Right to bear arms (Split Duh!) [Archive]

Jackonicko

3rd Apr 2003, 08:11

Blue Wolf:

You summarise the 2nd as saying:

"A well regulated militia being essential to the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's broadly how I remember it too.

Back in frontier days, the only way in which a militia man could 'effectively bear arms' was by keeping his weapons at home. But the constitution saw the right to bear arms as being part and parcel of maintaining 'a well regulated militia' and explicitely gave the people that right in order to maintain a free state (which implicitely meant against British or foreign aggression). That right was NOT granted in order that the citizens could take the law into their own hands, nor even so that they could protect themselves against criminals. There was no individual right to bear arms granted outside the framework of this 'well regulated (people's) militia', though the NRA would like us to believe otherwise.

One could argue that the maintenance of the National Guard and Reserve (and indeed America's maintenance of a standing Army, not envisaged when the Constitution was being framed) gives the people the right to bear arms under the auspices of those organisations, and thereby fulfills the requirements of the 2nd Ammendment.

I don't believe that the UK's outright ban on handguns (even within a sporting environment) has made us safer, and I'm not convinced that citizens should necessarily be prohibited from keeping a non-automatic, relatively small calibre handgun in the home in order to protect their property and family. But the right to carry concealed weapons in public is plainly insane, while the right of ordinary people to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons seems similarly barking.

ICT_SLB

3rd Apr 2003, 13:23

I was brought up in the West Country where guns (all long arms - shotguns and rifles) were common and looked on as essential tools in a farming community. The American fascination with handguns still makes me wonder and often has tragic consequences.

Just today, in sleepy ICT, there was an arguement between an ex-husband and the current boyfriend. In the UK there might have been a fistfight - possibly some GBH - but this is the US. Boyfriend grabs his trusty 38, chases down the ex & shoots him. Five minutes later, in a fit of remorse, he commits suicide in full view of the local cops. This is just one of many such occurrences that the NRA won't report in the "Armed Citizen".

T_richard

8th Apr 2003, 05:11

I came across this thread and had to take a look.

ICT_SLB
Please define "many", we are a nation of 200 million people, roughly 80% gun owners is my guess. I see death by hand guns occur, but most times there are firearm reg violations occuring that if enforced would have forestalled the death that resulted. What I mean is felons with hand guns, stolen handguns, minors with handguns, etc.

Jacko

This is not a windup, I am asking these questions straight up.
Did I read that violent attacks on citizens is rising in England sine the ban on handguns? Do criminals still use hand guns in crimes?

Jackonicko

8th Apr 2003, 06:57

I think that gun control may have gone too far in the UK. Gun ownership was so tightly controlled and restricted that legitimately held 'on ticket' guns were seldom a danger to anyone. (The school shooting which provoked the eventual total ban was by someone who should never have been given a ticket had the Police followed their own guidelines). It was never the case that UK gun owners could carry handguns in public, nor could they store a loaded handgun in the home. There was no culture of keeping loaded pistols in the bedside drawer or the car glove pocket. Handguns were for sport, for use on the range, and not for 'self protection' or bearing arms. I think this was a good compromise, personally. Unfortunately, the way in which all guns were banned outright led to much easier availability of weapons as 'off ticket' handguns were sold off, and guns are now much easier to acquire than they were.

Actually armed crime has decreased in most police areas, as a matter of fact.

Ranger One

8th Apr 2003, 07:20

Couple of points, from a Brit who spends a lot of time in the USA...

1. The way the 2nd amendment is interpreted is wierd. I spend a lot of time in New York city, here it is *impossible* for an ordinary citizen to legally own a handgun, never mind carry one. You just can't get a permit.

Long guns can be legally owned, but the process of getting a permit to do so is complicated and expensive, and takes a long time - many months. In fact, it's at least as hard to get a legal gun in New York as it is in the UK. I can't square this with 'shall not be infringed' but the courts seem to have managed to do so.

If the first amendment (free speech) was screwed-around the way the second has been, there would be hell to pay!

2. In response to posters who question the 'need' to own a gun - think of it like the crash axe or fire extinguisher: you really really hope *never* to 'need' it, but if you ever do, you will need it very very badly!

R1, unarmed and moderately dangerous

BEagle

8th Apr 2003, 13:18

Personally I thought the post-Dunblane over-reaction to be totally ridiculous and over the top. What if the swine had used a golf club - would golf have been banned?

Many years ago I shared a house with a few others, one of whom had a legal permit to own a Colt Python .357 Magnum. He was also permitted to make his own ammunition. But that was quite acceptable back then - he was a competition shot in any case. I had a go with his weapon on the range once - truly impressive! His sport was terminated by the government's over-reaction along with that of many other quite lawful and disciplined weapon owners.

Don't think that we'll ever be permitted to own Mr Desert Eagle Point Five Oh and his friends in the UK, no matter who gets to run the country!

J.A.F.O.

8th Apr 2003, 20:08

I'd always understood that the second amendment was merely put in to the constitution due to the hotter weather in many parts of the New World compared to cold old Blighty. It was originally intended to allow the citizens of this new land to wear short sleeved garments and was "the right to bare arms", a spelling mistake which has led to a lot of confusion and loss of life.

Jackonicko

8th Apr 2003, 22:55

Beagle:

"What if the swine had used a golf club - would golf have been banned?"

This would be a bad thing???

JAFO:

Is skin cancer a joke to you? Bare arms in the scorching sun could mean malignant melanoma - there should be no right to bare arms, except in a well-regulated militia where they issue shirts with adequate sleeve length.

Foss

10th Apr 2003, 00:08

Although I often go shooting in the UK, own several weapons and always make a point of going pistol shooting in the States when I'm there, the 2nd amendment argument does seem slightly warped.

If you want a pistol or revolver, let the police give you the thumbs up. It should not be a right to own a lethal weapon and I think it's mad to want to carry a concealed weapon.

There has always been a weapon of some kind within reach in my house from when I was very young and I'm not convinced that's normal or sane. But thats what living in Northern Ireland does for you.

(just had to spend a lot on a new gun cabinet too...not happy)

T_richard

10th Apr 2003, 03:16

Hi Foss

"If you want a pistol or revolver, let the police give you the thumbs up. It should not be a right to own a lethal weapon and I think it's mad to want to carry a concealed weapon.

I assume that you are aware of the background checks required before any gun can be bought in the US. The "right" is only there for people who aren't felon, mentally challenged, etc.

The "right" to carry a concealed weapon varies from state to state, some states are wide open for their residents only, other states are very restricted or not at all. As far as it being "mad" to want to carry, well there are many forms of madness in the world, personally I think bungie cord jumping is complete madness. to each his own

Checkboard

10th Apr 2003, 09:08

From the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) website:
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms
The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.Compare this with the UK stats:
Guns were used in only 4.7% of robberies in 1999 and 4.4% in 1998 so the crime problem is to a very large extent one of non-firearms crime. The UK's tight gun laws are undoubtedly responsible for the relatively rare use of guns in crime.
Handgun homicide figures are very low and since 1980 have fluctuated from a low of 7 in 1988, through to 35 in 1993 and a previous high of 39 in1997. So 42 gun murders in 1999 does not represent a statistically significant increase.

So - guns all over the US, population 290,681,151 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html), 10,241 gun murders. Private guns virtually banned in the UK, population 58,789,194 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/), gun murders around seven to forty. Now my maths may not be the best, but the US has five times the population yet two hundred and fifty-odd times more murders! That seems statistically significant to me!

Other states are different. I have sons in VA and UT where carrying a gun is considered very normal. The crime rates are highest in the states which do NOT allow citizens to carry arms, and LOWEST in states that do. This logic seems to escape many lawmakers.From the US Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
Percentage of homicides committed with a gun

Year New Jersey Utah Virginia

1996 49.2 55.6 65.4
1997 53.8 66.2 71.2
1998 45.5 59.7 68.1
1999 52.6 61.2 67.9
2000 51.6 40.4 67.4

So is it the lawmakers who ignore the stats, or the gun nuts?

T_richard

10th Apr 2003, 10:09

Hi Checkboard

A question for you. Are these statistics the only differences between the US and the UK? In otherwords, are our two societies alike in all other respects?

Is your use of the phrase "gun nuts" indicative of a preconceived bias or just a turn of a phrase for creative purposes?

Checkboard

10th Apr 2003, 10:55

Lies, damn lies and statistics - but these stats are pretty relevant.

The use of "gun nuts" indicates a pre-concieved opinion on my part (something required to take part in a discussion, I always thought. Discussions with people without opinions are called variously "lessons" or "indoctrinations" :D )

FireAxe

10th Apr 2003, 19:10

T Richard

Hi mate, as slick as a politician.
Ignore the evidance, don't answer the question and change the subject by going on the offensive.

I'm not against guns for sport, but to want to carry one around with you is asking for trouble.
One day adreniline and emotion leads to the wrong decision, then its too late.
But hey thats my humble opinion.

Foss

10th Apr 2003, 19:17

T-Richard

As you can guess I'm not anti-gun but it was more the way the second amendment is used by the gun lobby that concerns me.

I realise that there are checks in the US and that each state has varying degrees of control.

I suppose the use of the word 'mad' in reference to concealed weapons wasn't the best choice, but you have to carry them (guns) around, they weigh a lot, they wreck your suits, you're terrified of losing them, you can't take your jacket off etc.

I'd modify that to say you'd have to be daft to want one if it wasn't strictly part of your own personal security.

I've been in a bar in the sumer time with one female carrying a handbag with six revolvers because the blokes didn't want to wear their jackets. They'd prefer not to carry. Different culture.

T_richard

10th Apr 2003, 22:03

Good Morning FireAxe

Now, now calling me "as slick as a politician" is a very low blow, don't you think.;)

You are not wrong about the risks inherent in carrying a gun, I actually know of a guy walking through a restaurant here on the east coast who's pistol fell out of his waistband purely by accident. The poor offduty policeman was filling out paperwork for a week. A gun is like any other tool, you have to use it responsibly or you should lose the right to use it. I don't know anything about the UK's drunk driving limits, but I have seen a drastic change in the US as to what is considered drunk driving for legal purposes over the last 20 years. The biggest changes occured when the police started to enforce the law instead of letting the marginal drunks go with a warning.

Fireax There is also a cultural aspect to this argument. That is what I was alluding to when I asked Checkerboard ...." Are these statistics the only differences between the US and the UK? In otherwords, are our two societies alike in all other respects?"

This country was built by individual pioneers going into the unknown with only their trusty six shooter. When we ceded from King George, you guys had been living in urban communities for how long? BTW I don't expect to change the mind of anyone east of the pond, the mindset is too different.

MJ

How did you access unpublished FBI data? Are you a mole in our agency?
:eek: Just kidding. Quoting Warren Burger to a gun advocate is not what would be called a reasoned argument, A liberals liberal, that one.

Foss

Anyone other than an off duty cop is probably breaking the law if they are carrying a concealed gun in a bar. Each state is different but,I'd guess I may be right on that one.

Checkboard

10th Apr 2003, 22:56

Actually, if you looked at my "from" line - I am an Australian.

Aussies were walking into the bush, trusty firearm in hand and slaughtering their natives when Americans were sitting comfortably in established cities (on the east coast, at least). Handguns (and firearms in general) were banned in Australia before the UK! I don't think your argument holds much water.

Apart from a history involving a gun saturated culture, the major difference (between Australia and the US at least) on this issue is that (at least in Australia) voting is compulsory.

You see, the old quote "Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one" ("and they all stink / but no-one wants to look at yours" etc etc :) ) simply isn't true. The sad fact is that many people are too apathetic to form opinions about most issues - and this is demonstrated in countries with "voluntary voting" like the US, where only 54% (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html) (year 2000 elections) or so of eligable adults can be bothered to stop off at a poll booth on the way home from the shops. The argument goes like this:

Presidential advisor: Last year over 15,000 Americans were shot dead.

President: That's shocking - what do the people think? (Hey, he is a polititian after all ;) )

Presidential advisor: 70% are dead set against personal ownership of handguns.

President: But isn't it all too hard - how could we go about it?

Presidential advisor: As they have in other countries, you would have to offer government cash to buy back guns that are out there at the moment, and to compensate businesses that sell guns now. It isn't impossible, and the effects in reducing gun deaths would be immediate - although it would take a generation or so to achieve the safe levels enjoyed overseas.

President: A generation! I have a FOUR year term! I can't think on those scales! And the money!

Presidential advisor: Well ... we were prepared to spend around seven billion dollars disarming foreign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything like that sort of money would save more American lives than were lost in the World Trade centre, especially as the World Trade attacks (although tragic) were "one-offs" and not ongoing yearly death tolls.

President: So it is possible, good with the people, cost effective ....

Presidential advisor: yep.

President: My God! Quick! Draft a Bill for congress banning guns!

Presidential advisor: Wait! Of those 70% of eligible voters, most are housewives and such that can't be bothered voting, but of the 30% that like guns, organisations like the NRA have them in a voting frenzy - they ALL vote on this issue.

President: So if I manage to pass a law banning guns I will please 70% of the US adults of voting age, and begin to save over 15,000 American lives each year.

Presidential advisor: yep.

President: but I will be voted out of office.

Presidential advisor: you and all the congressmen that attempt to support you (so you couldn't get the law passed anyway) - by a 60-40 majority our research shows.

President: Quick! Tear up that bill!

Presidential advisor: OK

President: And burn the paper - we never even considered this move, OK?

T_richard

10th Apr 2003, 23:23

Good Morning Checkerboard

Sorry I missed your point of origin, (actually I was confused by your accent;) just kidding
I didn't know that voting in Australia is compulsory, what a wonderful idea, seriously. Our low voter turnouts drive me crazy.

I appreciate your interpretation of American political theatre, I am not sure that it has any relevance to reality, it might, but I am not sure it does. I suspect that you can't be any more sure sitting half way around the world.

The simple fact is that something like 80% of Americans own at least one gun and we are not about to surrender them. Someone in this post derided the five years it took to get the Brady bill into place, well in a free society, abridging any right no matter how small the abridgement is taken very seriously. The facts are that there are laws on the books today that if enforced would have prevented events like the Columbine shootings, its sad but true.
There are alot of reasons why young black men die in such large numbers in our country, availability of illegal guns is one of them, but there are others that contribute as much to the problem if not more. My contention is that before you abridge my legal right to own a firearm, make sure you have solved all the other equally significant problems.

Checkboard

10th Apr 2003, 23:33

Having these discussions over the 'net os so refreshing! You can so easily find the facts to tear down "urban legend" (polite term for outright lies ;) ) stats quoted to support opposing arguments:

from Reason On-line (http://reason.com/0105/sb-guns.shtml)
"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States.

39 Percentage of Americans report a gun in their home."

.. A lot closer to my guess of 30% than yours of 80% !

T_richard

10th Apr 2003, 23:57

Hi Checkboard

You are more likely to get a reasoned response from e if you are not so quick to call me a liar. There is a significant problem with your data, good luck figuring it out.

Peace

Ranger One

11th Apr 2003, 00:10

Checkboard:

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

And then...

Compare this with the UK stats:

OK, fair enough... but you don't give the UK stats.... what is happening to the UK figures for gunshot wounds treated?

What you say is:

Guns were used in only 4.7% of robberies in 1999 and 4.4% in 1998 so the crime problem is to a very large extent one of non-firearms crime. The UK's tight gun laws are undoubtedly responsible for the relatively rare use of guns in crime

You're quoting two completely different sets of stats, intermixed with opinion... quote real US vs. UK stats, or none at all!

Then, in response to a point about crime being lower in states which allow citizens to carry, you quote statistics for three states on percentage of homicides committed with a gun... well ok, but where are the crime statistics...?

Disengenuous, Sir.

R1

Checkboard

11th Apr 2003, 00:21

T_richard, my apologies ! I actually wasn't referring to you in particular, but the pro-gun lobby in history, although I know my post didn't read that way at all. One of the problems with 'net communication is that you can't read my mind (as I can't read yours) and things that appear obvious to my reading are not so to others - this is totally myfault and I had no intention of accusing you personnally of telling lies, I am sorry.

I was wondering if anyone would pick up the difference in the stat figures ;) They are taken from different sites, on a quick Google search. Having said that the differences in the figures are so obviously large that I though direct comparisons (which would require more work than I am prepared to give) would be superfluous.

The premise is simple: the fewer guns in a community, the safer that community is from gun crime. gun crime is inherently the most dangerous form of violent crime, it is the very power of guns that provides their attraction to many. Seems obvious to me.

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 02:18

CB apology accepted, nicely phrased by the way.

In America the single most attractive form of power to a young man under 25 y/o is an automobile. The single largest killer of young adults in this country is (I believe) NOTE DISCLAIMER, the automobile. I point this out not because it is some new breakthrough statistic, but to highlight what I believe is a cultural bias. Let me explain, my Dutch brother-in-law, educated in England, living in America, goes on a rant about the danger of guns to children (<25 y/o) in America. He says this as his two teenage daughters climb into their 4WD midsize SUV (inherently unstable mind you) for a night on the town. He cannot name anyone of his childrens peers killed by a gun, he knows of many of them hurt, killed or arrested for failure to operate a auto safely, but the gun is more dangerous in his mind.

CB, I still don't know if my 80% number is wrong, the stats you cited came from a poll of <2000 Americans in a land of 285 million people or 0.0007%. STOP I took stats in college too. The reason I don't trust your number is that the sample size is too small to overcome the following problem which is that if a pollster calls me at home and says "do you own a firearm?", As a gunowner, I am not going to be inclined to answer that question honestly, there is no benefit to me to do so, and some real or perceived risk. Also did the polling occur in a major metropolitan area, or the farm country of Iowa? even worse, did they restrict the polling to the New England states, or did they call the Southwest too. These two population groups are not even close to homgeneous in their basic makeup.

There is no question that too many people die by gunfire because even on death especially if it is someone you know and love is too many. The question is always "What do we do about it?

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 02:58

Mike

I was not trying to compare DUI deaths with gun deaths. Read the post again please. I was trying to make a point about the cultural differences that contribute to the debate that occurs in places like this site My brother in law sees one thing even though he experiances something completely different. My American brother in law raised in an environment where guns are used and respected sees the same teenagers as being more at risk in a car than with a gun. I don't have the time to analyse your statistics( I am at work, its midday here). I will just say that A I don't see anyone calling you an "Anti-gun nut" in this thread and B: American gunowners do not understand how British or Aussies gave up their guns. We do not see across the board confiscation as the reasonable solution to the problem. We do recognize there is a problem we just disagree on the solution

Unmissable

11th Apr 2003, 04:35

Too many guns = slack attitude

Slack attitude = Trigger happy

Trigger happy = accidents

Patriot Missiles and accidents touch a nerve at the moment.

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 04:57

Mike

OMG now youy want to debate DUI AND gun control! I don't think I have the time to do all that.

As far as the career of a US senator, this land of gun slinging, gas guzzling red necks is not as knee jerk as some might guess. If I told you 10 years ago that in 10 years there would be a ban on cigarrette (sp) smoking in all restaurants and bars in NYC except for those that could meet expensive guidelines, I'd bet that we'd have to pick you up off the floor after your laughing fit. Well, been to NYC lately? Yes I know about the grace period, but I hope you get the point.

Since that post, how many Iraiqs didn't die at the hands of SH?

On a personal note: who were you shooting at in Wichita, KS? :)
Did you hit the target, are you with the SAS? Did the FBI pick you up for questioning? OMG RU a terrorist?:eek:

Sorry just a little bit of levity after a very long day, well, I'll pick this up tomorrow, if the markets don't crumble. Be safe

Ranger One

11th Apr 2003, 05:04

Mike,

You make much of the "66% homicides by gun in USA vs. 8.5% in UK" (2000 figures?), and how this requires 'only a few seconds analysis'...

Yes again, someone is being disingenuous and quoting misleading statistics.

The USA is, to a fairly large degree, an armed society. Most homicides in any society are 'crimes of passion' commited by members of the victims own family or friends, I believe (but stand to be corrected). OF COURSE a much higher percentage of homicides are going to be by gun in the USA, simply because the guns are available, and thus become the weapon of choice.

A more relevant statistic would be the murder rate per capita, where I believe the UK and US rates are fairly close, and converging - the 66% vs. 8.5% figure is totally spurious - the important figure for any individual is how likely you are to BE murdered, NOT what you're likely to be murdered WITH!

R1

pinkie

11th Apr 2003, 05:31

On a recent flight I took, one of the film channels was showing a documentary by American film maker Michael Moore, called "Bowling for Colombine".
It is a look in-to the American gun culture.
One bit that for me, summed up the American attitude to owning a gun, was that a couple of weeks after the shooting in Colombine (when 2 students shot up their school, then killed themselves) the National Rifle Association held a meeting in the same town. Their chairman is Charlton Heston, who when asked why the meeting was held so soon after the shooting replied "it's our right"
One year later, when a 6 year old boy took a pistol to school, and killed a 6 year old girl, in a different town, the NRA held another meeting in the town to promote firearms.

The viedo is due to be released later this month, and is tipped for an OSCAR. If anyone has a spare couple of hours, it's well worth a watch.

Ranger One

11th Apr 2003, 07:31

Mike,

You cited someone elses quote:

Now my maths may not be the best, but the US has five times the population yet two hundred and fifty-odd times more murders!

The maths is indeed defective: the official figure is that the US has 3.5 times more murders per head than the UK. The US figure has been declining steadily for some time, the UK figure rising.

However, the official figures don't show the true picture: the actual numbers are much closer, as US murder figures count any crime that results in a dead body, whether murder, manslaughter, unlawful killing, or any other crime. UK figures only reflect murder convictions.

American murder rates are more about culture than guns; I've read that a study showed New York had a murder rate consistantly about 5 times that of London over the last two hundred years, despite the fact that serious gun control didn't start in the UK (or New York) until after WWI (I believe).

A far more important factor, it has to be said, in US murder is skin colour. 13% of the US population are black. 50% of murderers are black. 50% of victims are black.

You also ignore the protective effect of an armed population - in the UK, 53% of burglaries occur when the victim is in the house. In the US, it's 13%. The reason? American burglars are more afraid of armed householders than anything else.

If in doubt, ask the people who have to deal with the consequences... surveyed at a recent national conference, 93% of American police chiefs said law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns. 62% said that allowing citizens to carry concealed guns helped to reduce crime.

You might find this interesting reading...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1F032CF2

R1

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 09:21

Pinkie

Please don't site M. Moore in your analysis of guns in America unless you are prepared to site some racisit film producer I am not aware of re: Blacks in America. Moore has an AX to grind, the NRA meeting in CO was scheduled well in advance of the tragedy at Columbine HS. The go/nogo decision had as much to do with public attacks as it had to do with public sensitivity. They did their best to lower their exposure out of respect for the children who died at Columbine. Please do not insult my country by taking the cheap shot that leads anyone to believe that any American citizen regardless of their views on guns was anything but horrified by the killings in our schools. I am a gun owner an content with that position, but I am also a parent and I feel for those parents, furthemore no one who threatens any child in my country is safe near me.

99% of NRA members were shocked and saddened by the events at Columbine HS. But Moore is a sensationalistic film maker who seeks personal gain by stirring the national political pot. If you give him credibility, then you may certainly believe that Sean Penn is the US authority on Middle East politics.

In other words shut the F**k up

Formski

11th Apr 2003, 09:57

Pinkie,

I'd suggest reading this essay before heaping too much credit on 'Bowling for Columbine'.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 10:29

Formski

thank you for providing the factual evidence to the events as I recall them. Unfortunately, I suspect that Pinkie is one of those famous theorticians (sp) who when confronted with FACTS that refute their theory will discard tha facts.

Pinkie
On another thread you disparge GWB as someone who is not supported by the majority of Americans. Clearly you are as ill informed as your are indifferent to the facts

SASless

11th Apr 2003, 10:36

While you are bashing the NRA....also note the stance they take on enforcing gun laws....they are adamantly in support of strict enforcment of violations of the gun law and have routinely agrued for stricter punishment of those who use firearms during the commission of "any" crime. Please to note the dedication the NRA has towards education, training, and promoting sportsmanship....all with a core value of safety. Another good site to visit....which airs both sides of the argument....is ....gunsite.com .

I would suggest a study of statistics will disclose Northern Ireland has a much higher rate of murder by firearm thand does the USA.....but then a ban the gun nut will suggest political violence is the cause.....and ignore the violent offender concept when branding all Americans as being gun-happy....

Me thinks there was a reason the 2nd Amendment immediately follows the 1st Amendment......kinda hard to muzzle a bunch of people that have the ability to defend themselves. Our Founding Fathers had a very real fear of abusive centralized governments having just chucked out one from the small, now ex-island ,immediately adjacent to that strong Continental Power called France.

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 11:02

For those of you from afar, please remember that our military do not swear alligence to an individual. They are sworn to up hold the Constitution of the United States. Some tinpot president decideds to pull a coup d'etat, he's gonna have a problem, cuz if he can get to the military, he's gonna have to face the civilian population. Sounds a little macho or jingoistic, fine... I sleep better at night

99% of Americans don't look for trouble from inside or out. But the US Constitution serves as a warning sign to all those who intend to harm us regardless of where they come from. " Don't Even Think About it"

SOMAT

11th Apr 2003, 13:17

T Richard, Formski

I presume this is the same Moore who had that anti-War rant at the Oscars. What an fat ass; he also comes over here occasionally to appear on chat/political shows to pontificate on the evils of war, the US Congress/military in general and Bush in particular. Still, in terms of a+++holes in our midst, Moore doesn't even come close to our George (Lord Haw Haw) Galloway, MP, who has been an admirer/apologist for the Saddam Regime for years, and never ceases to let us know it.

Sorry, somewhat off thread.

BlueWolf

11th Apr 2003, 14:41

SASless is bang on. The 2nd ammendment was for the express purpose of ensuring that the free peoples of the States would have at their disposal the means to resist the Federal Government, in the event that the latter body should attempt to over-ride the Constitution and gain excessive power over the individual States.

This strategy appears to have worked so far.

pinkie

11th Apr 2003, 15:48

T Richard,
Reference my posting about "Bowling for Columbine".
When I saw the "documentary", I was unaware of who Michael Moore was, or his reputation as a sensationalist. I assumed that as the film was given an OSCAR, it must have been well researched.
I read the link from Formski, which was very enlightning.
It was an honest mistake, and it was not my intention to offend American gun owners or members of the NRA.
Please accect my apology

Pinkie

SASless

11th Apr 2003, 21:29

A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the US Government's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the non-government National Safety Council).

Discussion
Examining the fatal accident table below, one sees that fatal gun accidents among children are rare. Gun control groups and pro-control medical researchers often include "children" up to the age of nineteen and in some cases twenty-four, to inflate the number of "child" gun accidents. (This is the only way it can be claimed a child is killed everyday in a gun accident. Compare fatal gun accidents to the number of kids killed while crossing the street.) The solutions one may propose to prevent child accidents should differ from those of young adults. For example pressure sensitive pistol grips won't help much when older "kids" are playing Russian Roulette, especially in places where it's legal for eighteen or twenty-one year-olds to own firearms.

As rare as fatal gun accidents are among young children, their actual frequency is probably overstated. Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck suggests that some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse, in other words intentional homicides. Dr. Kleck cites a national survey conducted in 1976 (Strauss, M., et. al., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1981), which found "3% of children had, in the previous year, had guns or knives (the two are combined in the source) actually used on them by their parents, according to the parents' own admissions. Since this translates into about 46,000 such incidents per year, it would not be surprising if a few dozen resulted in a gun death falsely reported as accidental."(Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 209. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Dr. Kleck further mentions, "The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns." (p 296)

In Targeting Guns, Dr. Kleck concludes in part, "Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Gun accidents, then, involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children, and most commonly involve adolescents and young adults."

"The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population. Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection: the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." (p 321)

Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners, not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits. (It is not being suggested that such training be offered or mandated.)

This is one excerpt from the website GunCite.com . That site provides both sides to the issues....and thus exposes the misleading statistics used by the more emotional of those involved in the anti-gun lobby.

Read the information there and make up your own mind.....based upon facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BillHicksRules

11th Apr 2003, 21:58

To all those who are pro-guns, can I ask a serious question?

Why do you require a gun in the 21st century?

I am not asking why you have a right to one as that is well documented in the US.

Cheers

T_richard

11th Apr 2003, 22:03

Blue Wolf

How come the Second Ammendment sounds so much more reasoned and sophisticated when you explain it hen when I do? Higher education I suppose:ok:

Pinkie
Oscars are awarded by people who make billions of dollars for making movies to people who make billions of dollars to make movies. Nothing they do has any legitimacy. Moore is a man who has made a career of pissing on the very country which supports and protects him. He is either ignored or dis by most Americans (outside of Hollywood)

Please refrain from cheap shots at GWB, if you disagree with his position or speech, have at it. Taxpayers like me (April 15th is next week:ugh: :( :sad: :uhoh: ) pay for a very large military force which protects your righ to do so. :ok:

Apology accepted from a gracious gentleman

SOMAT

You have it right about Moore:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Mike:

Like drunk driveing which has claimed the life of so many of my friends in the last twenty years I have lost count, death by firearms is a very real problem in America. I suspect (reread that word) that some of the problem is embedded in our society, some part is fixable. I don't claim to have all the answers, I firmly believe that mass confiscation is not the answer here in the US. I hope it works for you, since I think you paid a very big price. Have a good weekend

46Driver

11th Apr 2003, 22:12

Mr Hicks,
I use a gun to go hunting - and to defend my home. What can the police do at the moment when someone breaks into your home? Not much....other than take evidence after the armed criminal does whatever they had planned. Therefore, I will trust in my 12 gauge - the deterence effect of the action sliding home will give anybody pause.

BillHicksRules

11th Apr 2003, 22:44

46Driver,

Please allow me to apologise. I was not aware of the food shortages in Pensacola. Can I help by sending canned goods?

:(

46Driver

12th Apr 2003, 00:54

Mr Hicks,
Some of us like to hunt our own game (venison, quail, duck, etc) just as some of us go fishing for the same reasons (bass, bream, etc...) If you want to eat what is only at the grocery store, that is fine.

Jackonicko

12th Apr 2003, 04:20

Michael Moore may be smug, self satisfied, fat, and a slob. His approach may be annoyingly sensationalist. His blue collar pretensions may be more fake than a page 3 girls appendages.

He certainly winds up the rednecks and other right wing knuckle draggers, because he is (and these people regard this as a deadly insult) a 'liberal'.

But anyone wanting to read an intelligent and incisive summary of exactly how GWB overrode democratic norms in order to become President would be well advised to read his 'Stupid White Men'.

46 driver,

The subject is handguns. Handguns. Pistols, revolvers, etc. small, concealable, sidearms. Surely to god you hunt with a rifle? Which opens up an interesting question. If the USA had UK-style gun control, with individuals allowed to own rifles and shotguns, but not handguns, would that seriously compromise the constitutional 'right to bear arms'.

SASless

12th Apr 2003, 05:27

Jacko.....

Please read what Mike Jenvy has to say....a man after my own heart though we disagree. What we do agree on is how to engage in argument. I will look forward to his posts from now on...

Mike,

Your statistics tended to confirm my source as well.....child deaths by firearm have to include both sources of death....accidental and willful. My reading of the stats....both yours and mine.....beg the question why so many are being killed by means of homicide in particularly in homicides by parents or designated caregivers. The point of my post was to note the difference between the real numbers of children being killed, the statistics that relate to those issues, and point out the incorrect numbers being used by the media and other ban the gun groups to sensationalize the issue.

One death is too many.....and the USA has problems with gun violence.

I use the following statement...."Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns!" That is a true statement. Ted Kennedy would happily see my guns confiscated but has never admitted any wrongdoing in the death of the young woman that drown in the backseat of his car.

I have owned guns legally for the past 45 years....have hunted...practiced target shooting....carried a gun as a police officer both on and off duty...carried a firearm concealed with a proper concealed weapons authorization...and yet have to break a law of any kind as a result. I work at a place where I fly people around that carry guns....the aircraft is armed but I cannot take my private weapon on the worksite because of the rules.

I politely submit....our angst is with the criminal. The violent person who commits a crime. Those who have no value on other people's life and welfare. We should have real problems with criminal justice systems that deprive the honest, hard working, law abiding citizen of the protection of law and the ability to protect oneself while not dishing out severe punishment to those who prey upon others particularly in crimes using violence or threat of violence. It is not for the good decent person to surrender to the evil sorts....I can assure you if my home is burglared while I am present...the Police, when they finally arrive...will not have to ask for descriptions of the perpetrators. They will merely have to photograph, fingerprint, and search the pockets of the bodies laying in my parlor.

I completely endorse the use of citizen's carrying concealed weapons...properly trained, properly certified, properly controlled by the police and laws of the community they live in. First hand experience proves the validity of that. While driving through the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona years ago...stopped to pour fuel from a Jerry Can into the truck...two Indian men stopped and asked for petrol. I gave them a five gallon can....asked for the can back....they returned the can....asked for some food....gave them some canned softies and some snacks....they then asked for money....told them I was not a one white man relief agency and one of them pulled a knife and suggested a toll payment was in order. I pulled out my revolver and suggested we could start playing Cowboy and Indians if they really wanted to. They left....I left.

As to pistol hunting....a growing number of hunters are using handguns....seems silly to me....but then some of these pistols are pretty exotic. Shooting sticks....telescopic sights....large calibers with large powder charges....pain on both ends when the things are fired. But....in this country...as long as you comply with the law...it is legal...and one's right to do so.

Jackonicko

12th Apr 2003, 06:01

SASless,

I'm just slightly disquieted by your Navajo story, and the attitudes it seems to illustrate. I may be misreading you, however...... It does however present a stereotype of reservation Indians which goes against my own experience on that very reservation (if you were on the Big Res, rather than one of the separate bits), and on the Zuni and Hopi res. I suspect that you wouldn't accept any point of view that might suggest that problems between the Navajo and white Arizonans at least partly stems from the way in which the Indians had their best land stolen, were herded into the least useful and least productive areas, and are now facing difficulties in earning money even by operating the appalling Casinos which do provide so much of their revenue. It seemed to me, however, that depriving these people of their dignity has led more to drunkenness and petty crime than to serious violent crime of the kind you describe.

But your macho posturing about burglars is seriously worrying. Anyone who seriously advocates taking the law into their own hands in that way deserves to be put away, and anyone who actually does take the law into their own hands and murders a criminal deserves to go down for a long time.

There is no death penalty for burglary in the USA, and it's not your place to impose one. I'm not sure that treating you as a civilised debating opponent is entirely appropriate if this is what you were advocating.

Mr Greenie

12th Apr 2003, 06:03

SaSless,
You say you fly an aircraft in which people carry guns. Do public flights in the USA have armed guards on board, (a good idea in my opinion), or do you fly for a private company?

Mr G.

46Driver

12th Apr 2003, 07:05

Jacko,
No death penalty in the USA???? When is the last time you have been to Texas - or anywhere else in the Deep South? Also, IT IS MY PLACE TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY on any criminal who breaks into my home and threatens me and my family with bodily harm - Period. Being a vigilantly and hunting people down is one thing - defending myself is quite another.
Also, the title of this thread is "the right to bear arms" which includes rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Although I have never owned a handgun, I fully support the rights of those who do. The reason for that is that handguns are just one part of the anti-gunners whole - the expressed desire of Handgun Control, Inc. The Brady Foundation, and the Million Mom March to confiscate all firearms from the American public.

Ranger One

12th Apr 2003, 07:36

Jackonicko:

But your macho posturing about burglars is seriously worrying. Anyone who seriously advocates taking the law into their own hands in that way deserves to be put away, and anyone who actually does take the law into their own hands and murders a criminal deserves to go down for a long time.

I've already dealt with this point. The statistics speak for themselves; in the UK, 53% of burglaries take place whilst the victims are at home - with all the associated risks of violent confrontation with the burglar. In the US, only 13% of burglaries happen when the victims are in the house. The reason is obvious; American burglars are rightly more scared of armed householders than anything else.

No-one is advocating murdering burglars. I for one would advocate self-defence as a last resort, and deterrence as a first resort. Nothing to do with 'macho'.

Think about it: you're flying long-haul sectors. You're 6,000 miles downroute, you won't be home for a week. Your wife and kids are alone in a rural house. There have perhaps been a few burglaries in your area lately, one or two of them violent. You are glad you have a good burglar alarm and a cellphone, but the nearest police are ten miles away. Wouldn't you honestly feel happier knowing she had a gun, and was trained to keep and use it properly?

R1

Jackonicko

12th Apr 2003, 08:01

Sorry highly stupid typo. Meant 'no death penalty for burglary'.

"IT IS MY PLACE TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY on any criminal who breaks into my home and threatens me and my family with bodily harm - Period. Being a vigilante and hunting people down is one thing - defending myself is quite another."

Well no it's not actually. In a civilised society we assign the maintenance of law and order, and the punishment of crime and the rehabilitation of criminals to the appropriate agencies.

46Driver

12th Apr 2003, 08:18

So what you are saying is that I have no right to defend myself if confronted, no right if a molester comes into my child's room, no right if a rapist forces himself onto my wife. Let the police handle it after the fact - and the crime. Sorry - not going to happen.

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 08:48

Jack

Are you really suggesting that I relinquish my , goods, my familys safety, maybe our lives if some evil doer comes into my home. Neither you nor I can predetermine the totality of his criminal behavior. Therfore, I place my self, my property and my family at great risk if I just let him in and let him go, don, I ? To be clear, I am not describing a sidewalk stickup which engages an entirely different paradigm. I am talking about bad guy in my home with undertermined evil intent. What do you think I am entitled to do?

StbdD

12th Apr 2003, 09:01

The UK decided to confiscate personal firearms because the electorate demanded it.

The US retains private ownership of firearms because the electorate demand it.

I honestly don't see why some UK posters have a problem with this. You made your choice, we made ours. You live wth yours and we'll live with ours.

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 09:08

StbdD

Thank you for breaking the issue down to the fundamental issue. It is choice, c'est tous.

But I am really interested in Jack's perception of what a homeowner should do when threatened in his dwelling. Skip the issues of renting vs owning. It's 2:00 AM, someone is downstairs looting the dining room, you and your wife are upstairs, 14 y/o daughter and son down the hall. Jack the cops won't be here for 10 minutes and the bad guy is headed up the stairs, what do you think I am allowed to do with the .357 S&W revolver in my right hand??

Sorry background:

You should assume that I am not of the spray and pray school, at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring. I am a civilian, but my family is in immediate threat. What can I do.

Jackonicko

12th Apr 2003, 09:15

You do exactly what you think is morally right, Wyatt Earp.

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 09:24

No JAck I am not Wyatt Earp, I am a father and a husband, how about you? If this scenario doesn't happen inyour world, then God bless you and your family. But a quick read of any majiir metro paper states that it happens in the rest of the world. So transport yourself to Long Island, NY where this can happen. Or would you like me to make it more real by siting real world tragedys . Please answer the question.

West Coast

12th Apr 2003, 09:40

Jacko
I often find myself quietly agreeing with your position. Here however we divurge. I like others here keep weapons in the household. I have to assume that if my house is being broken into at some god awful hour that the perp knows full well that I am home. I also assume he is armed. My number one priority is to my family, not to the continued health of someone who is breaking into my house.

It may not be my place to impose the death penalty, but damn well is my place to make sure he doesn't try to impose it himself while in my house or wherever danger finds me or my family.

We assign maintaince of law and order to appropriate agencies to paraphrase you. If he is in my house at two am, that law and order you speak of is already failed.

If you were subject to a home invasion and you had the means to ensure your family was kept safe by use of firearms, assuming you were trained in the use of such weapons, what would you do? Is your moral obligation to the thiefs health or that of your families?

Always_broken_in_wilts

12th Apr 2003, 09:43

T,
Your sentiment is that of a cowboy without a doubt.

"at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring"

I can do lots of things I would never gloat of in here, airbourne gunnery instructor blah..........dohhh i said I would not gloat.......... but we have a Norfolk farmer currently "doing stir" cos he probably thought he was Jessie James as well. Despite the fact that the thieving gypsy bastard, and his mate who set out to rob said farmer, deserved it the farmer was wrong to top him!

Proper use of a 3 iron or something similar would have done a pretty good job and kept our man out of pokey.

If you were to ask the millions of tourists who come from europe each year the one thing that frightens them most about visiting the good old US of A it will be the sentiment voiced so heartily by you and your cousins here.

Take guns out of circulation and like your new smoking laws socirty will be better off.............and that planet of the apes f@@kwit will be out of a job.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

46Driver

12th Apr 2003, 09:44

Morally right is to protect my family. The criminal forfeits any and all rights the moment he sets foot upon my property and threatens my wife and children. What are you going to do?

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 09:57

JAck you didn't answer my question! Why, I don't care what happened to some farmer who may or not have been railroaded. I want to know what you would do if confronted with the scenario I presented to you. If you have never considered such an event then you must feel very secure in your residence. I congratulate you. However, you forfeit the right to sit in judgement of those of us who are not so safe and secure. If you live in reality like mine then please answer the question as if it were to happen to you. Otherwise we can agree that you opinion has no merit, since you do not understand the reality of the threat or the long term implications of your failure to protect your family. Throwing slurs and slander will not avoid the challenge. Either address the threat in real terms or achnowledge that you don live in the real world.

46Driver

12th Apr 2003, 12:17

How do you know he is just a burglar? Could be a rapist, a molester, a murderer - you don't know. All you know is that: he is armed, he is in your house, and he could be a deadly threat - and the police will never arrive in time. You protect your family.

SASless

12th Apr 2003, 13:58

Another conflict here....the difference in the law of the two lands...in the UK...the victim has no right to use violence against an intruder whereas in the USA...we have the right to defend our home against intruders. Fundamental difference.

Vigilantism means I take off around the countryside dispensing justice....killing a burglar inside my home is anything but that.

justifiable homicide
: homicide that is committed in self-defense, in defense of another and esp. a member of one's family or sometimes in defense of a residence, in preventing a felony esp. involving great bodily harm, or in performing a legal duty and that is justified under the law with no criminal punishment imposed

Here in the State of North Carolina...we take the position that police officers must give ground....but citizens do not. We retain the right to defend our family, home, and property. The law is very specific about when "self defense" protects a citizen in a homicide. I can assure you, even if tried in court, juries will always side with the victim.....not the burglar, rapist, robber, or murderer. We are not talking about bar fights between drunks here....but home invasions, burglaries, asaults by armed criminals intent upon doing harm to innocent people.

Jacko....I always like to use the analogy....if I meet you on the street....and start slapping you in the face....with vigor and strength....how many times will I have to slap you before you raise your hands in defense....will you ever use violence to protect yourself? This is the situation victims of crime find themselves in....thugs like unarmed, submissive victims. They find people who have both the will to fight back and the weapons to go along .....to be very risky targets and thus they leave us alone and go for the easy marks, the people that will meekly give up their purse or their life without threat to the criminal.

Jacko....

Had to make this one a seperate one....

"Civilized society"...."leave it to the government to deal with criminals"....I hope you are a victim of a home invasion robbery...your wife gets killed...your daughter raped....you get stabbed several times.....watch your house burn down as the gang drives off in your car.......then ....then....I want you to tell us you really feel the cops and courts are your protectors.

That is happening to real people in my country and yours every day......I assure you Jacko...the Coppers will be sipping a cup of tea or dunking their donuts in the coffee while all that is happening to you. They cannot be everywhere at once....the courts fail to incarcerate violent offenders often enough or long enough. The failure of your "civilized society" is measured in the pain and suffering of the victims of crime.

In my neck of the woods, we define neo-conservative as being a recently mugged liberal.

Jacko, please don't play word games here....you describe killing a violent criminal in self defense as being murder. That just isn't the case nor the law. The law calls it Justifiable Homicide which is not a crime of any kind.

Gun Control is also defined as being proper sight alignment and trigger squeeze to achieve maximum accrucacy.

BlueWolf

12th Apr 2003, 14:59

This article by a regular columnist in a national magazine here about sums it up for me.
It would seem we have many parallels with parts of North America.

Jacko, I am proud to call myself a liberal, and on many things we agree; but not this time.

EYES RIGHT
RICHARD PROSSER

My Home, My Castle

Several years ago when the Government reneged on yet another contract with the people, I was required to renew my “lifetime” firearms licence.
The local sheriff visited my home, to ensure that the security provisions I had installed to prevent my arsenal (a .22 rifle and the slug gun I was given for my thirteenth birthday) from falling into criminal hands, and to inquire of my then partner as to my suitability to be entrusted with the responsibility of owning guns.
He left, impressed with my safe, and leaving my good lady impressed with the image of a handsome young man in uniform.
My next task was to present myself at the local Constabulary to fill out some forms, pay some money (of course) and answer a few questions.
Amongst them was a simple one-liner: “Would you use a firearm in self-defence?”
“That’s a tricky one isn’t it?” I inquired of the constable reading the questions from a list.
“That’s why we put it in,” she replied.
After a moment’s contemplation I answered; “In all honesty, I have to say yes.”
“So would I,” said she, and stamped the form.

Now it would seem that a Northland farmer is to be prosecuted by the same Police force, ostensibly for doing just that.
Police have announced that they will, after all, be laying charges against Kawakawa farmer Paul McIntyre, in relation to his shooting of one of three men involved in the attempted theft of a $20,000 four wheel farm bike from Mr. McIntyre’s remote Northland farm.

The charges are that Mr. McIntyre “caused injury with reckless disregard for the safety of others”, and that he “discharged a firearm without reasonable cause.”
In shooting at the tyres of the would-be thieves’ vehicle, rather than at the men themselves, as will probably be argued in court, Mr. McIntyre was presumably attempting quite deliberately to avoid harming anyone, which can hardly be called reckless disregard.
As for the second matter, much depends on what society is prepared to class as “reasonable cause”.

Put yourself in Mr. McIntyre’s shoes for a moment. Three intruders arrive at your farm in the dead of night. They are intent on violating the sanctuary of your home and stealing your property. They are armed. Who knows what else may be on their minds?
Your family is inside; you and your firearm are all that stands between them and violence.
Is it reasonable to expect you to nothing?

The nearest Police Station is forty-five minutes distant over gravel roads, and it isn’t manned at night. By the time your emergency call rouses the duty officer, help is at least an hour away. Faced by armed criminals, is it reasonable to expect you to wait this long?

They outnumber you by three to one, and they have the means and the intent to take your property, doing you harm in order to facilitate this if necessary. Is it reasonable to expect you to remain passive?

If you sit back and allow your property to be stolen, taking a chance that you and your family will be unharmed, you will still suffer loss; true, insurance will cover the cost of your stolen farm bike, but you will still have to front up with the excess, and your premiums will rise as well, not just now, but through all the future to come. If you want cover in the future you will have to increase your security, with better locks and more alarms, all at a direct cost to yourself. Is it reasonable to expect you to simply pay out for this because some criminals decide to break both the law and society’s code of conduct?

Is it reasonable for society to expect you to allow yourself to be violated because that same society is uneasy about people “taking the law into their own hands”?

The Police, in remote rural New Zealand, are quite simply not capable of protecting people. They have not the manpower, resources or budget. Is it reasonable, under these circumstances, that they insist you do nothing, and leave it all up to them? No, it most certainly is not.

If you, as an honest and law-abiding citizen, take the only action you can in order to protect your life, your home, family, and possessions, against those who have no regard for the law or for the rights and property of others, can this be called unreasonable? I think not.

If one of those intending criminals is injured as a result of your actions in defending yourself, can he claim that he has been treated unfairly? No, he damned well can’t, and neither can society or the Police claim that.

Honest citizens have a right to be protected. This right over-rides any that those who would violate that right may have. If society and its Police force are not capable of offering you protection, then they do not have the right to prevent you from protecting yourself. If criminals are injured in the course of committing crime, well, that’s just tough. No-one forced them to be there.

The hand-wringers and the bleeding hearts can say what they like; until society abandons its liberal guilt mentality and demonstrates that it is prepared to get tough, until we are prepared to put the rights of decent folk above those of thieves and low-lifes, the criminal menace will remain. The wholly contemptible “better red than dead” approach of wets and pacifists contributes nothing to the building of a better society.

A man’s home is his castle, and it is his right to defend it; and to defend his family and his possessions, and to offer his protection to his neighbour.

Stand tall, men of New Zealand, and be proud; defend your rights and your way of life, as did Paul McIntyre. The man deserves a medal. I would say he had far better than “reasonable cause” to discharge his firearm.

Richard Prosser

Mr Greenie

12th Apr 2003, 15:59

A_B_I_W.
I don't know about you, but if I was living next door to a gun owner, I would much prefer that it be someone who could "at 25 feet, put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring", rather than some gun nut with an Uzi or shotgun, who would probably take out his neighbours rather than a burglar.

Mr G

Pilgrim101

12th Apr 2003, 16:11

The "right and just" solution is unattainable. Yes, shoot someone if they invade your property and by implication threaten you, your loved ones and your property but be prepared for a team of lawyers to descend on you to prosecute or defend, either way it's going to cost you financially and emotionally.

The choice has to be made in a split second when you are surprised, shocked, scared $hitless and doing what is necessary to protect your family and home. Later on, in a wood panelled Courtroom with a bunch of smartar$e lawyer$ after your hide in the cold light of day there is a totally different perspective on things.

The choice has to be yours but it would be nice to have the comfort of legal support and the choice if several armed predators with ill intentions break into your home at three in the morning. Since Dunblane and the over reaction by the Government and media (Gun control was ever a pet of the left in the UK), around two million weapons have now been left in the hands of the bad guys and whose civil liberties are now eroded most ?

Basically the Police have lost the plot and get vindictive if an individual points out their shortcomings by doing their job for them. The farmer in UK, Tony Martin, is virtually a political prisoner because the establishment can't or won't admit they are losing control and they won't release him until he shows "remorse", another word for agreeing to the official line.

Incidentally, one of the vermin who was wounded when he raided the farm has a record as long as your arm and had the temerity to try to sue for loss of earnings. The **** had never worked a day in his life !

Bear 555

12th Apr 2003, 18:27

Still prefer the right to arm bears....

Bear555

Jackonicko

12th Apr 2003, 19:41

Always Broken has it about right.

It's about appropriate levels of force. It's about remaining within the bounds of what is reasonable, legal and morally right.

I'm not against the possession of firearms, but I do think that on balance handguns are unwise (I support fishermen, etc. carrying knives, but not switchblades/flicknives, on the same basis).

Over here, Tony Martin (a hero to the unthinking, knee-jerk far right - I count myself as a thinking, considered soft right sort of bloke) was jailed for shooting and killing a burglar.

That burglar wasn't armed, or violent, nor was he intent on raping Mr Martin or his family. He was a teenage boy who Martin shot in the back from close range as that boy tried to flee for his life. He presented no threat whatsoever to Mr Martin, and had even ceased to present a threat to the farmer's property. That's murder in my book, and while the victim deserved to be locked up, he had done nothing to warrant the death penalty. As in all murder cases, the perpetrator can only be released on licence if he admits his or her guilt. Martin is not being singled out.

Over here, burglars are seldom armed, and it may well be a different matter over there. There may sometimes be a case for acting in self defence over there, but the rhetoric being used here, and the underlying attitudes are uncomfortably gung ho and lawless. Moreover, I do not see that a handgun is necessary for self defence.

Does anyone have the statistics for the number of armed criminals killed by homeowners? And unarmed criminals? And the number of collateral deaths - spouses killed in an argument because there was a gun in the house, accidental shootings etc?

If you don't trust your Government, then vote for one you do trust. If you don't trust your law enforcement bodies, then reform them, but don't expect civilised people to applaud you if your only solution is to take the law into your own hands.

Pilgrim101

12th Apr 2003, 20:40

Jackonico

Eloquently argued but I note you conveniently fail to mention the number of times Tony Martin and his run down farm had been targeted by these pariahs and others. One of the arguments put forward by the establishment for not releasing Martin before his demanded due apology or any normal parole period is that they "couldn't guarantee his safety". If the police had been called as many times by Martin as reported during the court case without offering him the protection he was due then we shouldn't be surprised if this admittedly eccentric man finally snapped.

He is certainly not one of my "heroes" and I am certainly not gung ho far right and I suggest you temper your words until you get to know me better. I am prepared to bet that I have seen the effects of indiscriminate violence at first hand a lot more than you and present my thoughts in that perspective.

I'm not advocating the retention of handguns in UK by the way but I figure if the local Albanian and Yardie hoods (for example) can carry and fire them with apparent impunity then where do we go next ?:*

SASless

12th Apr 2003, 20:47

Jacko.....

You are not now...have never been...anything but a rabid assed left-wing liberal (in print anyway)....have taken up every left winged cause....prattled off with the leftist slant on every issue. For the best part of two years now....you have taken the side of those liberal leftish causes...and only moderate your views when dumped on by every post that points that out to you. You either are putting on a very good act and are really just in here to provoke others into responding ...or......you really some serious reality therapy. Frankly speaking....no one could be so stupid as to believe as you purport to do....could they???

Fishermen carrying a Swiss Army knife vice a flick knife! Give me a break! Hell, let's apply that to the rest of life....let's all go back to walking....cars kill too many people. Airplanes should fly daytime only....in good weather....otherwise they kill people. Police should interview people at the station house....by invite....otherwise they might get killed as happened recently. We might as well grow our own meat....that way we do not get tainted meat in the market. Sex in non-marital situations should be banned....best way to end the transfer of AIDS.

Where do you stop using your enlightened ideas, Jacko?

BarryMonday

12th Apr 2003, 20:54

I may be getting a bit old and forgetful, could you please remind me when the British public ever got the opportunity to vote on anything to do with firearms please?

I can only remember arbitary laws enforced as a result of kneejerk reaction, laws which totally missed the point, as statistics have since shown.

Would have loved the chance to vote in a referendum about handguns, really would.:(

BEagle

12th Apr 2003, 20:59

Of course the main problem is that some greasy lawyer will manage to prove that the sonofabitch who broke into your home high on illegal substances and caused mayhem was probably misunderstood when he was young, poor lamb. So he’ll just get a mild ticking off from the beak and have to pick up litter in the local park for a few hours - and then do the same thing again.

Personally, if J Henry Redneck in the US is permitted to blast such low life trash into hamburger with a .38 or .50 then I couldn’t care less. They had it coming.....just hope that it b£oody well hurt.

Years and years ago, there was a good ‘Play for Today’ (I think) on TV. Some chap’s friends had been burgled and their home ruined whilst they’d been away on holiday. So he made a plan. He went into every low-life pub and club announcing that he was off to Spain for a month. Then packed up his car and very publicly left for his holiday, waving cheerio to his friends.

But he didn’t go anywhere. In the previous few weeks he’d constructed an inner cage in his house, which was hidden behind curtains etc. He went back to his house at dead of night and waited. Sure enough, some burglar broke in but was very surprised when the cage clanged shut on him. The owner then confronted him and reminded him that, as everyone knew only too well, he was actually away in Spain and so there’d be no-one around to let the burglar out for a month.............

The right to waste burglars, SASless? It'd get my vote - more strength to your trigger finger!

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 21:04

Excuse me :confused: :confused:

If I have it right, British private citizens are not permited to own any handguns. Is that correct? When did this law go into effect? How was the law promulgated? Would someone please enlighten me?

Mr Greenie

12th Apr 2003, 22:32

T_Richard,
Yes, you are correct. In the U.K, handguns can no longer be owned by the public.
The was a shooting in a school in Dunblane, in 1996, where one nutter went mad and shot up a town. Following that, the Government had a panic attack, and banned the public from owning any handguns.
It even extended as far as target pistols, which meant that the British olympic and Commonwealth teams then had to travel to mainland Europe to practice.
All that has happened since then, is the amount of gun crime continues to increase each year.
It just proves the old saying "when you criminalise guns, only criminals will have guns"

The government had exactly the same reaction a few years after Dunblane, when there was a spate of dogs attacking people.(mainly children). These were not generally family dogs, rather guard dogs, and dogs bread for fighting (illegal in the U.K). The majority of these were "pit bull type"dogs. (the pit bull is not a breed recognised by the U.K. kennel club). The Government then brought in the "Dangerous dogs act", which meant certain dogs had to be registered, muzzled in public and also microchipped.
It the police found one that was not registered or muzzled, it was put down, BUT, it was up to a panel of experts to first decide if it was a "pit bull type dog"
It makes a total mockery of the law if it takes a group of people to interpret it, as there is no definitive description of the type of dog.

I just want to state, I have never been a gun owner, nor have I ever owned a large dog, so I am not biased against either law. I am just stating my opinion of how stupid I think they both are.

Mr G

T_richard

12th Apr 2003, 22:54

Interesting, I assumed that the voters in the UK had more power than that or am I wrong in my basic premis. Is the vast majority of the poplulation in favor of this consfication

BEagle

13th Apr 2003, 00:05

Unfortunately it was a vocal minority who wanted legal possession of handguns in the UK banned. Whilst I had no desire to own one myself, the denial of a harmless, well regulated sporting activity to others was totally wrong. Similarly, if a shooting club allowed its members to fire an AK47 in a disused railway tunnel under controlled conditions, where was the harm?

Ranger One

13th Apr 2003, 00:46

Jackonicko,

Does anyone have the statistics for the number of armed criminals killed by homeowners? And unarmed criminals?

It's a worthwhile point. In the USA, it's one of the points of contention between pro- and anti- right to bear arms folks.

The problem is, the collection of statistics... if an armed criminal is killed, it's probable that no crime has been commited, and it won't be recorded. The more general problem is figuring out exactly how many crimes are *prevented* by gun use, without a shot even being fired. Can range from a homeowner simply displaying a gun to a burglar and them turning tail, to the burglar who decides to 'walk on bye' when he sees an 'armed response' sign, to the non-specific 'general deterrent' to crime, of knowing that many of the people around you are armed.

It's very difficult to collect statistics on crimes that *don't* happen!

The figures do seem to bear out the view that, where guns are widely owned and carried, crime is lower. Where laws that permit this are introduced, crime goes down.

To what extent this is cause and effect is another matter for debate!

R1

T_richard

13th Apr 2003, 02:22

********Unfortunately it was a vocal minority who wanted legal possession of handguns in the UK banned.

I just sent the NRA a check for a lifetime membership. Someone on this thread I think it was Mike Jenvey claimed membership in the UK version of the NRA. What happened to them, didn't they protest this ban?:confused: :confused:

Groundgripper

13th Apr 2003, 03:32

T_richard

Sure we protested, individually and through our national shooting associations, both to politicians and through the press.

Unfortunately, pistol shooters are a small minority in the UK and are regarded as politically insignificant by both politicians and (especially) by the press who knew that they had got hold of a good story and saw great opportunities for increasing their circulation figures by campaigning for a ban. The politicians also recognised that, in the face of this press campaign, any member of parliament who stood up for shooters would stand a significant chance of not being re-elected next time round. It happened shortly before a general election, increasing their instincts for self preservation. As BEagle said, it was a vocal minority, ably supported by a compliant press, that campaigned for a ban.

I believe that there is still an action against the government going through the European Courts to the effect that shooters have had their human rights infringed by this ban.

My wife and I make no secret of the fact that we both indulge in target shooting as a sport, should the subject arise in the course of conversation - we do not, however, go around advertising the fact. In the six years since Dunblane, neither of us has met anyone who has believed that the handgun gun ban was put in place for other than reasons of political expedience, or that it has resulted in a significant decrease in gun related crime.

PS: is anyone else amazed that this thread hasn't been moved to another forum?

Lu Zuckerman

13th Apr 2003, 07:24

I M Esperto says that in New Jersey you can’t own a handgun. When I worked in Alabama I was eligible at six months to not only purchase a gun I could get a carry permit. Since I already owned a gun all I had to do was register it and apply for the permit. When I worked in Indiana I was eligible to purchase a handgun with six months residency. When I lived in Montana I purchased a Ruger 45 caliber automatic. I had to fill out the Brady forms, which were faxed, to the County Sheriff for filing and investigation of my background. I asked the gun storeowner what the Sheriff did with the papers. I was told he filed them in the wastebasket. I asked why and was told first of all the Sheriff was totally against the Brady Bill and secondly the Federal Government did not provide the necessary funding for the background investigation.

Note: Just about everybody in Montana carries a gun or has one in his car or pick-up or, both.
In Texas the bars have signs that state it is unlawful to bring a handgun onto the premises.

:hmm:

T_richard

13th Apr 2003, 13:25

Well If you wanted to point out the safety problems of gun ownership in the USA, here it is on Yahoo Entertainment News 4/10/03

**********SEAN PENN The surly ex-Spicoli is on the hunt for his old-school black 1987 Buick Grand National, which was stolen Tuesday in Berkeley, California, in plain daylight, off a busy street, while he ate lunch in a nearby restaurant. The car crook also snagged two guns, a loaded 9mm Glock and an unloaded .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, Penn kept inside.

The idiot HAS a carry permit, but he can't remember to keep the pistol with him. And what is he doing with a second gun in the car. So now there are two new guns in the secondary market, I wonder if he'll be held accountable for his gross stupidity. He must have been so distraught after GWB didin't head his advice on Foreign Policy in the Middle East.

For all my UK antagonists, this is the problem in America, its not that we own so many hand guns its that any Hollywood moron can get one and then they screw up royally making the reast of us look like terrorists.

Can't you find a nice flat for Mr. Penn in London, I'll pay his airfare over, please

:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

SASless

13th Apr 2003, 21:38

Mike,

Another fact we have to bear in mind....the difference in the population density...land use practices...basically the availibility of wide open spaces in most parts of the USA where shooting firearms presents no problem as compared to the UK where the opposite situation exists. For all of the people that criticize the NRA....they (the NRA) very strongly support the safe , legal use of firearms to include the establishment, operation, and publication of proper ranges.

The basic problem with gun control is that all of the laws and bans being pushed by the anti-gun lobby are targetted at the law abiding citizen and not the criminal element that are in violation of the current myriad of gun laws now in existence. If one were to carry their concepts to the end....there would be no cars....due to the death and injury rate from accidents. Loggers would be training beavers to fell trees....due to the accidents from the use of chain saws.....and on and on.

It is not the lawful, safe use of firearms that causes the problem....I fail to see the difference in being killed by an armed robber if he uses a gun, axe, baseball bat, or knitting needle.....I am just as dead.

Unfortunately, our casual attitude is towards the lack of punishment for the violent criminal. Take yourself back to the recent murder of two young girls in the UK.....even with all of the press coverage it got....as horrific as the murders were.....they for all intents and purposes have been forgotten and the killer will not face the death penalty himself. Where is the justice in that?

MightyGem

13th Apr 2003, 23:02

Groundgripper, I had wondered that myself actually as the only post with any vague military connections was the first!

Excellent debate though, by two sides neither of which is going to give any ground.

SASless

13th Apr 2003, 23:31

Mike,

In North Carolina...when we instituted a mandatory seven year prison sentence (no plea bargain, no parole, no probation) for armed robbery....the robbery rate plummeted. Currently...armed robbery can fetch from 7-20 years in the State Pen. IMHO, a mandatory sentence of 30 years would be fair too.

When you begin to run statistics....some very politically uncorrect numbers will jump out at you particularly when filtered by RACE....

An example...when I was a police officer in Charlotte, North Carolina...stats noted 90% of violent crime was committed by 30% of the population based upon ethnicity. Blacks thus committed violent crimes at a rate three times of other races. Black men under the age of 25 are involved with the criminal justice system as prisoners, on parole, probation, work release, or under arrest awaiting trial to the tune of 60% of the blackmale under 25 population. Murder is the biggest killer of young black men....their killers are also black in the vast majority of the events.

The really sad thing is the Black Community in general, refuses to accept any responsibility for this situation. The breakdown of the family, traditional refusal to assist the police, rampant rate ofout of marriage births, drug use and trafficking, school leaving....all are factors that contribute to this and yet, the Black leaders refuse to address the issue.

As the UK encounters a less homogenous culture, so too will the problems occur there as it has here. The old days of the Bobby being able to deal with criminals with a kind word and a firm manner will disappear. Criminals are predators....and prey on the weak and defenseless....that runs across all political boundaries.

In this country...where we have allowed ordinary people to carry concealed firearms....the crime rate has decreased dramatically. To date.....the incidents of criminal acts by properly licensed people are very rare.....rare enough to be considered nil. Logically, it would seem arming the victims is the right method....criminals will always seek out easier pickings. That is why a strong Neighborhood Watch system works....and it is the same for armed citizens. Right now...in most places...the crooks are the ones with the guns which is absolutely backwards in my book.