Gun control is DUMB [Archive] - TD Talk(Formally Dumb Laws)

March 30th, 2001, 10:28 AM

Why gun control is dumb:

1. Who is more likely to obey a gun control law, the law abiding citizen or the criminal? That's right, gun control disarms honest people while posing only a minor inconvenience to felons. New York, Washington DC and California have some of the toughest gun cntrol laws in the country, and some pretty high levels of criminal gun violence.

2. Gun control is impractical. We should have learned from prohibition that banning something people want only creates a profitable market for criminals. Yet we still persist in the phony "war on drugs", which has done bugger-all to keep drugs off the street. I live in a rural county, but you give me $25 and I'll get a rock of crack in half an hour. Ban handguns, completely, and I'll still be able to get one from a criminal profiteer.

3. Gun control is a tool of political power disguised as concern for public safety. The "authorities" want you dependent on their law enforcement agencies for protection, so they can justify ever bigger staffs and budgets. Problem is, they can't protect you. All they can do is show up after you've been robbed or stabbed and file a report.

4. Gun control laws are written by people who know zip about guns. A good example is the ban on handgun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This is a dumb law. It forced retooling on manufacturers, it costs public money to administer and enforce, and it accomplishes exactly nothing to reduce crime. Why? Because anyone with minimal training can swap magazines so fast you'll hardly hear a pause in the shooting.

5. Gun control does not address the root causes of crime and violence -- an alienated society full of imcompetent parents too busy with their careers and "active lifestyle" to raise ethical kids; the ever widening gap between haves and have-nots; more dumb laws that get a person more jail time fo rbeating a dog than for raping a woman. It's a cop-out from politicians who know that can't do anything significant before the next election, so they promote gun control to show they are "tough on crime", even though gun control does nothing to reduce crime.

6. The most important reason gun control is dumb: Self-defense is the right of every person in a civilized society. If you are attacked, you may defend yourself; otherwise you don't have civilization, you have tyranny or anarchy. Having a right is meaningless without access to the tools to exercise that right. Freedom of the press would be a joke if the government owned all the printing presses.

To sum up, gun control is ethically indefensible, unworkable in the real world, and no answer to the problems it claims to address. It's dumb law.

March 30th, 2001, 10:35 AM

Good job David, to bad some folks don't get it!!

Serendipity

March 30th, 2001, 06:17 PM

Let's clear some of this up, I've been involved in the DumbLaws gun debates in the past, and I've had to reform my opinions - I accept that with the situation as it is, there's a strong argument for the right to bear arms in the US. I don't live in the US, neither does ScotsLaw nor Ada, and we all feel strongly about the gun problem there, and we definitely don't want a similar problem here. We see a high homicide rate, kids gunning other schoolkids down, the occasional rightwing lunatic arming himself to the teeth, and so on.

If I accept the arguments for not tightening gun control, will all those who promote this argument answer this hypothetical question: If you could press a magic button which would take all the non-agricultural or sporting (ie hunting/claypigeon/target shooting) guns out of America, would you press it? If so, why, and if not, why not?

If my country had a gun problem as bad as the US does, I would press that button!

Idnew

March 30th, 2001, 08:02 PM

Since we have discussed gun laws before I'm not going to get in it again. I'll allow this topic because of the new members. Welcome btw to all of you.

Gun control is dumb as you can get a gun from anywhere if your hell bent on getting one. Even the guns that you keep locked up. If your child is really wanting to shoot someone, he will get a gun from somebody.

------------------
(ö¿ö)Too Many Freaks, Not Enough Circuses(ô¿ô)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm) My Family (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/MyFamily.htm)

Idnew

March 30th, 2001, 08:18 PM

Archives

Gun Free Home (http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000197.html)

Dumb Law To Be (http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000048.html)

Gun Suit (http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000022.html)

------------------
(ö¿ö)Too Many Freaks, Not Enough Circuses(ô¿ô)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm) My Family (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/MyFamily.htm)

cleoeo

March 31st, 2001, 08:31 AM

I own guns. I also own cars. There are laws regulating both that I follow.

Yes Dippy, if I could get rid of all the handguns and assault rifles in this country by pushing a button I would. If you need more than 3 shots to kill a deer then you do not belong in the woods. If you think you need a ten shot clip to deter burglers then you are a nut. I hit what I aim at; I do not aim at people. I honestly think that many urban gun owners are not really hoping to deter anybody, but instead are harboring a fantasy about shooting someone. Scary.

Ada_Doom

April 2nd, 2001, 04:36 AM

Having read and digested all that, I would say:
I agree with Dippy, in the UK, guns are less of a problem, and I don't want them to become one, therefore I support gun control

I realise that controls don't stop criminals getting guns, but as I said in a previous post, criminals carry guns because their victims do. If less "honest citizens" are armed, then a gun is no longer first on the criminals checklist when he's ´planning a crime.

The more guns there are hanging about, the easier it is for untrained/underage/generally untrustworthy people/people who used to be a crack shot but are now 89, arthritic and myopic to get hold of them.

Ergo gun controls are a very good idea.

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

Lis

April 2nd, 2001, 08:35 AM

Gun laws were put into place here in Oz after the horific Port Arthur Massica (sp?). Something like 32 people were murdered by a crazed gunman for no good reason and the government made the decision to recall thousands of guns. I'm not going to say that this place is conentedly gun-free but I think it was a really smart move. However, I dont live in the US and protection against crazy people isn't really an issue for me so I can only say that gun laws were a superb move for Australia....I dont like guns in the hands of civillians without permits and I feel safer (maybe falsely) now that these laws exist.

April 2nd, 2001, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
... but as I said in a previous post, criminals carry guns because their victims do. If less "honest citizens" are armed, then a gun is no longer first on the criminals checklist when he's ´planning a crime.

This is one of the most counterintuitive ideas I have ever read. Do you REALLY believe this? The criminal wants superiority in force, not parity.

paulgro

April 2nd, 2001, 11:20 AM

Actually she's right. The professional burgler doesn't carry a weapon when robbing a house. They know if caught it gives them a longer jail sentence. This doesn't mean squat to the mugger on the street, but it does keep the professional in line.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

Lis

April 2nd, 2001, 10:46 PM

Ohhh superb....I'm glad that the professionals are in line and only the violent inexperienced burglars are out and about....makes me feel just dandy http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

paulgro

April 2nd, 2001, 11:47 PM

Which do you want? The truth or to feel better?

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

Ada_Doom

April 3rd, 2001, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by David Scott:
Do you REALLY believe this? The criminal wants superiority in force, not parity.

My point was, that he could achieve superiority WITHOUT having a firearm

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

April 3rd, 2001, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
My point was, that he could achieve superiority WITHOUT having a firearm

Do you really think a criminal has enough sense of "fair play" to decide that, since his victims may not have guns, he shouldn't either? No. He would just see the gun as a bigger advantage, and use it.

PlayCrackTheSky

April 3rd, 2001, 02:59 PM

Gun controll will never fly because of the NRA and the 2nd admendment it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

------------------
"I might run and hide but Ill never tell a lie thats me in a nut shell"

~wildangel~

April 3rd, 2001, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Paquin:
I dont hink that gun control is dumb. Do we want criminals to have free access to them? I think not! Guns can be sometimes a serious threat to public security and they nust be controled IMO.

Well then you better take all them guns away from then now because everybody owns one...and there going to be able to get guns one way or the other, it wont make it any harder for you to get one beleive me.
As long as there are mobs, gangs, stupid people that leave guns around for there children to get a hold of theres always going to be guns.
Yes there harmfull when you use them in a harmfull way but controlling them is just going to make people want to bring them in more, Just My opinion,
I dont want bambi killed either tho http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"

My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

Lis

April 3rd, 2001, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by paulgro:
Which do you want? The truth or to feel better?

I'd like both but I know it's not possible.

Ada_Doom

April 4th, 2001, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by David Scott:
Do you really think a criminal has enough sense of "fair play" to decide that, since his victims may not have guns, he shouldn't either? No. He would just see the gun as a bigger advantage, and use it.

Shall we just accept that you are a cynic, and I am an optimist and we will never agree on human nature!

Duo. Can I point out that the 2nd Amendment was written a very long time ago, and the times have changed a bit, and what may have been a good law all those years ago, is now a touch outdated.

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

~wildangel~

April 4th, 2001, 11:20 AM

Ada, I dont mean to maul your post, I do think it's good to be optomistic but reality is...
guns are'nt outdated http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/otn/animals/elkgrin.gif

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"

My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

PlayCrackTheSky

April 4th, 2001, 06:16 PM

I agree it is out dated but we cant change it so where screwed.

------------------
"I might run and hide but Ill never tell a lie thats me in a nut shell"

CBranski

April 4th, 2001, 06:42 PM

I don't think that guns are an outdated piece of equipment. I think that the 2nd Amendment does offer us some protection against a tyrannical government, but not much-this country has enough weapons at its disposal to neutralize any so-called "freedom fighters" who are equipped with 9-millimeter pistols and deer rifles.

The issue with me really is protection. I live in a large American city where the police chief is a moron that has turned the force into a joke. (he got his job apparently because he knew the mayor was having an affair with one of his employees.) Case in point: I had to call my District Station one time and got NO ANSWER ON THE OTHER END! In such an environment, I need to take steps to protect myself if someone decides to break in or what have you. (And no, I have no desire to kill a burglar, I just have a desire to get him away from me.)

Also, it should be noted that much of America is rural, and even a top-notch force can take a great deal of time to get to your residence because of the distance that must be traveled. Thus again, you have to take steps to defend yourself if need be.

A certain amount of gun laws are necessary, but I believe truly we need to stricly enforce the ones we already have in place. The judicial system needs to inconvenience the criminals, rather than the law-abiding citizens. (As we know, the latter is usually the case.)

------------------
"Every Man a King, But No One Wears a Crown."
"If You Can't Beat Them, Arrange to Have Them Beaten."

~wildangel~

April 4th, 2001, 09:13 PM

I agree with CB because there not outdated there being used as we speak.
My husband and I do not have a gun because we don't feel we need one (we live in a rough neighborhood but know everyone in it, were not worried about it really)and I prefer us not to have one because I don't want my kids growing up with guns just for the fact of accidental shooting and things like that. BUT, yes theres always a but isnt there? A big but, a small but, but I dont think there is anything wrong with hunters and people who collect them for whatever reason they choose to, so I cannot say I'm against guns.
Just like someone is not to ban me of the things that I want to do, like banning alcohol. Sure it kills people but I drink cautiously and am not dumb enough to drive intoxicated.
My choice is to not have guns in my home because of my kids and we dont really care for them that much anyways, maybe when the kids are grown my hubby might want to collect them, who knows, but other people like hunting, shooting targets, protecting there property from vandals and burglars and feeling secure in there own way.
I do not think guns should be controlled unless we control everything else in the world too, personally though, I could care less if they ban them cause it is'nt going to hurt me any, it might just piss ppl off!
But then again who knows http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gifhehe

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"

My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

Ada_Doom

April 5th, 2001, 02:24 AM

I didn't say guns were outdates, I said maybe a law that was passed over a century ago could maybe do with a rewrite to make it more relevant to the modern age. Lets face it, a law made in the seventies could probably do with an update by now, so the second amendment is long overdue!

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

Ada_Doom

April 5th, 2001, 02:26 AM

P.S. And if you now all write back and tell me the 2nd Amendment was passed in 1989 or something, can I borrow someones gun to top myself with? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

Scotslaw

April 5th, 2001, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
P.S. And if you now all write back and tell me the 2nd Amendment was passed in 1989 or something, can I borrow someones gun to top myself with? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

You're alright Ada, the 2nd Amendment was passed in 1791, along with nine others, to make the Bill of Rights, passed to reassure the general public that the Federal government only has powers positively granted by the Constitution, rather than a generally unlimited ambit of power (OK, that's a little simplistic, but who really wants to go into the implied powers?).

I do have a couple of questions for the Americans (any of you law or politics graduates?) that I've always wondered about the 2nd Amendment. I'm not coming out on either side of the gun debate with these questions, they are just things I've generally wondered about this amendment, and would like them explained.

1) The 2nd Amendment was passed to allow the citizens to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia to protect the USA from enemies both foreign and domestic, a standing army being seen as a tool of tyranny and something the USA did not need. Since you now have a standing army, and no longer view it as a tool of tyranny, doesn't this kind of fly in the face of the amendment? The history of the amendment makes it clear that the 2 are incompatible. Which would you get rid of, if you had to get rid of one, the 2nd Amendment, or the United States Army?

2) Since the right to bear arms is for the purposes of forming a militia, shouldn't everyone who owns a gun be part of a militia?

3) What is with the Michigan militia? (OK, I realise this has little to do with the 2nd amendment, it just came to me because I've typed the word militia so many times. Seriously though, what are they all about? When I was stateside militias got mentioned a few times, but people kind of shut up whenever the Michigan militia were mentioned.)

PlayCrackTheSky

April 5th, 2001, 06:16 PM

The Michigan militia is a militia. I dont know whats up with them hey think the govenment is out to get rid of guns or somthing. There a bunch of phycos if you ask me.

------------------
"I might run and hide but Ill never tell a lie thats me in a nut shell"

wendy66

April 8th, 2001, 11:26 PM

We don't need Gun Control- we need SELF CONTROL.... People KILL People , whether it is w/ an axe, gun, bomb, duct tape or fist. Work on the people and you won't need to worry about the weapons... (and by the way who is raising the self-absorbed monsters killing for pleasure?)

Ada_Doom

April 9th, 2001, 02:12 AM

That is a very fair point Wendy, I just don't like the fact that there are guns lying around all over the place.

------------------
"There's always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort...."

artsmass

April 9th, 2001, 09:50 AM

1) The 2nd Amendment was passed to allow the citizens to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia to protect the USA from enemies both foreign and domestic, a standing army being seen as a tool of tyranny and something the USA did not need. Since you now have a standing army, and no longer view it as a tool of tyranny, doesn't this kind of fly in the face of the amendment? The history of the amendment makes it clear that the 2 are incompatible. Which would you get rid of, if you had to get rid of one, the 2nd Amendment, or the United States Army?

To any that care enough to read this rather lengthy post, James Madison `splained it best in the Federalist Papers, #46:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Kinda hard to argue that logic.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Scotslaw

April 9th, 2001, 03:51 PM

Man, I've got to sit down and reads them Federalist papers some day..... along with everything else that I feel I really should read, then end up not reading....

Madison, as ever, is a persuasive writer. What then caused the turn around, and the decision to have a standing army, which Madison felt was an "extravagant" supposition?

April 19th, 2001, 05:13 PM

I think, especially considering who wrote our Constitution, that allowing citizens to have guns is consistent with limiting the government's power. Consider that it was these weapons that kicked the British authorities out of this country. Each man could defend his own home.
Furthermore, the authority did not suit the citizens so they got rid of it. This concept was very important to our founding fathers. This was the justification for their authority as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. If not for guns in homes, we would be paying taxes to Buckingham Palace.
Although I do not own a gun, and never have, I will think real long and hard before I would allow any of the rights that these highly intelligent men gave me to be taken away. For then I would be then saying that I am more intelligent than Thomas Jefferson and friends and I don't know anyone who can make that claim. If we all surrendered any rights that we don't personally exercise, then none of us would have any rights left.
I also think that law abiding citizens are critical to the success of our system of government. They are the backbone of our society. Disarming them would not be productive. Making something illegal has never taken it out of the hands of criminals, only those who wish to obey the law. Examples are Prohibition, and the modern drug and gun problems. Outlaws simply don't care about laws. More laws don't affect them. They only affect law abiding citizens.

Ada_Doom

April 20th, 2001, 01:45 AM

(actually, you'd be paying taxes to the government, the Queen gets her money indirectly via the Civil List - just being a pedant)

I'm not denying that the writers of the US Constitution were great and enlightened men, but that was a long time ago. The world has changed, and with it people's needs and wishes. In a similar period of history, Napoleon was considered enlightened, the world was mst likely flat and people that believed Darwin were mad...

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

Scotslaw

April 20th, 2001, 04:27 AM

A lot of this debate hinges on whether you believe the right to bear arms is an inherent right or a derivative right, or even a declared right. An inherent right cannot ever be taken away from you, a derivative right, being necessary to the exercise of your inherent rights can only be regulated, but declared rights depend very greatly on the magnanomous nature of your legislature.

My right to freedom of movement does not inherently entitle me to have a car, or to drive it. I still need to abide by the rules the law has decided on, viz I need to be over 17, have passed my driving test, be insured for a minimum of 3rd party damage, obey the laws relating to use of the roads, and the minimum standards my car should be in.

Another thing to be distinguished, is the arguments for gun control, as opposed to prohibition of ownership of firearms. Controls on guns do not remove the right of ownership, but can be placed on their use, means of obtaining them, types allowed to be owned etc.

Finally, the argument that prohibition of something doesn't work, because only the law-abiding will follow it, whereas criminals won't, is not a logically good argument. Most laws are prohibitory (ie you must not do something.) Following the logic of this argument, laws against murder, theft, rape etc should be scrapped, as only the law-abiding obey them. Laws are always broken. The fact that law is broken does not argue against having the law. The law does not exist so that the undesireable action is not taken. The law exists so that if the undesireable action is taken, the right exists to punish that person, to inform him what he did was wrong, and to inform the society such action will not be tolerated (the retributive-utilitarian argument). It is a truism to state that the law abiding obey the law, while the non-law-abiding disobey it. Truisms are logically weak arguments that can never be relied on.

Oh, by the way, welcome Disconnected!

And Ada: most people knew the world was round by the time of the American Revolution.

Ada_Doom

April 20th, 2001, 05:55 AM

There was still a Flat Earth Society till men were put into space, and they actually couldn't argue their point convincingly anymore... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

Otherwise what a quality logical argument, I can only look on and admire. This is why you study law, and I study languages...

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

April 20th, 2001, 08:20 AM

I wasn't implying that bad things shouldn't be outlawed. They should. But taking something that is already illegal but still surviving due to lack of enforcement of "mild" laws (because our society lacks the gonads to enforce and punish) and adding more strict laws is unproductive. Making more laws against something that is already illegal is simply redudant. You cannot create a perfect society through legislation alone, but that is what our present government seems to be trying to do. It's just not politically correct to punish anyone anymore because you might violate their rights. Here's an example--I lived for my first 25 years in one house. There was a NO PARKING sign on the sidestreet. For 25 years, we did not park there. We moved. I go back now, and there are cars parked right under the sign every day. They don't get ticketed. What does that say to me? Was I stupid for 25 years? No, that is our society in a nutshell. The cops make excuses for the people who are parked there. You know, there are just so many cars around these days. But the sign remains. I would still not park there, but those who chose to ignore our laws get away with it. Does it matter if the fine is $20? Or raised to $50? Not if no tickets are given.
Oh, and people knew the world was round long before the Revolution. In fact, it was widely known when Columbus sailed to America. The only thing he wanted to find out was how big it was, or how long it would take to get around it. How did they know? Any guesses?
And thanks for the welcome. This is fun.

April 20th, 2001, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Scotslaw:
A lot of this debate hinges on whether you believe the right to bear arms is an inherent right or a derivative right, or even a declared right. An inherent right cannot ever be taken away from you, a derivative right, being necessary to the exercise of your inherent rights can only be regulated, but declared rights depend very greatly on the magnanomous nature of your legislature.

Okay. Try this.

The right to self-defense is inherent in the concept of a civilized society of free citizens. If you may not defend yourself from unprovoked felonious attack without risking censure by the state, you are not free. Without the right to self-defense, all you have is either anarchy or tyranny.

The police cannot defend you. They can't be everywhere all the time, and criminals are just cunning enough to attack when the cops are not around. Most of the time, the best they can do is catch teh criminal after the fact, hand him to the courts for punishment, and offer scant comfort to the victim's next of kin. In any case, why should we delegate a basic personal right to a government agency?

It is pointless to admit that people have a certain right but deny them the means to exercise it. Freedom of the press means nothing if you may not own a printing press. The right to self-defense is pointless if citizens may not posess the tools of self-defense, and have them accessible when needed. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is derived from the right to self-defense.

By Scotslaw's exposition, this means that the government should not be able to deny a citizen the right to keep and bear arms, but may regulate it. I would add the proviso that such regulations should not be so onerous as to constitute prior restraint. Many "gun control" laws have the effect of making it impossible for all but a few privileged characters to own and carry a gun. Other laws are just stupid grandstand plays, with no effect except convincing voters that their elected representatives are "tough on crime". A good example is the US ban on manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, as I mentioned above.

Some laws may be good in concept but poorly implemented. A good example is the two types of concealed weapons permits issued by various US states:

"May issue" permits require the citizen to present justification for the permit. Whether or not they get the permit depends entirely on the discretion of a local official, usually a Sheriff or political office holder. This, to me, constitutes prior restraint. Why should I have to prove a case to exercise my rights? Drawing another parallel to freedom of the press, should a publisher have to submit every article to a government censor, and get permission to publish it? No. "May issue" permit laws are subject to abuse, too. People have been denied their rights because they were members of a race, or religion, or political party, or labor union, that did not suit the issuing authority.

"Shall issue" permits are much more defensible. To obtain my Florida "shall issue" permit, I had to do the following:

(1) Present evidence of training, either a one-day $25 course taught by the local Sheriff's office, or another qualified training source like the NRA or Lethal Force Institute, or military discharge papers.

(2) Submit my fingerprints and some personal data for a background check, to ensure that I was neither a violent felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Both requirements, plus the admin basics like being over 21, are relevant and reasonable, and not an undue burden on the exercise of my rights. (I know some RKBA supporters who will debate this, but that's for another thread).

With that bit of laminated plastic, I can (and I do) carry firearms for personal defense. I am a danger to no one except a person who attacks me and mine. I bear no ill will, I know the laws regarding the use of lethal force, and the community is safer for my presence, not less safe. The papers here frequently print news stories telling how legally armed citizens have stopped crimes in progress. In one case, a man caught shoplifting in a Wal-Mart pulled a knife, and a grandmother with a permit drew a .38 and ordered him to drop the weapon. He surrendered and was arrested. In Tampa, a McDonalds' was held up right at closing time. The robbers were going to herd the employees into the freezer and lock them in (possibly shooting them dead first) when the janitor drew a legally carried pistol and killed the robbers. Also in Tampa, a woman who woke up when a naked man jumped on her in her bed shot her attacker and saved herself from rape and possibly murder.

In an ideal world, no one would need a weapon, but the world is far from ideal. Until we get there, I will exercise my right to go armed and defend myself if necessary.

Originally posted by Scotslaw:
Finally, the argument that prohibition of something doesn't work, because only the law-abiding will follow it, whereas criminals won't, is not a logically good argument. Most laws are prohibitory (ie you must not do something.) Following the logic of this argument, laws against murder, theft, rape etc should be scrapped, as only the law-abiding obey them.

This statement does not stand up to examination. There should be laws against murder and rape and theft because by their very nature they are violations of the rights of others. There is no "right to rape"; laws against rape do not infringe on anyone's rights. On the other hand, my carrying a pistol does not infringe on anyone's rights, but a law preventing it infringes on mine.

artsmass

April 22nd, 2001, 07:20 AM

A lot of this debate hinges on whether you believe the right to bear arms is an inherent right or a derivative right, or even a declared right

The right to self defense is God given. How would you categorize that?

In Tampa, a McDonalds' was held up right at closing time. The robbers were going to herd the employees into the freezer and lock them in (possibly shooting them dead first) when the janitor drew a legally carried pistol and killed the robbers.

The sad part of this story is that the janitor was fired for breaking McDogfood's company policies. A shining example of Liberal logic and gratitude :rolleyes

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

We are dyslexia of borg. Futility is resistant. Your ass will be laminated.

Serendipity

April 22nd, 2001, 06:50 PM

Arts, I would argue to the hilt that God doesn't exist (another example of Liberal gratitude there?), so from what you say I can only categorise the right to bear arms as a phantom right.

Scotslaw

April 22nd, 2001, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by artsmass:
The right to self defense is God given. How would you categorize that?

We are dyslexia of borg. Futility is resistant. Your ass will be laminated.

On the provisal that:
a) you believe in God
b) you believe that rights are not derived from an exercise of free will
c) that self-defence is one of those rights that stands on its own

then it would be catagorised as an inherent right.

I believe in God, but many don't, so I don't derive any from God, but from the inherent nature of being human. Like Grotius, my philosophy is valid regardless of whether you believe in God. On a personal note, I would classify self-defense not as an inherent right, but as derived right from the right to life. Legally speaking, your first duty when under attack is to run away, the laws attitude being that life is sacred, but that your life is not any more sacred than the life you took away. Only in imminent danger of your own death does the law permit you to take a life to preserve your own.

On a lighter note, I love that signature!!!

Scotslaw

April 22nd, 2001, 09:47 PM

David, your points about "may issue" and "shall issue" are well made. To clarify my earlier post, the restrictions I would suggest as being allowable on a derived right are of the "shall issue" type. My point about how you define the right to bear arms is still valid however, as it was not intended as supporting any side of the argument. Your views on the issue of gun control do very greatly depend on how you view your right to bear arms. If you see it as fundamental and inherent, then no restriction is ever permissible or justifiable. If you see it as derived from a higher order norm of rights, then some restrictions (to a definable point) are permissible and justifiable. If you see it as a declared right, then you accept the right only exists so long as the sovereign power is prepared to tolerate its extension to you.

Originally posted by Scotslaw:
Finally, the argument that prohibition of something doesn't work, because only the law-abiding will follow it, whereas criminals won't, is not a logically good argument. Most laws are prohibitory (ie you must not do something.) Following the logic of this argument, laws against murder, theft, rape etc should be scrapped, as only the law-abiding obey them.

This statement does not stand up to examination. There should be laws against murder and rape and theft because by their very nature they are violations of the rights of others. There is no "right to rape"; laws against rape do not infringe on anyone's rights. On the other hand, my carrying a pistol does not infringe on anyone's rights, but a law preventing it infringes on mine.[/B][/QUOTE]

It doesn't stand up because its an argument ad ridiculum (I hope that's the right latin phrase!), ie one that takes a point and demonstrates it can be used to justify the ridiculous, in order to weaken the original point. The main point I was making however is still valid. You cannot say that a law is not worth having merely because the lawless will not follow it, as some posters to the board have argued. That is not a logical statement, and that is the point I was making. You have to start looking at the rights being infringed to determine whether a law is worth having, and bring them into the debate, as you have rightly done.

For anyone who's read any of my previous posts on this subject, I've done a real good job of keeping out of the debate haven't I.... so much for "this is my last word on the subject".

Ada_Doom

April 23rd, 2001, 02:35 AM

I just wanted to say that IMO, you cannot compare the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of the press, on the basis that a gun is designed for the purpose of killing a living creature. A newspaper article isn't. To quote a very old cliché, sticks and stones (and bullets) may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

April 23rd, 2001, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
I just wanted to say that IMO, you cannot compare the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of the press, on the basis that a gun is designed for the purpose of killing a living creature. A newspaper article isn't.

I would argue that it is sometimes necessary to kill a living creature, especially when that creature is about to kill an innocent convenience store clerk over the $34 in the register, or when that creature has broken into your house at night and is approaching your kids' bedroom with a wepaon in hand. A gun is a tool. It is properly used to do a job -- the job of defending innocent people against unjustified attack. A knife is a tool, too. Its proper job is to cut things that should be cut -- bread, the tape on a package, a rope that's too long. Yes, it can be abused, used to cut innocent people, but the fault is not with the object but the intent of the person using it.

A printing press, too, can be abused, when it prints lies that damamge people's reputations, or misinformation that sways people to support bad causes. A printing press in the hands of Josef Goebbels is a lethal weapon. Words CAN hurt you -- ask Senator Joe McCarthy's victims.

As I said above, the right to bear arms is derived from the right to self defense that is inherent in civilized society. Deny it, and you create a victim class.

~wildangel~

April 23rd, 2001, 02:32 PM

whatever http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/tongue.gif The point is.....we would like it better if know one ever had to use a gun, but unfortunatly we do in this ****ed up world http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
"Where theres a will theres a way"

Enter into "The Blackhole...hahahahahahaha" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/blackhole.html)

Serendipity

April 23rd, 2001, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by David Scott:
As I said above, the right to bear arms is derived from the right to self defense that is inherent in civilized society. Deny it, and you create a victim class.

Can I point out that in a civilized society there would be no need for self-defence, and can I ask who the victims are? Where I live it would be pretty hard for me to get a handgun, legally or otherwise, but am I sorry, do I feel like a victim? Nope.

------------------
There was a young man from Tralee
Who was stung in the neck by a wasp
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "Not at all,
He can do it again if he likes".

April 23rd, 2001, 05:03 PM

i live here in the US. and aside from being extremely unconstitutional, gun control is worthless because criminals won't abide by it. that's why they call them criminals. i mean, honestly, when was the last time you heard a criminal say "well, shoot, i guess i'll turn in my weapon because they've banned them"? you haven't, because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

secondly, here in the States, firearms are used more than two and half MILLION times each YEAR to thwart a crime and/or save a life. and those statistics from HCI that state so many children die from handguns each year include "children" up to the age of 20 (not what i would consider to be a child) and intentional shootings by gand members. and it also includes suicides. remove these numbers and the actually number of ACCIDENTAL deaths is quite small. cars kill way more people, let's ban them.

finally, at least this holds true for women in the States, i have a greater chance of being raped than i do of getting breast cancer. in fact, through the course of my lifetime i have a higher chance of being raped TWICE than i do of getting breast cancer. i don't know about the rest of you, but i refuse to be a victim. why is a dead rape victim more moral than a lady with a smokin' gun and a dead rapist at her feet? frankly, i'd rather be the second lady.

all you who feel that more gun control is needed to get educated on the reality of the issue and find out what really is DUMB.

April 23rd, 2001, 05:15 PM

People get burned by FIRE!!
Lets ban that!!

People drown in WATER!!
Lets ban that too!!

Blaming guns for killing is like blaming the pen for bad spelling.

April 23rd, 2001, 07:11 PM

Scotslaw asked: 2) Since the right to bear arms is for the purposes of forming a militia, shouldn't everyone who owns a gun be part of a militia?

Golly, what a great idea! Heck, just to make sure we get them all, lets make every adult male a member of the militia as well. Luckily we won't have to go to the trouble because it has been part of our federal law since the 1792 Milita Act.

Cheers,

Chimp

April 23rd, 2001, 07:26 PM

Is gun control bad? Of course not. Gun control is a goal worthy of any milita member. Milita would be citizens of the U.S. (as opposed to subjects of the crown) In fact I spent Sunday afternoon practicing gun control with my Dad up at Chabot. Off the bags I can control my gun to within 1" at 100 yards, unsupported my gun control degrades to about 4" at 100 yards. I guess I'm just going to have to keep practicing.

[This message has been edited by Chimp (edited April 23, 2001).]

April 23rd, 2001, 08:03 PM

To the Brits - It wasn't soooo long ago that the private citizens of your former Colonies in North America were collecting firearms to help out the Home Guard in the event of a cross channel invasion by none other than Herr Hitler and several of his divisions.

As long as there are 'Herr Hitlers' in this World, doesn't it make absolute sense to have a citizenry that not only have their private arms, but are self-trained, at their own expense, to use them in times of crisis.

Since such a crisis may not be from abroad, but from one's very own government, the power of any government to control firearms is the power to control dissent.

In the United States we recognize that:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another....

Sound familiar? It should, for it's from the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, Americans are very jealous and sometimes overly-protective of their rights. Would that all mankind were so!

Guns are not new to America. The violence in our schools may be new, but that's not the fault of inanimate objects. It's the fault of those raising the troubled ones who resort to using inanimate objects to hurt others.

Are drugs routinely available in Britain?
Yes, I would imagine so. This despite all the attempts to control such items.

Are explosives and fully automatic weapons available in Ulster? Yes, I would imagine so. This, too, despite all the attempts to control such items.

Eric The Hun

April 23rd, 2001, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Law man:
Don't you think?

Of course they're dumb! Ya know why? Cuz they are completely unamerican for one, completely unconstuitutional second, and third, does anyone think that the authors of said laws are brighter than the people who penned the Bill of Rights? I certainly don't!

The Constitution and Bill of Rights gave birth to the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and it worked splendidly, until the morons (you know, the same kinds of idiots that write gun control laws) started trying their kinder, gentler socialism on us. Socialism has destroyed everything it's ever touched, and then half of this freaking country goes bananas over the ultimate socialist duo, Bill and Hill, and their "Guns are bad!" policies, and what do we get? A new school shooting every week!

When strange crap begins to happen in the world, intelligent people tend to ask, "Gee, what has changed to make this happen?" but morons overlook the obvious changes, and blame something that has been the same for two hundred and thirty years. "The guns are the problem!" "Gotta ban the guns!"

They don't look at the ridiculously loose divorce laws, the legalization of infanticide, 40 to 50% tax rates for the middle class, families needing two and sometimes three incomes to survive, kids being raised by strangers in day care centers, entitlement programs out the yahoo...

Yep, dumb asses write dumb laws, and the dumbest asses write gun control laws.

April 23rd, 2001, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
Quite right Paquin. Gun control is far from dumb. I know all the old arguments about how criminals get hold of them anyway, and needing to defend yourself etc etc, but I still think the less guns there are, the less accidental death and manslaughter there is (not murder because if you are premeditating killing someone, then you do it by whatever means). But, if a criminal wants to rob an old lady's house, in a country like the UK, where there are strict gun controls, he probably won't take a gun, because he can be fairly sure the victim won't have one, and yes, he could still injure her if she surprises him, but it may not be fatal. In the US, the equivalent old lady probably has a Glock under her pillow, so the criminal takes a gun, she comes downstairs for a glass of water, unarmed and surprises him, he turns round and shoots her dead. How are gun controls a bad plan? They could save that little old ladies life!

You said a whole bunch of nothing here. Do you have any source to back up your argument or did you make it up? It sounds like the contrived drivel that Sarah Brady, Rosie O'Donnel, Hillary Clinton, and a host of other hefty thighed witches spout all over the TV!

Are you hefty thighed by chance? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

April 23rd, 2001, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Idnew:
Since we have discussed gun laws before I'm not going to get in it again. I'll allow this topic because of the new members. Welcome btw to all of you.

Gun control is dumb as you can get a gun from anywhere if your hell bent on getting one. Even the guns that you keep locked up. If your child is really wanting to shoot someone, he will get a gun from somebody.

What you're seeing over their is the media's version of what's happening here, but it's not even close to an actual representation of the facts.

Crime rates, and more especially, violent crime rates are at 30 year lows right now. But you wouldn't know that by what you see on TV.

School shooting have been happening at an alarming rate, granted, but those have been fueled by our histerical media. They give the perpetrators 2 or 3 weeks of round the clock sensational covewrage, and of course they breed copy cats.

Including these shootings, however, gun voiolence is way down, and if I get time, I will post sources for the info. One I can mention offhand, is Yale University Professor John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

paulgro

April 24th, 2001, 02:02 AM

Welcome, NRA members

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

Ada_Doom

April 24th, 2001, 04:31 AM

Welcome all the new people!

Critter,I would love to know:
a) What the size of my thighs has to do with my opinions on firearms.
b) At what point you think America was Socialist.

I wonder if some of the people who posted last night have any idea what they sound like. While some of the pro-gun people who've posted on here sound like they know what they are doing, and like they could be trusted with a firearm, some of the recent posters sound hysterical, stupidly touchy, and as if they take themselves far too seriously. In short the kind of people who fire off a few rounds at the slightest unusual sound and do their cause more harm than good. Wildly blaming rises in violent crime on random political doctrines, or insulting those who oppose you is not a good way to get your point across.

The Second World War, and the situation in Ulster are exceptional circumstances and should not be used as anything else. I feel sure if you asked most inhabitants of Northern Ireland if they would like to get rid of guns for good, the answer would be a vehement yes.

My final word. The UK situation is far different from the American one, so I cannot tell how I would feel if I were American. I only know that neither I nor any of my friends has ever used, or even touched a fire arm, and we would like it to stay that way.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited April 24, 2001).]

April 24th, 2001, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Serendipity:
Can I point out that in a civilized society there would be no need for self-defence, and can I ask who the victims are? Where I live it would be pretty hard for me to get a handgun, legally or otherwise, but am I sorry, do I feel like a victim? Nope.

There would be no need for self-defense in a "perfect" society. We are working for a civilized society but there are still uncivilized elements in the world. Who are the victims? Anyone the uncivilized elements pick to victimize.

You don't feel like a victim because you've never been victimized. You may not be, your whole life, but plenty of people are. I'm asking that you have some empathy for them.

Oh, and for whomever issued the facetious welcome, I am NOT and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association. I may agree with their fundamental principles, but I don't like the way they do business.

April 24th, 2001, 09:31 AM

Jenn mentioned a statistic that the anti-gun people tend to ignore, so I'll mention it again.

Every year in the US, approximately 400,000 murders, 200,000 rapes, and about 2 MILLION assaults and other crimes are prevented by law abiding citizens with guns.

Compare this with the approximately 35,000 people killed each year by guns (keeping in mind that this number includes attackers killed in the above self defense statistics, suspects killed by police, suicides, and gang violence)

Note also that EVERY city, county, and state in the US that has passed a "Shall Issue" type concealed carry law has seen a subsequent marked reduction in violent crime, while areas with the most strict gun control laws still suffer from some of the highest violent crime rates.

Note that our well trained law enforcement officers are, compared with private citizen gun owners shooting in self defense, are statistically 6 to 7 times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the private citizen gun owners are.

Note that 60% of felons polled admitted to avoiding commiting a crime if the knew the victim was armed. 40% admitted to avoiding committing the crime if they thought the victim MIGHT be armed. 57% admitted to being more afraid of an armed victim than of the police.

Who are we trying to protect with gun control? Criminals?

Yes, the school shootings and murders committed with guns are terrible. But we have to look at the other side of the picture, the lives being SAVED by guns. Should we try to save one life if we know it will cost ten others?

PlayCrackTheSky

April 24th, 2001, 03:41 PM

Guns Dont kill people. People kill people

------------------
"Cant we all just get along???"

April 24th, 2001, 11:13 PM

The Parable of the Sheep
by Charles Riggs

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of
sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the
master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of
wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their
dilemma. 'Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are
many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and
releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand.
What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!'

One sheep spoke up, saying 'It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so
terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it,
but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we
could fight back, and stop this savagery.' The other sheep clamored in
agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped
in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them
into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their
weapons and struck at them, crying, "Be Gone!" We are not food!' and drove
off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so
dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth?

It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached
the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock
huddled together and cried out, 'Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!

You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!'

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. 'But we are your brethren!' they cried. 'We
are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws
protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves,
they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!'

'Baaaaaaad!' cried the flock, 'the things are bad and will pervert you, and
we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!' So the armed sheep
resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic
the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to
those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had
no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did.
Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep
out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from
which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's
weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in
terror again, 'Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you
from our presence!'
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the
words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture
forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested
before the council, saying, 'It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed
you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who
prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!'

But the flock drowned them out with cries of 'Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear
your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!'

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days
on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their
brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting
with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing
their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying 'Baaaaddd! Bad
things!'

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and
said, 'Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth!
Brothers, let us feed!' And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the
carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often
seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the
slaughter.

It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves
fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time
they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so
again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, 'See? If the
wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a
sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!' But the flock cried out, more
feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, 'Baaaaaaaad!
These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us!
Baaaaaaad!'

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the
flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren
if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long
as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

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

paulgro

April 24th, 2001, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by David Scott:
There would be no need for self-defense in a "perfect" society. We are working for a civilized society but there are still uncivilized elements in the world. Who are the victims? Anyone the uncivilized elements pick to victimize.

You don't feel like a victim because you've never been victimized. You may not be, your whole life, but plenty of people are. I'm asking that you have some empathy for them.

Oh, and for whomever issued the facetious welcome, I am NOT and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association. I may agree with their fundamental principles, but I don't like the way they do business.

I was talking to the guys that were trying to be smart by putting people down with the wise cracks. I figure if you act that way, you deserve that kind of welcome. This was not aimed at you...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

artsmass

April 25th, 2001, 06:36 AM

>Oh, and for whomever issued the facetious welcome, I am NOT and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association. I may agree with their fundamental principles, but I don't like the way they do business.

Care to elaborate on this?

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

April 25th, 2001, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by artsmass:
Care to elaborate on this?

Okay.

I am opposed to the sale and use of public records for marketing purposes. Less than two weeks after I first requested from the state an application for a Florida concealed weapons permit, I started getting solicitations from the NRA to join. I hadn't even applied for teh permit yet; they obviously buy lists of everyone who even asks about the permit.

It is also obvious from other junk mail I received that they re-sell these lists. I started getting solicitations to $1000-a-plate Republican fund raisers, and invitations to donate funds to conservative think tanks and Ronald Reagan Statue Funds, even though I have registered Independent ever since I started voting 28 years ago.

I find a lot of their rhetoric distatsteful. They may have the right intent (and on specific issues they may not) but the style puts me off. Remember the infamous "jackbooted thugs" memo?

When Florida was considering the so-called "gun show loophole", the NRA put Charlton Heston on the radio down here. He evoked his pseudo-religious authority as "Moses" and told verifiable falsehoods about the issue. I think he did more harm than good. Again, I agreed with the objective (not imposing unreasonable restrictions on RKBA) but disagreed with the methods.

These are some examples of why I don't like their style. A broader factor, too, is that my politics are generally liberal/libertarian on political and social issues, and the NRA is firmly aligned with some fairly hard-core conservative politics. I follow no "party line" and sort each issue out for myself, which gets me crap from both ends of the spectrum.

Serendipity

April 25th, 2001, 05:02 PM

>-Every year in the US, approximately 400,000 murders, 200,000 rapes, and about 2 MILLION assaults and other crimes are prevented by law abiding citizens with guns.

Compare this with the approximately 35,000 people killed each year by guns (keeping in mind that this number includes attackers killed in the above self defense statistics, suspects killed by police, suicides, and gang violence)-<

Where do these figures come from?

I live in the UK, we have roughly 60 milion citizens, compared to roughly 250m in the US (correct me if I'm wrong). So the population here is about one quarter that of the US. One quarter of 35,000 is (very) roughly 9,000. If the UK annual death toll by firearms were 9,000 there would be a lot of people clamouring for some kind of change in the law.

April 26th, 2001, 09:21 AM

> Where do these figures come from?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

A very good report, with citations. Contains facts which dispell many myths about guns / gun violence.

I highly reccommend reading it, whether you are pro- or anti- gun.

[This message has been edited by SSP226 (edited April 26, 2001).]

~wildangel~

April 27th, 2001, 01:01 PM

http://angelfire.animfactory.com/animations/web_text_c_d/chrome_streaks/welcome_md_wht.gif All the new People, please stay ok? Go to the playground too...It's really fun http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Heres my 2 cents for what it's worth:

I have been around guns all my life and am not afraid of them unless they were pointed at me by a raving lunatic. People here in California all have guns. I walk down to the park the other day and the transients were saying perverted things to me which really upset me. If they were to easilly follow me home, and I am the only one there, shouldnt I feel I can rightly pull my handgun out of my purse and defend myself either by holding him till the police get there or shooting his ass off when he tries to come in my home??? I dont yet own a gun but I have knives that are supposedly illegal, buterfly knives and such that are illegal around here, we collect different kinds of knives. There right by my bed because I feel safe with them there. Maybe in other states you dont have to worry about weirdo's but we have a weirdo around every corner, its sad http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif
A little old lady was raped by foreign objects and stabbed many times by a gangster on PCP that broke into her home which is right by mine, thats how scary it is sometimes.
Luckilly we are moving to Oregon in the freezing cold with the big mean bears soon and will be away from problems, or at least half as many.
But I dont know if I'm more afraid of Bears or people with guns:{ I'm more afraid of Bears and were gonna be living in the woods, no houses around.
So were going to have guns there.I'm not shooting bambie tho dont worry http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Scotslaw

April 27th, 2001, 08:08 PM

To all the new people, hi, welcome, come on in, sit down and join the debate.

To all the new people, and the regulars: this is a hightly emotive subject. Can we at least keep the personal abuse and name calling down to a minimum? It's a gross misrepresentation to claim that the pro-gun lobby are violent psychopaths, and it's a gross misrepresentation to claim that the anti-gun lobby are naive peacenicks who would rather see criminals run the country than the citizens be armed. Also, nobody seems willing to recognise that you can straddle the middle ground and look for reasonable controls on firearms. No reasonable person would construe the right to bear arms to mean you could walk down the street with a flamethrower, bazooka and god knows what else taking pot shots at anyone you thought was committing any crime would they, so obviously some restrictions and controls have to apply somewhere along the line (think about it, even regulating who can and can't sell guns is a control).

The point I'm trying to make, is try and seperate the issue from the person. If you are willfully dismissive of the other sides point of view, and abusive of the person making the point, the less likely they are to take YOU seriously, and listen to your point. Lets not insult each others intelligence. We are all rational people here. Both sides have excellent, valid points to make. Just because you don't agree with a person, doesn't mean they are stupid.

Me, I'm glad that in Britain there is no right legal entitlement to firearms. And guns are still a rare thing in this country for use in criminal acts. But I support fully the Americans right to bear arms, for a variety of reasons, but principally because of the violence it would do to the entire constitution to start fiddling with the Bill of Rights. Thanks to points that have been made here, I have a better understanding of the reasons behind it all (I am especially grateful to artsmass for the post on Madison and the Federalist Papers, and David Scott for his post about "may issue" and "shall issue" permits, two of the most insightful posts on this topic). Do I agree with everything that people have posted? Of course not. There have been several things I've personally disagreed with, both from people who hold a position opposed to mine, and even people who's views are similar to mine. But hey, that's human nature.

I've promised twice already I think not to post again, and before that I even promised myself I'd NEVER get involved in this debate (I tried to get out, but they pulled me back in again!) so third times a charm.

My final words:

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to, lets call the whole thing off!

artsmass

April 29th, 2001, 06:56 PM

Here ya go, 40 reasons why gun control is a good idea:

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need
guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict
gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of
fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10.The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.

11.One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine,
a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.

12.The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard,
which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13.The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land,
using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14.These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm"
refers to the state.

15."The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should
ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16.Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course,
the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17.Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't
"military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
rifles", because they are military weapons.

18.In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available,
which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's,
1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army
surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order,
no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government
forms and there were no school shootings.

19.The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to
run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20.Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21.A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22.Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with
a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertise-
ments aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23.Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24.Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings
at gun shows.

25.A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26.Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27.Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28.The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the
Bill of Rights.

29.Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers,
and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30.The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts
of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other
parts of the Constitution.

31.Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor
as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for
peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32.Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33.We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34.Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns
that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35.Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says
the police are not responsible for their protection.

36.Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.

37."Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38.When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39.Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one
on their duty weapon.

40.Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

cleoeo

May 6th, 2001, 01:26 AM

Would someone please explain why handguns are so popular for home protection? I've hunted since my teens and the most effective close range weapon by far is a shotgun. I'd much rather have a shotgun under the bed than a handgun in the nightstand if I wanted to protect my home (I have neither). Be honest now; which would you choose against an armed intruder?

May 7th, 2001, 12:10 PM

You're quite right in a way. A long gun, especially a 12 gauge shotgun, is by far a more effective weapon for home defense, when considered in terms of stopping power. In practical terms, though, it has one great disadvantage in the close quarters of a home; it's too darned long. It's harder than a handgun to manipulate quickly. Another disadvantage is that it requires both hands, leaving none free for a flashlight or phone to the cops.

May 7th, 2001, 03:06 PM

Scotslaw,

Your comment "No reasonable person would construe the right to bear arms to mean you could walk down the street with a flamethrower, bazooka and god knows what else taking pot shots at anyone you thought was committing any crime would they, so obviously some restrictions and controls have to apply somewhere along the line " indicates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the right to keep and bear arms is all about.
The right to own weapons in no way implies the right to employ force against ones neighbors. The point is to posess the means to defend oneself, ones family, and ones community from criminal acts either from individual criminals or those that band together and label themselves a government. Owning a gun does not justify criminal activity on my part. Neither does it turn me in to a criminal. What it does do, is make me a harder target for a criminal to attack.
It is the difference between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. The US felt free to bomb the crap out of Yugoslavia to get it out of Kosovo, but was very cautious about confronting the Soviets when they were in Afganistan. Why, because the Soviets could strike back, and Yugoslavia is essentially defenseless. People, or governments, are more reluctant to attempt forcing their will on the strong than they are on the weak. If you beleive in personal freedom and responsibility, then the individual should be strong. If you believe in the vast wisdom of the State, then the individual should be weak.

Serendipity

May 7th, 2001, 05:47 PM

Chimp, you misunderstood Scotlaw's comment, which was not about withdrawing the right to bear arms or shooting up the neighbourhood, it was about defining a reasonable level of armed-ness. If a person were to construe his entitlement to bear arms as having no limit, then what happens? Exactly what happened between the US and Soviet Russia: the escalation, or acceleration, of the arms race. Everyone will get bigger and better guns, and the only people (as usual) who are better off are the arms dealers (who must be enjoying this discussion immensely).

I hate to be pedantic, but this stuff matters, so: Whilst the US is the major contributor to the UN and NATO, both in terms of personnel and hardware, the US didn't "bomb the crap" out of Yugoslavia, NATO did, except it was Serbia, of which Kosovo is a constituent part.

Raising the discussion to the level of international defence policy reminds me of what we used to call it: MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The US didn't confront Russia over Afghanistan because Afghanistan is of no interest to the US; there's already the struggle there between the Taliban and the Russians (or there was).

I believe in personal freedom and responsibilty, sure, but I don't see that I should get a gun to make the point. I alsobelieve in the vast wisdom of the individual, which advises me against arming myself. I'm lucky, however, to live in a country with few handguns.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator

May 7th, 2001, 08:19 PM

Serendipity,

I don't believe that I did misunderstand Scotlaws point at all. He equated the right to keep and bear arms with a license to walk down the street with flame throwers and rocket launchers dispensing justice. That is a typical straw man argument that gun grabbers like to make. It implies that people are mad and the only thing preventing them from a murdurous rampage are the laws preventing the ownership of flame throwers and rocket launchers. Actually, neither flame throwers nor rocket launchers are guns at all. And I don't actually know that flame throwers are illegal. They do sell little ones for burning up weeds and such.
The poles of the argument are not banning guns vs. settle every dispute by gunfire. The poles of the argument are do we force law abiding citizens to depend on the "authorities" for their personal safety, or do we recognize their right to own the implements that allow them to provide for their own safety. I don't know how anyone can claim to recognize that people have a right to life and liberty (not that either of you have actually made such a claim), and want to deny them the tools to defend their lives and liberty.

I plead no contest on confusing Sebia and Yugoslavia.

I disagree with your contention that the US had no interest in kicking the Soviets out of Afganistan. Millions of dollars of small arms, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, were provided to Afganistan "freedom fighters" by the US government. When the US truly doesn't care then you get nothing, like most of Africa.

Serendipity

May 8th, 2001, 04:59 PM

Thanks for the reply, Chimp, and I stand corrected on the Afghan question.

Here is the piece that Scotslaw wrote and you quoted:
"No reasonable person would construe the right to bear arms to mean you could walk down the street with a flamethrower, bazooka and god knows what else taking pot shots at anyone you thought was committing any crime would they, so obviously some restrictions and controls have to apply somewhere along the line."
What he is saying is that some limit on what is regarded as reasonable personal arms applies, not that all folks who want to own a gun are trigger-happy lunatics. If I carry a Smith & Wesson revolver, you might think I've got a darn good gun which I should have the right to carry so long as I only intend to use it, if at all, in self-defense, and then only after good training. If I carry an Uzi or a M16, you might think I'm a bit of a nut. So there is a line, yes? And the line is called "Gun Control", it lies between reasonable personal arms and excessive arms. (This is not the "Gun Control" under discussion here, I know.)

I'll make this next point just one more time: I live in a country (the UK) where there are very few handguns, in the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens. Sure, they're out there, but they're rare. This is a Good Thing. It means I can go around any city and be fairly sure that nobody around me will have a gun.
In the US, on the other hand, a lot of people on both sides of the law have guns. I think it is essential that law abiding citizens have the right to possess their guns (and I have only come to think this since discussing the matter on this site), for the reasons you say, and other reasons. I think, however, that the very fact that law-abiding citizens need to possess guns is a Bad Thing. Why? There are 30,000 people killed annually in the US by guns. Some of them must be innocent. That's a medium-sized town killed every year, f'Chrissakes!

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator

artsmass

May 10th, 2001, 09:09 AM

This is a Good Thing. It means I can go around any city and be fairly sure that nobody around me will have a gun.

Hi SD, I know that we have egreed to disagree on this subject, but I'd like to hear your response to these questions. Why would you be afraid of a law abiding citizen with a gun? Is it the gun you're afraid of or the criminal? And how will gun control laws reduce the number of criminals on the streets, especially if they aren't enforced?

Here's a thought for you to ponder:

Gun control is and has never been about guns, it's about control and who has it.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Idnew

May 10th, 2001, 01:27 PM

Ok popping in here and this seems to be a pretty clean debate, but there have been some personal attacks so please stop that. State your opinion but please don't attack somebody because of theirs.

Welcome to all the new members, please come join us at the Playground and the everything else forums.

------------------
(ô¿ô)On the other hand, you have different fingers(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Serendipity

May 10th, 2001, 04:27 PM

Hi Arts, I assume there was a "not" missing from your post! Still, on with it. I HAVE changed my opinion, largely due to yours and other arguments. Here, however, are the answers you want:

1. Why would you be afraid of a law abiding citizen with a gun?
I'm not. I'm perfectly aware that it's the person holding the gun, not the gun itself, that can present problems.

2. Is it the gun you're afraid of or the criminal?
See above answer.

3.And how will gun control laws reduce the number of criminals on the streets, especially if they aren't enforced?
They won't.

It's not guns that I'm bothered about, obviously, but the profusion of guns, in the hands of people on both sides of the law. I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws (as a UK citizen it's not my business), but I'm trying to point out, as a non-American, that the profusion of guns in the US is an American solution to an American problem. Never mind for a moment how many crimes are prevented by law-abiding citizens with guns, how many criminals are there who would not have chosen a life of crime if they couldn't get hold of a gun? Guns are perfect for cowards: you don't need to be able to fight, just point that thing at your victim and it does the work for you. You don't even need bullets.

I have never once felt any need to have a gun, and I've lived in big cities, worked in warzones, and all sorts.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

artsmass

May 13th, 2001, 05:10 AM

Hi SD, I just wanted to say that it takes an extremely open mind to give even a little ground on such an emotionally charged issue, I respect you for that. As you have stated, guns are a part of life here and always will be, the only remaining question is if we will continue to allow law abiding citizens to posess them, because the criminals will always have them.

That being said, I thought I'd post this letter, it's a sad story about how gun control laws cost this woman the lives of her grandchildren.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Grandmother of Slain Children Protests Trigger Locks and Mandatory Gun Storage
Mary Carpenter
April 20, 2001
North Carolina General Assembly
To Whom It May Concern,
To my understanding you are debating the passage of laws requiring trigger locks and mandatory storage of guns. I am a second generation resident of the State of California, a mother and a grieving grandmother. I wish to express to you how trigger locks and mandatory storage laws in the State of California affected my family. I hope my testimony may save someone in your state from sharing the pain we must now endure for the remainder of our lives. No law you can pass will keep the irresponsible from shooting accidents or a felon from stealing a gun. I am enclosing a portion of a letter I wrote to my own state legislators concerning the constant progression of laws restricting our guns in my state.
Depending on whether or not you truly care, you may or may not recognize my name. I am the paternal grandmother of the two children who were brutally murdered inside their rural Merced California home on August 23, 2000 by a stranger with a pitchfork.
Instead of suing gun manufacturers, I am of the opinion it is our lawmakers who need to be sued. It was you who created the laws that kept my grandchildren from being able to defend themselves with any weapon greater than their bare hands. All of my son's children had been trained in the use of firearms but were unable to get to their Dad's weapon because of California State Law.
You, who have CCW permits or armed bodyguards, or both expect me to face a society gone mad because of drug-altered brains and lax laws on the perpetrators of crime? You had no room in your prisons for the killer of my grandchildren though his wife had reported to the police in Mojave California in June of 1997 that he had forced her and their infant son into his car (kidnapping) while living in southern California? At that time she also reported how she had managed to escape from him in Mojave after he held a gun to her head (assault with a deadly weapon) threatening to kill her and their one-month-old child? Though more recently she had given to the Dos Palos California Police Dept. the tape from her message minder threatening to kill her present husband? Though he had assaulted a police officer while resisting arrest for drug charges? Though he had violated his parole by not appearing at his hearing and they had a warrant out for his arrest? Though they knew where he lived, and also his mother and grandmother, yet failed to pick him up? Will you then find room for my son in your prisons should his fourteen-year-old daughter have access to his gun while she is babysitting her siblings?
There is a growing list, in my area alone, of people (mostly women) who might still be alive had they not been in a state where the use of a gun was prohibited. Juli Sund, Carole Sund, Selvina Pelosso, Joie Armstrong, Ashley and John William Carpenter to name a few. Lawmakers talk big about a woman's right to choose yet don't allow me the very basic right to choose to defend myself? If teachers were allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school you would see the school shootings disappear. The same is true with the citizen on the street. The reason is, these killers are cowards. You can tell by their choice of victims. They operate best where they know there are no guns.
Look at your child tonight and imagine him or her with their eyes jabbed out, their skulls splintered, their brains pierced, and their spines broken with the heavy tines of a spading fork. In defending her sisters to the death with the only weapon you allowed her, Ashley had 138 puncture wounds. Twenty-nine of them were on the right side of her face, five on the back of her head, and thirty-seven to her chest and lower neck. (Obviously he was trying to behead her.) She was nine years old. While committing no crime greater than sleeping in his parents bed, in his own house, John William, 7 years old, was stabbed 46 times, with most of them in the chest, neck, and head. Depending on the condition of your heart, you may or may not feel a small measure of the pain my family and I must endure for the remainder of our lives.
Now, imagine all the gun laws you can dream up and honestly admit whether or not they would have stopped such a mad dog as this. This man was a total stranger to the family, and other than a trace of marijuana, was not on drugs at the time. However, by the testimony of his wife and girlfriend, he was a drug user who became frightening whenever he used them. All your imagined gun laws will do is insure someone's children will die again. Take a drive downtown and see for yourself all the drug addled brains.
You may declare gun free zones, but you cannot declare killer free zones.
This tragedy has made me realize I am not even safe in my locked home, my barn, or my backyard. I dare you to request the autopsy reports of John William & Ashley Danielle Carpenter done on August 28,2000 from Sheriff Tom Sawyer of the Merced County Sheriffs Dept. Also ask him for the police interview with the killer's wife and girlfriend telling about his drug use and devil worship. Ask Detective Parsley about his fetish for horror movies produced by a John Carpenter, (no relation to us), and one he especially liked, that we have learned depicts a killing done with a pitchfork. His last employment was as a telemarketer in Merced. If you have an honest bone in your body you will see this country is in desperate need of a change of heart not the gun laws that have been in place for over two hundred years. All the gun laws you can imagine cannot change the heart of a killer and you know it. Until man's heart is changed, we will be like sheep led to the slaughter without our weapons of defense. May you stand before God and man as my two precious grandchildren's killer if you pass any more gun legislation that will make me a felon should I own a handgun or any other gun for that matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Carpenter

~wildangel~

May 13th, 2001, 11:50 AM

http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

Idnew

May 14th, 2001, 11:41 AM

Wow did she get a reply to that letter? http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
(ô¿ô)On the other hand, you have different fingers(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Ada_Doom

May 15th, 2001, 04:34 AM

That's really tragic. Maybe I should get off my soap box and stop mouthing off about things I know nothing about....

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

Serendipity

May 15th, 2001, 05:15 PM

That letter really does bring the point home: I feel for Mrs Carpenter. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

Since I think we all recognise that the gun control question has been decided as far as the US is concerned, can I pose a hypothetical question? Here in the UK, as I've said far too often now, we have very strict gun control laws, but also we have very few guns, in the hands of law-abiding citizens or criminals. There are murders committed here, of course, and there are some pretty sick people about too. Are we wise to keep our ban of handguns in place, or should we allow our citizens to arm themselves?

Neppy

May 15th, 2001, 09:13 PM

Keep them.

Ada_Doom

May 16th, 2001, 01:39 AM

I don't think I know anyone I would be entirely happy to see in charge of a gun. Certainly not me! I would much rather we kept our laws and our low amount of guns. What works across the pond is not necessarily right for Britain. I would also be upset to see the police armed as a matter of course. OK, that's my twopennorth out of the way!

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

~wildangel~

May 17th, 2001, 01:47 PM

Yep Ada but unfortunatly in our country that are too many !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s with guns and its kinda like were safer to have them and teach our children how to use them.
Just be gratefull you dont have that problem and all you need is a rolling pin http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Where theres a will......I wanna be in it"

Enter into "The Blackhole...hahahahahahaha" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/blackhole.html)

Serendipity

May 17th, 2001, 03:36 PM

(I hope it's clear what my attitude towards guns is. However, I want to play devil's advocate for a while here.)

In Britain we have rapists, paedophiles, muggers, a general rise in violent crime, drugs, and all kinds of nasty stuff like that. In the US they allow their citizens to use guns against these people. Why should we not have the right to do the same?

Ada_Doom

May 18th, 2001, 04:06 AM

Wild, I am very grateful I don't have that problem, and I wish you didn't either. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

May 18th, 2001, 07:05 PM

Serendipity,

I understand that your Prime Minister is advocating prophylactic incarceration of individual that might be a "threat" to others. Rapists, robbers, and thugs pale in comparison.

You need guns, lots of guns.

cleoeo

May 19th, 2001, 07:12 AM

Earlier I asked why people buy handguns instead of shotguns for home protection. The only reply I got was that handguns are better in a home situation because they only tie up one hand so you can dial 911 etc. with the other, or you can reach around corners better. Scary. To properly fire a handgun you need to use both hands, arms extended, legs apart. Shotguns are much easier to handle and hit something with. 9mm handguns with big clips are a poor choice for home protection compared to a less expensive and more effective double barrelled shotgun.

May 20th, 2001, 02:09 AM

I had no intentions from posting here i was just browsing but aftet reading some of these post on gun control i though i would be sick with bewilderment: Criminals only carry guns when they think their victim has one.......that the dumbest most absurd thing i have ever heard, i have never in my 12 years as a police office come across a statment that niave, A criminal that is going to carry/use a gun will do it anywhere and every where and not give a flying flip about the laws, where he got the gun, if his gun is legal, oe if you have one or not, if a criminal thought this way you wouldnt have any shootings anywhere the crook would stop at the door and go HMMM i bet no one has a gun in there ill move on down to the NRA head quarters i bet some one there has one DOH who wrote this statement anyway? As far as gun laws: they are a political ruse, criminals dont care about them, but a average citzen does so who gets the screw there? yes you guessed it the citizen, next thing is THIS IS AMERICA we have right to keep and bear arms no matter what you want we have that right, if you choose not to exercise that right its your choice and one you will have to live with when/if its your family needing your protection, you will sit there and watch them suffer but cant do anything about it, me i would rather die trying than to live knowing i didnt try to do anything about it. But maybe we should just post a message on all street corners saying "hey crook please stop using guns and killing people, because we dont have any its only fair for you stop using them" im sure they will listen.
As far as Australia or Scottland, England, What ever your laws are if your happy more power to you, but dont compare the crime statistcs between here and there unless you also break down by population and city density because there is the diff between us and you. That and you dont live in a truly free country like the US is suppossed to be but is changing because of people blameing guns for crimes, or bullets as the case is in California now, IF we want things changed crime down etc. it is time to start punishing the criminal for thier actions not sending them to the doctor because they say they don't understand it is illegal or they were "Temporarily" insane, if they are insane enough to kill then fine put them in a prison/home by themselves till they die of old age there they wont harm anyone, Time to get rid of judges and polticians that are bleeding harts and think that a 16yr old killer will reform the day he turns 18 so let him go and sel his records so no one can ever prove he killed before when he does it again, then let him server life in prison till hes 30 and let him out what a joke life 10years, if thier is no room in our prisions for more, then quit wasting our tax money trying to come up with ways to ban guns and ammunition and house people to lazy to ever get a job, use the money build as many jails/prisons as needed ones without cable TV, workout gyms,congical visits, radios etc. ones where the prisoners work 8 hours a day giving something back to the community they stole from(like trash pickup,painting public buildings etc.) because you do this and people will not want to return to prison, or go there in the 1st place, and the people to lazy to ever of had a job and want to live off us taxpayers well they will want a job because working outside of these prisons will be a whole lot better than working in one. And you dont hink this would be a deterrent ask any law enforcememt officer with any experience how many times hes arrested people that "wanted" to go to jail because they like it there or thier friends are there, happens uncounted many times a day.
Thats all i got to say for now. Please excuse typing errors i have only one available hand right now due to poor helpless criminal i arrested the other day, who by the way is getting 4 square meals a day in jail while im trying to figure out how to pay my bills while im off and waiting to see if comp is coming, geeeez

Serendipity

May 20th, 2001, 04:24 PM

Thanks for that, LawDog, Welcome to DumbLaws, and I hope you recover from your injuries soon.

First, if I may answer Chimp: you say that Prime Minister Blair is planning some kind of incarceration program? First I've heard of it! Where'd you get your information?

LawDog, I'll restrict my comments on your points about we non-Americans and our laws and states. First, here (UK) we're not likely to relax our very tight gun control laws in the near future. A few years back a guy with some kind of sexual hangup about small boys went beserk in a school and killed several (was it 11? This is Dunblane I'm on about) kids with a handgun, and that started a tightening of gun laws here.

Two other things: You say it's not right to compare my country with yours unless I take into account total population, city density, etc. I have made one such comparison, using a statistic posted by someone defending guns in the US, that 30,000 people are killed each year in the US by guns, and I scaled down the population to UK size, this would mean 9,000 people annually killed in the UK. As for city density, have you been to London? 6.5 million people. We have cities here all right.

The second point was that I infer you think the UK is not a free country? If a free country is one where guns are available, that's a pretty slim definition, don't you think? By "free country," I think of a state in which the general will of the people is how the place is run, democratically, with rights to free speech and assembly. If it is the will of the people that guns should not be available, and a suitable law is passed, is that not a sign of a free country?

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

artsmass

May 21st, 2001, 03:03 AM

Earlier I asked why people buy handguns instead of shotguns for home protection.

From a tactical standpoint, shotguns are better for home defense than handguns and here's a few reasons:

1) shotguns leave a devastating wound.

2) buckshot patterns make aiming less critical.

3) just the sound of a round being shucked into the chamber of a shotgun is usually enough to send the bad guy running

4) the most important reason of all: safety. Buckshot is less likely to penetrate a wall and injure an innocent family member or neighbor.

Hey Lawdog, welcome to Dumb Laws! Do you post over at TFL?

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

artsmass

May 21st, 2001, 03:09 AM

As far as I know anyway, she didn't get a reply to that letter. Seriously, what could a mealy mouthed politician say in response to a letter like that?

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Ada_Doom

May 21st, 2001, 04:05 AM

Maybe I am being excessively naive (again) but in reply to Chimp rubbishing the idea that criminals only take a gun if they think they are going to need one:
1) I like to have a little faith in humanity, even criminal humanity
2) If the object is robbery, most criminals are likely aware that armed robbery is a more serious crime with a harsher penalty. Ergo, it is in their interest not to take a gun unnecessarily.
OK, now you can all shout me down again, and I will return to Cloud Cuckoo Land. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

P.S. I too object to the inference that you cannot have a free country unless every citizen is armed to the teeth.

And yes, Dippy, I think 11 pupils and their teacher died at Dunblane.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited May 21, 2001).]

artsmass

May 21st, 2001, 04:15 AM

If it is the will of the people that guns should not be available, and a suitable law is passed, is that not a sign of a free country?

Here in the US at one time, the will of the people said that it was OK for a person to own another person as a slave. That didn't make it right as far as I'm concerned.

People can be propagandized and brainwashed, the gun control fallacy is a shining example of this.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Serendipity

May 21st, 2001, 03:01 PM

Arts, the moral issues involved in slavery are a lot more clear-cut than in the guns issue, and popular views from all social strata are better represented in politics nowadays. I know that there in the US (was it the US at the time?) you had slaves, because we in the UK sold an awful lot of them to you, and we thought we had the right to do so.

It wasn't propaganda that made me, for one, glad to see a tightening of gun law here, it was the thought of those children in Dunblane, and other 'madman with a gun' occurrences (eg, Hungerford).

Every time there's a school shooting in the US (far too many of those lately), it's reported widely here, in the press and on TV. If kids here could get hold of a gun as easily as those kids in the US, how long before we see copycat shootings here? I really don't want that for my country. If the price I pay is that I cannot own a gun, then so be it. This country is pretty cool, fortunately I don't feel that I need a gun. Remember, not even our police carry guns.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

Ada_Doom

May 22nd, 2001, 04:28 AM

Hear hear.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

artsmass

May 22nd, 2001, 06:52 AM

Hi SD, morality is something that each person defines for himself, wouldn't you agree? Why then should my freedoms be subject to the moral beliefs of the Govt or the "will of the people?"

Every time there's a school shooting in the US (far too many of those lately), it's reported widely here, in the press and on TV.

Exactly. If you wanted to propagandize the maximum amount of people at the same time, which medium would you choose? And then, wouldn't you repeat your message over and over again? Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe that it's true.

Literally dozens of gun control laws are broken every time one of these school shootings occur, how many more need to be passed before these psychopathic kids will say "I can't break THAT law and start killing people?" I'll acknowlege that school shootings are a problem here, but the problem isn't gun related, it's societal in nature. Gun control laws are a lame and feeble attempt at treating the symptom while letting the disease thrive.

As of right now anyway, I can still own a gun. I have the right to protect myself against armed thugs that would maim or kill my family without remorse. I have the right to defend my liberty against tyranny in Govt. It's called freedom, and despite its name, freedom isn't free.

And yes, slaves were owned both before and after the American Revolution.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Serendipity

May 22nd, 2001, 03:27 PM

Arts, Let's get this clear: I am no longer arguing about gun control in the US, I think it's regrettable, but you need your guns and should have the right to access to them, I acknowledge that. But the arguments you're putting across seems to be that we need them here too, and that the right to bear arms is synonymous with freedom. Here in the UK that would lead to escalation of gun possession, which would lead to more people killed, innocent law-abiding people and criminals alike. It would lead to armed police, at present they go unarmed because they don't need guns - if these agents of the government don't feel they need guns, why should I, or anyone else?

About propaganda, the gun issue in the UK is not really a big deal, so there's not much propagandising about it, but we hear stuff in the news about school shootings in the US and, well, I say to myself: "So much for the greatest country in the world." All that freedom and the US can't guarantee the right of American kids to go to school without getting shot. But British kids are influenced by what they see in the media, which is one reason why I don't want to see the proliferation of guns here. You mentioned armed thugs, which hits the nail on the head: What causes problems? Guns (the thug is armed). What's the solution? More guns. Nobody has tackled my earlier question, How many people does the ready availability of guns give the opportunity of a life of crime?

Idnew

May 22nd, 2001, 03:44 PM

I think that it's great that a country doesn't see the needs for guns even to their policemen. I'm afraid we will never see that as guns have been around for centuries here and will continue to be so. Gun racks are very common here in the windows of pick up trucks. Ya know I be in redneck country anyway and that's part of the life around here. Take away their guns and their confederate flags and you will see a war for sure.

------------------
(ô¿ô)A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

artsmass

May 23rd, 2001, 09:47 AM

Hi SD, at least some of your police departments are waking up over there. From the BBC:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_984000/984404.stm

Sunday, 22 October, 2000, 04:31 GMT 05:31 UK
'Armed' police on the beat

Armed patrols were prompted by increased shootings

A police force has resorted to wearing handguns while on foot patrol in an effort to combat rising gun crime, it has been reported.
The Sunday Times says Nottinghamshire police took the decision after a series of shootings on two of the city's estates, sparked by rival gangs of drug dealers.

Police usually carry guns only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or diplomatic duties.

The move - a break from a British tradition of unarmed bobbies on the beat - is being closely watched by at least six other forces, including Merseyside and West Yorkshire, says the paper.

Operation Real Estate involves at least six officers, armed with pistols and operating in pairs, spending up to five hours from dusk until midnight patrolling the streets.

Police are not usually armed on foot patrols

They will carry P990 pistols on their hips and will be supported by two police vans carrying rifles to be used for special incidents or road checks.

The operation also includes increased unarmed patrols.

The Times said the Home Office had not been consulted over the decision.

HO minister Charles Clarke told the paper he had not been aware of it until last week.

He is reported as saying: "I would stress this is an operational matter for the chief constable, but I have asked for a full briefing.

"For the time being I am not going to say more than that."

Firearm training

And Marcus Beale, Nottinghamshire's chief superintendent told The Times: "This measure is about preventing gun violence becoming the norm and someone being murdered."

He said other cities in the UK were also suffering from the problem.

Officers are trained to use firearms only where there is a "danger or threat to life", says The Times.

Last December police figures stated armed crime was up 10%, with 13,671 armed offences - up from 12,410 the previous year.

But experts believe around half such incidents involve imitation guns, saying untrained members of the public find it hard to distinguish between real and fake firearms.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Interesting is the fact that armed crime is up 10% there, while decreasing to record low levels here.

"So much for the greatest country in the world." All that freedom and the US can't guarantee the right of American kids to go to school without getting shot.

And I can go to a soccer game and not get stomped to death. What is your point?

What causes problems? Guns

Wrong. Prove to me that ANY gun will turn an otherwise law abiding person into a raging, drooling sociopathic killer.

(the thug is armed). What's the solution? More guns. Nobody has tackled my earlier question, How many people does the ready availability of guns give the opportunity of a life of crime?[/quote]

None, although that fact would be difficult to prove. Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity.

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

May 23rd, 2001, 11:53 AM

Serendipity,

"In July 1999, a "consultation paper" was issued by the Home Office entitled "Managing Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder: Proposals for Policy Development".

Cleverly and quietly buried within that document, one finds that the British government intends to create legislation that would permit the "indeterminate detention" of people classified as "dangerous severely personality disordered", or DSPD. "This option would create a new legal framework for detention of all DSPD individuals, based on the risk they present...rather than whether they have been convicted of any offence." "
This quote is from commentary at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1521
This is not the only source I've read about this, but I don't keep a bibliography so it is not that easy to provide additional citations. I'm sure if you are interested you can find out more. Don't be surprised when "dangerous severely personality disordered" individuals turn out to be vocal critics of the regime, indians, jews, or whoever else can be made into the bogeyman.

Regards

May 23rd, 2001, 12:04 PM

Artmas,

Your observations on the advantages of a shotgun over a handgun for self defence are all valid, but you neglected to mention some advantages that handguns have.
Handguns are smaller and lighter than a shotgun and as such are more wieldy in close quarters and are more easily aimed and fired by the weak, or small.
Handguns can be operated with one hand, leaving the other free for opening doors, turning on lights, or calling on the phone.
Handguns are shorter and are less easily grabbed by intruders that might be lurking behind a doorway or around a corner.
Not to say that the shotgun is not the best home defense choice overall, it might be. But, there are legitimate reasons that someone might chose a handgun instead.

Regards

~wildangel~

May 23rd, 2001, 12:38 PM

WELCOME LAWDOG!!! Sorry about your hand also.
That poor innocent criminal http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Criminals (I know this because I have a few in my family and know many unfortunatly in this pathetic city)do NOT think before they act. One time in my younger very wild days, when I used to run with the street gangs and so on) I wanted to shoot this girl and I carried a shotgun and I didnt care wether it was a shotgun, a handgun, if I was going to prison or jail or anything for that matter.
Another time I pulled a knife out on this guy that hit me and I tried to shank him but a guy friend jumped in and stopped me. I was not thinking that I might go to jail ect. I just didnt care. Luckilly I never went through with any of my plans because I had alot of older people to look out for me that cared about me in some way or else I wouldnt be here today, I would be in prison. It's a good thing that old gangster guy took the gun away from me when he did. He may be a loser but I have something to thank him for which he would never know about! But anyways, the point is that Criminals do not think before they act. They do not care what happens to them, they do not think about anything but what the're planning to do to you. Kill you, or rob you (with or without a gun).
I look back and cant believe I ever thought that way and thank God I changed and hope these criminals today can change too.
Basically it doesnt matter if you have a gun, dont have a gun, have an oozie or a 9 mil. That criminals gonna go in there and shoot you or get shot himself.

------------------
"Where theres a will......I wanna be in it"

Enter into "The Blackhole...hahahahahahaha" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/blackhole.html)

Serendipity

May 23rd, 2001, 05:29 PM

Arts, we've always had armed divisions of the police, and the police going armed in a very small part of Nottinghamshire because of local problems is perhaps the start of a general change, but until guns in the hands of criminals becomes a widespread problem, I don't want one. There are parts of the UK, I'm thinking of Northern Ireland here, where gun possession is widespread, and for good reason. Except in tiny enclaves of mainland UK, those problems don't exist. Although the IRA have often planted bombs in mainland UK, I don't see that an armed population could do anything about it. The criminals in Nottingham have to get all their ammunition through the black market, it would not help the situation if they, or their agents, could buy bullets from a shop.

Chimp, I'm not that paranoid, nor am I too sceptical about what the government does. Sure, there's corruption, there's lying, there's coverups, but I have chosen not to worry about it. I do worry about what big, usually American corporations do.

I've said all I have to say on this subject. If I ever own or carry a gun it will be because there is a need for me to do so. At present that need does not exist.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

May 24th, 2001, 03:52 PM

Hi all!
1st Artsmass no i dont post at TFL that I know of http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif tell me where it is.

I want to point something out here in my own personel statistics:
In 12 years as a Police Officer I have:
-Been assulted by someone with an axe twice.
-Been Assulted by someone driving a car 4 times.
-Been Assulted by someone using a rock 1 time.
-Been Assulted by someone using thier barehands Aprox. 60 chargable times. (im only including times i made assualt or resisiting charges in this)
-Been Assulted with someone using a gun 1 time.

What am i trying to say here?
1st I dont like being assulted with anything. Second I dont think the goverment should ban and do away with axes,rocks,cars and peoples fist,arms and legs (I personnaly think you all would look funny with out them.)Why dont I want these things banned, because they sure did hurt me didnt they? No they did not A PERSON HURT or tried to hurt me not the car, axe or the rock, We surly are not going to ban cars or start suing car companys because thier product was used as illegal weapon. Thier are more deaths and injuries by car a year from drunk drivers,wreckless drivers, inexperinced drivers, than there are gun deaths. What did our people and goverment do to help this situation? well in the late 80's they started Drunk driving groups like MADD(Mothers against drunk driving) the goverments state and federal started passing laws AND enorcing them, making sever penalties on people caught drunk driving, this made people aware and made them afraid to get caught drunk driving, and greatly reduced the number of drunks driving and accident related to them, it also greatly reduced the number of repeat offenders. So why do we not do this about guns? Why didnt we just ban vehicles that would have been the right thing?

The criminal dont care with what he uses as a weapon, or care who he uses it against.

So what can be done to stop the violence?
banning anything isnt going to stop it, what will is: parents raising thier kids and teaching morals instead of letting the TV and the internet and the kids friends raise them. Enforcing the already established laws and making the puinishment more than a handslap. Teaching kids the consequences of thier actions what they do affects others and thier selves. These things are what are going to change the world.

I must also point out that the 1st recorded murder in the history of man was executed by the use of a rock, cain killed able.
Here are some interesting quotes, do want to agree with these people?
"Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, the Communist Party must control the guns."
Mao Tse Tung
"The most FOOLISH mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
Adolph Hitler, edict of 18 March, 1938
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
Maybe we should agree with these people instead:
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 and Luke 11:21, respectively
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed unless they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which has proven to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

Also a note: Population of England: Aprox. 7 million , population of NY Aprox. 14.8 million. These i found using ask jeeves.

Latez all.
Please see next post.

May 24th, 2001, 03:57 PM

I just want to add these interesting statistics, and encourage people to fight against the UN making laws and controling our country.

A few FACTS about why gun control is good for everyone. And the United Nations wants this for us all!!
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 through 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 through 1953, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 through 1945, 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, HOMOSEXUALS, the mentally ill, and other "mongrolized" people, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1949 through ???, 20 MILLION political dissidents and others, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 through 1977, 1 MILLION "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 through 1981, 100,000 native Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 through 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The United States started establishing gun control in 1934??

artsmass

May 25th, 2001, 06:36 PM

Hiya LawDog, feel free to join us over at The Firing Line, one of the best organized and friendliest firearms enthusiast forums on the `net. There are board topics from black powder to full auto and reloading. You will have to pick another username tho, we already have a LawDog over there http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/index.php

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

~wildangel~

May 25th, 2001, 09:00 PM

http://angelfire.animfactory.com/animations/war/guns/over_under_shotgun_turning_md_wht.gif

------------------
"Where theres a will......I wanna be in it"

Enter into "The Blackhole...hahahahahahaha" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/blackhole.html)

Ada_Doom

May 28th, 2001, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by LawDog:
I just want to add these interesting statistics, and encourage people to fight against the UN making laws and controling our country.

A few FACTS about why gun control is good for everyone. And the United Nations wants this for us all!!
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 through 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 through 1953, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 through 1945, 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, HOMOSEXUALS, the mentally ill, and other "mongrolized" people, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1949 through ???, 20 MILLION political dissidents and others, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 through 1977, 1 MILLION "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 through 1981, 100,000 native Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 through 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The United States started establishing gun control in 1934??

I just thought to point out that none of these countries were democracies during the period stated, and that perhaps all these people died due to the fanatical beliefs of their leaders rather than the fact that they didn't have a gun. Anyone who thinks Anne Frank might mot have ended in Auschwitz if her Dad had had a gun (to take one example) is an idiot. Maybe gun control made the Holocaust easier for the Gestapo and the Purges easier for the NKVD and KGB, but weapons wouldn't have saved these people in any quantity. This applies to all the above examples in my opinion, though I have only written about the ones I vaguely know about. To imply that gun controls in the States would bring about another Holocaust, Pogrom, Purge, Crusade, Ethnic Cleansing or Cultural Revolution (call it what you will) is hysterical and verging on emotional blackmail. It also shows a terrible lack of confidence in your democratic system. For all I dislike Mr Bush, he is by no means another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, or Tsar.

A gun is specifically designed for the purpose of taking a life, which is itself a violation of the right to life, the most fundamental human right. Whether it is done by a criminal, a psychotic dictator, a government official or a citizen trying to defend his home, violating the right to life is ALWAYS morally indefensible.

The reason no-one has tried to outlaw rocks, cars, axes etc etc, is that they serve a purpose other than killing. Guns do not.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited May 28, 2001).]

Serendipity

May 28th, 2001, 03:18 PM

Well said, Ada.

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

Idnew

May 28th, 2001, 10:08 PM

Gosh Ada I actually understood all that. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'm glad the UK doesn't need the guns that would be so nice of the States didn't either.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Compassion, Sympathy, Congratulations, Sarcasim,(pay close attention to this one) are just a few of the things we offer at Dumb Laws(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Ada_Doom

May 29th, 2001, 08:35 AM

My God! I made sense! That's a first!

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

artsmass

May 30th, 2001, 05:45 AM

A gun is specifically designed for the purpose of taking a life

Hmmmmmmm........ By this definition, all of my guns are defective because they have a design flaw that has stopped them from taking any lives. *sigh*

As a matter of fact, 97+% of the estimated 240,000,000 guns here in the US never take a life. Talk about wide spread design faults!

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Serendipity

May 30th, 2001, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by artsmass:

As a matter of fact, 97+% of the estimated 240,000,000 guns here in the US never take a life. Talk about wide spread design faults!

"Guns don't kill, people kill". Arts, please say rather that there's an awful lot of defective people! Joking aside, 97+%? 240 million guns? 97% of 240 million leaves 3% of guns that have killed. Since some guns will have killed more than once, I'll take this as a good enough statistic. There are therefore about 7 million guns in the US that have killed. I assume the figure you quoted excludes military weapons?

Since 240m guns is about one per head of population of the US, you should be thankful for the design fault!

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

Ada_Doom

May 31st, 2001, 02:15 AM

My penknife has a hoof pick on it. Just because I've never used it to pick a hoof, doesn't mean that's not what it was designed to do.

Just out of interest, Arts (or indeed anyone) what is the purpose of a gun, if not to kill?

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

artsmass

May 31st, 2001, 05:10 AM

There are therefore about 7 million guns in the US that have killed. I assume the figure you quoted excludes military weapons?

To tell ya the truth SD, I don't even remember where I read that statistic but it did exclude military killings. The actual figure was more like 99.?%

My penknife has a hoof pick on it. Just because I've never used it to pick a hoof, doesn't mean that's not what it was designed to do.
Just out of interest, Arts (or indeed anyone) what is the purpose of a gun, if not to kill?

The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at high velocity. Where that projectile goes is the responsibility of the person holding the gun. In other words, I could kill somebody with your pen knife, should we implement pen knife control??

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

Idnew

May 31st, 2001, 01:58 PM

Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

"FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor."

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
(ô¿ô)Compassion, Sympathy, Congratulations, Sarcasim,(pay close attention to this one) are just a few of the things we offer at Dumb Laws(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Serendipity

May 31st, 2001, 03:48 PM

...and what about that automobeeeeelll?

Can I drag this discussion back to the question:

Is the right to gun possession intrinsic to personal liberty in all countries and situations?

------------------
I'm a Moderator. Twisted Moderator.

Midnight77

May 31st, 2001, 07:46 PM

Not necessarily. What may be right for us in the US may not be right for anyone else in the world. It depends on the society and culture of the country in question. The only ones that have the right to determine what is right or wrong for any group are the members of that group. As an example, cannabalism is widely held as unacceptable (to say the least), yet a few tribal groups that have remained mostly unaffected by modern society still practice cannabalism in some instances. We, as a modern society have no real right to impose our sense of morality on their culture.

artsmass

May 31st, 2001, 10:30 PM

Is the right to gun possession intrinsic to personal liberty in all countries and situations?

The right to self defense is intrinsic regardless of geographical location. Does anyboby here feel as though the police and/or the thugs have the right to be better armed that the law abiding citizens?

------------------
Art

Dumb Laws' token looney Libertarian

"quotes are for people who have nothing original to say" You can quote me on that :Þ~

June 3rd, 2001, 11:17 PM

If you think guns are uneeded lets take a step back in time: Would America be America if it's citizens didnt own guns when she was starting out? answer :no.

Does citiens owning guns prevent/impede other countries from invading? answer: yes,Proof:Quote "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

Again I quote Hitler:
The most FOOLISH mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
Adolph Hitler, edict of 18 March, 1938

And

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935

If hitler being for gun control isnt enough reason for everyone to go out and buy a gun then NOTHING is AND if you rest easy beleiving that there are no mor "Hitlers" in the world I feel sorry for you, because if you watch the news you will see many wanna bees and it will only take the right one to try it! All this and not even mentiong the basic right one has to protect themselves and thier familys:allow me to quote from the Bible here:"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 and Luke 11:21

Everyone can have thier opiion i dont hink you are bad because you dont want a gun, so feel the same way about me having one or 5

Ada_Doom

June 5th, 2001, 02:15 AM

Hitler's support for gun control was the very least of the things he should be hated for. Compared to most of his other policies, that one was a mere bagatelle. As I remember, old Adolf was a big fan of Wagner. That is not a good reason for me not to like Wagner, similarly, his support for gun control is not a good reason for me to be against it.

To quote the Bible right back at you: "Thou shalt not kill." "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and the other bit, which I cannot quote word for word: turn the other cheek.

I still think the Right to Life is a more important fundamental human right than the Right to Bear Arms.

What was that Mark Twain thing about, "I think what you say is wrong, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it..." http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

June 5th, 2001, 08:25 AM

Oh, come on, Ada_Doom.....

The difference between Hitler's love of Wagner and his policy on guns is that one is a private, personal preference that has little to do with his performance as leader of his country (though Wagner was notoriously anti-Semitic), and the other is an actual element of his public policy that affected the general populace.

The original text of the commandment was "Thou shalt do no murder". The mistranslation as "Thou shalt not kill" is one of many distortions King James has to answer for. I am neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, but I have read plenty of articles that quote Scripture in justification of self-defense. See LawDog's post above.

The so-called "right to life" campaign is a euphemism for efforts to keep women in their place by denying them reproductive choice. Read "Backlash" by Susan Faludi.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is a quote from Voltaire, not Mark Twain.

All in all, I rate your last post at about 5% effective content (for teh quote, though mis-attributed).

June 5th, 2001, 09:32 AM

Since I brought it up Read down to verse 3:
Ecclesiastes 3

1. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6. A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

And for you other LEO's:
Matthew 5:8-10 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

Now the Bible I am sure is not saying murder is right, bu tit is saying there is a time when killing is neccessary and the Bibles defintions of neccessary are: In self defense, in a righteous war, to protect friends/family and as punishment for commiting murder, I do not have verses off hand to show you for ref but I will lokk them up and repost them for you shortly.

Now I personnaly believe the killing is wrong as most people do, unfortunatly not every one agrees with that and it is from those people we need the right protect ourselves, I believe that we should use only the amount of force neccessary to stop whatever it is that is happening, Again unfortunatly the "bad guy" tends to use guns or knives as thier weapons of choice,Now I can train you to properly handle,and use a gun in self defense in a shirt time compared to the years of training it would take to teach someone to properly use a knife for self defense, not to mention the fact that even the most highly trained person in knife fighting techniques will tell you that anytime you get into a knife fight you are going to get cut. But arguing with you about gun control is like kicking a dead horse, you dont want a gun so dont buy a gun or ever own one., but leave my right to own one alone because you may not ecer want a gun and its your right but you will someday want something and I will be there saying yea they have the right for that I may not want it but that dont mean you shouldnt be able to have it.
Now as far as Hitler anyone that argues with those statment he made politacly has a problem, maybe your right to agree with him but it is my right to say you should seek medical attention for your mental disorder.

June 5th, 2001, 09:44 AM

Opps I forgot something: Your Quote:"To quote the Bible right back at you: "Thou shalt not kill." "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and the other bit, which I cannot quote word for word: turn the other cheek.

I still think the Right to Life is a more important fundamental human right than the Right to Bear Arms."

1.Thou shalt not murder is the proper translation of your statment,Killing in selfs defense is not murder.

you cant turn the other cheek if you are laying face down on it.

As part of your right to life is to LIVE and to protect yourself.Not protecting yourself would be kin to suicied which by the way is Gods only unforgivable sin.
(Dont get me wrong i am not saying your sinning by not owning a gun or not trying to protect yourself.)

The right to bear arms protects your right to life.

Ada_Doom

June 6th, 2001, 03:51 AM

Well that shows me that I shouldn't try and quote from memory. Everyone has stupid moments. This appears to have been one of mine. http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'll stand by the Voltaire (not Twain, sorry, it sounded like it ought to be!) quote.

My point about Hitler was that you cannot claim something is bad merely because Hitler endorsed it. A lot of the things he endorsed were bad and evil and horrible, but gun control was not necessarily one of them.

A final comment to David as regards the Right to Life: This is not not only about abortion. The right to life is the right of every human being not to have their life terminated by a third party whether legally or otherwise. Anti-abortionists have exploited this in order to get their way, notably in Germany where the post-Nazi constitution states that the Right to Life is inalienable, and the Pro-lifers argued this included foetuses and it took along time to overrule them. For the record, I am not anti-abortion, but that is a different argument.

And now back to gun control....

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited June 06, 2001).]

June 6th, 2001, 06:07 PM

OK, Ada, back to gun control....

If you define "right to life" as the right of a human being to not have their life taken, then what options shall I have when someone tries to take my life? I'm back to the argument I made a long while back, that self-defense is a basic right in any just civilization, and that to deny the tools to exercise it is to deny the right itself.

Ada_Doom

June 7th, 2001, 03:21 AM

He has the right to life just as much as you do. Just because he is an "evil criminal genius" doesn't mean he should be denied his basic human rights. If you take his life, so that he doesn't take yours, that means he has been denied his basic human rights and you haven't. Two wrongs do not make a right.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

cleoeo

June 8th, 2001, 11:05 PM

Great Googley Moogley what a hot topic.

For what it's worth, there's at least one society where the citizens are armed to the teeth and there is almost no individual freedom. Try disagreeing with the Taliban.

June 9th, 2001, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
He has the right to life just as much as you do. Just because he is an "evil criminal genius" doesn't mean he should be denied his basic human rights. If you take his life, so that he doesn't take yours, that means he has been denied his basic human rights and you haven't. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Ada,

Do you mean to suggest by your post that a violent criminal and his intended victim are equivalent, that the victim who defends his own life by taking the life of his attacker is morally equivalent to a murderer? I submit that if you honestly believe that then you must believe that human life has no value whatsoever. Only if human life were completely devoid of value could murder and defending one's life with lethal force be morally equivalent.

Considering that you are probably not alone in your bankrupt philosophy, is it any wonder that those of us that value life and liberty prefer to remain armed?

June 9th, 2001, 10:52 PM

RayH

June 10th, 2001, 07:26 AM

The lack of enforcement of the present gun laws is DUMB!

Ada_Doom

June 11th, 2001, 03:37 AM

I don't believe human life has no value. I just don't believe that one persons life is more valuable than another persons life. Excuse me while I climb back into my Ivory Tower... http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

Good point Ray. If you're going to make the laws, then you ought to enforce them...

------------------
A tractor driver will never know the small pleasure of overtaking another vehicle, just the huge happiness of stopping others from overtaking him.

The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

August 9th, 2001, 01:00 PM

I agree! I can just hear a criminal say to himself "I HATED it when President Clinton signed the Brady Bill. Because now I have to wait 5 days before breaking into a gun store to rip off a weapon to hold up the bank, or wait 5 days to buy one on the black market!"
HELLO! DO THE ANTI-GUNNERS REALLY THINK A CRIMINAL IS GOING TO THINK THIS WAY?
If that ain't bad enough, consider a drug lord saying this:
"Oh drat!-They just passed a law and now I'm not allowed to bring my foreign-made semi-automatic into the US when I smuggle my next load of drugs in. I might get into trouble if I do-I guess I better leave it at home."
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

August 9th, 2001, 06:32 PM

Ok I guess I must use some statistics: In 1999 in the US there were around 25,000 violent deaths due to guns. over 30% of those are due to "accidents" like the 5 year old who finds a gun and plays with it, or the "law abiding" man who shoots his wife when he thinks that she is an intruder. Whereas in 1999 in Japan, the UK, Austrailia, and france who have around a total population equal to the us and have made gun ownership illegal(i may have forgotten to list a country from the statistic), they had 108 gun deaths period. as such those accidental deaths are not going to happen. Also with so few that means that the criminals aren't getting the guns even though you americans always claim that if you make guns illegal criminals will still get them, the numbers disagree with that.

Now also there is no reason to have guns they only complicate things. but it doesn't much matter to me since I live where there aren't any and I am really happy about that (another statistic 50% of all assult weapons in the US are owned by private citizens. I can understand a rifle, for hunting and skeet shooting, but an assult weapon, what are you people scared that 50 armed men will try to rob and rape you at once?)

------------------
N

paulgro

August 9th, 2001, 08:54 PM

NapoleonGH, welcome to dumb laws....

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)
Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)

~wildangel~

August 9th, 2001, 09:27 PM

Welcome guys to dumblaws http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif You are both guys right!? hehe, anyways...
It would be nice if we didnt have to have guns here in California, I dont know where you guys are from, but here it's already a fact that people have them. I wish there were no guns either, i mean, we dont own one, or want one cause we dont feel we need one, when we move to Oregon my hubby thinks he's getting one to shoot a deer...yea right, the guy LOVES animals so I dont see that happening,he would look at it and not be able to) but there are some places and even around here that you couldnt even sleep at night without one for fear of being robbed or something http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif So there isnt much of a choice anymore, there are too many scumbag losers that carry guns in gangs! STUPID asses but it's the way it is!
I agree that guns cause most of the deaths but it's too late and there not going to be able to get rid of them now...i dont think!

------------------
"We cannot build the future for our youth but we can build our youth for the future."

Click here for adorable faces!" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)

August 10th, 2001, 04:47 PM

May I respond quick to the statement that "If you don't have guns, criminals won't get them."?
150 years ago, we didn't have "meth." labs. Why? The drug didn't exist (for all practical purposes.) Cocaine, LSD, etc. are totally illegal drugs. How many law abiding citizens have those drugs? None.
What It boils down to is that we've lost the element of common sense in this country! I mean, now seriously, in my opinion, our 2nd Amendment lists no restrictions. So, as far as I'm concerned, we are legally able to have I.C.B.M.'s if we want. However, the way I see it, What would I do with one? I wouldn't want one! In short, we have to start getting back to the principles and ideas of our (great) grandparents. They were raised with a whole lot more common sense than many of us seem to be. Know what I mean?

August 12th, 2001, 12:13 AM

firstly thank you for welcoming me.

Second, it is quite rediculous to assume that that people who wrote the constitution had any more sence than current people. MOst of them owned slaves. Instead look at it that at the time they were making the constitution the firearms that existed were Cannons, Rifles, Muskets, and pistols. That was it, and also at the time it was very necessary for many people to own weapons because they used them to hunt. Another thing is that at the time they were terrified of an oppressive government. So they said that the common person could own a gun. Now in the US the people who are for the combination of Church and state, who are for limiting rights (like the people who are for making drugs illegal, for the death penalty, for supression of free speech in music and literature, ect.) are also the people who belong to, run, and are paid off by the NRA, in effect the measure that was invented to prevent oppression now is supporting oppression. Go figure

August 14th, 2001, 01:29 PM

For Napoleon GH:
I'm TRYING to figure...you lost me somewhere on that reply.
What I meant by common sense is that moral ideas, honor, respect, etc. were alot more widely practiced years ago I hate to say. I'm not picking on anyone, but people in general had more manners and such drilled into them, if you will, as children. I'm 28 right now, and even when we were kids, I guarantee you, if we would've even THOUGHT of bringing one of "daddy's" guns to school, we probably still wouldn't be able to sit down! Today, well, look at Columbine-I rest my case.
We were brought up to have respect for guns-and none of us kids have mile-long criminal records, so to say. A gun, or any other machine or tool, is only as dangerous as the man behind it. One of the things the NRA (to which I am a life member since 1989) is concerned with is the old saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a foot." If you follow me.
To me, it isn't really about guns per say, it's about your right to choose on a consumer item-and, like I said before, doing so with common sense and responsibility. Sure, I could go out right now and buy me an "AK-47" and a 40-round clip, but I don't want one-I have no use for it. But so many people today are like "Oh! I gotta' have 'one of those!'", not me.

August 14th, 2001, 05:25 PM

contrary to popular belief the numbers of school shootings were just as high in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's as they are now they just were not as widely reported and were considered primarily comunity concern, not the concern of national news by the community

Idnew

August 15th, 2001, 07:24 AM

Welcome Nap. Sorry have to disagree with you on the "just as common". They were almost non existent in those years. The teachers were stricter and not worried about law suits in those years. Yes, the problems that were encountered were taken care of by the school and the parents. Today's youth are being left on their own too much and being neglected by their parents IMO.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Compassion, Sympathy, Congratulations, Sarcasim,(pay close attention to this one) are just a few of the things we offer at Dumb Laws(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm) Come To Ferrets (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi) Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)

August 15th, 2001, 11:21 AM

That's a big 10-4 there Idnew! Case and point: I remember my pa telling me once when he was in high school, a kid was playing around on the second floor above our "commons" area. and a teacher grabbed him and hung him over the side (about 15 or 20 feet down) and told him told settle down! They do that today, and they'd lose their job in 2 seconds! Also, even 20 years ago, if the F.C.C. would hear you say "darn" or "shoot" on t.v. or radio, you'd probably get a notice of violation! Today they say the "actual words", to put it politely, and WORSE, and what does the F.C.C. do? NOTHING!
With all due respect to everyone out here no one can make me believe that statement that "Oh, violence, and, shall I say, 'inappropriate material', with ladies and children out here, doesn't give people ideas!" With all this rap, or as I call it, rat music-to me, that's all it's good for-with language and suggestive comments that aren't fit for a pool hall-let alone out in public, you can't tell me it doesn't alter people's minds. Especially when mommy and daddy aren't there to explain what's wrong about it, you can't really blame the children 100%. After all, you only know what you're taught. And if kids are taught not to play with, and respect guns-as we were-they won't.

August 15th, 2001, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by J. Frank Pinell:
That's a big 10-4 there Idnew! Case and point: I remember my pa telling me once when he was in high school, a kid was playing around on the second floor above our "commons" area. and a teacher grabbed him and hung him over the side (about 15 or 20 feet down) and told him told settle down! They do that today, and they'd lose their job in 2 seconds! Also, even 20 years ago, if the F.C.C. would hear you say "darn" or "shoot" on t.v. or radio, you'd probably get a notice of violation! Today they say the "actual words", to put it politely, and WORSE, and what does the F.C.C. do? NOTHING!
With all due respect to everyone out here no one can make me believe that statement that "Oh, violence, and, shall I say, 'inappropriate material', with ladies and children out here, doesn't give people ideas!" With all this rap, or as I call it, rat music-to me, that's all it's good for-with language and suggestive comments that aren't fit for a pool hall-let alone out in public, you can't tell me it doesn't alter people's minds. Especially when mommy and daddy aren't there to explain what's wrong about it, you can't really blame the children 100%. After all, you only know what you're taught. And if kids are taught not to play with, and respect guns-as we were-they won't.
--------------------------------------------
Correction. Sorry, my english grades was never that good! (bad joke intended!)
Anyway, to clear up any misunderstanding, I should've said "If kids are taught not to play with guns-as we were they won't. Likewise if they are taught to have respect for them-again, like we were-they will."

~wildangel~

August 15th, 2001, 04:16 PM

I agree with you Frank, I also think it's what the kids are taught http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gifSure my kids get into things but they know BETTER than to do CERTAIN things! Like they get in trouble for say....breaking something thats not too important or valuable, but they KNOW not to break or even play near my glass elephant and giraffe collection! They dont go near it because ive taught them that mommy loves those and they are not to play near them! Or my vases, or flower arrangements, or our important file drawers. They just have been taught since they were born NOT to touch EVER! Kids are very smart.
They have also been taught to never point play guns at people, and we have raised them to put up there dukes! They will never need to use a gun for anything unless they want to hunt or something when there like 21!

------------------
"We cannot build the future for our youth but we can build our youth for the future."

Click here for adorable faces!" (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/babyface.html)

August 15th, 2001, 05:55 PM

so your telling me that when that guy in Texas back in 1960 got up on the high school's tower with a rifle and shot and killed 12 people that that isn't the same thing as what is going on now?

August 16th, 2001, 03:09 PM

To NapoleonGH:
Actually, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying (if that was meant for me). It IS the same thing. However, look at the time window again-the 60's. Drugs, "Do whatever you want" theory, etc. And to kids of that decade (I believe that's when the greatest amount of change [for the worse] took place. Where were mommy and daddy for the kids who were born (apparently) between 1940 and say, 1945 or '50. Most of them were still there for their kids, but obviously, it's those parents of that age that started having too lenient (I think I spelled that right) ways of raising children.
Don't get me wrong...I certainly do not agree with the old philosophy of "taking 'Jonny' out to the woodshed with pa's razor strap"! However, a crack or two on the bottom now and then certainly will not hurt the kid. (That's the way we were raised, and none of us have "mile-long criminal records".)
However, just listen to kids only 5 or 6 years old today-sounding like marine drill sergeants, if you will. BOY! If we would've talked like that at home as kids we'd still be tasting soap!
Call me old fashioned if you want anyone. But frankly, I still think it all starts at home, and mom belongs there-at least while they've got young children not in Kindergarden yet. My little sister (little-not younger) used to teach at a day care, and she said that many of the kids knew HER better than their own parents! HELLO! PEOPLE ALL OVER THE U.S.A., WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! There was one kid their who she said everyday would come in with the filthiest mouth she'd ever heard! He'd also grab other kids and throw them all over the room (mimmicking WWF wrestling)! If we would've acted that way in school... Well, sorry, didn't mean to get carried away. My point being that kids were taught more respect and honor years back-that's what kept society more in order, and it's going to take us to start reversing this mess.

Serendipity

August 16th, 2001, 04:11 PM

Hold on. Did you just say that the 60's was the decade that most of the changes for the worse took place?? Tell that to any follower of Martin Luther King, tell that to all the oppressed women all over the world who finally found a voice (which you seem to want to silence). Drugs? "Do what you want"!! Did you never hear about Vietnam? Most of the changes for the worse took place in the 60's?? Did you never hear of the two World Wars, the Depression of the 30's, the 80's and 90's recessions??

paulgro

August 16th, 2001, 05:59 PM

First let me say because I am a moderator on this board that I am speaking for myself and not the board....

Frank If you knew half of what you are talking about you'd be dangerous. You talk about a time in history that you don't know crap about. People died in the streets to change laws so other people could have a better life. I don't hear you talking about that. Maybe you skiped that part in the book you read. I didn't have to read a book,I was there. There were more laws changed in the 60's then any other time in our history because they needed to be changed...What you say about the kids today is true for the most part, but the 60's had nothing to do with it...I would say some other things pal, but there's women and children out there.....

Serendipity

August 17th, 2001, 02:04 PM

Frank, this is a response I wrote to a couple of your earlier posts. I’m sorry it’s unusually long, I don’t normally do this, I thought twice about sending it at all. Like Paulgro, I’m a moderator at DumbLaws, though not on this forum. Also like Paulgro, here I speak for myself, though the mods for this forum may forgive me if I do their job a little. Bear in mind I’m from England, so my perspective is different to yours. Here in the UK handguns are not widely available, and firearms incidents are not common, though certainly not unheard-of. In this post there are five numbered questions that I’d like you to answer.
-----

I'm TRYING to figure...you lost me somewhere on that reply.
-----
At DumbLaws you don’t win arguments by acting confused, which neither fools nor impresses anybody. If you genuinely don’t understand what someone has said, just say so and explain what the problem is. In other words, we appreciate civil, courteous, respectful behaviour. After all, “The pen is mightier than the sword”, so you should be just as responsible with your posts here as you are with your guns – if not more so.

(1) Napoleon’s reply was clear and succinct. As a member of the NRA, you are ideally situated to affirm or refute his main assertion. Which parts of it didn’t you understand? Or, where did you get lost?
-----

What I meant by common sense is that moral ideas, honour, respect, etc. were a lot more widely practiced years ago I hate to say. I'm not picking on anyone, but people in general had more manners and such drilled into them, if you will, as children. I'm 28 right now, and even when we were kids, I guarantee you, if we would've even THOUGHT of bringing one of "daddy's" guns to school, we probably still wouldn't be able to sit down! Today, well, look at Columbine – I rest my case.
-----
What is your argument here? That today’s children don’t have manners, respect, and a moral code drilled into them? Whose fault is that? We’ll come to that later, think about this in the meantime: A society that has no people who dare to question authority is a very dangerous thing (or were all those soviet dissidents wrong? Martin Luther King? Nelson Mandela? Gandhi? The dead students of Tiannamen Square?), and, as Napoleon pointed out, the right to bear arms is part of the Constitution for that very reason – to give the people who question authority the tools to back up their arguments. That is not, of course, exactly what you are criticising. I don’t know the statistics, but I would hazard a guess that the kids who bring guns to school are very much in the minority; however, when they do and incidents like Columbine happen, naturally it’s headline news – but it is still an exceptional event, and atypical of what goes on in the US. If I remember right, the kids who shot up Columbine took their own lives too? What does that tell you about their relationship with their parents? It’s a lot deeper and more complex than fear of a tanned backside, anyway.
-----

We were brought up to have respect for guns – and none of us kids have mile-long criminal records, so to say. A gun, or any other machine or tool, is only as dangerous as the man behind it.
-----
A gun is as dangerous as the man behind it? Surely if he didn’t have the gun, he’d be a lot less dangerous? If not, why does the NRA exist? Furthermore, if he didn’t even own the gun, then his child wouldn’t be able to take it to school. And if he leaves it someplace where the child can pick it up and take it to school, then he has no right to own it – rights go hand in hand with responsibilities.

(2) Or am I missing something important?
-----

One of the things the NRA (to which I am a life member since 1989) is concerned with is the old saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a foot." If you follow me.
-----
(3) I don’t follow you. Of course I know what “Give them an inch…” means, but who are “they”? What the devil are you talking about, man?
-----

To me, it isn't really about guns per se, it's about your right to choose on a consumer item – and, like I said before, doing so with common sense and responsibility. Sure, I could go out right now and buy me an "AK-47" and a 40-round clip, but I don't want one – I have no use for it. But so many people today are like "Oh! I gotta' have 'one of those!'", not me.
-----
To me, it is about guns per se. If someone points a gun at me, it’s about guns, if a schoolchild takes a gun to school and starts shooting, it’s definitely about guns, and it is ludicrous, grossly insensitive and supremely unaware to suggest that it’s about consumer choice. 25,000 gun-related deaths in one year in the US – were they all caused by irresponsible senseless people, determined despite their social handicaps to exercise their consumer rights? What about the victims here, some of whom must be innocent: does it give them any more satisfaction to be blown away by a S&W than some import Saturday Night Special? I’m afraid you’re talking complete hogwash, Frank. “Your right to choose on a consumer item”!! If we had the legal right to buy whatever we want to buy, a lot of very rich American and international criminal organisations would have gone bust a long time ago. Some people, for example, would like to be able to buy pot legally, and would be perfectly able to use it with common sense and responsibility (this is true, whatever you think about pot – though I have a sneaking suspicion you may have an unshakeable opinion on that subject…). The huge global trade in narcotics makes it a consumer product, by any bar the most anally-fixated definition. So, do we have the right to purchase whatever consumer products we want? The law, evidently, is a little ambivalent on this issue.
But I don’t see any sense in the point you’re trying to make. Well done on steering clear of the AK-47, though.

(4) If you had a use for an AK-47, do you think you should have the right to buy it? If so, why? If not, why not?
-----

That's a big 10-4 there Idnew! Case in point: I remember my pa telling me once when he was in high school, a kid was playing around on the second floor above our "commons" area. and a teacher grabbed him and hung him over the side (about 15 or 20 feet down) and told him to settle down! They do that today, and they'd lose their job in 2 seconds!
-----
And this is a bad thing? The lunatic who did that should have a lot more than his job to look out for! If a teacher is so incompetent that he has to threaten an unruly child with murder or serious injury, he should quit teaching and become a cop (apologies to any police officers reading this! No offence intended). For a child to have respect for a teacher is a good thing of course, but for the teacher to have to resort to such drastic measures, well, that child was not being taught to respect, but to fear and obey – this school sounds like a fascist training facility, not a modern educational institute. Why should a child have to be mortally afraid of a teacher? Going back to what I said earlier about people questioning authority, that child has every right to question the teacher’s authority (myself, I question his very humanity). I don’t know the child in question, of course, and I trust that this event, too, was exceptional. True respect, Frank, is earned, not just given out to people because they happen to be older, or have some job where they expect to be respected, or any other arbitrary reason. There are good and bad teachers, cops, politicians, comics, or whatever. What had the teacher done as a teacher to earn that respect?
-----

Also, even 20 years ago, if the F.C.C. would hear you say "darn" or "shoot" on TV or radio, you'd probably get a notice of violation! Today they say the "actual words", to put it politely, and WORSE, and what does the F.C.C. do? NOTHING!
With all due respect to everyone out here no one can make me believe that statement that "Oh, violence, and, shall I say, 'inappropriate material', with ladies and children out here, doesn't give people ideas!" With all this rap, or as I call it, rat music – to me, that's all it's good for – with language and suggestive comments that aren't fit for a pool hall – let alone out in public, you can't tell me it doesn't alter people's minds. Especially when mommy and daddy aren't there to explain what's wrong about it, you can't really blame the children 100%. After all, you only know what you're taught. And if kids are taught – as we were – to respect guns, and not to play with them [bla bla bla, we get your point, Frank].
-----------

We’re getting way off-topic here, but it wouldn’t be the first time. Well, what do you think the FCC should do? Rip out their tongues? I am a student of the history of language (among other things), and my research tells me that many of the expletives that you find so offensive were originally normal, acceptable terms for whatever they describe. It was only in the Victorian era that we repressed that kind of thing and, sadly, some of us haven’t yet got over it, so we still use synthetic Latin words for things that no mature adult would find problematic or embarrassing to discuss in any terms. Take the AIDS problem: To tackle AIDS we need to get sexual issues out in the open, using whatever language it takes to get the message across, or millions of people will die. Saving those lives is more important than Victorian prudery, which is quaint and amusing but archaic and unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous. In any case it’s boring having to tiptoe around some of the more fun corners of our wonderful, colourful tongue so as to avoid “giving people ideas”.

(5) Out of curiosity, what sort of ideas do you think it gives?

As for as rap music, you just haven’t heard enough, or the right groups. You may dislike the music, fair enough, but it’s sheer ignorance to suggest that it’s all “suggestive comments”. Two examples: the excellent Massive Attack (who I shamelessly plug at every opportunity!) use rap, but there’s no suggestion of violence or anything other than respect for all people in their songs. MC Solaar is rated as one of the greatest living French poets – but he raps in French, a language curiously well-suited for it. One of his best-known pieces, Nouveau Western, features guns – he is furious at the influence of the trigger-happy USA on European black communities. I hope he alters people’s minds. I suspect it is Gangsta Rap that you have problems with, and Eminem and that crowd. Yes, advocating weapon ownership and hostility towards homosexuals – very irresponsible and so out of keeping with the new millennial zeitgeist. Please feel free to call it “crap”, rather than “rat”. I don’t normally advocate the use of bad language, but I think it would do you good.

I agree, you cannot blame the children 100%. But neither can you dangle them over precipices to earn their respect and kid yourself that that is the responsible thing to do. Let’s look at the modern family: If Mommy and Daddy aren’t there to teach them, who is? That popular ersatz mother, TV? Yet in so many families Mommy and Daddy are both out working to pay the bills, and teachers nowadays are paid just to teach the kids, not to be their parents as well. Add the unfortunately necessary decline in the influence of the Church, mix it up, sprinkle on a pinch of economic uncertainty and a dash of allure engendered by advertising, does that sound like the situation there in the US? Hm. There’s a recipe for social malaise if ever I saw one. Yet it’s much the same here in the UK, and while we have our fair share of child murderers (Thompson/Venables and those who killed Damilola Taylor, for example), we don’t have kids shooting up any schools. Why not? BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE WIDESPREAD OWNERSHIP OF GUNS. Lots of guns means lots of deaths, you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to work that much out. 25,000 gun-related deaths in the US opposed to under 200 in the UK, Australia and Japan – does this statistic mean nothing? What do you propose for America, then? Back to good ol’ traditional Mom’s-Apple-Pie-Yankee-Doodle-Dandy family values for everyone? Nice idea, but it’s too late for that.

You only know what you’re taught?? Some of us, Frank, are capable of working things out for ourselves and acting accordingly. Two phrases you used in that last paragraph make me wonder why you’re here: “No one here can make me believe…” and “You can’t tell me…”. I suspect I can’t make you believe anything that is different to what you want, or – far more likely – what your daddy wants you to believe, but you do seem to be particularly opposed even to trying to understand why other people believe what they do. It’s sad to see someone so young so set in his ways. Anyway, these are discussion boards, not some godawful rightwing talk show. Discuss, but please don’t preach.

Please feel free to query any part of this post you don’t understand, and I shall be happy to explain it.

[This message has been edited by Serendipity (edited August 17, 2001).]