my state representative recently about an overreach by the state of California wrt weapons. As you seem to know much about the US, you likely know exactly what I'm speaking of. Google is your friend otherwise. I'm about as knowledgable as one can be about guns in the US bar working in the field. With that, I'd never even consider trying to determine a general consensus of opinion. You can poll and depending in who's doing the polling you'll arrive at differing conclusions. Without doubt, you're offering opinion only as you admit, not an accurate reflection of my nation's belief.

Why do I need to name them? Can't you read?

It would be helpful in defending your statement. I get it though, you won't so I won't belabor the point.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 15:43
Splendid, a somewhat reasoned response.



Not at all. My source of opinion lies in part with being a gun owner in the US. Multiple weapons at that, to include what many would call an "assault weapon". I came from a military background where weapons were prevelant. I live in an area where guns and hunting is common. I keep myself abreast of what's happening locally, statewide and nationally. I've offered my opinion to my state representative recently about an overreach by the state of California wrt weapons. As you seem to know much about the US, you likely know exactly what I'm speaking of. Google is your friend otherwise. I'm about as knowledgable as one can be about guns in the US bar working in the field. With that, I'd never even consider trying to determine a general consensus of opinion. You can poll and depending in who's doing the polling you'll arrive at differing conclusions. Without doubt, you're offering opinion only as you admit, not an accurate reflection of my nation's belief.

And mine?!
It would be helpful in defending your statement. I get it though, you won't so I won't belabor the point.
I don't need to defend my statement.

evansb
10th Jul 2016, 15:52
The 'Wild West' was mostly myth: (unless of course you were native American Indian, where you were systemically eradicated by no less than the U.S. government..)
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803)

The owning of guns by the average U.S. citizen really took-off after WW.II. Oddly matching the move of the populace from rural to city.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 16:16
And mine?!

Then lay it out, how did you arrive at an opinion that leads you to be able to speak to the majority view of over 300 million Americans?

Here are your words, just so there's no doubt you've tried to speak as to what the majority of Americans believe, specific to the narrow topic of armed response by an armed citizenry.

Whilst I used one thread as an example it's a generally accepted and wide spread consensus that arming your country folk is supposed to prevent this kind of thing.

piperboy84
10th Jul 2016, 16:37
I think gun laws, police training and bias play a secondary role in the undeniabley high numbers of blacks getting shot and killed by police. I suspect based on many years working in and around police departments that a significant percentage (although still a minority) of cops are using steroids to bulk up with the primary side effect of such use being "roid rage" . As I understand it the police unions have actually blocked testing for steroid use in some departments. Bottom line it makes them agressive and angry which leads to escalation in confrontational situations.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 16:48
What police dept unions have blocked testing?

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 17:35
Then lay it out, how did you arrive at an opinion that leads you to be able to speak to the majority view of over 300 million Americans?

Who said anything about a majority view of Americans?

piperboy84
10th Jul 2016, 17:59
Police Unions Claim Cops Have The Right To Take Steroids So 'They?ll Have the Upper Hand' - Counter Current News (http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/01/police-unions-claim-cops-right/)


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pittsburgh-police-afraid-drug-tested/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pittsburgh-police-afraid-drug-tested/

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 18:29
Who said anything about a majority view of Americans?

You according to Websters dictionary. I accept you'll dig and find an alternate definition, so clearly say what you mean. If you're trying to express a salient point as to the beliefs of US citizens, do so.

1
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

ORAC
10th Jul 2016, 18:40
The owning of guns by the average U.S. citizen really took-off after WW.II. Oddly matching the move of the populace from rural to city.

evansb - after the Civil War, not WWII...

The Fall Into Guns - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/11/the-fall-into-guns/306748/)

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 19:20
You according to Websters dictionary. I accept you'll dig and find an alternate definition, so clearly say what you mean. If you're trying to express a salient point as to the beliefs of US citizens, do so.

No, I didn't. The definition is adequate.

You seem to be falling back to your usual position so here's another definition for you.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Instead of attempting a diversion with an English lesson why don't you stay on the subject?

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 19:58
Frisk and Search? I dunno. What do you think? What about "Knock knock, Good Morning. ATF. Random firearm compliance search, sir. May we come in?", too?

"Do you have a warrant and probable cause for a search? What crimes do you suspect here?" No warrant, have a nice day. I didn't think even lefties were willing to erase 4th and 14th Amendment rights in their search for power over citizens. How 'bout, "Knock, knock, this is the Federal Speech Administration, we demand entrance to randomly review your blog and pamphleteering reported from this location."

So, surprise, surprise, Australian "voluntary" is, in fact, an exercise in coercion by the government. Govetnment equals Force.

Defining an assault rifle has been a challenge everywhere it has been tried. Is a Remington 740 semi-auto, 5-round rifle an assault rifle? It's indistinguishable from the Remington 760 pump action 5-round rifle. And most people couldn't separate from a Remington 700 bolt action 5-round rifle. Does number of rounds make it an "assault rifle"? What exactly?

"Bullet control", well, your ignorance of terms reveals a lack of knowledge that should eliminate from the argument. But, I possess, quite legally, bullets, shot, hulls, brass cases, powder and primers to make my own ammunition. So exactly what would I do, background check myself? Do you really think criminals would invest thousands in making their own ammo?

War on drugs always gets the blame, but why does that account for the inner-city murders? The drug laws have been around for years. Well known. The criminals made a decision to act illegally, so that's the consequences.

WRT the police and permitting. The case I cited was where a police officer used his issue auto to kill an officer while the later was escorting the former to his ex-girlfriend's apartment. So, we can't trust the cops, either.

GF

charliegolf
10th Jul 2016, 20:14
Something pinged into my head, and I'd like our American posters to comment. In my limited experience, when UK PC Plod pulls me over for a traffic violation, he has never approached and told me to keep my hands in sight; nor has he made his retractable truncheon or Taser ready and available. Rather, he is either going to lecture me for having a broken tail light, or will book me for it. When an American plod does the same, he SEEMS (an impression) to be preparing to deal with a potentially violent criminal. Why is that?

CG

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 20:31
You get pulled over in the US, turn on the dome light, put your hands on the top of the wheel and wait for the officer to approach. Then, lower the window, greet him. When he asks for license and registration, explain where it is (wallet in back pocket, glovebox, whatever), get his acknowledgement, slowly get them.

Officers have been shot before on traffic stops. Frequently, on some areas where two officers ride, one will approach the driver, while the second officer stands behind the car, ready for anything. It's simple survival skills.

GF

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 21:31
Instead of attempting a diversion with an English lesson why don't you stay on the subject?

I'm trying, you're not. You use language that indicates the bulk of Americans are of a certain belief. I don't agree with it and am trying to get at what you believe. You want to toss out the strawman card, fine. You walked the statement back by admitting it was simply opinion, that'll have to suffice as you yourself said I couldn't change your opinion.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 21:34
he has never approached and told me to keep my hands in sight; nor has he made his retractable truncheon or Taser ready and available. Rather, he is either going to lecture me for having a broken tail light, or will book me for it.

I've never had that problem either CG. When/where did it happen to you?

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 21:40
Once pulled over years ago, I started fishing around for the license and registration, when I noticed in the side mirror the officer standing back, hand on revolver (yes, that was awhile ago) watching. I stopped moving instantly and slowly put my hands up. Hands are dangerous, make sure the officer can see them. If he can't, he has a right to be cautious.

GF

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 21:47
hand on revolver

The difference might be missed by those in opposition, though like Gersh Kuntzman it would still leave them with PTSD after firing either.

SASless
10th Jul 2016, 21:50
I hate to burst a lot of bubbles here on "Stop and Frisk".

That has been a long time Police Procedure that has been deemed legal and acceptable by the SCOTUS in numerous cases.

Terry v Ohio in the late 1960's was the original Case that set the precedent for Police Officers to do limited warrantless searches of the people they encounter.

It primarily is for Officer Safety and can only be used under reasonable grounds that justify the Officer(s) actions considering Fourth Amendment Rights.


Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) | ACLU of Ohio (http://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/terry-v-ohio)

obgraham
10th Jul 2016, 22:04
Well I've never been treated aggressively by a police officer who might have stopped me, either. Rather, they have always been professional and courteous.

However, I can understand they might see traffic stops as more dangerous to them than to me. Young Trooper James Saunders of my town would be alive today, except that an illegal migrant from south of the border shot him in the face in 1999 when he walked up to the driver's window. Oh, and it was with an illegally held weapon, too.

charliegolf
10th Jul 2016, 22:07
I've never had that problem either CG. When/where did it happen to you?

Westie, I used and emphasised the words 'seems' and 'impression'; and asked for comment. GF did that, confirming to an extent that my impression is correct. Yours was an adversarial response. Dunno why. Unless you're asking me when a UK policeman pulled me over, in which case I apologise. Or did you assume I was angling for a cheap shot? I'm not.

CG

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 22:12
West Coast, 0/10 for comprehension.

You use language that indicates the bulk of Americans are of a certain belief.

No, that's a statement of your own making. Hence - strawman. Try reading again, this time pay more attention.

You walked the statement back by admitting it was simply opinion,

A statement of my opinion formed by my knowledge. So no, I haven't walked anything back.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 22:19
I've never been treated aggressively by a [US] police officer who might have stopped me

Neither have I, but I'm white and prolly not representative of the black experience in such situations.

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 22:26
True, but NYPD got in trouble over the randomness of their application--no officer safety, no probable cause, just "come over here". Random house searches because one has a firearms permit is questionable. I don't waive my fourth amendment rights just because I own firearms.

GF

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 22:28
A statement of my opinion formed by my knowledge.

You've offered a specific charge in the quote below. I accept it's your opinion, but what experience do you possess that allows your quote to be considered accurate, or better put, an informed opinion?

The reason I'm trying to be specidic and not debating further is that to do so, I'd have to accept the premise that a consensus believe that's a legitimate reason for owning a weapon.


Whilst I used one thread as an example it's a generally accepted and wide spread consensus that arming your country folk is supposed to prevent this kind of thing.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 22:37
Neither have I, but I'm white and prolly not representative of the black experience in such situations

Of the high profile cases, what's the common thread? Almost all started with breaking the law. The black experience can be the white experience, it's a choice. Of course there's exceptions, just as there's been white folk shot by cops. That doesn't make the news allowing those weened on media reports to have an accurate view.

I've seen more from the comedian Chris Rock on how to deal with a police stop than from black leadership.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 22:41
It's always laughable when someone on an Internet forum asks you for your own personal c.v. You would believe me if I said I was a practicing criminologist with a masters in criminology and criminal justice and I've just carried out a huge online survey in the U.S. about gun ownership and the reasons why? No?

A) I'm not minded to share personal information on the Internet.
B) How would you validate my experience? You can't, therefore, you would have to assume it's true. Or not. And then we're back where we started.

So why not just accept that and have a discussion about my point?

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 22:52
So why not just accept that and have a discussion about my point?

Because I don't accept your premise. I'm not asking for your CV, just for your experience level/knowledge on this narrow topic. As you won't or can't, then we'll chalk it up your charges to nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2016, 22:54
I just did.

West Coast
10th Jul 2016, 23:03
I don't understand your reply, sorry.

Ascend Charlie
10th Jul 2016, 23:22
Sadly, in a country with 2.3 guns for every head of population (even new-borns), the cops have to expect that there will be at least 1 gun in the car. And a hot-head with a skinful of booze or drugs might just decide to pull it out.

Be glad we live in other countries where that doesn't happen.

Cazalet33
10th Jul 2016, 23:40
Of the high profile cases, what's the common thread? Almost all started with breaking the law.

The common thread, in this context? Black folks being shot by white folks; and the survivors being profitably imprisoned by white folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHz2Hmq7soo

galaxy flyer
10th Jul 2016, 23:52
Wrong Cazalet33, read the truth and the Wash Po study with the facts. More whites die by police than blacks.

Are Blacks Disproportionately Involved In Police Shootings? | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/are-blacks-disproportionately-involved-in-police-shootings.php)

GF

galaxy flyer
11th Jul 2016, 03:05
None are so as they that will not see.

Interesting article in the WSJ that black officers are 3.3 times more likely to use deadly force against another black than a similar white officer.

GF

rjtjrt
11th Jul 2016, 04:15
My opinion.

Not a fare test of citizens response to a mass shooting. It was not a shooter in amongst the victims, but shooter was reported to be sniping from a distance. Also, the are where victims were placed was where a lots of police were, so armed official responders were already on site.

The event that precipitated it, the shooting of the man in car stopped by police. Seems to me the police in US are understandably jumpy because of the number of armed people in society. Not confined to US. I recall the UK Met Police responded in a somewhat understandably jumpy manner in shooting Mr Menezes in London Underground when they thought he was probably a suicide bomber.

vapilot2004
11th Jul 2016, 04:25
I've read the article posted and others based on the Washington Post's analysis. I can agree to their findings generally, they have jiggered the numbers by not talking about things like the rates of unarmed individuals shot by police - black v white. And let's be fully honest, system-wide our criminal justice system treats blacks and hispanics differently than whites - from the cops on the street to the court rooms and jails.

Here's a question that you should be asking yourself: Why are we relying on a newspaper for criminal justice statistics and analysis?

NRA-controlled Republicans in Congress have denied one of the best equipped Federal agencies for making sense of the numbers when it comes to deaths in America. The CDC has a proven track record in reducing the causes of death over the decades, yet have had funding removed from their budget that was used to apply science to the study of American gun violence. That funding block was quietly recently re-authorized by the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee just last year.

The NRA said they did not want science involved in studying guns. Why? One reason is a published research report in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed homicides in households with guns are three times more likely than in homes without firearms.

alwayzinit
11th Jul 2016, 09:15
I have skimmed the thread and have not come across the question, so I will ask it.
Would we have expected a similar reaction to the car stop shootings if the drivers had been White?
My point is, and I say this only having watched a number of similar reactions, Ferguson, Sanford, etc, why does this particular ethnic group believe that rioting, looting and general lawlessness is an appropriate and measured response?

vapilot2004
11th Jul 2016, 10:24
"Do you have a warrant and probable cause for a search? What crimes do you suspect here?" No warrant, have a nice day. I didn't think even lefties were willing to erase 4th and 14th Amendment rights in their search for power over citizens. How 'bout, "Knock, knock, this is the Federal Speech Administration, we demand entrance to randomly review your blog and pamphleteering reported from this location."

Police in many states have random DUI stops, they run your plates while you drive past a patrol car, and some have random vehicle inspections. No warrant nor probable cause required. Plus, we already have the Patriot Act and a few other government programs taking way the 4th. The government says it helps them fight terrorism - so lets fight some homegrown terrorism and homicides while we're at it.

Defining an assault rifle has been a challenge everywhere it has been tried.

Maybe a few bozos in Congress can't figure it out. It's pretty simple. High magazine capacity, rapid fire rate, semi-auto action - AKA something designed to kill a lot of people quickly and easily. That is not the description of what a sporting rifle for hunting should be nor one for home invasion defence.

"Bullet control", well, your ignorance of terms reveals a lack of knowledge that should eliminate from the argument....

Bullet control means bullet control. Show some ID next time you buy bullets or if you'd like to order off the ala carte menu, bullets, powder, primer, or brass. Pretty simple, again Galaxy Flyer.

War on drugs always gets the blame, but why does that account for the inner-city murders? The drug laws have been around for years. Well known. The criminals made a decision to act illegally, so that's the consequences.

Ask anyone in Law Enforcement, and they will tell you the drug trade is the #1 cause of homicide in the US. FBI data shows those criminals most likely to have guns are drug dealers and gang members. Illegal drugs are the commerce of gangs and are the reason they have gained in strength and numbers over the past decades and the two are responsible for well over half of all homicides in the US.

WRT the police and permitting. The case I cited was where a police officer used his issue auto to kill an officer while the later was escorting the former to his ex-girlfriend's apartment. So, we can't trust the cops, either.

In American society today, you need a license to drive a car and must register it to operate it on the streets, have to show ID to buy liquor, and in many communities, your dog even needs a license. You're telling me we can't or shouldn't license firearms?

Cops and Law Enforcement - We are lucky to have people that are willing to take on the lousy job of protecting and serving our communities. Their jobs could have been much easier had we enacted sane, reasonable laws and policies like those in Europe or Australia on guns (and drugs). Decades ago would have been ideal.

galaxy flyer
11th Jul 2016, 11:52
Vapilot2004,

If you think licensing drivers and registering cars is actually a safety mitigation, you haven't driven American roads much. Every pathology attributed to guns is out in public on the roads--ignorance of the device, selfishness, obliviousness, disrespect fir the law. America's road death rate is equally bad as its gin death rate compared to Europe and Australia. FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS, the culture, it's not specific to the inanimate object, but the users.

Those fees are merely another way of taxing, heck I just go on the web to renew the driver's license--no test other than the credit card.

GF

larssnowpharter
11th Jul 2016, 13:55
A few weeks ago I was trying to explain the civil war in Syria to my 10 yr old daughter. The explanation was along the lines of:

"Well, a civil war is when two or more sides in the same country have a really big argument and start killing each other". There was more but that was the drift.

This morning, before going to school, she had been watching the news on TV. She then asked me the question:

"Dad, why is there a civil war in America?"

Puzzled, I asked, "Where?"

"The USA."

"But there isn't," I responded.

"Yes there is," she said. "The black people are killing the white people and the white people are killing the black people."

G0ULI
11th Jul 2016, 14:01
... and there it is, the elephant in the room. Two fundamentally different cultures with different philosophies of life trying to live in one nation under a single set of rules, defined and set by the dominant white population.

lomapaseo
11th Jul 2016, 14:23
why does this particular ethnic group believe that rioting, looting and general lawlessness is an appropriate and measured response?

Because they can

Unfortunately you mixed lawful displays with unlawful acts.

Whether is t be white or black or take your pick of others, there will also be those inclined to take advantage of a cover for their acts.

Now, if one were to ask why this is in the press headlines which give it the cover, that is an entirely different question not related to an ethnic group.

Lonewolf_50
11th Jul 2016, 15:35
Forward in to the past, as opposed to back to the future.


The Radicalization of Mica Johnsons by black extremists (http://www.waff.com/story/32415851/the-latest-shooters-parents-afghan-deployment-changed-him)mixed with a bit of the old UT Clock Tower Shooter/PTSD (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/11/exclusive-parents-of-dallas-cop-killer-micah-johnson-speak-out-for-first-time-since-attack/) and we are back in the sixties again complete with the style of shirt.
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_27/1612401/160708-michah-xavier-johnson-02_a0a9cb2b1f7794d584da6578bd7042c0.nbcnews-ux-600-700.jpg
Given his reported frustrations with the Army and the government, and being deployed to Afghanistan and coming back unhappy (possibly PTSD, who knows?) it appears that he provided fertile ground for extremists and bigots to get their hooks into him via social media. It isn't just white people who are willing to spill their hatred all over the internet. Sad comment on our times, to be sure.


A very sad irony is that, according to his parents, when he was a kid he wanted to be a cop.

Lonewolf_50
11th Jul 2016, 21:13
"But there isn't," I responded.

"Yes there is," she said. "The black people are killing the white people and the white people are killing the black people." Did the conversation end there, or did you do as a proper father does, and educate your child in the difference between what is, and what is hyped in the media?

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Jul 2016, 21:24
Of the high profile cases, what's the common thread? Almost all started with breaking the law.
So? Civilised countries don't have capital punishment, and even most of the uncivilised ones don't apply it for having one of your lights not working.

vapilot2004
11th Jul 2016, 21:41
GF, you make a good point regarding Americans and motor vehicles, and I agree. We are a careless, boisterous, and sometimes violent lot.

Did you know the number of people killed in traffic incidents and accidents has been dropping while gun deaths continue to rise? In fact, the number of people killed in 2013 by guns was 33,613 while motor vehicle related deaths were 33,804. That trend is projected to continue.

If we look at our history, the flood of cheap hand guns in the 1970s and the failed war on drugs in the subsequent years has not helped on the other front of bringing some sanity to our sometimes violent society. Researchers have studied this and we are way behind the curve on both compared to the UK, EU, and AUS. Why? Is it cultural? Or is it a combination of culture and obstinance to bring about change?

We may be too far gone for meaningful regulation to affect change, but shouldn't we at least try to make things better?

West Coast
11th Jul 2016, 22:27
And trample on the constitution for largely a symbolic gesture?

galaxy flyer
11th Jul 2016, 23:13
vapilot2004,

Well, first, you clearly don't have much practical knowledge about firearms. Bullets are projectiles, for one thing. A bullet without a case, proper measure of powder and a primer to light it off is no more a hazard than a handful of pebbles.

Right now, I have to show ID, a credit card. What would a NICS check show that wasn't shown before? I already said health authorities are loath to report individuals that can reasonably be cast as a threat--it is impossible. The Orlando dude was investigated twice and the FBI decided he wasn't a danger.

Define high capacity? Define rapid fire? Define designed to kill? The musket in 1776 was a assault weapon. The Winchester 73 was an assault weapon on the frontier, used equally by settlers, sheriffs and the US Army cavalry. Not semi-auto, but it and a pump can fire 6--0 rounds pretty quickly.. My Mauser was an assault,t weapon in '98 while defending San Juan Hill. The Army liked it so much the Springfield Armory copied it; paid Paul Mauser $5 per gun royalty. Is it an assault rifle. The M1 Garand was the best battle rifle of WW II, the US DCM up til recently sold ten out if stock to any citizen.

Rifles are rarely used in killings, so you're mostly about political symbolism and the triumph of BS over reality.

Despite the explosion of citizen-held firearms over the last 20 years the gun crime rate has fallen dramatically. While suicides have risen, true, but it is very difficult to identify a potential suicides.

Of course, I'd like to do better, but it starts with culture, with looking at real causes, with telling the truth, not political exhibitionism. The rise of killers proclaiming Islam is a recent phenomenom, largely because we haven't fought. Protect inner city residents by real crime control like NYC did until diBlasio took it away. Gangsters can ruin there lives with drugs only if someone is stupid enough to use drugs.

GF

vapilot2004
11th Jul 2016, 23:15
And trample on the constitution for largely a symbolic gesture?


The old bit of parchment is already getting tattered thanks to the Citizens United case that said corporations have the same rights as people (1st) and then there's the Patriot Act (4th). Then we have those wanting to take down Roe (4th). Ask the citizens of Puerto Rico about taxation without representation.

Symbolic? Put per capita murder rates in AUS, UK, and most EU countries next to those of the US. That's not symbolism, it is a lack of a morality and cultural issues at work.

vapilot2004
11th Jul 2016, 23:19
GF

I've watched my father load his own shells, I've shot an Uzi, and loaded and used an old muzzle loading long rifle, fired numerous handguns at ranges and have sighted in more than a few scopes on rifles. Also been involved in the firing of an old cannon from a Spanish Galleon more than a few times - talk about a bang! Kindly refrain from claiming to know my background and knowledge.

Clearly, we will never come to any agreement here. And comments like those calling myself and others ignorant or naive, or of the 'wrong opinion', 'having no knowledge' clearly shows conversations such as these on an internet forum are fairly useless - particularly if 1. we fail to listen to one another, and 2. we lob unsubstantiated charges at one another, and 3. no one is willing to consider the other's points of view in a constructive way - they are thrown aside automatically.

I respect my fellow forum members, including those that have differing views than myself. I thought it was a chance to share ideas and views. Clearly it is not - no one is being considerate of the ideas of others and when there is a disagreement, all too often the conversation goes from playing the ball to attacking or making assumptions about the man (person). That goes outside of the PPRunE RoE.

er340790
11th Jul 2016, 23:48
Obama is going to Dallas tomorrow.

I have real sense of foreboding about this visit.....

Hopefully the Secret Service has learnt a thing or two... apart from procuring hookers in third world bars and incurring DUIs around the White House. :ugh:

galaxy flyer
12th Jul 2016, 00:24
What could possibly go wrong in Dallas?

vapilot2004,

When some one uses terms like "bullet control" it indicates clearly they don't know much about the technical aspects of shooting and don't care to learn. My apologies, but using correct terms will lead to correct assumptions.

Defining an "assault rifle" as semi-auto, high capacity rifle is way too broad, here's NYS definitions

CATEGORIES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

In the NYSAFE Act we find one definition of ‘assault weapon’ for rifles. And we find one definition of ‘assault weapon’ for pistols. But, we find two definitions of ‘assault weapon’ for shotguns. And we find two more quasi-definitions of ‘assault weapon’ in NYSAFE. So, think of “assault weapons” as “categories,” not gun-types: four clear-cut categories of “assault weapons and two others, totaling six categories in NYSAFE. At the moment we look at the definitions of ‘assault weapon’ for the first four categories.

THE DEFINITIONS OF ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ IN NYSAFE

Section 37 of NYSAFE lays out the definitions of ‘assault weapon.’ Section 37 of NYSAFE is codified in subdivision 22 of Section 265 of the Penal Code of New York. The definitions of ‘assault weapon’ are:

SECTION 37(A) (CATEGORY ONE): RIFLES THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) a thumbhole stock; (4) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (5) a bayonet mount; (6) a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator; or (7) a grenade launcher.”

SECTION 37(B) (CATEGORY TWO): SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a thumbhole stock; (3) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (4) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 7 rounds; or (5) the ability of the shotgun to accept a detachable magazine.”

SECTION 37(C) (CATEGORY THREE): PISTOLS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock;(2) a thumbhole Stock;(3) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (4) the capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;(5) a threaded barrel that is capable of accepting a barrel extender or a flash suppressor or a forward handgrip or a silencer;(6) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel of the weapon and that permits the shooter to hold the weapon with the shooter’s non-trigger hand so that the non-trigger hand is not burned;(7) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the weapon is unloaded;(8) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle or a shotgun or a firearm.”

SECTION 37(D) (CATEGORY FOUR) SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a revolving cylinder shotgun.”

LET’S LOOK CLOSELY AT THE DEFINITIONS OF ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ IN NYSAFE.

Except for the revolving cylinder shotgun, all assault weapons are semiautomatics. Take a look at your firearms. Inventory them. Divide them into three categories: rifle, shotgun and pistol. Suppose you have a black powder musket. Muskets are smoothbore long arm firearms. By definition, they are not rifles because the barrel of a musket isn’t rifled. So muskets aren’t long arm rifles. And muskets aren’t pistols. And muskets aren’t shotguns. So, muskets aren’t “assault weapons.” Muskets can’t be “assault weapons” under NYSAFE. Why? Answer: no definition. Now, NYSAFE might have provided a definition. NYSAFE might have said: ‘assault weapon’ means smoothbore long arm firearms. If so, then muskets would be assault weapons under NYSAFE. A firearm becomes an “assault weapon” if the law defines it as an ‘assault weapon.’ Otherwise it isn’t. That’s the danger of laws like NYSAFE. Any firearm is potentially an “assault weapon.” At the moment, though, only firearms that are rifles, pistols or shotguns may also be “assault weapons.” So set aside firearms that aren’t rifles, pistols or shotguns.

Like muskets, other firearms, too, do not fall into the category of rifle, shotgun or pistol. Most do. Set aside firearms that aren’t rifles, pistols or shotguns. Now, take a look at the remaining firearms in your collection. We will isolate the semiautomatic firearms first. But, we must decide what the expression ‘semiautomatic’ means. You might know what ‘semiautomatic’ means. But, does New York law define the word, ‘semiautomatic?’ If “no,” we look to trade use of the word. If, “yes,” we go with New York law use. Be aware: use of the word ‘semiautomatic’ in New York law trumps use of the word in the firearms’ industry. If New York law defines a word, then the word is a “legal term of art.” The meaning of ‘semiautomatic’ may mirror trade use. If an inconsistency exists, go with the New York law definition for the word.

Now, NYSAFE does not define ‘semiautomatic, but other New York law does define it. See New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00(21). The word ‘semiautomatic’ “means any repeating rifle, shotgun or pistol, regardless of barrel or overall length, which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge or shell to extract the fired cartridge case or spent shell and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge or shell.”

Now, look at your firearms again. Look at your pistols. If they are single action or double action revolver handguns, they are not “assault weapons.” So, you needn’t worry. Look at your rifles. If they are bolt action or lever action rifles, they are not “assault weapons.” Again, you needn’t worry. Look at your shotguns. If they are pump action, they are not assault weapons. You needn’t worry. Look again at your shotguns. Do you have a revolving cylinder shotgun? If so, do worry. It is an “assault weapon.” If the shotgun works through a revolving cylinder, the firearm is an assault weapon. Under NYSAFE The revolving cylinder shotgun is the only non-semiautomatic that is also an “assault weapon.” Set it aside.

Now, let’s look at the remaining rifles, shotguns and pistols. Do you have a “machine gun?” NYSAFE does not define a ‘machine gun,’ but other New York law does. See New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00(1). The word ‘machine gun’ “means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a sub-machine gun.” If you have lawful possession of a machine-gun, don’t worry. A machine gun isn’t an “assault weapon.” And machine guns are not a subset of “assault weapon.” A machine gun does not fall under the scope of NYSAFE. If you lawfully have a machine gun, licensing for it falls under Federal law and under other Sections of New York State law. Possession of machine guns does not fall within the scope of NYSAFE.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

The remaining weapons in your collection are semiautomatics. They may be “assault weapon.” But semiautomatics are not necessarily “assault weapons.” Keep in mind: all “Category One” through “Category Three” assault weapons are semiautomatics under the NYSAFE Act, but not all semiautomatics are assault weapons. Look at the definitions closely. Think of the definitions of “assault weapons” under NYSAFE as tests. Apart from the special case of revolving cylinder shotguns (“Category Four” assault weapons), you first decide if the weapon is a semiautomatic. If the weapon isn’t a semiautomatic, then stop. The firearm isn’t an “assault weapon.” If, however, the weapon is a semiautomatic, then go to the second test. Ask: can the weapon accept a detachable magazine? If the weapon cannot accept a detachable magazine, stop. The firearm isn’t an assault weapon. But, what is a “detachable magazine?” NYSAFE doesn’t say. Curiously, NY SB 1422 did have a definition for ‘detachable magazine,’ but NY SB 1422, introduced on January 9, 2013, failed. NY SB 1422 would have amended New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00, adding Section 265.00(24). That Section defines ‘detachable magazine.’ “Detachable magazine’ means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.” But that definition for ‘detachable magazine’ doesn’t exist in New York law. That definition doesn’t exist because the New York Legislature didn’t pass NY SB 1422. Why doesn’t New York law define ‘detachable magazine?’ Why didn’t NY SB 2230 – that became NYSAFE – provide a definition for ‘detachable magazine?’ It’s curious. The expression is important. A definition for it should exist. The expression appears prominently in NYSAFE. New York law doesn’t provide a definition. We don’t have a definition for it. This means we must look outside New York law for a workable definition. We look to trade use of the term. The firearms’ industry has one.

The NRA-ILA provides a glossary of common firearms’ terminology. And, fortunately, the NRA-ILA does provide a definition for ‘magazine.’ The word ‘magazine’ means, “a spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun`s mechanism or may be detachable. Detachable magazines for the same gun may be offered by the gun`s manufacturer or other manufacturers with various capacities. A gun with a five-shot detachable magazine, for instance, may be fitted with a magazine holding 10, 20, or 50 or more rounds. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives.” Treat this definition as a de facto New York law definition. Treat it as a “legal term of art.” So, if your rifle, shotgun or pistol is a “semiautomatic” and can accept a “detachable magazine,” we continue our analysis. “Semiautomatic” and “the ability to accept a detachable magazine” are “necessary conditions” but not “sufficient conditions.” If the rifle, pistol or shotgun is a semiautomatic and can accept a detachable magazine, then, and only then, do we continue with our analysis. Take a look at your remaining rifles, pistols and shotguns. If any are both a semiautomatic and can accept a detachable magazine, we must continue with our analysis. So, separate those firearms out. Now, look at the list of characteristics for rifle, pistol and shotgun in the respective definition. If the firearm has at least one of the listed characteristics, the firearm is an “assault weapon.” If not, the firearm isn’t an “assault weapon.” That’s how the NYSAFE “assault weapon” test works. Apply it to your firearms.

It's legally real complicated and the more rules the more loopholes.

I completely agree with you that murders are too high, too many people are in jail for drug crimes that are discriminatory, that too many idiots use too many devices including guns without knowing what they are doing. Look around, it doesn't take long. I just object to designing societyy around the worst fools, normalizing idiocy. We should be demanding the best from people, not assuming the worst and letting it become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I'd a,so agree with repeal of the hideous Patriot Act, but we need to stop damaging the Constitition not make it worse.
GF

vapilot2004
12th Jul 2016, 03:05
Thank you Galaxy Flyer for taking the time to look up and post that. You are right on the money - it does not look easy. I feel as though we should try to do something. What would be wrong with controlling ammunition and its pre-manufactured components?

The most troubling bit to me is a person like Mateen or this latest idiot could easily lead to more copycat or social media-sparked shootings or radical group-led coordinated attacks. This could easily become part of our dystopian future and there is not much that could be realistically done to stop them in a free society such as ours. Police state and or martial law would likely be the government's answer - and nobody wants that.

I just object to designing societyy around the worst fools, normalizing idiocy. We should be demanding the best from people, not assuming the worst and letting fulfill the prophesy.

GF

Could not agree more with you, GF. :ok:

galaxy flyer
12th Jul 2016, 03:31
I'd just say the problem is huge--it involves culture, economic opportunity, education, and how we'll deal with civil rights--the Bill of Rights, that is. Glorification of violence is a big topic of its own. Why do so many Americans consider a gun is the answer--even if you are about to be arrested, pointing a gun at the cop will not improve anything! Why is that a hard lesson?

The various quick fixes like background checks will do little. I've gone thru dozens; it is all dependent on the data contained in NICS. I've known several suicides--none predicted, some with guns, one with pills, one made two attempts with razors. I can't see anything rather than family personally being involved, demanding the police have the means to remove guns or other means from the person.

Stop and Frisk worked in NYC, it could work in Chicago, if the progressives would allow it.

GF

vapilot2004
12th Jul 2016, 03:55
It is a huge problem I agree, GF. And all of the factors you mention early on are known to play into the equation. It is an issue of culture no doubt. There should be more respect for each other and for life in general, especially in a free society that considers itself modern.

I don't have a problem with stop and frisk - nor would I care if ATF came calling to check my weapons status randomly - 2nd and 4th being partially trampled upon naturally.

While speaking of Constitutional Rights, you know I abhor the Patriot Act as well, but on the other side of that - I would gladly have given up every shred of my privacy, in an instant, if it could have prevented September 11.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 13:19
- nor would I care if ATF came calling to check my weapons status randomly - 2nd and 4th being partially trampled upon naturally. And I'd care a great deal if they could not show probable cause. Do not let them trample on your rights, or you'll lose them. Rights don't "just happen." Ask anyone who worked in the civil rights movement about that. It sometimes takes effort to assert, reassert, or re-establish that one's rights matter.


Patriot Act was in part a political leadership too lazy to work with the FISA courts as previously worked out back in the 70's. The whole point FISA originally was accountability, and NOT trampling on Constitutional rights. (And IMO a bit too arrogant).

Lonewolf_50
12th Jul 2016, 19:57
Back into the 60's, again, with the important difference that there are plenty of black males and females on the police force.


What are these twits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36766437)going to do about that -- go on hatin' on other brothers? Or are they gonna call them all Uncle Toms? Haters are gonna hate.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
12th Jul 2016, 22:48
Quoting a great slab of obfuscating text from a pro-gun web site (The Arbalest Quarrel for anyone else who wants to know), does nothing but show how desperate some are to hang onto their god given "right" to own as many and whatever guns they want. It is pretty obvious exactly what New York State is trying to protect its citizens from, but some vested interests are determined that their alternate minority view should prevail. If you can ban sawn off shotguns by law, it should not be that hard to ban other anti-social versions of weapons. Sometimes the common good over rides individual good. It happens everywhere, and everyday. It's what we have government for, to make collective decisions. Sometimes they make decisions that we as an individual don't like.

vapilot2004
12th Jul 2016, 22:59
LW, I agree with your characterization of what led to the US Patriot Act, sidestepping Constitutionally-mandated FISA courts.

Back in 2001, those opposed were few and far between in Congress - everyone was kow-towed by the "with us or against us" stance of the Bush administration. Russ Feingold was the sole Senator with the cajones to vote NAY in 2001. (Feingold was also the co-author, alongside Senator McCain of the Campaign Finance Reform bill.) That number increased to 10, with one abstention, for the 2006 reauthorization vote in the Senate. House vote was a little different, with 66 voting NO in 2001, and 138 NO in 2006, majority of whom were Democrats.

Makes sense, as getting any number of House Congressional members to agree on anything has been likened to getting cats to march in a parade.

Race in the US: It is a real pickle. Racism is alive and well in America, no doubt about that. I also agree, both sides, while maybe not equally, have a hand in keeping it alive - on one side by continuing to judge and generalize, and the other, by sometimes living out those generalizations.

West Coast
13th Jul 2016, 00:08
Alive and well? Probably, is it as bad as cable news portrays it? No, even the President said today we're not as divided as it might seem.

galaxy flyer
13th Jul 2016, 02:10
In 2014, FBI stats showed 8124 murders committed by firearms, 248 were done by rifles of all types (3%), fewer than by shotguns 284 and fewer than by blunt objects (435). You would do better by banning rocks and pipes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't own anything remotely assault like and a ban would effect not in the least, but there any ban on assault weapons is just showmanship. Anyone who really wants to make a huge dent in murders in the US must face the fact of 300 million plus guns, some basic civil rights combined with the logistics of searching, what, 30 million households to confiscate guns of all types. Ain't happenin'.

There needs to be a better way to reduce social violence and changing culture is surer and less intrusive. Thirty years ago everyone smoked, now, not so much. Social pressure, attention to socialization would go much farther.

The other day, ironically, driving to sporting clays, I was forced to stop in an intersection by a woman, pedaling a bike, talking on a cellphone who meandered into the intersection with a child frantically following. You can't make this stuff up. Self-government starts by governing ones self--an honorable characteristic sadly lost today. It applies to guns, cars, child development, parenting, workmanship.

GF

vapilot2004
13th Jul 2016, 07:11
GF - Psst: Out of those 8,124 murders by firearm in 2014, you may have missed the part where over 2,000 of those murders committed by firearms marked as "other" or the majority, as, "not listed".

I get part of your point however - well over half of all homicides are committed using handguns. We should tighten up the regulations on those as well. Gun control works in other countries - why not here?

WC, perceptions on racism in America (like a lot of things) depends on who you are and where you live.

West Coast
13th Jul 2016, 12:41
I don't disagree VAPA, but I'd add a third variable, the media. The media has portrayed current events using emotive OTT terms like "civil war" and similar. We have our problems and they need to be recognized and addressed, first however we need to understand them minus the hyperbole the 24 hr news cycle adds.

vapilot2004
14th Jul 2016, 00:19
Oh yes, WC. :ok: The media is complicit in perpetuating and exasperating many of the ills of modern society.

ehwatezedoing
14th Jul 2016, 07:28
America's gun problem explained (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america)
Another argument you sometimes hear is that these shootings would happen less frequently if even more people had guns, thus enabling them to defend themselves from the shooting.

But, again, the data shows this is simply not true. High gun ownership rates do not reduce gun deaths, but rather tend to coincide with increases in gun deaths. And multiple simulations have demonstrated that most people, if placed in an active shooter situation while armed, will not be able to stop the situation, and may in fact do little more than get themselves killed in the process.

An article worth reading from start to end...

Tankertrashnav
14th Jul 2016, 10:25
Galaxy Flier makes a good point about the impossibilty of eliminating firearms because of the number in existence. Even in this country where handguns were always strictly controlled, and have been banned for around 20 years, many still turn up, quite apart from those traded within the criminal fraternity. There is a current case here of an elderly gentleman who shot his wife, apparently as an act of mercy, using an old service revolver which he found when clearing out a relative's house. In spite of the regular amnesties over the years there must still be many insecurely stored firearms around held by people who have inherited them, even if they have no intention of using them.

If you banned the sale of all firearms in the US tomorrow it would be literally centuries before you could say you have eliminated them - leaving aside the question of illegal imports.

vapilot2004
14th Jul 2016, 10:29
If you banned the sale of all firearms in the US tomorrow it would be literally centuries before you could say you have eliminated them - leaving aside the question of illegal imports.

True. We have opened the box Pandora. Wide.

Is your point then to say, "why bother?", or, "we've mucked this up royally, no sense in trying to set that mess straight".

GF makes a few good points about getting at the core of our proclivities for violence and other societal factors that feed the beast without blaming the machines the beast arms itself with. It's a problem that needs a solution.

bcgallacher
14th Jul 2016, 13:06
I am pretty much of the same opinion as Tankertrashnav in as much as the guns are there already and with the best will in the world there is not much chance of reducing the numbers.Gun controls in the likes of the UK stopped large numbers of firearms getting into society but the same kind of controls are unlikely to reduce the numbers significantly in the US. Gun crime is reducing - even in the US where more guns are being acquired but by fewer people, but I expect an increase in the UK as some sections of our ethnic minorities seem to be involved in more gun crime.Like the US the number of shooting victims and perpetrators from these ethnic groups is greater proportionally than from the rest of the community. One is not supposed to comment on this as it is 'racist'. The US will just have to live with the situation as it is - there really does not seem to be any legislation that would make much of a difference,if any. I really feel sorry for the citizens of the US and grateful that we in the UK do not have to live in the same circumstance.

vapilot2004
14th Jul 2016, 13:10
So it's sort of like Iraq. 'We' broke it, we're stuck with it.

Tankertrashnav
14th Jul 2016, 15:40
Is your point then to say, "why bother?", or, "we've mucked this up royally, no sense in trying to set that mess straight".

Neither really. I agree with bcgallagher - I don't feel it is my place to offer advice to another country as to how to sort out its gun problem, I'm just glad that it's not our problem - yet!

KenV
14th Jul 2016, 16:44
I don't feel it is my place to offer advice to another country as to how to sort out its gun problem...Two comments:
1. Thank you for your respect in that regard. It is refreshing.
2. The media and many pundits notwithstanding, I don't believe we have a "gun problem" in the US. We certainly have many complex problems some of which result in homicide, but I don't believe a "gun problem" is among them.

Krystal n chips
14th Jul 2016, 16:58
" I don't believe we have a "gun problem" in the US. We certainly have many complex problems some of which result in homicide, but I don't believe a "gun problem" is among them "

And therein may just lie the rather simplistic nub of the problem.

Are there any other daily reality or historical events you are also in denial about?......just to save any further confusion....on your part ?

KenV
14th Jul 2016, 17:09
And therein may just lie the rather simplistic nub of the problem. On the subject of "simplistic": eliminating a civil right as a "simple" and "obvious" solution to a highly complex problem would seem to be the actual "nub of the problem."

Krystal n chips
14th Jul 2016, 17:16
" eliminating a civil right as a "simple" and "obvious" solution to a highly complex problem would seem to be the actual "nub of the problem " ."

No doubt, to your way of thinking, it is. However, as the civil right in question has contributed to how many thousands of the population??? being, well, eliminated, would you not say a change is rather overdue.....probably not.

West Coast
14th Jul 2016, 17:34
Correct, probably right as it would only be symbolic. You knew that though as you're up on all aspects of the issue.

KenV
14th Jul 2016, 17:36
No doubt, to your way of thinking, it is. However, as the civil right in question has contributed to how many thousands of the population??? being, well, eliminated, would you not say a change is rather overdue.....probably not. The right to a free press and free speech, the right to assemble, the right to be secure on ones person, the right to trial, the right not to incriminate ones self, and many other civil rights besides the right to bear arms have "contributed" to the deaths of many citizens. None should or may be infringed. So you are correct in assuming I do not believe "a change is rather overdue" for ANY of those civil rights.

finfly1
14th Jul 2016, 17:42
" And therein may just lie the rather simplistic nub of the problem.

Are there any other daily reality or historical events you are also in denial about?......just to save any further confusion....on your part ?"


My initial response to this statement would probably earn me a vacation from the thread (which is likely not a bad idea).

So instead...you are wrong. You are rude. You are condescending...but mostly you are wrong. Again.

bcgallacher
14th Jul 2016, 18:13
32000 dead each year in the USA from gunshot and it doesn't have a gun problem? Ken V seems to have lost the plot completely.

MG23
14th Jul 2016, 18:29
If you banned the sale of all firearms in the US tomorrow it would be literally centuries before you could say you have eliminated them - leaving aside the question of illegal imports.

Uh, no. In twenty years, anyone will be able to 3D print any gun they fancy in their garage.

The whole concept of preventing access to any kind of physical object that doesn't require some rare and unusual raw material is about to go out the window.

KenV
14th Jul 2016, 18:33
32000 dead each year in the USA from gunshot and it doesn't have a gun problem? Ken V seems to have lost the plot completely. Even more deaths each year from car crashes, and no, we don't have a "car problem." And by comparison:
1. Abortion killed over 584000. Should abortion be banned?
2. Tobacco killed over 187000. Should tobacco be banned?
3. Alcohol killed over 53000. Should alcohol be banned?
4. Doctors making errors killed over 134000. Should doctors be banned?

Once again "simple" solutions to complex problems only make sense to simpletons. Or folks with agendas. I'll let the reader decide which applies here.

galaxy flyer
14th Jul 2016, 23:00
And then, there's simpletons with an agenda!

bcg

The only number that counts is murders and accidents, about one-third of the total. Suicides don't threaten society as do criminals, terrorists and idiots.

That said, suicide is horrible, the surviving loved ones true victims. I have friends that have had the experience. Perhaps, the loved ones could intervene and remove guns. Sometimes, the suicide is the only socially acceptable means of ending an insufferable life.

GF

bcgallacher
15th Jul 2016, 00:47
Exclusive of gun suicides you have a homicide rate from firearms that is far greater than the rest of the developed world,the cost to your society is immense. Apart from the dead you have tens of thousands of wounded - some who will have life changing injuries. You have the needless deaths of hundreds of children. All the other causes of death that Ken V lists are part of every society - only the US seems to have its unique problem with guns. As an aside gun deaths are due to exceed the number of auto deaths this year. Massive attempts have been made to reduce the automobile death rate - compare the past rates. Virtually no attempts have been made to reduce gun deaths.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jul 2016, 01:43
bcg, you haven't had anything new to say on this topic for a couple of years.
Your last sentence is untrue, and I suggest you do some research. One of the strange things is that the crime rate for the last ten years has been going down. I am not sure why that is, but your pretense that nobody is doing anything about is simply doesn't fit.

Ascend Charlie
15th Jul 2016, 01:47
BCG, The Yanks seem to be perfectly happy with their guns and the number of gun deaths.

As long as they keep the guns in their country and only kill their own people, those of us in other countries have little to worry about. Other than pity their attitude.

KenV
15th Jul 2016, 02:05
Virtually no attempts have been made to reduce gun deaths.This is either an immensely ignorant statement, or a very blatant lie. I won't venture a guess which. In any event the crime rate in the US has gone steadily down for more than a decade and the murder rate has gone steadily down for about the past two decades. And countless "gun control" laws have been enacted at the local, state and federal levels over the past several decades. Some (many?) have been overturned when the courts declared them infringements of constitutionally protected civil rights.

The Yanks seem to be perfectly happy with their guns and the number of gun deaths.We are (generally) happy with our civil right to keep and bear arms. We are not at all happy with gun deaths and the assertion otherwise is offensive. The US has used various means to address that issue. Fortunately, the Constitution makes it difficult to take the "simple" and "obvious" route of banning a civil right to solve a complex problem.

Chesty Morgan
15th Jul 2016, 02:25
In any event the crime rate in the US has gone steadily down for more than a decade and the murder rate has gone steadily down for about the past two decades. And countless "gun control" laws have been enacted at the local, state and federal levels over the past several decades. Some (many?) have been overturned when the courts declared them infringements of constitutionally protected civil rights.


It seems that gun control does work then.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jul 2016, 03:10
Chesty, it can't "work" given that it's a term so broad as to have no meaning other than as a piece of rhetoric. Likewise the vague term "gun crime" which actually isn't one. There are a variety of crimes that may involve weapons (armed robbery) and a variety of crimes aggrivated by the inclusion of a gun. One of the few that might be a "gun crime" is to be a convicted felon in possession of a gun. Without harming anyone you've broken a law due to the due process forfeiture of that right. Suggest you read the Constitution again, if you aren't sure that due process is and what it's about, and maybe even why it's important. The only other "gun crime" that comes to mind is selling one without a proper license. But that isn't what the ill informed refer to in their use of that vacuous term. Sometimes, the emptiness the language tells a story.

AtomKraft
15th Jul 2016, 03:26
Well in the UK, a "gun crime" seems to be any offence involving a firearm or even an air gun.


For example, my chum found a Luger under the cold water tank in his loft. Must have been there since the war.
Had he taken it down to the police station to hand it in, he'd certainly have committed a gun crime and would most likely have been arrested and charged.

He buried it in the garden in the end.....

KenV
15th Jul 2016, 11:17
Well in the UK, a "gun crime" seems to be any offence involving a firearm or even an air gun. For example, my chum found a Luger under the cold water tank in his loft. Must have been there since the war. Had he taken it down to the police station to hand it in, he'd certainly have committed a gun crime and would most likely have been arrested and charged.That's the problem with banning guns. The mere presence of the gun then becomes a crime. In other words, what started out as a civil right becomes a crime. The UK populace is clearly sufficiently trusting of their government that they are willing to surrender that civil right for whatever perceived "safety" it provides. That's your choice and one we don't begrudge you. The US populace is far less trusting of their government and as a result is not as willing to surrender their civil right to keep and bear arms. Please don't begrudge us our choice.

As for burying that contraband in the garden, that's likely a crime also. So your chum is technically a criminal. Yet another problem with such "simple" and "obvious" laws.

Geordie_Expat
15th Jul 2016, 15:25
KenV, Yet again you are going on about the right to bear guns in order to protect yourselves against your Government. Do you really believe this ? Lonewolf gives a coherent argument for the right to own guns without resorting to this (to me) utterly incomprehensible argument.


A lot of your arguments are backed up by completely unbending interpretation of your Constitution and its amendments. Do you never have any doubts about the literal wording of these ?


I have no intention to be disrespectful but it seems at times somewhat over the top.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jul 2016, 15:28
We are two nations separated by a common language, but also by some differing points of view. I am not sure how many hamster wheels we have about Americans and firearms, but I am guessing we are up to about a dozen at this point. No value added. (then again, this is JB).

Tankertrashnav
15th Jul 2016, 15:46
I must admit that once, when I ran a shop selling militaria I found a full box of 9mm ammunition at the bottom of a small pack I had bought over the counter. I thought about the time, paperwork and possible aggro from the law if I turned it in, so I have to confess I took it to a nearby lake and heaved it as far into the water I could manage. Yes, yer honour, I plead guilty!

Talking of Lugers, a lady I knew worked on the desk at Penzance police station. During the amnesty when they banned handguns after the Dunblane massacre, a very old lady came in, plonked a Luger on the counter, and said "I believe I have to hand this in- it was my late husband's". Someone who actually knew about firearms was called, carried out a safety check, and discovered that not only was the Luger loaded, it was cocked, with one up the spout ready to fire!

After the excitement died down, the old lady said - it is just pistols isn't it? Rifles are still legal?

Officers drove the old lady to her house and discovered two full-bore hunting rifles with ammo under the bed left over from her husband's pre-war game hunting days.

I have no doubt there are still firearms knocking around in attics etc, which may even have been forgotten about by their elderly owners.

er340790
15th Jul 2016, 15:51
For example, my chum found a Luger under the cold water tank in his loft. Must have been there since the war.
Had he taken it down to the police station to hand it in, he'd certainly have committed a gun crime and would most likely have been arrested and charged.
He buried it in the garden in the end.....

AHA! A CONCEALED weapon!!!! :oh: :E :}

lomapaseo
15th Jul 2016, 18:19
I've buried a few things, that when ultimately dug up or found are sure to create a stir among the populace.

But they sure saved me from some explaining to do at the time :)

somehow I suspect that many others have done the same albeit with different things (bodies, cars etc.)

bcgallacher
15th Jul 2016, 19:56
LoneWolf - I absolutely agree with you - I have nothing new to say - there is nothing new to say as you are still shooting each other in numbers unknown in the rest of the developed world and using absolutely ridiculous arguments to justify the state of your society.

KenV
15th Jul 2016, 20:27
KenV, Yet again you are going on about the right to bear guns in order to protect yourselves against your Government. Do you really believe this ? I said we don't trust our government with our civil rights. And we don't. ANY/ALL of them. We view the right to keep and bear arms a basic civil right no different than our other rights, such as speech, the press, etc etc. Unlike UK citizens who have surrendered all their rights to their government and are content with their government providing various accommodations to its citizenry, US citizens will generally not surrender their rights to their government.

Having said that, the right to keep and bear arms relates to many other rights, such as the right to self defense, being secure in our persons, assembly, etc, etc, So please do not assume my statement was only about armed resistance against government. The right to keep and bear arms MAY result in using armed resistance against government, but very probably will not, assuming of course that the other rights are still intact. In other words, armed resistance is a very unlikely very last resort against a government that endeavors to remove/deny our civil rights. (I'm talking here about the federal government. Armed resistance has been resorted to against local governments in the US.) In theory, the mere possibility of an armed resistance will dissuade a government from attempting to do so. That theory has worked exceedingly well for well over 2 centuries. But unlike the theory of dissuading an over reaching government, the right to keep and bear arms is a right that has actual application in many persons' daily lives. Americans are (generally) loathe to surrender that right, no matter how much the government promises it would be for their own good in a "modern" world.

Hope that clarified.

bcgallacher
16th Jul 2016, 02:20
That theory has worked exceedingly well in the last two centuries says KenV - so well in fact that between 1968 and 2011 Americans shot each other in a greater number than were killed in every war America has ever fought. Over 1 million dead,that is a roaring success.

finfly1
16th Jul 2016, 02:52
Source for that?

bcgallacher
16th Jul 2016, 06:19
If you google it you will get that info - I believe an organisation named Politifact using the CDC figures for gun deaths from 1968 to 2012 was one that came up with the comparison.

Geordie_Expat
16th Jul 2016, 14:02
KenV


I wasn't after clarification. What your post has done is to reinforce my original post. I am not saying you are wrong, not my business. What I am saying is that I can't begin to understand. However we have been down this road before and I'm afraid it still makes no sense to me.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Jul 2016, 19:50
I said we don't trust our government with our civil rights. And we don't. ANY/ALL of them. We view the right to keep and bear arms a basic civil right no different than our other rights, such as speech, the press, etc etc. Unlike UK citizens who have surrendered all their rights to their government and are content with their government providing various accommodations to its citizenry, US citizens will generally not surrender their rights to their government.
Weird distinction between "people" and "government", as if government was somehow "other" from people..


At least it is to someone who lives in a "democracy", where we "elect" the government, and any one of the "people" who wants to be part of the government has a clear route to getting there (if they can persuade other people to vote for them, of course). One might, to coin a phrase, call it something like "government of the people, by the people, for the people".


Of course I understand that other countries choose to do things differently, and wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same.

G-CPTN
16th Jul 2016, 20:07
any one of the "people" who wants to be part of the government has a clear route to getting there (if they can persuade other people to vote for them, of course). One might, to coin a phrase, call it something like "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
It might seem that anyone can become a part of the government, but the main parties control who is put forward - especially in marginal seats.

Some years ago, the local party deselected their candidate when it became rumoured that he might not be heterosexual.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-around-the-regions-hexham-courant-1267134.html

Una Due Tfc
16th Jul 2016, 20:28
Here in Ireland, the gun laws were changed in either the 60s or the early 70s when the IRA started kicking off against the Brits during the troubles. Handguns and Rifles larger than a .22 were banned. If you already owned a gun that violated these new rules, you could keep it, but you had to bring it down to the cop shop or they visited your home so often to make sure that you hadn't flogged it to your Northern cousin etc that this was more trouble than it was worth. Those that elected to keep these firearms were not permitted to sell them, and when they died they were not permitted to pass on the gun in their will, it was either given over to the state or sold abroad in a country where it was legal.

It actually worked funnily enough, there are no legally held handguns (outside law enforcement) here anymore,

Although I do love the kick from a .308 with a scope whenever I visit a range in the States.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Jul 2016, 21:36
It might seem that anyone can become a part of the government, but the main parties control who is put forward - especially in marginal seats.
... and the parties consist of, and are controlled by, the people ...

galaxy flyer
16th Jul 2016, 22:30
Weird distinction between "people" and "government", as if government was somehow "other" from people..

Were it only so. Once elected, the bar stewards are subject to incentives all their own--mostly staying in office to reap the rewards and money. Rewards include to psychic one of bossing everyone around and having sycophants come and beg for your vote. Not to mention the post-service rewards like the Clinton Foundation which has made them rich. They need to be a little fearful of the voters than exists now. Not violent but term limits and the remote possibility it will end badly.

GF

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Jul 2016, 09:29
Rewards include ... having sycophants come and beg for your vote.
That's a good joke that is - in real life it's the other way round, people in power are continually having to beg for votes in order to stay in power.


(Well, give or take FPTP and safe seats; it would be better if we got rid of those.)

ehwatezedoing
17th Jul 2016, 17:48
Another repeat!?
three Police Officers shot dead in Baton Rouge (http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-36820869)
Yes or no ---> :(

bcgallacher
17th Jul 2016, 19:55
It has been reported that recently sales of M16 type weapons have increased rapidly in the US. Perhaps this is to fulfill Ken V's theory of the right to bear arms to protect citizens against oppression by authorities - I think the deaths of all these policemen in the last two weeks would make people realise what an armed society can descend into. It is hard to imagine how a police force can function when any call out can result in this kind of incident.

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Jul 2016, 20:14
It is hard to imagine how a police force can function when any call out can result in this kind of incident.
But surely the answer to that question was all part of the planning that went into the risk assessment re allowing mad people to buy military weapons in supermarkets, so all they have to do is take the plan off the shelf and implement it?

bcgallacher
17th Jul 2016, 20:37
I forgot about that aspect, my apologies - of course there must be a plan.

KenV
18th Jul 2016, 17:22
That theory has worked exceedingly well in the last two centuries says KenV - so well in fact that between 1968 and 2011 Americans shot each other in a greater number than were killed in every war America has ever fought. Over 1 million dead,that is a roaring success. The measure of "success" depends on what you're trying to achieve. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to preserve one specific civil right and to act as a deterrent against government attempts to infringe on any and all civil rights. It most certainly succeeded as those rights have been preserved for well over two centuries. UK citizens decided to surrender their rights in exchange for government promises of security. So far that appears to have succeeded for the past few decades. We'll have to wait and see if it succeeds over multiple centuries as the US system has. But US citizens are simply not willing to surrender their rights for such government promises, so the UK solution of the past few decades simply cannot work here.

KenV
18th Jul 2016, 17:39
Weird distinction between "people" and "government", as if government was somehow "other" from people. At least it is to someone who lives in a "democracy", where we "elect" the government, and any one of the "people" who wants to be part of the government has a clear route to getting there (if they can persuade other people to vote for them, of course). One might, to coin a phrase, call it something like "government of the people, by the people, for the people".Weird? Only to someone who does not understand the US system. Our government is indeed "of the people, by the people, for the people" only so long as it does not attempt to infringe on the rights enumerated in the Constitution. If the people surrender those rights or the government infringes those rights, it stops being a government "of, by, and for the people" and becomes just another government of, by, and for the governing rather than the governed. And with the governing maybe or maybe not granting some civil accommodations to the governed, all at the whim of the governing.

KenV
18th Jul 2016, 17:52
... and the parties consist of, and are controlled by, the people ... Are they? So who decided who your brand new Prime Minister was going to be? The "people" or the "party bosses"?