Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Right to bear arms (Split Duh!)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Right to bear arms (Split Duh!)

Old 11th Apr 2003, 11:29
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
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
T_richard is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 11:36
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
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.
SASless is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 12:02
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
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"
T_richard is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 14:17
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37
Moore

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.
SOMAT is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 15:41
  #45 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
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.
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 16:48
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Redhill
Posts: 13
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
pinkie is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 22:29
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SASless is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 22:58
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
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
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 23:03
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
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

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 ) pay for a very large military force which protects your righ to do so.

Apology accepted from a gracious gentleman

SOMAT

You have it right about Moore


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
T_richard is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 23:12
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
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.
46Driver is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2003, 23:44
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Unhappy

46Driver,

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

BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 01:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
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.
46Driver is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 05:20
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
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'.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 06:27
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
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.
SASless is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 07:01
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
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.

Last edited by Jackonicko; 12th Apr 2003 at 08:56.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 07:03
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Question

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.
Mr Greenie is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 08:05
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
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.
46Driver is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 08:36
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 360
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
Ranger One is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 09:01
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
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.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2003, 09:18
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
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.
46Driver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.