PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 09:00

Try carrying your knife in public...

bcgallacher 3rd Nov 2014 09:10

Magnus P - that's the more guns theory blown out of the water In fact it does no such thing as the only guns that were banned were handguns so obviously there has been no increase in the numbers of handguns The problem with the gun lobby is that most cannot see past their own self interest.Just be grateful for what we have compared to some countries.I spent most of my working life as a technical mercenary working worldwide- sometimes even with an armed bodyguard.I have been shot at on occasion - in none of those occasions would the possesion of a firearm helped indeed if I had been found with one I would probably been shot.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 09:23


Try carrying your knife in public...
I frequently do, if I'm asked to cook at either daughters' house. I never carried my guns in public other than in a locked gun box in the car. Guess which got banned.

Next!

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 09:36

Well Magnus, it is illegal to carry a knife with more than a three inch blade in public, without good reason. Your reason doesn't appear to be good enough. In effect, you are banned from carrying it.

Next...!

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 09:45

"Doesn't appear to be"? Legal expert, eh? How did you get your kitchen knives home from the department store?

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 09:54

Yep, there's one of the good reasons. :D

It's up to the court to decide if your reason was a good one.

Dushan 3rd Nov 2014 10:02

That's it Magnus. Even if you did nothing wrong, legally, we don't like what you did so we are going to punish you by process. It will cost you 10s of thousands to defend yourself. That will teach you to carry an inanimate object in the trunk of you car.


Police state anyone?

ExXB 3rd Nov 2014 10:03

An update from Interlaken:


According to a resident, interviewed by 20 Minuten, a man allegedly killed his wife and their child before killing himself.
Too many guns, too many gun deaths. Here and there!

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 10:07


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8725979)
That will teach you to carry an inanimate object in the trunk of you car.

Say what?.....

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 10:09

I suggest you take a better look at the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 also applies, in which "offensive weapon" is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him.

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 10:16

You mean this bit?


113. Thus in 1993 9 it became an offence under statute to have an article with a blade or sharp point in a public place. There was an exception for folding pocket knives where the blade was less than three inches. It was a defence to have the item in a public place if a 'good reason or lawful authority' could be established. Similarly if it could be proved that the item was for use at work, part of a national costume (such as a skean dhu) or being carried for religious reasons.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 10:18

Yep. Cooking dinner is a perfectly good reason. I've checked with several of the boys in blue, and none would detain or arrest as long as I could show that's what I was off to do.

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 10:20

Your daughters don't own any knives then?

Seldomfitforpurpose 3rd Nov 2014 10:59


Originally Posted by MagnusP (Post 8725903)
Hey, I didn't post the figures on more guns and fewer deaths. The fact that scrotes in kebab queues killing each other with knives hasn't led to a ban on my 10" Henkels chef's knife or a ban on my set of santoku knives ought to give you a clue as to why I don't think my guns should have had to be surrendered.

If given the choice between carrying an illegal knife or a legal handgun what do you think the average kebab queue young man is going to pick?

Clue.........only a fool would take a knife to a gun fight :ok:

So leaving your own personal situation to one side what do you think would be the real terms cost of reintroducing handgun ownership for the UZ population?

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 11:05

My daughters own knives; they're not as high-quality as mine as it took me a long time to be able to afford them, and my daughters are young.

My daughters' partners own chisels; they're not as high-quality as mine as it took me a long time to be able to afford them, and the partners are young.

My daughters own screwdrivers; they're not as high-quality as mine as it took me a long time to be able to afford them &c.

All of the above could, in the right (or wrong) circumstances, be classed as offensive weapons.

There's plenty of caselaw out there on "good reason".

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 11:09


What circumstances might establish 'lawful authority' or 'reasonable excuse' or 'good reason'?

123. In each case the facts and circumstances have to be weighed and assessed. A jobbing gardener had an axe in the driver's door pocket of his car. He claimed it was for his work as a gardener but since it was not stored in a tool bag in the boot of the car with the other tools but within the driver's door such a reason was not accepted by the court and he was convicted of a contravention of Section 49(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. 14
Like I say it is up to the court to decide if your reason was good enough. I hope for your sake that some young thruster of a copper doesn't pinch you as you're carrying your knife around because it may be decided that taking a knife to a house which already has knives is, well, not necessary.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 11:31

Seldom, I simply won't leave my personal situation out of it, as a law punished me for the actions of others. That is wrong.

In the US, there are, it seems, state limits on who can own guns, but a constitutional right to own them; that is fine by me. In the UK, kebab scrote is unlikely to either apply for, or gain, a firearms license which would let him wave a handgun around outside Mario's late-night takeaway. Concealed or open-carry? Not gonna happen. Either way, his carried weapon in Mario's is illegal, not licensed.

LSM, what do you think my illegal intent might be when my knives are in a knife roll in the boot of the car? Hardly the same as an axe in the door pocket, is it? Got a citation for the case? Context is sort of important.


Like I say it is up to the court to decide if your reason was good enough.
Nope; it's first of all up to the police to decide whether they think an offence may have been committed, then COPFS to decide whether the evidence merits a prosecution, then a sheriff, or sheriff and jury to decide whether I was guilty.


(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place.


Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 11:42

Carrying your knives in public which


Originally Posted by MagnusP (Post 8725940)
[you] frequently do,

Isn't the same as

when my knives are in a knife roll in the boot of the car?
You are being disingenuous.


Got a citation for the case?
I suggest you take a better look at the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 also applies, in which "offensive weapon" is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him.

In this instance the police did decided an offence had been committed and the guy was convicted by the court. It is a similar situation to you having a roll of knives I your boot.

PTT 3rd Nov 2014 11:50


Originally Posted by MagnusP (Post 8725785)
Now, if correlation = causation applies

It doesn't, ever.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 11:53

BS there. If I'm carrying my knife roll from car to house (and back), I'm carrying it in a public place, but with reasonable excuse. No disingenuity there; simple fact. MacKenzie, in the case you pointed to, (a) ran a red, which is why he was stopped, (b) became agitated when the police offered to get his jacket from the car and (c) failed to persuade the sheriff that he had a reasonable excuse.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 11:56

PTT, I agre, which is why the "more guns = more deaths" argument is being called out by several on this and other threads.

Lord Spandex Masher 3rd Nov 2014 11:58

Hold up, first you frequently carry it in public, then it's in the boot of your car in a roll and now you're carrying the roll between car and house. Do you need the definition of "in public"?


in view of other people; when others are present.
"men don't cry in public"
synonyms: publicly, in full view of people/the public, openly, in the open, for all to see, undisguisedly, blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, with no attempt at concealment, overtly, boldly, audaciously, unashamedly, shamelessly, unabashed, wantonly, immodestly; coram populo
antonyms: secretly
No, carrying a piece of rolled up cloth or leather isn't the same as carrying a knife, is it.

So you do not, despite what you say, openly carry a knife in public.

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 12:58

Please point out the post # where I claimed I carried my knives openly in public, as YOU now claim I did.

Mr Chips 3rd Nov 2014 14:19

How the hell do you think Chefs get knives to and from jobs? The case YOU cited LSM did not involve the axe being carried openly in public... You need to start posting by your own rules.....

MagnusP 3rd Nov 2014 14:50

Just checked with a judge, and carrying my knives TO my daughters', or bringing them home FROM my daughters' houses is perfectly OK. Wandering about in the street with them without the to/from explanation is potentially an offence. LSM, of course, clearly knows better than senior judiciary. :ugh:

PTT 3rd Nov 2014 15:05


Originally Posted by MagnusP (Post 8726128)
PTT, I agre, which is why the "more guns = more deaths" argument is being called out by several on this and other threads.

Is anyone actually making that argument?

ExXB 3rd Nov 2014 15:15


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8726342)
Is anyone actually making that argument?

Actually PTT I am. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, we also have the highest rate of gun deaths in Europe.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the 'west'. It also has the highest rate of gun death in the 'west'.

Q.E.D.

Wishful thinking that it ain't true, doesn't make it not true.

BOING 3rd Nov 2014 15:29

PTT
Yes I am saying the "more guns equals more deaths" statement is rubbish and I have shown how I can prove this.

Now, how about getting back to the subject in hand instead of wittering like old ladies about unconnected subjects such as motor cars and kitchen knives.

I am still waiting for just one suggestion that might help end gun violence in the US. PTT made an effort which could help partially but all the rest of you noisemakers have talked your heads off without making one, not one, practical suggestion about how we should deal with the problem.

The explanation of course is that you have absolutely no idea what to do about US gun violence. You are willing to criticise, you are willing to make fun, you hare willing to wring your hands and say "why don't those people do something about this", you make comments about the US character and you criticise our society but you are really a bunch of clueless gas bags.

For the 10th, 20th time I say to you MAKE JUST ONE CONSTRUCTIVE, PRACTICAL, WORKABLE, SUGGESTION TO HELP REDUCE AMERICAN GUN VIOLENCE. Otherwise STFU and go to the UK thread.


.

PTT 3rd Nov 2014 15:32

ExXB - that's a correlation, not a causation. The argument is not causal.

BOING

Yes I am saying the "more guns equals more deaths" statement is rubbish and I have shown how I can prove this.
Your own "proof" was based on a strawman. Nobody is actually making the argument you disproved. The argument being made by ExXB is that the gun death rate increases with the rate of ownership, and it does.

PTT made an effort which could help partially
...
For the 10th, 20th time I say to you MAKE JUST ONE CONSTRUCTIVE, PRACTICAL, WORKABLE, SUGGESTION TO HELP REDUCE AMERICAN GUN VIOLENCE. Otherwise STFU and go to the UK thread.
I guess that means I have your leave to stay :P

ExXB 3rd Nov 2014 15:42


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8726380)
ExXB - that's a correlation, not a causation. The argument is not causal.

It certainly is a correlation. Is it a causation? Saying it isn't one, doesn't mean it isn't.

In my humble opinion it is a causation, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is not.

There are too many frigging guns out there and too many innocents are injured and dying as a result. Both here and there.

Seldomfitforpurpose 3rd Nov 2014 15:46


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8726377)
For the 10th, 20th time I say to you MAKE JUST ONE CONSTRUCTIVE, PRACTICAL, WORKABLE, SUGGESTION TO HELP REDUCE AMERICAN GUN VIOLENCE. Otherwise STFU and go to the UK thread.



I have offered up on several occasions, in this and other threads the following ideas


Mandatory training on each weapon purchased at time of purchase.


Mandatory secure gun storage where the weapon is to be housed, the installation to be checked fit for purpose before guns can be taken home.


No notice checks for correct gun storage correct useage.


Unless the weapon is being carried it by it's legal owner it should be mandatory for it to be unloaded and stored securely to avoid accidental injury.


Periodic refresher training.


Annual medical check to ensure an individual is fit for weapon ownership.


I take all of the above from my RAF days, all makes sound sense in the military so why not think about those ideas...........


I already know that a couple of Amendment's get infringed but what the heck

BOING 3rd Nov 2014 15:49

ExxB

Sorry, you are arguing the wrong point. The contention is whether "more guns equals more deaths" not "more gun owners equals more deaths".

The argument "more guns equals more deaths" is used by antis in the US to encourage a complete gun ban. Point one is that "more guns" does not correctly imply more gun owners (in terms of guns owners per 100 population etc) since the same person can own several guns which leads to "more guns" but not "more gun owners". Point two is the obvious extension, only "owners" of guns can be responsible for a gun death and, generally, only one of their guns will cause the death so the existence of the person's other guns is irrelevant.

This may seem a small detail in terms of Switzerland where the guns are probably at one or two per person but in the US, with 300 million guns out there it is important. Although the US is claimed to have 9 guns for every 10 members of the population in actual fact the number of gun owners is thought to be between 66% and as low as 33% of the population (obviously not well researched numbers). When you think about it a low ownership rate is quite possible since this would only mean, on average, each gun owner owning three guns instead of one, perfectly feasible.

Deliberate confusion over these numbers permits wild claims based on statistics. Read the description on the axes of graphs carefully! (if they are provided at all).

An associated distortion is the number of FAMILYS owning guns. Families do not own guns, individuals own guns, but you will see the "number of families" owning guns figure used when it benefits someones argument.


.

Mr Chips 3rd Nov 2014 15:52


I already know that a couple of Amendment's get infringed but what the heck
Then its already a non starter. Americans take their rights and freedoms very seriously, and if you can't understand that then you really will struggle to comment on how they do things.

Dushan 3rd Nov 2014 15:55


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8726397)
I have offered up on several occasions, in this and other threads the following ideas


Mandatory training on each weapon purchased at time of purchase.


Mandatory secure gun storage where the weapon is to be housed, the installation to be checked fit for purpose before guns can be taken home.


No notice checks for correct gun storage correct useage.


Unless the weapon is being carried it by it's legal owner it should be mandatory for it to be unloaded and stored securely to avoid accidental injury.


Periodic refresher training.


Annual medical check to ensure an individual is fit for weapon ownership.


I take all of the above from my RAF days, all makes sound sense in the military so why not think about those ideas...........


I already know that a couple of Amendment's get infringed but what the heck

Those are all ideas for end action. The question is how do you actually enact them? You can't just say, "from now on, because SFFP said so on PPRuNe, we are going to do this".

Remember the lawmakers will do what keeps them elected. Enacting all these rules, in their opinion, and most likely from experience, tells them it's a non-starter.

galaxy flyer 3rd Nov 2014 16:16

Mandatory training on each weapon purchased at time of purchase.

I have a half dozen break open shotguns, exactly what does this accomplish--they work the same and done so for a 100 years?


Mandatory secure gun storage where the weapon is to be housed, the installation to be checked fit for purpose before guns can be taken home. Required in my state and most states. Who gets to decide "fit for purpose, who pays? Mrs. Lanza's guns were correctly stored, wacko kid was given the "keys" to the safe.


No notice checks for correct gun storage correct useage. first, the police have better things to do than rummaging thru one-third of US households. Second, they'll need probable cause and a search warrant. Lastly, the ONLY intent is to harass the law abiding into giving up their rights--both gun rights and to be secure in their homes.


Unless the weapon is being carried it by it's legal owner it should be mandatory for it to be unloaded and stored securely to avoid accidental injury.
Unenforceable until after the accident


Periodic refresher training. Why? It's a simple mechanical device, not a military cannon run by recruits.


Annual medical check to ensure an individual is fit for weapon ownership. My state has the toughest gun controls in the country, it refuses to cooperate with the Feds on reporting mental health issues due to privacy concerns. No one has a record of mental disturbance that is reported for gun permits. HUGE loophole. One of my club's shooters does pretty well at 85 with cataracts. High score some days.

Finally, exactly what will any of this do to stop the epidemic of inner city gun violence? Nada! Just about every bit of that is practiced at places like the one where the little girl shot the instructor. Most of it applied to Newtown shooter, it didn't work there.

Regarding the RAF, the Ft Hood shooter was in a strictly enforced "no gun" zone, the laws there didn't prevent him. With all those rules, there are plenty of accidental discharges and deaths in the military and the police.

GF

PTT 3rd Nov 2014 16:50


Originally Posted by ExXB (Post 8726392)
It certainly is a correlation. Is it a causation? Saying it isn't one, doesn't mean it isn't.

True enough.

In my humble opinion it is a causation, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is not.
You don't need to prove something is not, you have to prove that it is. The default position of any claim should be scepticism.

BOING

Sorry, you are arguing the wrong point. The contention is whether "more guns equals more deaths" not "more gun owners equals more deaths".
It would probably be for the best if you didn't try to tell him what his argument is :ok:

galaxy flyer

Why? It's a simple mechanical device, not a military cannon run by recruits.
Because knowledge breeds respect. There are plenty (like those here) who go to the range regularly, and I think that should count. There are also plenty who do not, and those are the ones being targeted with the idea of refresher training.

con-pilot 3rd Nov 2014 16:50

LSM


Good England :ugh:
Would that be as compared to 'Bad England'?

The title of the thread I was referring to is:

"Should UK Hand Gun Laws be reversed?"


Now, as for the "(Subject)" bit I posted, that was just some bait that I tossed out there just to see who would bite.

You never disappoint me LSM. :p

BOING 3rd Nov 2014 17:21

PTT


Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusP View Post
PTT, I agre, which is why the "more guns = more deaths" argument is being called out by several on this and other threads.
Is anyone actually making that argument?
Yes, someone is making that argument. In post 917 ExxB said:

Too many guns, too many gun deaths
The implication clearly being that gun quantity is the problem.


BOING
Quote:
Sorry, you are arguing the wrong point. The contention is whether "more guns equals more deaths" not "more gun owners equals more deaths".
It would probably be for the best if you didn't try to tell him what his argument is
The relationship of "guns" and "gun owners" is important because the two statistics are used incorrectly to "prove" what people want to show.
Read my post 952.

.

PTT 3rd Nov 2014 18:21

BOING

The implication clearly being that gun quantity is the problem.
Maybe you should actually read something other than what you want to read. He expounds his (admittedly flawed) argument here:
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, we also have the highest rate of gun deaths in Europe.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the 'west'. It also has the highest rate of gun death in the 'west'.

Q.E.D.

Seldomfitforpurpose 3rd Nov 2014 18:56


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8726423)
Mandatory training on each weapon purchased at time of purchase.

I have a half dozen break open shotguns, exactly what does this accomplish--they work the same and done so for a 100 years?

You have half a dozen, what about the first time buyer? It would also seem that registering your guns is not always required so how does the store guy 'know' you have half a dozen?

Mandatory secure gun storage where the weapon is to be housed, the installation to be checked fit for purpose before guns can be taken home. Required in my state and most states. Who gets to decide "fit for purpose, who pays? Mrs. Lanza's guns were correctly stored, wacko kid was given the "keys" to the safe.

The State decides 'fit for purpose', you want a gun you pay for it, you want a car if it needs tyres you buy them.

No notice checks for correct gun storage correct useage. first, the police have better things to do than rummaging thru one-third of US households. Second, they'll need probable cause and a search warrant. Lastly, the ONLY intent is to harass the law abiding into giving up their rights--both gun rights and to be secure in their homes.

Works perfectly well over here and why would a honest gun owner require the Police to have probable cause and a warrant? If you have nothing to hide what's the problem, if you have something to hide should you own a gun?

Unless the weapon is being carried it by it's legal owner it should be mandatory for it to be unloaded and stored securely to avoid accidental injury.
Unenforceable until after the accident



Really, how's about a mandatory 10 year prison sentence and life time forfeiture of Gun Ownership rights?

Periodic refresher training. Why? It's a simple mechanical device, not a military cannon runby recruits.

Why would that cause you a problem then, pitch up at your local range, 15 minute Weapons Handling check and the jobs done. You guys spend most of your time at the range anyway so not seeing how this would be too difficult?

Annual medical check to ensure an individual is fit for weapon ownership. My state has the toughest gun controls in the country, it refuses to cooperate with the Feds on reporting mental health issues due to privacy concerns. No one has a record of mental disturbance that is reported for gun permits. HUGE loophole. One of my club's shooters does pretty well at 85 with cataracts. High score some days.

Change it then so that an annual med check is required and the Doc signs off on your medical suitability to own a weapon.

Finally, exactly what will any of this do to stop the epidemic of inner city gun violence? Nada! Absolutely, but stopping illegal gun crime is not what the above is about. Just about every bit of that is practiced at places like the one where the little girl shot the instructor but clearly not at the place where the little girl shot the instructor. Most of it applied to Newtown shooter, it didn't work there.

Regarding the RAF, the Ft Hood shooter was in a strictly enforced "no gun" zone, the laws there didn't prevent him. None of the above are designed to stop the guy/girl going postal with his/her own guns. With all those rules, there are plenty of accidental discharges and deaths in the military and the police. When I served in Northern Ireland the standard rate for a negligent discharge was 1 months salary and that was just for letting your weapon go 'bang' at the dedicated unloading point!

GF

All the above offers is improved safety for the legal gun owner and his family and friends.


Someone asked for ideas and there they are with no mention of gun bans.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.