Guns don't kill people! [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Artie

10-26-2002, 06:15 AM

People with guns kill people.

SpecOpsWarrior

10-26-2002, 06:49 AM

And so do people with cars, knives, bricks, sticks, stones, and countless other types of weapons. So what's your point Artie?

Mike Tx

10-26-2002, 07:09 AM

What Artie means is that if you were to take guns away from people, no one would get killed. We would be safe. That's a wonderful way to live.

SpecOpsWarrior

10-26-2002, 07:23 AM

He probably thinks the term "law abiding gun owner" is a contradiction.

Mike Tx

10-26-2002, 07:38 AM

Well, he may view those like me in a special light. I have been convicted of speeding and other traffic violations. I am therefore a criminal with a gun.

CinaC

10-26-2002, 09:10 AM

Everyone one knows that guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Or Artie could be making the point that, hey, it's the people doing the killing, not the guns.

Artie

10-26-2002, 09:36 AM

When I write that people with guns kill people, I mean that its not the guns alone that cause these deaths. It takes a person with conscious mind to pick up a gun and use it to kill a person. The gun is not the evil creature that many people make out, but the human pulling the trigger. This is fairly simplistic, as SpecOpsWarrior states, people with cars, knives, bricks, sticks, stones, and countless other types of weapons kill people also. Mike is, as always, missing the point again. Of course, without guns in society, criminals would resort to other ways of killing people. Removing guns from society will not clear up crime. Nor will arming every citizen. There is no easy solution. And Mike, I have always looked at you in a special light.

Don

10-26-2002, 11:01 AM

This "demonization" of guns by folks who don't know any better, just does not make any sense. A gun is an inanimate object, therefore, can be NEITHER "inherently good" or "inherently bad."

It is just beyond my comprehension how folks can not see this. :confused:

SpecOpsWarrior

10-26-2002, 11:08 AM

Ok Artie.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bill R

10-26-2002, 01:14 PM

People with guns kill people.

That's not always a bad thing. Some folks need killin'

That Guy

10-26-2002, 03:00 PM

Like Chris Rock said in his special. Make the bullets more expensive say....$5000.00 a piece.
So if ou do get shot that means you REALLY did something wrong and you deserved it. :D

Mike Tx

10-26-2002, 05:52 PM

Artie, I didn't miss your point at all. Your point was that if people couldn't get guns, they couldn't kill with them. It's same stuff you talk about gun control all the time.

And just when I was going to invite you to Texas for a turkey shoot! :D

occiferdave

10-26-2002, 06:06 PM

DISCLAIMER: The message below serves only to inflame MikeTX. It in no way is intended to offend anyone else, nor does it reflect the opinions of the author.

Guns don

Mike Tx

10-26-2002, 06:09 PM

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Watchman

10-26-2002, 06:24 PM

[i]A president that promises to drop bombs on innocent Iraqi citizens just because we don

CinaC

10-26-2002, 06:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ahhh...media distortions and brainwashing at its best... It sounda like the president wants to kill citizens. I beleive that he is smarter than that.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure Bush doesn't WANT any non-combatants to die, especially since he needs those same people to rebuild Iraq after a war. However, non-combatants, and citizens, will die in an military action against Iraq.

Bombs will be dropped, because the United States and many other Western nations want Saddam out of office, and as a result, innocent Iraqi citizens will die. Certainly, Saddam will be out of office, and with luck Iraq will be rebuilt as a better nation, and its citizens will enjoy freedoms they've never seen or had (including the freedom to vote freely without having an AK-47 pointed at their head).

But OcciferDave's statement is still true, to my mind.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A president that promises to drop bombs on innocent Iraqi citizens just because we don’t like their leader, do.<hr /></blockquote>

Artie

10-27-2002, 02:39 AM

Again, Mike, you do not get it! What I am saying is taking all the guns off people will not stop the killing. Neither will arming all the citizens. The point is: There has to be some medium ground, whether happy or otherwise.

And Mike, the only turkey I want to shoot..... no strike that out. :p

Resq14

10-27-2002, 04:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Artie:
Of course, without guns in society, criminals would resort to other ways of killing people. Removing guns from society will not clear up crime. <hr /></blockquote>I suggest everyone read "Fist Stick Knife Gun" by Geoffrey Canafa.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807004235/102-3569968-1191349" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807004235/102-3569968-1191349</a>

[ 10-27-2002, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Resq14 ]

Mike Tx

10-27-2002, 08:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Artie:
Again, Mike, you do not get it! What I am saying is taking all the guns off people will not stop the killing. Neither will arming all the citizens. The point is: There has to be some medium ground, whether happy or otherwise.

And Mike, the only turkey I want to shoot..... no strike that out. :p <hr /></blockquote>Artie, there is no medium ground, because you cannot control people. The best way for people to stay the safest is for them to know that no one can protect them, and for them to be educated in the various methods available to protect themselves, up to and including "you know what".

Mike Tx

10-27-2002, 08:17 AM

<a href="http://liquid2k.com/mrart/mmmuhammud.jpg" target="_blank">Here</a> is a nice statement on the need for stricter gun control in the wake of the DC area shootings.

Artie, this proves my point that people are the problem. One of the people in the picture was part of the million mom march for more gun control.

[ 10-27-2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: MikeTx ]

Bob A

10-27-2002, 09:04 PM

It always amazes me that the same people who are afraid of the idea that I may have a gun (which I could possibly use to kill a dozen or so people) are not the least bit concerned by a lunatic like Saddam having the capability to use a thermonuclear device to kill 100,000 people.

IMO, the idea of invading Iraq or using military force to remove him is not a good idea. I'd rather deal with the devil I know than the one I don't.

I'm concerned that we will leave the insurrectionists hanging as we've done twice before, or that if things aren't the walk in the park that Desert Storm was, we'll pull out as we did in Vietnam and Lebanon rather than suck it up.

However, the arguments against doing it because it will make the general population of Iraq hate us or that we will kill innocents are moot. The fanatics already do hate us, hence 9/11/01, and the citizens who want Saddam gone understand that blood will spill.

If Mr. Bush is successful there, Iran will fall next and the vast majority of the region's political and military capabilities will be under US influence. Establishing free market economiesin countries with secular democratic governing bodies will go farther than any other effort in achieving a lasting and meaningful peace.

Otherwise, the despair and ignorance will prevail and lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.

[ 10-27-2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Bob A ]

Jules

10-27-2002, 09:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What I am saying is taking all the guns off people will not stop the killing. Neither will arming all the citizens. The point is: There has to be some medium ground, whether happy or otherwise. <hr /></blockquote>So, Artie, just where do you suggest this medium ground should be?

shooter1201

10-27-2002, 09:48 PM

Man has been killing man since Cain slew Able. The media has yet to ascertain whether a gun was involved in that murder or not. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Man is a PREDATOR, plain and simple. The STRONG will ALWAYS feed on the WEAK.

Which are you: PREDATOR or PREY? The CHOICE is YOURS......

Jules

10-27-2002, 10:02 PM

Predator :cool:

CinaC

10-27-2002, 10:19 PM

I'm prey.

(Prey with a .357 Magnum, that is).

Mike Tx

10-28-2002, 06:40 AM

I thought yours was broken?

Artie

10-29-2002, 04:42 AM

Mike,
Are you sure that the words on his t-shirt were not superimposed just for this forum??? :rolleyes:

Jules,
If I knew where the middle ground was I would be a smarter person than I am now. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Artie

10-29-2002, 06:16 AM

Mike, this is the latest news article in Australia:

PM backs hardline guns stance

Australia would not follow the lead of the United States where everyone had the right to own a gun, Prime Minister John Howard said.

Most Australians hated guns, Mr Howard said.

He promised to do everything in his power to rid the nation of handguns, except for legitimate sporting shooters, security, the military and police.

Mr Howard was responding to a Newspoll survey which found 83 per cent of people supported moves to invoke stricter laws controlling handguns.

Only 12 per cent of those surveyed were against tougher controls on handguns. Five per cent were uncommitted.

"I don't need a poll to tell me that Australians hate guns in the main," Mr Howard told reporters in Mexico City.

"We're prepared to have exceptions for legitimate sporting shooting pursuits, and the sporting shooters of Australia are generally very responsible people but, apart from that, people see no reason why the ordinary citizen should carry a gun and neither do I.

"I feel very strongly about this.

"And I've watched the way America has gone and we have an opportunity at least to try and not go down that path."

He said he would do everything he could to ensure Australia didn't follow the lead of the US.

"I mean I may fail but I make no apologies because I feel very strongly about it, and I think people all over the country do," Mr Howard said.

"You only have to look at the availability of guns in the US and it was never tackled years ago in that country, and now it's too late and there are consequences."

Mike Tx

10-29-2002, 06:21 AM

You guys have all the gun control you want. It does nothing, except enhance your ability to be a victim.

Artie

10-29-2002, 06:25 AM

Mike,
Its funny, but we dont think that way. We rely on the Police and our community, as a whole, is not as violent as it appears that your community is.

Mike Tx

10-29-2002, 07:02 AM

How come the police didn't save the latest victims of "gun violence"?

Artie

10-29-2002, 07:05 AM

I will be the first to state that we do not have a perfect system. Do you? :p

Mike Tx

10-29-2002, 07:26 AM

Of course we don't. But you said you rely on the police and I asked a question regarding that. If the people are to be disarmed, why can't the police protect them?

Artie

10-29-2002, 07:36 AM

The point is, that we are happy to have less firearms in circulation and to rely on the police to protect us. It seems to me that the in this case, the police failed to protect the public. But, the public is prepared to put up with this if they feel a lot safer, and they do feel safer if they believe that there are less firearms on the streets.

Whereas, you are happy to arm yourself and rely on nobody other than yourself. This attitude did not protect you guys from the snipers, nor did it protect you from the terrorist attacks, nor does it protect you from the school shootings.

Bill R

10-29-2002, 10:47 AM

The point is, that we are happy to have less firearms in circulation and to rely on the police to protect us.

Yeah, why be responsible for your own safety?

But, the public is prepared to put up with this if they feel a lot safer, and they do feel safer if they believe that there are less firearms on the streets.

As long as they "feel" safer that's what's important. :rolleyes:

Whereas, you are happy to arm yourself and rely on nobody other than yourself.

That's who I can depend on. There isn't always a cop around. I'm always there. It's not the job of the police nor are they capable of protecting individuals. Their job is to protect society. After a BG does bad things they do their best to arrest him. When they arrest him that protects others from being victims of that BG for a while. It doesn't do much to help the people that are victimized before he is caught.

This attitude did not protect you guys from the snipers, nor did it protect you from the terrorist attacks, nor does it protect you from the school shootings.

True, it did not protect people from the sniper. It's kind of unrealistic to expect a firearm to protect you from an airliner. We're not allowed to carry Stinger missiles. Even in most CCW friendly states, schools are gun-free criminal empowerment zones. Nothing is or will be 100% effective. Seat belts don't always save lives in auto crashes, so I guess we should just get rid of them?

[ 10-29-2002, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

CinaC

10-29-2002, 11:59 AM

If people feel safe, isn't that very important? I think I'd feel very un-safe, say, if there were armed National Guard troops on every corner. I mean, they'd be there for a REASON.

Sparky

10-29-2002, 12:58 PM

This gun control thing is a hot issue.

I think I am for it. Let's face it, we deal with the public alot and I don't think they should be entrusted with weapons.

I see alot of juries and it scares me the "quality" of most of our registered voters.

Only the police and the military should have guns. Regular civilians just don't need them.

Artie has a good point, the public should be able to rely on us to protect them as individuals. Right now, the only reason we can't do this is because we are spread so thin.

If we repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, and beef up the number of civilian LE, we could get a handle on things.

If we federalized the funding and training of LE, and also empowered the military to work closely with us, we could control things alot better.

Most people don't want to have to worry about thier safety, so I say fine, let's do everything we can to keep them safe. Let's get more officers and get the military to help. Nice and simple.

LE and the Miltary can protect all the "citizens".

Sparky

10-29-2002, 01:01 PM

Oh yeah... heavy sarcasm "ON"!

Citizens NOT subjects!

[ 10-29-2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

Bill R

10-29-2002, 01:28 PM

If people feel safe, isn't that very important?

Crazy, perhaps you didn't quite catch Artie's comment.

But, the public is prepared to put up with this if they feel a lot safer, and they do feel safer if they believe that there are less firearms on the streets.

Feeling safe and believing there are fewer guns on the street is different from being safe and there actually being fewer guns in the hands of bad people. Feeling safe is fine, it is not more important than basic rights though. Livestock being fattened for slaughter probably "feel" safe.

[ 10-29-2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

Sparky

10-29-2002, 02:40 PM

Let's say we ban guns and even round them all up in house to house searches, etc.

Ten years later, let's say that we do see a decrease in gun related crime. However, it does still exist because many criminals still find a way to acquire firearms.

As a general rule, though, only the police and some criminals have guns.

Now, it's been ten years, your daughter leaves an abusive husband and the violence escalates. He stalks her and makes threats to hurt her and your grnad kids. If he can't have them, then no one else will.

He is currently out on bond for several offenses.

Your daughter arrives home to find several bullet holes in her front door with a note saying, "I am watching you."

Apparently her estranged husband has illegaly acquired a gun. Why not? He has already broken the laws pertaining to assault. One more law won't hurt much at this point.

Now, do you want your daughter to be able to possess a weapon to defend herself and your grnadchildren?

Let's say that you have them move in with you. Now you are a target for this whacko. Would you like to have a gun for self-defense?

Sure, you could spend a few thousand dollars and make your home a fortress. But what about going to get groceries? Going to work?

Should your daughter, a law abiding citizen who has comitted no offense, be able to possess a gun in order to protect herself and her children from her estranged husband?

Or do you feel comfortable knowing that she could call the police if anything happened?

CinaC

10-29-2002, 04:08 PM

Sparky,

I would feel very unsafe if I saw armed soldiers standing on the street corners. Crime might be lower with them around, and I don't know if I can quantify this or not ... but it would just put a "dread" into me.

Bill,

Yeah, but regardless of it they are safer or are not safer, if people "feel" safe, that's what is important to them. For example, if I was mugged on my way to my car, I would no longer feel safe walking to my car. Even were I to carry a firearm to defend myself, I would not feel "safer" because my safety had already been violated. And even though I would (hypothetically) be carrying the means to ensure my safety, I would still be aware that:

a) Nothing can protect you 100%
b) My safety was already threatened along this route at one point.

I don't know if that's clear or not?

Bill R

10-29-2002, 04:23 PM

Crime might be lower with them around, and I don't know if I can quantify this or not ... but it would just put a "dread" into me.

There just might be hope for you Crazy <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

A false sense of security can be a bad thing. It lulls people into being less alert. A certain ammount of fear increases your situational awareness making you safer.

Mike Tx

10-29-2002, 07:16 PM

Just look at all the people who say, "He was such a nice man, we never thought anything like that could happen here."

People will always be victimized. Less people will be if they step up and take responsility to defend themselves as best they can.

One time Recently, I thought I was about to get mugged by this big wino looking bum at a beer store. He wanted money and I told him no. He continued toward me, and I stopped, turned my left side to him, placed my hand on my pistol and yelled, "Get the F***** away from me NOW! I ain't giving you no GD money!!!!

I think from my posture, and my violent yelling, and my hand in my waistband, he got the idea. Many times you don't have to use a gun.

He was acting in a manner in which I felt threatened.

Jim Burnes

10-29-2002, 07:59 PM

Mike TX,

Yes, you were awfully rude to me that day. I just wanted to say hi! :p

Mike Tx

10-29-2002, 08:15 PM

Wow Jim, I had no idea you were that good looking!

occiferdave

11-04-2002, 03:03 AM

If a gun makes you feel safe, does a machine-gun make you feel safer? when that fails to make you feel safe, how about a couple of grenades?

I FEAR people with guns. The average American can not be trusted with a gun. Let's all assume that everyone had a gun. The population of Los Angeles will decline by 15% by Monday... just on the freeways.... throw in another 10% for domestic disputes.

Most people have the emotional IQ of a roof tile, give those people a gun and you'll see how fun it is in your neighborhood.

We've all seen idiots and dip*****s in our lives, I am sure you've seen one in the past week... now imagine that person with a gun..... fun eh?

Let's take MikeTX's example, under his senario, assuming everyone had a gun, when MikeTX place a hand on his weapon, the bum would assume he is in mortal danger and took out his gun... gunfight ensues.... MikeTX is dead...

oh wait.. I am AGAINST gun-control now. :D

[ 11-04-2002, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

MadMax

11-04-2002, 04:15 AM

The average American can not be trusted with a gun.

Really? I would really like to know where you got this one from.

Let's all assume that everyone had a gun. The population of Los Angeles will decline by 15% by Monday... just on the freeways.... throw in another 10% for domestic disputes.

Wow, that sure is some assumption. Here is a reality check for ya. I live in Montana, it is estimated that over 90% of the households have at least one fire arm. It is the hunting season, so you can figure that 90% of the vehicles have at least one fire arm in them, most have more, since folks out here like to hunt with partners or in groups. No mass shootings here.

occiferdave

11-04-2002, 04:30 AM

1) Posing is bold doesn't make you sound more important....

2) Montana is a very different place than Los Angeles.... especially on the freeways... people shoot at each other NOW over traffic disputes.... what do you think will happen when more people start to carry guns...

[ 11-04-2002, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

MadMax

11-04-2002, 04:33 AM

Posing is bold doesn't make you sound more important....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MadMax

11-04-2002, 04:38 AM

2) Montana is a very different place than Los Angeles.... especially on the freeways... people shoot at each other NOW over traffic disputs.... what do you think will happen when more people start to carry guns...

You said the average American, has that now changed to just those in LA? Maybe we should restrict those in LA from travelling to other parts of the country. We can ban them from other states since they are so dangerous.

occiferdave

11-04-2002, 04:53 AM

I said the population of Los Angeles would drop by 15%..... if you bother to read the post... I didn't say the population of Montana did I? And I am willing to bet that the population per square mile of Montana is a lot lower than the population per square mile of L.A. I am willing to bet that Montana has less people in Jail/Prison, I am willing to be that the entire state of Montana has a better educated population compared to the demographic of Los Angeles. I bet the department you work for is a lot slower than the departments of LA county. I bet you don't have drive by shootings every single night. So until you walked a mile in MY shoes....

You as a Reserve Deputy know damn well what crime is.... If people in general are given easier access to weapons...can you really say that crime will DECREASE? How many times did you arrest someone withOUT a criminal recored, I am sure plenty of times....

[ 11-06-2002, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

MadMax

11-04-2002, 05:16 AM

I did read your post, you said "THE AVERAGE AMERICAN cannot be trusted with a gun." Then you used LA as an example. I used Montana as an example. Your average American theory doesnt hold water.

PS.
I use bold type only when I use qoutes from another poster. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

occiferdave

11-04-2002, 05:32 AM

According to the Senate, 1 out of every 52 Americans are on Probation or Parole.

As a peace officer, do you stop 100% of crime? even then do you get 100% conviction?

So if you are NOT stoping 100% of crimes and not getting 100% convictions on the crimes you actually stop, it's safe to say that if 2% were convicted... about 10% hasn't been caught yet.

Now add in the non-criminal elements, the despondent, the *********s, to quick tempered, the suicidal and misc people in society that shouldn't have a gun..... let's say for the argument's sake that 1 of 10 people are unstable... that puts us to 20% of the population shouldn't have guns.

So.... 1 in 5 americans shouldn't have guns... and you want to make it easier?

MadMax

11-04-2002, 06:32 AM

Your argument still does not hold any water. It's lame.

Mike Tx

11-04-2002, 06:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />2) Montana is a very different place than Los Angeles.... especially on the freeways... people shoot at each other NOW over traffic disputes.... what do you think will happen when more people start to carry guns...<hr /></blockquote>So, it IS the people after all, and not the guns.

Mike Tx

11-04-2002, 07:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Let's take MikeTX's example, under his senario, assuming everyone had a gun, when MikeTX place a hand on his weapon, the bum would assume he is in mortal danger and took out his gun... gunfight ensues.... MikeTX is dead...<hr /></blockquote>Ahhhh, the fallicy of gun control. A bum has to panhandle me for booze, yet he has a firearm to shoot me with he hasn't pawned? LOL!

Watchman

11-04-2002, 10:09 AM

According to the Senate, 1 out of every 52 Americans are on Probation or Parole.

Baloney. Assuming an estimated population of 280 million people, that would come out to 56,000,000 people.

56 Million people. You may belive the BS that the Senate puts out but I dont. The numbers dont add up.

I FEAR people with guns.

Get counseling. Here in the south you would have a nervous breakdown.

The average American can not be trusted with a gun.

Sounds like the predictions of a "Wild West" put out by the antigunners when the states (the free ones that is) were passing CCW laws. Guess what? It didnt happen.
Thats a bad attitude for a cop to have. Just because you deal with scum on a daily basis dosent mean that the average citizen is in the same boat. You need a reality check. Take a vacation or something.

Let's all assume that everyone had a gun.

OK... Where I live I have yet to meet anyone that doesnt have a gun. Guess what? No problems.

The population of Los Angeles will decline by 15% by Monday... just on the freeways.... throw in another 10% for domestic disputes.

Are you saying that the events in LA are typical in the rest of America ? You big city coppers need to get out a little more.

Most people have the emotional IQ of a roof tile, give those people a gun and you'll see how fun it is in your neighborhood.

If that be correct, you really need to move. You might get killed by accident.

Since in your opinion, the average American cannot be trusted to have guns, are you saying that only the police should have them?

Statistics show time and time again that CCW owners are the least likely to be involved in a crime of ANY type, yet you insist that the "average" American is too stupid to won or use one.

Who am I to believe ?

FBI stats or the rantings of a cop that expieriences drive by shootings every night ?
When you are in a war zone for a long time, its gets harder to remember what the real world is like. It gets harder to distinguish what is "normal" and what is not. I've been to the arm pits of L.A. and trust me,theres a lot more to the world than it shows and it aint normal.

What is "normal" for you dang sure aint "normal" to most of us. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[ 11-04-2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Bill R

11-04-2002, 11:57 AM

I FEAR people with guns. The average American can not be trusted with a gun.

occiferdave, I'm sorry to hear you fear people with guns. I would hate to be in fear all the time. I used to live in LA and I never shot any body. I guess that means I'm not average. I'm sure you think the police should have guns. Are the police all that much different from "average" Americans?

Let's all assume that everyone had a gun. The population of Los Angeles will decline by 15% by Monday... just on the freeways.... throw in another 10% for domestic disputes.

When I lived in LA darned near everybody I knew had a gun. I would estimate that probably close to 50% of the homes had a firearms in them. So there should have been close to a 5% rate of domestic dispute shootings. I don't recall it being nearly that bad. Do the police really visit 10% of the folks in LA in a matter of a couple days for domestic disputes? Y'all must be really busy.

occiferdave

11-04-2002, 01:44 PM

I give up... I had a very long response to you guys... but the logout 'feature' of this BB has lost it for me.

I'll repost later.... I have to go to work and pick up the trash.

[ 11-04-2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Watchman

11-04-2002, 06:52 PM

I give up... I had a very long response to you guys... but the logout 'feature' of this BB has lost it for me.

Dang it ! I hate when that happens...

It is discusting to spend a half hour typing a response only to have it dissapear or something. :mad:

If I could just type faster than 6 words a minute...maybe, just maybe I could catch it before it took off.... :p

Mike Tx

11-04-2002, 07:04 PM

Watchman, we can't be to hard on Dave, after all look where he lives! And he can't even spell officer! :D

CinaC

11-04-2002, 07:36 PM

Watchman,

Try composing your responses in a word document, then copying and pasting it into the "post a reply" page when you're done. That way you can continue to save your response as you're typing.

OfcMikey

11-04-2002, 07:58 PM

Guns don't kill people.
I kill people. :D

Mike Tx

11-04-2002, 09:26 PM

Samuel, you must not know anything about the requirements for getting a ccw permit. They don't come in cracker jack boxes, and if the left hadn't been trying to destroy personal responsibility for the last 50 years, 90 percent of those you fear would not exist.

The vast majority of the 80 million plus gun owners killed no one today.

OfcMikey

11-04-2002, 09:59 PM

Maybe it's just Californians. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The only homicide I am aware of committed by a ccw holder in Az was the puke that killed the nursing professors last week.
One out of 60,000 permit holders in a decade, not too bad a number. :D

CinaC

11-04-2002, 10:02 PM

Unless you're one of the victims of that shooter.

OfcMikey

11-04-2002, 10:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
Unless you're one of the victims of that shooter.<hr /></blockquote>Well duhhhhhhh. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :p

OfcMikey

11-04-2002, 10:25 PM

Ya know.... I took a ccw class here in Az and it was scary, the instructors were horrible as were most of the students.
Honestly, most were not trustworthy with a sharp stick, let alone a firearm.
When your qualification is 10 rounds at 7 yards or less, the requirements are a joke.
Heck, a chimp from the zoo could pass that shoot. :p

Delta_V

11-04-2002, 11:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 10mill:

Heck, a chimp from the zoo could pass that shoot. :p <hr /></blockquote>In Kentucky, a blind person actually passed the range portion of the test. That's how easy it is here.

GMULaw

11-04-2002, 11:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Artie:
People with guns kill people.<hr /></blockquote>SOMEBODY went to see "Bowling for Columbine" and liked it :rolleyes:

OfcMikey

11-04-2002, 11:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PatrickM98:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 10mill:

Heck, a chimp from the zoo could pass that shoot. :p <hr /></blockquote>In Kentucky, a blind person actually passed the range portion of the test. That's how easy it is here.<hr /></blockquote>What about a blind chimp??? :p

djack16

11-05-2002, 12:01 AM

I sleep with a 12 guage shotgun and a 410 rifle under my bed. Also in close proximity is ammo, a knife from WWI (identified by the term "krout tester"), a .22 rifle, and...ahh yes a 4 cell maglite. If anybody took these from me I would, and I quote my grandmother, "have nightmares for the entire time they are gone".
I live in a neighborhood now where there are regular car thefts, people stealing things from our property, and homies (not too many thank god). If the law bans guns then the very people needing protection will lose it and the criminals will be the only ones armed.

Delta_V

11-05-2002, 12:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 10mill:
What about a blind chimp??? :p <hr /></blockquote>I dunno about that one, you have to pass the written part of the test before you could move on to the range portion. Maybe if you could get the chimp to understand the law it would work...maybe we should do an experiment. :)

BTW, it's also a requirement that the instructor READ the test to anyone who is illiterate and wants the CCW permit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CCW, but the training and testing requirements should be much less of a joke than they are. I'd suggest doing the range portion of the test at various distances, increasing the standards, and incorporating some sort of FATS system into the test. The legal/classroom part of the course seems acceptable as it is.

CinaC

11-05-2002, 12:58 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />SOMEBODY went to see "Bowling for Columbine" and liked it <hr /></blockquote>Well, maybe he did. Or maybe he recognizes that it is the person behind the trigger and not the gun that is doing the killing. *Gasp!*

occiferdave

11-05-2002, 03:10 AM

I just got back from work.... only 2 shootings tonight; fortunately, both were in LAPD's turf and thus, their handles. I'll never get over the brief venerable feeling you get when you see someone bailing out of a car with a gun and you're still trying to stop your car (glad we were the third car in the pursuit). This time, I was out gunned, the guy tossed a .45, I had my 9 silly-meter.... anyway... on to the gun discussion.

Thank you Watchman and Bill R for your comments on my:

Mental state:

Artie

11-05-2002, 04:07 AM

Occiferdave,
Its good to hear that at least one cop in the US is realistic in his fear of facing people with guns. Being scared of pulling up people who have guns makes an officer more safety conscious. Not being scared of pulling up people who have guns makes for a sloppy officer, or worse-case scenario, a dead officer.

As a matter of interest, how many police officers on this forum don't mind pulling up vehicles that contain people with guns? With or without CCW?

[ 11-05-2002, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Artie ]

Mike Tx

11-05-2002, 06:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />a gun in the mix only spells trouble<hr /></blockquote>But Dave, you had a gun and did nothing. Seems like to me you might ought to leave that place for somewhere safer.

Artie

11-05-2002, 06:37 AM

Seems to me that Dave did the smart thing. Better being alive and swallowing a little pride than not having any future at all.

I think that you have far too much testosterone in your diet, Mike.

Mike Tx

11-05-2002, 07:10 AM

You missed it Artie, Dave said a gun is bad to have in the mix, yet he had one in the mix and didn't use it. Disproving his statement.

As to your question about cops pulling over ccws, I'd like to know how ccw's feel when they are pulled over by cops.

Bill R

11-05-2002, 08:55 AM

occiferdave, if I misunderstood you I apologize. I guess I made an incorrect assumption that you thought only the police should have guns when you said:
The average American can not be trusted with a gun.

[i]I fear people with guns

Mike Tx

11-05-2002, 09:04 AM

Bill, it appears that Dave may have fallen into the trap of seeing anyone with a gun as criminal.

Bill R

11-05-2002, 09:19 AM

Mike, unfortunately Dave is technically correct. In LA practically anybody with a gun is a criminal. It is virtually impossible for a citizen to carry lawfully there. The CCW policy forces otherwise lawful citizens to choose between risking arrest or risking their lives.

GMULaw

11-05-2002, 11:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />SOMEBODY went to see "Bowling for Columbine" and liked it <hr /></blockquote>Well, maybe he did. Or maybe he recognizes that it is the person behind the trigger and not the gun that is doing the killing. *Gasp!*<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps you didn't see the meaning of my point. My statement was pro-firearm, if I was confusing you. People kill people no matter what...guns don't make any difference. I could have just as easily said "People with broken beer bottles kill people"...I know that guns are deadly and serious things, but look at it this way: Firearms as working weapons have only existed for about 800 years. Man has existed for thousands and thousands of years...and all that time we have been killing each other. I swear, there are anti-gun folks out there who would swear that there were no murders before A.D. 1200. Guns didn't cause Columbine, nor did they cause the DC Sniper attacks...guns were only a tool used by the criminals that committed those crimes. I don't remember reading about a mass call for a ban on steak knives when Jack the Ripper was on the streets of London.

"Bowling for Columbine" is a new movie by Michael Moore, who is the author of "Stupid White Men" and director of "TV Nation" and "Canadian Bacon". Basically this movie is a totally liberal view of the gun movement in America and is nothing but a negative pro-gun control propaganda peice.

[ 11-05-2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: GMULaw ]

Watchman

11-05-2002, 11:12 AM

occiferdave:

I must say that your was one of the more interesting posts that I've read in quite awhile.

Ill bet you never get bored with your job eh ?
Seems like the constant stress may be a major factor in "burn out" on the job.

One thing is evident in your posts, we live in two completley different worlds. It amazes me that we really live in such a diverse country.

Some here may think that what you expierience on a daily basis is the norm for all big city life in this country, when in fact it is not.

For instance...
If we dont wave at somebody when they wave at us, we'll likely hear a day or two later that we were being rude.

Its hunting season here ,in a days time it is not unusual to see of guns. Hundreds of guns. We see people checking them out in parking lots, at steak houses, at gas stations. I've been motioned over to look at a new deer rifle or check out a new duck hunting shotgun. I've picked up people on the side of the road with guns strapped to them just to give them a ride to the truck a few miles down the road.

As for the baseball games,every now and then we'll have a verbal dispute. It usaully ends when one of us show up. If not, somebody gets escorted out of the park, thats about as far as it goes. I cant remember of an arrest at a ball park for years.

As for the anger...so far it dosent seem to be a problem here. About the only anger we get is at domestic disputes. This morning when I went to vote, I ended up talking to some old codger for about 20 minutes. I had just got off of work(from my paying job)and he wanted to know all about the status of our refeuling outage and what we were doing . I was wearing my work shirt which has my company name on it, so we ended up talking. Never met the man in my life. Thats just the way it is here. We say Hi, Howdy, Whats Up, How ya doing,How YALL doing to people we never met.We hold the door open for little old ladies, people with two arm loads of stuff and we still stop for people stranded on the side of the road.If you are sitting in a resturaunt,you're liable to be engaged in conversation about politics, religion, guns,or the pastors wife.With people you've never met and may never see again.If we are in uniform and see an out of town cop doing a stopover or a transport or something, more than likely we'll sit in the booth and eat with him. Nobody likes to eat alone.

Last patrol I did I came up om a pickup truck in a ditch so I stopped to check it out. The guy had a flat tire but you couldnt see him from the road. While he was bending over changing it, I noticed he had a .45 stuck in the small of the back. Just to be sure I asked him if he had a permit to tote. Then he apologized about me seeing his gun and showed me his permit and his liscense. After he got the tire fixed he told me about his new Kimber .45 and asked if I would like to see it. He was proud of it and wanted to show it off. I had radioed dispatch about DL and location and all came back good to go.

As to Arties post, about pulling up on people with guns, it dosent bother me a bit. It happens all the time, escpecially this time of year. With or without CCW.Of course you've got to take this in context. I hear of a domestic dispute with battery and possible code one, the situation is quite different. Same as a stop with gangbangers from the big city. If I stop somebody and they get out of the car and I cant see hands,I go into the red alert mode until proven otherwise. In my opinion, being scared of everyone with guns is going a bit overboard, in this area. If I was a cop in L.A., Id probably act much the same way as you do and picture everyone as a potential liabilty rahter than an asset.

Anyhow, thanks for the post, it was a good one. I can see where you are coming from now. I hope you realize that the peoples republic of California, especially the L.A. area is not like the rest of the US.You do have interesting perspective though. :D

Be careful and stay safe.

Sig220Man

11-05-2002, 04:43 PM

Before we all start bagging on Dave and his apparently "paranoid" mindset, you all have to remember his particular work environment.

Without giving up too much detail, Dave works in one of the crappiest parts of LA County. A very large percentage of his local "clientele" is packing, and it's not because they believe in their Second Amendment Rights. It's because his city is a "Kill or Be Killed" type of environment. From a previous post, Dave said that his department is viewed more as an occupation force.

While I don't agree with his statement about how the average American can't be trusted with a gun, if you worked in his environment you can see how he has that point of view.

And Watchman, while LA certainly isn't representative of the rest of the country (and even Dave's city isn't representative of the majority of LA), neither is Texas. Most of America falls somewhere within these two extremes.

Watchman

11-05-2002, 05:07 PM

Sig,

Texas was once a nation.

That may be why I like it so much.
That and the fact that its the only state that has its own power grid.
:D

Plus...I can pack there.It is not an issue.

CinaC

11-05-2002, 06:06 PM

Wasn't Texas also part of Mexico, once?

Thinking about the thread title, I have reached a conclusion.

Guns don't kill people.

Bullets kill people.

:D

Watchman

11-05-2002, 06:14 PM

Thinking about the thread title, I have reached a conclusion.

Guns don't kill people.

Bullets kill people.

Well at least you got that right.

:D :p

CinaC

11-05-2002, 06:16 PM

Well, I mean, unless someone decides to bludgeon someone to death with a Mossburg or something.

Mike Tx

11-05-2002, 06:40 PM

Or run then down in a j**p.

occiferdave

11-05-2002, 08:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Dave said a gun is bad to have in the mix, yet he had one in the mix and didn't use it.<hr /></blockquote>The reason I walked away from it is simple... the ding on my car is not worth escalating the situation, and the verbal abuse I took was just that, people have done worst to me. I've been spat on, cursed at and challenged. I smile and tell them to have a nice day and I think how horrible it must be to living their life. But I am numb to the *********s in our society. If I had been just normal Joe Blow accountant with a gun, I may act very differently. Granted that Joe wouldn

OfcMikey

11-05-2002, 09:01 PM

Dave,
You work in an horrible area, watch your six buddy.
Your world is nothing like the one I work in, we are a high crime city, but nothing like where you are. You are in a war zone, not a city. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

9-11

11-05-2002, 11:30 PM

The eternal debate of gun ownership. The biggest concern for me is that the American participants are debating an Australian cop who is revelling in the fact that he doesn't have to deal with the issue. Let's face it, how often does Artie pull over someone with a ccw? They only exist in Australia in extremely rare circumstances, usually for armed security officers. How often has he faced a suspoect with a gun? Probably once in all his years of "looking at breasts". The most revealing part of his non-arguement is that he doesn't live in the US and doesn't police there, so his commentary on issues which don't affect him is pretty impotent. And in his own words, he doesn't have the answers.

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 01:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 10mill:
Dave,
You work in an horrible area, watch your six buddy. <hr /></blockquote>Thanks... I check my six all the time... as well as my one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve....

Artie

11-06-2002, 01:50 AM

Mike,
No, I think that you missed the point that Ossiferdave was trying to make. He had his gun, but he did not have to use it. He decided that his producing his gun could have escalated something that was nothing more than a situation where one person was just a rude bastard, where the most serious thing that happened is that Dave may have had his feelings hurt, to a situation that could have escallated into the gunfight in which he may have come out of it second best. Just because you have a gun does not mean that any gunfight you get into will automatically be a win for you.

911,
Just because I live in Australia, does not mean that I don't have a valid opinion on a subject such as gun control. We do have criminals that carry guns and commit armed robberies, serious assaults and murder using those guns. We do have members of the public who have never come under notice with the police, licenced to own firearms, become involved in domestic arguments with their partners and, because it is the closest available weapon to use, grab their gun and murder their partner and themselves, or take their children away from their partner and murder their children and themselves in a warped sense of teaching their partner a lesson. We do have people who are licenced to keep firearms who do not secure them safely which allows their children to get their hands on them and kill themselves. And we do have mentally ill people who do not display their mental illness when applying for licences to possess guns, who embark on killing sprees.

You are misinformed if you believe that I do not have to deal with the problem of gun related crime. It may not happen every day, but it does happen. When I was attached to the drug squad, it was a usual situation to locate a rifle that had been shortened in houses that we searched, or to find pen pistols upon drug offenders. We do have criminals here that will not hessitate in shooting at cops.

Sure, it is unusual for the average citizen to be issued with a CCW, which makes it more stressful pulling up a vehicle and locating a pistol in the back seat.

As for your comment that I am pretty impotent, how did you know that I have had the snip? :confused: Mike...... :mad: I thought it was our little secret!

As for my signature that "I look at breasts", I do. Does that offend you?

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 01:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Artie:

As for my signature that "I look at breasts", I do. Does that offend you?<hr /></blockquote>He's afraid that you're looking at his man-breasts... LOL... j/k.... couldn't resist :)

Artie

11-06-2002, 05:27 AM

Occiferdave,
What can I do to ensure that when I turn 60, my man boobs will not suffer from the effects of gravity?

Mike Tx

11-06-2002, 06:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The reason I walked away from it is simple... the ding on my car is not worth escalating the situation, and the verbal abuse I took was just that, people have done worst to me. I've been spat on, cursed at and challenged. I smile and tell them to have a nice day and I think how horrible it must be to living their life. But I am numb to the *********s in our society. If I had been just normal Joe Blow accountant with a gun, I may act very differently. Granted that Joe wouldn

Mike Tx

11-06-2002, 07:29 AM

BTW, guns don't kill people, politicians who violate our civil rights and empower criminals like they have in LA and other places do.

MadMax

11-06-2002, 10:53 AM

On 11-04-2002 03:03 AM you said:
I FEAR people with guns. The average American can not be trusted with a gun.

On 11-05-2002 08:51 PM you said:
I did stop a waitress one time; she had a little .32 with her. I told her that it’s illegal for her to have it on her person unless she had a CCW. She knew that she’s carrying illegally…. she didn’t fit the profile of an evil doer… so I let her go on her marry way with a warning.

I am against having people carry firearms in public places where other citizens are. The potential of turning a confrontation into a deadly confrontation is higher. We’re mostly all LEOs here, we know how normal people can act when placed in a stressful situation…. not normal

So O.D,
Which is it, first you say "average" Americans can not be trusted, then, less then 2 days later you say how you let some gal go with a warning. Then you say you are against people carrying firearms in public places, talk about a contradiction. :rolleyes: BTW, if LEO's are not normal then what are we?

Sparky

11-06-2002, 12:18 PM

This is a little long. Apologies in advance. :D

I once worked Fugitive Division in a major metropolitan city.

Since we hunted fugitives, we were not surprised to find our selves in the projects a large amount of the time.

I grew more than a little burntout about the whole things.. lots of gangbangers, drug dealers, and no help from anyone who lived there, they take down the street signs and building numbers and shoot out street lamps all to keep you from finding your way around

.... but if you had a use of force, then all the sudden people were coming out of the woodwork screaming "police brutality" and expressing their willingness to bear false witness against officers for civil rights violations.... :rolleyes:

I began to subscribe to the view that that whole area deserved to be a crime ridden cesspool. I mean how many times does a guy have to be sniped at before he gets the idea that he isn't wanted there? I mean, we were there trying to arrest the bad guys and we not only got no support, but then we were decried as racists since most of them living in the area tended to be minorities.

On the other hand, if we didn't go make arrests, then we were called racists because we weren't protecting the minorities that lived there.

D@amned either way you went...

Anyway... so there but for the grace of God goes little Sparky into the fray and I really began to get sick of the whole thing.

One day, we were escorting a wanted felon out of his hole. Me and my partner are keeping a close eye out for his friends and scanning the rooftops for lookouts and those who like to take pot shots at the po-po...

And as I am passing a doorway it cracks open..

Now my little heart jacked up to about ninety miles an hour more than half expecting a gun barrel to poke out of it followed by a brief flash before I start hoofing it towards the light to catch up with my dead relatives, right?

But instead.... this old lady voice comes whispering out of it saying,

"Thank you officers."

And the door shuts.

Of course I am stymied and I just kept walking knowing that if anyone got the idea from me talking to her that she dimed this hood out, then her apartment would mysteriously catch on fire.

Anyway..

I guess I had a sort of epiphany, or what some might call a moment of clarity.

I realized that even though we were in and out of just about every building in the pj's, for every one apartment filled with thugs, there were about eight apartments filled with regular non-violent citizen type people regardless of whether or not they liked the po-po.

Except, being the po-po, we never saw them. I mean these folks weren't exactly calling 9-1-1 just to invite us over for lunch, you know? Even if they did support us, they weren't exactly in a good position to put a "support your local sheriff" sign in their front yard.

So.. keeping this in mind and not too long after that... we're out on the streets and we check a guy out on foot. We pat him down and sure enough he's got a gun.

Of course, around these parts carrying a gun equals thug, right?

Well, in true smart-***** fashion, we ask him, "<smirk> What you carrying a gun for?" and physically orient him to a position resting gently on the hood of our car. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

His response:

"$hit! If ya'll lived around here and had to walk home from the bus stop, wouldn't you have a gun?"

our reply:

<best dudley do-right voice> "Not without a permit."

His response:

"$hit. You guys are cops and ya'll don't even come up in here without, like, three or four other cops with you and helicopters and dogs and $hit."

Our friend here had a point. As a general rule, we only went into alot of these areas if we were four deep, with some exceptions.

The thought occured to me that citizens need to protect themselves and their familes from thugs just like cops do.

In a bad neighborhood, the regular folks have guns for the same reason we would.

I mean really, if you lived in a bad part of town, wouldn't you have a gun?

oh yeah... the guy had no criminal history at all, was polite and didn't call us any names.

We cut him loose and let him keep his pistol.

JRT6

11-06-2002, 12:28 PM

Some random thoughts on this tired argument from what I've read on this thread:

"People with guns kill people" Sorry Aussie but that's the number one anti-gun, media modified, focus group approved cliche. That and "common sense" laws. Opened a can of worms with that one.

Millions of people walking around armed... Well I don't like the idea of a lot of people armed either but that just hasn't been the case in the states that have had CCW for years. I may not like it but who am I to decide if one can have the means to defend one's life?

The police and gov't can protect you: Please, I hate this mindset. It's MY LIFE and I'm responsible for it and my own actions. Keep following the "gov't is all" road and kiss your individual rights goodby. From a practical view: You call the police because a badguy who's ****ed that he wasn't breast fed as an infant breaks into your house. You respond by calling the police and laying on the ground in the fetal position begging for mercy. The 911 call goes straight through hopefully, the dispatcher takes the call and the details, the dispatcher then types the call into CAD and radios the cars, I listen to the details, and drive to the scene. Even if everything has gone perfectly and I'm three houses down from your house when the call comes out: Your still long dead. Maybe the Gov't will spring for a nice funeral.

The Aussie PM said the US has out of control crime and blah, blah, blah,. Well when you tell two generations of people that they are never responsible for their own actions you get what we have today: millions of people who think that the value of human life is less than the value of the athletic shoes one is wearing. Welcome to the instant gratifcation, self centered, there is not right or wrong, heterogenious society.

85% of Aussies are for banning handguns. I would be too if from the day I was born I was indoctrinated by the anti-gun crap. No one in Australia knows really knows the other side of the argument. The shooting sports that I do, IPSC, IDPA, etc. will be the first banned along with the guns used in them by the Aussie PM.

Cops will the first to be disarmed if the US bans guns. Just check the Violence Policy Center web site for proof of that.

"The strong prey on the weak" Bull! The weak prey on the weak. The strong don't have to prey on anyone.

According to the CDC 100,000 people a year are killed by medical malpractice. 10,000 people a year a murdered with guns, 7,000 people are murdered by other means. Banning guns isn't about saving lives it's about power, period!

MadMax

11-06-2002, 12:41 PM

Sparky,
Well said! Ya know, about 1 1/2 years ago, in my county, this guy try's to carjack this car with a lady and her teenage daughter in it, the puke gets the girl in a choke hold, the mom pulls a Bowie knife out of the glove box to free her daughter. 2 construction workers at McDs across the road see what's going on, one of em grabs his pistol the other calls 911 on his cell. They both run over and free the girl and her mom…. They held the puke at gunpoint until the PD arrives; PD thanks em and takes the puke to the County hooskow. I had the pleasure to see the puke head off to MSP for 20 years. Makes ya wonder what their actions would have been if they did not have a weapon.

Sparky

11-06-2002, 01:38 PM

We had a young lady who, after being beaten and raped, was able to get to her weapon as the scumbag was leaving.

Yeppers! Naked, raped, and bleeding chases the a-hole down and lights his butt up!

Shot him! AND bullet holes in his car.

The bullet recovered later from his BE-hind matched her pistol placing him at the scene. Talk about a good ID case!

THAT Lady is MY f*ckin' HERO!

I remember her saying that her only thought was, "I can't let him do this to somebody else!"

That is MY kind of next door neighbor!

As for the Million Moms?

Yeah... they'd rather see you naked, raped, and bleeding than standing over the would be rapist you just shot.

Family safety my butt!

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 03:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MadMax:
So O.D,
Which is it, first you say "average" Americans can not be trusted, then, less then 2 days later you say how you let some gal go with a warning. Then you say you are against people carrying firearms in public places, talk about a contradiction. :rolleyes: BTW, if LEO's are not normal then what are we?<hr /></blockquote>MadMax,

I just love your little "rolleyes"... it's such an invitation to discuss this as mature adults. It conveys such a message that you are open to other people's ideas.

I will answer each of your comments:

"The Average American can't be trusted with a gun".

In my previous posts, I cited many examples why I think the average american shouldn't have a gun.

"then, less then 2 days later you say how you let some gal go with a warning."

As a police officer, I have something called discretion...I don't agree with people who run stop signs... but I don't always give out tickets. Are you sure you are a cop?

"Then you say you are against people carrying firearms in public places,"

I don't think people should be armed in public. But if you actually read my postings, I also say that having the public armed in certain parts of the country may be okay... refer to my post to Watchman.

"BTW, if LEO's are not normal then what are we?"

We are NOT normal. We are trained and conditioned to deal with the criminal element and we are drilled on use of force and the force continuum. The average citizen is not.

MadMax, I've tried to have a intelligent dialog with you. Though you may have some valid points in your postings. Your antagonistic attitude here and in other threads toward me outweighs your points. As you can see, many here disagree with my views and I accept that. They're mature enough to voice their opinions without conveying 'attitude'.... If you wish to discuss my points on this topic, please do so without the attitude. Otherwise, just don't bother responding to me.

[ 11-06-2002, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Mike Tx

11-06-2002, 06:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't think people should be armed in public.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think people should be murdered in public.

CinaC

11-06-2002, 06:50 PM

I don't think people should be in public.

Bill R

11-06-2002, 06:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
I don't think people should be in public.<hr /></blockquote>Actually you may be on the right track Crazy. I think high density population is the problem.

CinaC

11-06-2002, 06:56 PM

It's not the high density, it's their driving ability (or lack thereof). And why do the idiot numbskull drivers always walk away from accidents without a scratch? Grrrr.

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 09:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
It's not the high density<hr /></blockquote>Actually CJ, Bill_R is correct. I believe there's direct relationship between crime and population density (among other factors)... notice that higher the population, the higher the crime rate.

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 09:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't think people should be armed in public.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think people should be murdered in public.<hr /></blockquote>MikeTX,

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the whole thing.

I don't think people should be armed in public. But if you actually read my postings, I also say that having the public armed in certain parts of the country may be okay... refer to my post to Watchman.

and also

[i]We are in very different parts of America

Mike Tx

11-06-2002, 09:43 PM

I did not quote you. I responded to a phrase you used. Forgive me for not clearing it with you first. If I had quoted you, I would have used your entire biased opinion about guns and the people they serve, and not just part of it. I reserve poetic license, particularly when you have no copyright on your posts. Sue me.

occiferdave

11-06-2002, 09:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
I did not quote you. I responded to a phrase you used. Forgive me for not clearing it with you first. If I had quoted you, I would have used your entire biased opinion about guns and the people they serve, and not just part of it. I reserve poetic license, particularly when you have no copyright on your posts. Sue me.<hr /></blockquote>Under your rationalization....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think people should be murdered in public.<hr /></blockquote>I reserve poetic license.

[ 11-06-2002, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Oregon Mike

11-06-2002, 11:05 PM

Hmm... let me go way back to MikeTX's story about the wino.

OcciferDave, you said that if the wino had been armed, he would have assumed he was in mortal danger and tried to shoot Mike.

Someone already pointed out that winos that can't afford their own booze can't afford a gun, but let's say he got a gun by some other means. Why wouldn't he just pull his gun on Mike to begin with and demand money? He obviously wanted money pretty bad to continue to accost Mike after he had already said no.

As the story went, Mike put his hand on his own gun after being asked twice and approached by the wino. Mike isn't out looking for trouble, the wino is. The wino has everything to lose by shooting Mike and nothing to gain. If he just runs away he can go find another victim. Even in his perma-drunken state, he knows that shooting Mike will bring lots of police, and aggressive beggar winos aren't usually the type to want to deal with police.

Whoever said that only the weak prey on the weak is absolutely right. Criminals do not stand up to guns.

Mike

Bob A

11-07-2002, 12:26 AM

I get so sick of people in other countries who haven't even come close to solving "man's inhumanity to man" telling us how to live in the USA. We are not the UK or New Zealand.

I also get disgusted with people here arguing that guns cause crime. People cause crime. A person wakes up and decides he or she wants to have a new car. Since they have no job, they steal money. Since they have no job, there's no reason why they can't sit around bombed on their substance of choice.

Since they stole the car, the owner can ID them, and must be intimidated, beaten, or killed to prevent them testifying. After a while, this becomes normal, and the young kid watching somebody work the system wonders why they need to sit in school all day and prepare for a lifetime of work to earn what they want.

Let's see what do I want to do? Put up with the hassle of teachers, parents and a boss and wait for years to have what I want? Or just go and take it, and beat the hell out of anybody who gets in my way. Which of these seems cool?

IMO, we should hold people accountable for what they do, and stop glorifying criminals like Eminem and Snoop Dogg. Do away with welfare for people who are capable of working. That would be a good start.

People killing people goes back to Cain and Able, and Cain didn't use a gun.

If guns cause crime, pencils cause misspelled words.

Artie

11-07-2002, 12:56 AM

Sparky,
Two issues come to mind when I read your posting.

Firstly, the police are failing the citizens of that area by not implementing strategies to remove the criminal elements.

Secondly, just because the person that you stopped was not rude to you, and did not have a criminal record, why did you let him keep his firearm? Are you not contributing to his committing an offence. Being simplistic, is he not committing a crime by not being licenced and CCW, and therefore a criminal? Or is it just a matter that you are condoning his possession as having a gun is no big deal? Did you do any checks on his firearm to see if it had been used in any crimes? Was he polite and not recorded on the criminal record system because he either gave you a false name or is such a good criminal that he hasn't been caught yet?

JRT6,
You state in your posting that "No one in Australia knows really knows the other side of the argument." What do you base that statement on? I was brought up with Winchester .22s and Shotguns. I became quite a good shot with the 22, however, nowadays, I do not believe that I have to have a gun strapped to my hip, whilst off duty, to live a safe life.

You also state, ""People with guns kill people" Sorry Aussie but that's the number one anti-gun, media modified, focus group approved cliche. That and "common sense" laws. Opened a can of worms with that one." Yeah, why do you think that I started the post in the first place?

Bob A:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I get so sick of people in other countries who haven't even come close to solving "man's inhumanity to man" telling us how to live in the USA.<hr /></blockquote>Tell that to the Iraqies.

occiferdave

11-07-2002, 01:41 AM

Okay... you're all correct...I see the errors of my ways...

Everyone who does not have a criminal record should have the legal right to carry a gun concealed.

After which, crime will become a thing of the past because criminals will be afraid of armed citizens.

Lower income ghettos will see the biggest benefits as citizens will take back their neigborhoods from dealers and gangsters.

God Bless America

Mike Tx

11-07-2002, 07:06 AM

Criminals are afraid of armed citizens Dave, they have even said so, and we all do have the right to be armed.

As far as the poetic license thing, I did not change the meaning of your phrase but you did mine. To me that shows a willingness to misquote facts or manufacture them to win. You must be a democrat. :D

Artie

11-07-2002, 07:44 AM

Mike Tx:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Criminals are afraid of armed citizens Dave, they have even said so.<hr /></blockquote>Come on, Mike. I want names.

MikeTx, Ossiferdave, BillR, Watchman, and anyone else....leave your guns at home and give each other a great big hug.

JRT6

11-07-2002, 08:54 AM

Artie,
You don't think you need a gun off duty? Fine don't carry one but don't project that opinion on others. My first year on the job I used my off duty gun to save my life when I got car jacked. If I hadn't of had one I would have been dead, killed during a series of car jack murders ten years ago that had nothing to do with the BGs actually wanting the car.

Just a couple of years ago I used my off duty gun to save the life of an Officer on my shift. I was driving home from work and pulled up to an intersection where a couple of drunks had pulled my co -worker(also going home) out of his car and were beating him to death.

I don't walk around thinking about guns all day. They are not the center of my attention. The anti-gun people are the one who do that and make it that way. They are the ones who bring up guns with every breath they take.

You say you weren't bombarded by the anti-gun messege for years. Ok, I don't buy that, but ok. However where did you get the mind set that your individual rights were secondary to that of the state? Where did you learn that self defense is a greater social evil than the the actions of the person trying to cause you harm? No one is born with the belief that it's the states job to protect them and that any right to self defense should surrendered to that state.

[ 11-07-2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: JRT6 ]

Bill R

11-07-2002, 09:16 AM

MikeTx, Ossiferdave, BillR, Watchman, and anyone else....leave your guns at home and give each other a great big hug.

I love y'all :D

Watchman

11-07-2002, 09:24 AM

Awww...shucks...

I love yall too... :D

When you hug me just dont hug me too tightly,I dont want my .45 going off... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> :D

Artie

11-08-2002, 01:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JRT6:
Artie,
You don't think you need a gun off duty? Fine don't carry one but don't project that opinion on others.<hr /></blockquote>Why? You are projecting your opinion on other members on this forum. Or do you only believe in freedom of speech for those members who are in favor of gun ownership?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />My first year on the job I used my off duty gun to save my life when I got car jacked. If I hadn't of had one I would have been dead, killed during a series of car jack murders ten years ago that had nothing to do with the BGs actually wanting the car.<hr /></blockquote>Although I am happy to hear that you were able to protect yourself, how do you know that you would have been killed. You only assume that. You do not know that for a fact.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You say you weren't bombarded by the anti-gun messege for years.<hr /></blockquote>When did I say that?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />However where did you get the mind set that your individual rights were secondary to that of the state?<hr /></blockquote>The State has an obligation to provide safety and security to its citizens. That is why it hires police officers. Or do you believe that they hire police officers for some other reason.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Where did you learn that self defense is a greater social evil than the the actions of the person trying to cause you harm?<hr /></blockquote>I have never said that self defence is a greater social evil than the actions of the person trying to cause me harm. What I have said, inter alia, is that for society to function, guns are not required to be a part of it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No one is born with the belief that it's the states job to protect them and that any right to self defense should surrendered to that state.<hr /></blockquote>Again, I have never said that you should give up your right to self defence. Just give up your GUNS.

**************
Bill and Watch,
Now don't you feel better???

Niteshift

11-08-2002, 08:44 AM

"Come on, Mike. I want names."

I'll give you one. Salvatore Toscanno. I asked him why he picked a young female to steal a cheap necklace from in a public place instead of a guy he'd been in a secluded place with about 20 mins earlier, a guy with more cash and jewelry.

His reply: Are you kidding, that motherf*cker carries a gun.

Enough said.

"Although I am happy to hear that you were able to protect yourself, how do you know that you would have been killed. You only assume that. You do not know that for a fact."

Of course one can't PROVE a negative. Of course, you have even less standing to DISPROVE it.

"The State has an obligation to provide safety and security to its citizens. That is why it hires police officers. Or do you believe that they hire police officers for some other reason."

Actually, the courts tend to disagree with you. The police job is to detect and solve crimes. There is no true legal responsibility to protect people before the fact. If that were the case, every time someone was the victim of a crime, they'd have legal grounds to sue the government.

Watchman

11-08-2002, 09:03 AM

Again, I have never said that you should give up your right to self defence. Just give up your GUNS.

Therein lies the problem ya see...

To give up ones guns is to give up the best means of self defense.

Anybody over the age of 40 would more than likely have a hard time defending themselves from several punks trying to harm them.

The average person isnt trained in the art of self defense. The use of sticks, knives, rocks or whatever wont be effective against a determined foe.

One other thing that the anti's conviently overlook ...

Why should I give up a family heirloom just because some liberal thinks it should be so? A gun that my grandfather and me hunted with, a gun that I can pick up at any time and instantly be reminded of many fond memorys,like the beautiful sunrises when we were up at the crack of dawn, the days at deer camps with the friends, the jokes and the good food. The days spent on the range looking for that last bit of accuracy with tailor made handloads.

There is no sastifactory anwser. Why should I give up my highly valued private property ? Ive never commited a crime with it, its never been a danger to anyone, yet someone thousands of miles away want me to "give it up".

The most important thing that the anti-gunners never talk about publicy, and the thing that reall concerns them the most...is not the GUN , its the MINDSET .

The mindset that refuses to bow a knee to another man, the minsdet that refuses to be a victim, the mindset that refuses to give up, the mindset that would fight to the death because it is better to die free than to live as a slave.

It aint about guns, its about power.

Most that frequent this forum already know that.Those that dont need to learn. Those that live afar in another country have already given up. They no longer have the right to self defense.They have given it up in the name of public saftey, because it is oftern easier to pass laws upon law abiding people than it is to put a foot down and take care fo the REAL problems at hand.

So there ya have it Artie...
You are spouting off at people that know better. :D

You can be quite entertaining with your "logic" at times, I'll give ya that much... :p

[ 11-08-2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Sparky

11-08-2002, 11:53 AM

Posted by Artie:
"Sparky,
Two issues come to mind when I read your posting.

Firstly, the police are failing the citizens of that area by not implementing strategies to remove the criminal elements.

Artie, I don't know precisely how things are in your part of the world. In my area, the police aren't the only ones responsible for the criminal justice system.

First, we rely on citizens to report crimes and provide factual information. This is not always the case in many areas where citizens are afraid to report crimes less they find themselves the target for retribution. Additionally, criminals will pose as witnesees and provide disinformation to the police in a concerted effort to aid their cohorts. Often based purely on general principle.

Secondly, we rely on our own governement to provide us with the manpower and tools that we need to be effective. This is, sadly, not always the case. many US agecencies are woefully under-staffed, under-equipped, and in some respects under-trained. Put a good person in a bad system and the system will win everytime.

Thirdly, we rely on the courts. If and when we make a case and get a conviction or plea, the courts should sentence criminals to serve time. Sadly, our rather liberal justice system tends not to do this until a person already has a rap sheet 50 pages long. We also rely on good supervision for those under court supervision. The probation and parole officers, however, are also under-staffed and under-equipped. Even when they try to revoke a convict, the courts are reluctant to sentence them to serve actual time.

Lastly, we again rely on the people to elect good judges and prosecutors, or those who appoint judges and prosecutors. We rely on the people to effect change when the system fails to work effectively in their interest. We would hope that people might pressure polticians to give us more budget and more officers so we can be more effective, but they don't. Most people are not aware of how the system works, are not aware of their responsibility to keep an eye on it, and instead... when the "system" fails them, they simply blame only the police just as you have done.

"Secondly, just because the person that you stopped was not rude to you, and did not have a criminal record, why did you let him keep his firearm? Are you not contributing to his committing an offence. Being simplistic, is he not committing a crime by not being licenced and CCW, and therefore a criminal? Or is it just a matter that you are condoning his possession as having a gun is no big deal? Did you do any checks on his firearm to see if it had been used in any crimes? Was he polite and not recorded on the criminal record system because he either gave you a false name or is such a good criminal that he hasn't been caught yet?"

Carrying of a weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor. He would have recieved a citation about on par with a traffic ticket. It was a BS misdemeanor.

Yes, we checked the pistol for stolen.

A false name? Golly gee whilkers, I never thught of THAT! :rolleyes: Yes, his ID was good. The mere fact that he had a good ID was the first clue that he wasn't a thug. Heck, he even had a valid driver's license.

Sure, it's true he may have been a criminal mastermind. (Maybe it was Kaiser Sose!) But when I hear hoofbeats, I tend to think horses, not zebras. The guy checked out okay. As I recall there was every indication that he was a straight citizen and absolutely no indication that he was a thug.

He wasn't hanging on the corner drinking forties and playing ground games. He wasn't roving the streets with a bunch of fellow thugs. He wasn't out doing home invasions. He was wearing an employee uniform of a local business right after shift change walking down the street towards the address listed on his ID. He was not a felon. He had absolutely NO arrest history.

The only beef we had on him was that he hadn't applied for and paid his fee for a permit to carry. This is about the same as not applying for a car tag.

shooter1201

11-08-2002, 02:16 PM

What does Australia plan to do to that '12%' that want to KEEP their handguns?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />'Fear the government that fears your guns'.<hr /></blockquote>

occiferdave

11-08-2002, 05:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Criminals are afraid of armed citizens Dave, they have even said so, and we all do have the right to be armed. <hr /></blockquote>Mike,

I agree (can't believe I just typed that) that criminals are afraid of armed citizens. But I disagree (partially) with you on that everyone has the right to be armed. I believe that everyone has the right to keep arms at home and their place of business, however, I don't believe that people should be able to be armed in public places. Now that's my opionion for the greater Los Angeles area. That's not to say that people in certain parts of the country should not have the ability to carry arms.... like I said many times.... armed citizens MAY work where you are and probably does work well... but in metropolitan Los Angeles, you might as well drop a nuke on us.

Watchman

11-08-2002, 05:40 PM

Flawed logic there occiferdave..

It looks to me that if your area is so bad that you are in fear for your life by simply walking down the street, that is where you need the gun the most.

You are saying that it is OK for people to tote where they dont need them ,but that it is not OK for them where they need them the most.

In short, you advocate the ablity to "protect" onself in a place that they dont need it, yet you would refuse them that right in a place that it could mean the difference between living and dying.

Typical liberal logic.

I don't believe that people should be able to be armed in public places.

Only at home behind locked doors huh ? That'll do em a lot of good... :rolleyes:

but in metropolitan Los Angeles, you might as well drop a nuke on us.

There may be several people here that might agree that that is the best thing to do... :p

Sparky

11-08-2002, 05:51 PM

occiferdave: "I don't believe that people should be able to be armed in public places. "

Okay. I respect your opinion, Dave, but answer this for me.

Your sister (pretend you have one if you don't) is in the valley on Victory Blvd. in the area of Vesper having just enjoyed a Tommy's burger and an order of chili cheese fries.

She is not armed.

A man approaches her with a knife telling her to get in his van.

I am there in the parking lot enjoying my burger and notice what is going on.

I am wearing my sidearm.

Do you want me to intervene?

occiferdave

11-08-2002, 08:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sparky:
occiferdave:

Do you want me to intervene?<hr /></blockquote>Seeing that you are a DA's Investigator and a peace officer. You better intervene.

:)

Bob A

11-08-2002, 09:03 PM

For the record Sparky, if it's my sister...

Waste the BG. My wife works for a very good attorney. :D

What is so different in LA that makes a person have such a radical character change just because they entered the city? You already stated that all traffic stops are done as felony car stops, so you are assuming the occupants are armed anyway.

BTW, have the laws against using firearms when committing crimes helped keep the BGs from using them? If you want the private citizens to be unarmed, why not the folks in blue? Yes, I'm being rhetorical, but we both know the answers. Because it never entered your mind to walk arounf in a jungle with no way to protect yourself any more than it crossed some gang banger's mind that he can't rob the corner grocery because he was carrying a gun, and that would be real, real bad.

Sparky

11-08-2002, 09:07 PM

No Dave.

I am neither of those things in California.

I am merely a citizen who flew in to get a bite to eat. (We take long lunches at the DA's Office from time to time. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )

You're not dodging this so easily.. :)

Let's say it's the same situation, but it is a private citizen who doesn't een have a concealed carry permit... would you want them to intervene?

[ 11-08-2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

occiferdave

11-08-2002, 09:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Flawed logic there occiferdave..<hr /></blockquote>Never said I was logically... you are assuming again. :)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
It looks to me that if your area is so bad that you are in fear for your life by simply walking down the street, that is where you need the gun the most.

You are saying that it is OK for people to tote where they dont need them ,but that it is not OK for them where they need them the most.

In short, you advocate the ablity to "protect" onself in a place that they dont need it, yet you would refuse them that right in a place that it could mean the difference between living and dying.
<hr /></blockquote>You see Watchman, the introduction of my guns into an area like mine will only serve to arm the criminals better. Here's why, we already have a gang problem, unfortunately, 25% of these gang members have never been arrested (but rest assured that they are committing crimes). These gang members will be among the ones that will be applying for CCWs.

Many of you are thinking, "Most gangs member will not go to the trouble to get a CCW permit." But believe me, these guys may look like little dumb*****s, but they will use every inch of the law to their advantage. The hardcore gang members on parole are already using the younger members to purchase guns, and claiming the gun lost, and filing police reports... these gangs are organized and well informed. We had one kid join the Explorers and reported back to his older gangster brother what are tactics are. The gangs are joining the military to learn about weapons and tactics... they will surely use the CCW if it's easily obtained. The thought of these peanut heads with CCWs standing on the corner is not very appealing.

As for people who need it.... unfortunately, even if you have an open CCW policy... the people who needed the most will still not be armed. The criminals know whom to target, they are not going to target someone who is alert and possibly armed. They are going to target the inattentive, weak, illegals and elderly. These people who need it the most will still not be armed because it is either against their nature to carry weapons or they are unable to get weapons.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Typical liberal logic.<hr /></blockquote>America is built on debates like these... the balance of liberals and conservatives keeps our government in check.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
There may be several people here that might agree that that is the best thing to do...<hr /></blockquote>Just give me a few weeks warning....

Sparky

11-08-2002, 09:53 PM

dave, the gangbangers will carry a weapon regardless of whether or not they can get a ccw. Don't give us a speech about gangs. They grow thugs everywhere. You are the one who sounds niave.

What do you think is gonna happen? Do you actually think not being able to get a permit is gonna keep a thug from carrying a weapon?

By not allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons, the only thing you do is disarm the law abiding. The crooks and thugs are gonna do it anyway... they're THUGS! They don't care about the law.

Let's say it is exactly as you suggest...

No pistols carried in public... the guy approaches your sister with a knife telling her to get in his van.

I am an otherwise law abiding citizen who is illegally carrying a pistol and I notice this.

Do you want me to intervene to protect your sister, or do you want her to wait until police arrive after I call 9-1-1?

occiferdave

11-08-2002, 10:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sparky:
dave, the gangbangers will carry a weapon regardless of whether or not they can get a ccw. Don't give us a speech about gangs. They grow thugs everywhere. You are the one who sounds niave. <hr /></blockquote>You are absolutely right. But if given the chance to carry legally, do you think criminals with a clean record will do so legally?

(Sparky, have to cut this post short.... I have to go to dinner... my female companion already hates you for making us late and no I am not packing :D )

[ 11-08-2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Sparky

11-08-2002, 10:11 PM

Also..

you metioned that thugs prey on the inattentive, weak, illegals, and elderly...

true

and the inattentive and the weak will continue to be prey for the predators just as the predators will continue to prey upon them.

but the illegals who are at great risk for home invasion because they keep cash on hand.. and the elderly who are at risk for robbery and rape..

these people want and need weapons for defense and, at least in my experience, they often arm themselves.

Some people choose to be weak and to not take responsibility for themselves and their own safety. I would rather not force the choice upon them.

EDIT>>>> Posting at same time...

My apologies to your female companion, :)

If they are criminals, regardless of a lack of criminal record, they are still criminals. Do they suddenly stop carry a weapon after they get a conviction? The laws against robbery, rape, murder, etc haven't stopped them from comitting those crimes. Why is it that you believe that not being able to get a permit is going to keep them from carrying a weapon.

in fact, IIRC, comitting a felony while in the possession of a firearm carries enhanced penalties in your state, does this reduce gun related crime.

They are HARDCORE THUGS... doing time is a source of pride for them. They are just as at home on the inside as on the outside. Gangs started in prison. They have friends and family in there. Our criminal justice system is a joke to them. They know it is a revolving door.

And you think being able to get a permit if they have no conviction is going to enable them?

They are already living outside the law. It is a non-issue to them.

The only people it is an issue to is the law abiding citizens.

The only people who would quit carrying a weapon are people like my wife and family. The thugs aren't going to let a little misdemeanor get in their way when their plan is to commit felony rape, robbery, and murder.

[ 11-08-2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

Artie

11-08-2002, 11:12 PM

Niteshift:
How many criminals have you come across in your police life? I would suggest the answer is many. See Nite, Salvatore Toscanno is just one criminal. The way that Mike put it, you would think that all criminals tell police that they were afraid of armed citizens.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Of course one can't PROVE a negative. Of course, you have even less standing to DISPROVE it.<hr /></blockquote>Of course you cannot prove it either way. It is a hypothetical. But many of the posters on this forum that are pro-gun tend to say things like that to emphasis their point. And what I am saying is that relying on that type of argument is dubious in itself.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Actually, the courts tend to disagree with you. The police job is to detect and solve crimes. There is no true legal responsibility to protect people before the fact. If that were the case, every time someone was the victim of a crime, they'd have legal grounds to sue the government.<hr /></blockquote>I tend to disagree with your definition of the role of police forces. The traditional view is that the main role of a police force is the prevention, detection and investigation of crime and the maintenance of social order. This is a common law duty, which, I suspect, would still be applicable to US police forces.

Watchman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />It aint about guns, its about power.<hr /></blockquote>Absolutely, it

Sparky

11-09-2002, 12:17 AM

Yes, Gacy was just a regular person until he started killing people. It was only then that he became a murderer. You usually make better analogies than that.

To assume that merely having a weapon made the guy we stopped more likely to be a murderer is akin to suggesting that anyone with a pack of matches might decide to suddenly run around setting fires.

Really, do we start banning matches to prevent arson, ban cars to prevent people from getting run over, ban steak knives to keep them from getting stabbed?

More kids die each year drowning in the backyard pool than in gun related accidents or crime, yet do we call for the registration and confiscatino of swimming pools? Does the possession of a pool mean that you want to kill your kids?

I've worked a large number of rape cases. I've noticed that many rapists choose to bind their victim with duct tape. Should anyone with duct tape be considered at greater risk to become a rapist?

9-11

11-09-2002, 12:19 AM

What Artie is failing to include is that he DOES NOT have the choice to carry offduty. Even if he felt the urge to do so, he isn't able to, as his dept does not allow it. I have a couple of examples for Artie to consider. The first is David Carthy. The second is Peter Forsyth. Both offduty cops in Sydney. Both murdered by suspects carrying knives. Neither was armed as they were not allowed to be. How many more officers will your dept sacrifice Artie, before your govt and population wake up? If the police cannot be trusted to carry guns offduty in Australia, it's no surprise the civilian population can't.

Can you honestly say that if you were confronted by a violent suspect offduty who you had previously arrested, and he wanted to seriously harm your family, you wouldn't wish for a gun? What would you suggest, engage in witty banter about the social cost of guns in society?

I carry offduty as does my wife. We do this because in this state we have a legal right as cops to do so. We also do it because cops in the US have been involved in thousands of situations offduty requiring them to use a gun to save lives. Thousands Artie, not one or two. It may have been a highlight for you to discover a shortened rifle in your drug days, but here, we take guns from suspects on most shifts.

So how about answering the question. How often have you confronted a suspect armed with a firearm, in all your years of Australian policing?

Sparky

11-09-2002, 12:20 AM

ONe more thing Artie,

I'll pose the same question to you:

I happen to be traveling through Australia and am illegally carrying my weapon.

Your sister is being approached by a man with a knife telling her to get into his van.

Do you want me to intervene with my illegal weapon, or should I call the police?

9-11

11-09-2002, 12:22 AM

PS Your popst states, "Carrying a pistol without being licenced carries a 15 year sentence here".

Give me one example where that sentence has ever been handed down in an Australian court and I will admit defeat.

SpecOpsWarrior

11-09-2002, 12:33 AM

"These gang members will be among the ones that will be applying for CCWs."

I have to disagree with you there Dave. Gangs members are known for their criminal behavior, not for conforming to the laws of society. Your average banger isn't going to go through the time or the trouble to get a CCW permit.

We have had CCW permits here for several years now, and I have never once seen a banger with a CCW permit, hell most of them dont even have valid DL's. They will carry with or without a permit.

Just take a look at Arkansas, they have a very bad gang problem in Little Rock. They are also a shall issue state, but no one is seeing an alarming trend of bangers with CCW permits. The simple truth is that bangers are carrying without them, and they always will.

I'm gonna shift gears on you here for a second Dave.

If a total gun ban were implemented in California, how many gang bangers would voluntarily surrender their AK's because they would be afraid of violating the law??

Now ask yourself the same question, but replace the term gang banger with law abiding citizen, and see if your answer is the same.

Oregon Mike

11-09-2002, 12:47 AM

Artie~

How well has the gun ban there worked? Isn't it true that your violent crime rate is on a dramatic increase? What about Britain, Washington, Chicago?

Meanwhile, scholarly research has shown that after a jurisdiction goes from banning the carry of guns to allowing citizens to get permits and carry, the violent crime rate takes a sharp increase for the first month or two, and then drops fairly quickly to level out at around half of the previous crime rate. Those results have been consistent-- different areas, different times, same results.

You really assume that every gun is about to be used in a murder? You can't determine from the circumstances what kind of person you're dealing with?

If you stop a carload of teenagers driving around at three in the morning and there are several different colors of spray paint in the back, it's reasonable to think they have been or are about to be used for graffiti.

On the other hand, if you stop a gentleman at five in the evening driving a pickup with a ladder rack and a sign that say's Bob's Construction on the side, and he has several cans of spray paint, can you not see that he's a contractor driving home from work?

Do cops in Oz carry guns? If so, why? If you really believe that the gun ban has made society safe, then you don't need any tools to defend yourself either.

Mike

occiferdave

11-09-2002, 03:08 AM

Okay, it's late and I will do my best to answer all the different points that were presented. But my copy/paste skills are lacking right now.

SOW, Okay, since you have more experience with gangster and CCWs in your state... I will defer to your argument as my is pure speculation.

The reason for my views on the gangs/ccw issue is... since the gangsters will carry guns regardless of the law, if they were able to do so legally, who not?

Sparky... as for your example of intervention... I don't think it's that black and white... of course I would want you to intervene, I just hope that whatever level of intervention you choose is the right one.... if you were unfamiliar with your weapon and a poor marksman... then I hope you will dial 911 and give a good description... but if you were shooting DX on a daily basis, I would hope you put one between the suspect's eyes...

That's where this gets hairy... I would be open to a relaxed CCW policy if you can guarentee that everyone that holds a CCW is free from mental illness, can make sound life and death decisions in a split second, has coolness under fire, trained in shoot/don't shoot situations, not quick tempered, regular qualifies with their weapon, among other basic qualifications.

Watchman

11-09-2002, 07:50 AM

I would be open to a relaxed CCW policy if you can guarentee that everyone that holds a CCW is free from mental illness, can make sound life and death decisions in a split second, has coolness under fire, trained in shoot/don't shoot situations, not quick tempered, regular qualifies with their weapon, among other basic qualifications.

Can you guarantee the above qualitys in all cops ?

Why should you expect it in civilians ?

FWIW, I am a CCW instructor. I have qualified several hundred people to tote in this state and I think you are way off base in your assumptions about the average civilian and permits to tote.As a result, I'm gonna give you my 2 cents on it.

For instance, out of an average of 45 people per class, the average age is 46 years old. These people are business owners, craftsman, doctors, laywers ,teachers, preachers and most of them have their stuff in one sock. Lots of veterans from various wars around the globe. I'm sure that anyone of these people would be glad to set you straight about their so called "inability" to be "trusted" with carrying a gun.

Statisically speaking, your arguments have no basis in fact. CCW permit holders are amongst the most well behaved citizens in the state.

I remember when those opposed to the idea came out of the woodwork and did their best to "inform" everyone that blood would run in the streets and that no one would be safe and that it would be like the wild west all over again if the average Joe Blow could carry a gun. Guess what? It didnt happen.

As for the gangbangers...

You've got to pass an FBI background check and submit yout fingerprints . How many gangbangers do you know are gonna do that ? The permits also go through the Sherrif or the local Police Chief for approval. Do you really think that they will issue an approval to a gang banger ?

As you are aware..the gangbangers are gonna carry no matter what. All the CCW does is give the good guys a fighting chance. There is nothing magic about it, but at least they have the tools to attempt to protect themselves or their familys. Without that option, we are reduced to helpless victim status like the citizens in most other countries. Canada, Britian and Australia come to mind.

Its about the freedom to protect oneself. As you already know, cops are only called after the fact. Its about responsiblity to protect oneself and his family. No one should have to rely on a cop for protection. In my neck of the woods, several badguys have been apprehended and held by citizens with guns. I personally view these people as assets wearas you tend to see them as liabilitys. These people are pro-police, pro law and order,not the general riff raff that you tend to think of them as. In todays day and age, the cops need all the allies they can get.

I told you that the CCW holders were amongst the most law abiding people in the state. At this time,less than .02 percent have been revoked, the most common occurence is alcohol related, for instance an open container in a vehicle with a CCW will get your permit revoked, if you are arrested for D&D or if you happen to get a 3rd DWI that'll get it. We have had very few incidents of actual misuse of a weapon that resulted in revoked CCW's.

Think about it. After all of the hoops that one must jump through to get one,are you gonna jeopordize it by doing something stupid ?

So far, in all the states that have shall issue laws they have worked extremely well, much to the dismay of the anti gunners out there. Lots of people will tell you how the average citizen cant be trusted, but they cant argue the facts. And the fact is, law abiding people are just that...whether they tote a gun or not.

Why not let them have the ability to fight back ?

Stay safe.

Mike Tx

11-09-2002, 07:55 AM

You know, I've heard the "blood will run in the streets" fear mongering many times, and it always peters out.

But in reality, there is a situation where blood will run in the streets, and that situation is when guns are banned.

You can see examples of this if you look. We have even had a president shot in such a place where guns are banned.

But this a waste of time. The gun banners will continue to preach their bull until a life changing event happens to them. Even then, some will continue to push for disarmament, and those people are truly evil.

Artie

11-09-2002, 08:07 AM

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, Gacy was just a regular person until he started killing people. It was only then that he became a murderer. You usually make better analogies than that.<hr /></blockquote>John Wayne Gacy, Jr. was admired and liked by most who had known him. He was a sharp businessman who had spent his time, when not building up his contracting company, hosting elaborate street parties for friends and neighbors, dressing as a clown and entertaining children at local hospitals and immersing himself in organizations such as the Jaycees, working to make his community a better place to live. People who knew Gacy thought of him as a generous, friendly and hard-working man, devoted to his family and community. For three years, he committed some of the most atrocious crimes, whilst everyone thought he was an upstanding member of the community. My point is that no one really knows what is in the mind of another person.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To assume that merely having a weapon made the guy we stopped more likely to be a murderer is akin to suggesting that anyone with a pack of matches might decide to suddenly run around setting fires.<hr /></blockquote>What I am saying is that, from reading your posting, you didn

Artie

11-09-2002, 08:28 AM

911:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />What Artie is failing to include is that he DOES NOT have the choice to carry offduty. Even if he felt the urge to do so, he isn't able to, as his dept does not allow it.<hr /></blockquote>No, that is not quite correct. I do have a choice. It is true that it is against police policy for us to carry whilst off duty. But I do have the choice to break this rule and carry. I would be committing an offence of being unlicenced and could face a penalty of 15 years. But that is a choice that I would have to weigh up the pros and cons.

Also, you may be surprised to know that I could take my gun home with the sanction of my department as long as I get approval from my boss. I have to have a proper safe that complies with the firearms act, but it is possible, and I have done that before, mainly because I was travelling away from my normal place of work to perform my duties.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have a couple of examples for Artie to consider. The first is David Carthy. The second is Peter Forsyth. Both offduty cops in Sydney. Both murdered by suspects carrying knives. Neither was armed as they were not allowed to be.[quote]
Firstly, his name was David Carty. Yes, he was brutally murdered. And I doubt that if he was carrying, that the outcome would have been any different. The same goes for Peter Forsyth.

[quote]How many more officers will your dept sacrifice Artie, before your govt and population wake up?<hr /></blockquote>That is a good question. How many police officers have been killed by people with guns in the last 200 years. How many more officers will your government allow to be murdered before they get all the guns off the street?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Can you honestly say that if you were confronted by a violent suspect offduty who you had previously arrested, and he wanted to seriously harm your family, you wouldn't wish for a gun?<hr /></blockquote>Another hypothetical? Of course, I would hope that that situation never happened.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We also do it because cops in the US have been involved in thousands of situations offduty requiring them to use a gun to save lives.<hr /></blockquote>Wouldn't you prefer not to have to be in a country where that does not happen? I live in such a country.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Thousands Artie, not one or two. It may have been a highlight for you to discover a shortened rifle in your drug days, but here, we take guns from suspects on most shifts.<hr /></blockquote>I do not recall writing that it was the highlight of my police service to discover a shortened rifle in my drug days. Can you just point it that out to me. What I did was give you an example of what I came across when I was in the drug squad.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So how about answering the question. How often have you confronted a suspect armed with a firearm, in all your years of Australian policing?<hr /></blockquote>More times than I have had hot breakfasts.

Tell me this, how many times have you had to confront a suspect armed with a firearm? Would you prefer to live in a country that does not have to put up with that?

Artie

11-09-2002, 08:34 AM

Oregon Mike:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />How well has the gun ban there worked? Isn't it true that your violent crime rate is on a dramatic increase? What about Britain, Washington, Chicago?<hr /></blockquote>If you read an earlier posting, you will see that armed robberies and murder where the offender uses a firearms has reduced in New South Wales.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Meanwhile, scholarly research has shown that after a jurisdiction goes from banning the carry of guns to allowing citizens to get permits and carry, the violent crime rate takes a sharp increase for the first month or two, and then drops fairly quickly to level out at around half of the previous crime rate. Those results have been consistent-- different areas, different times, same results.<hr /></blockquote>Are you able to support that statement with any statistics?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Do cops in Oz carry guns? If so, why? If you really believe that the gun ban has made society safe, then you don't need any tools to defend yourself either.<hr /></blockquote>Police do carry guns in Oz. Why? Because not all guns have been removed from society. Once they have, I will put in a suggestion that we don't carry and see what happens.

Artie

11-09-2002, 08:48 AM

Watchman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Without that option, we are reduced to helpless victim status like the citizens in most other countries. Canada, Britian and Australia come to mind.<hr /></blockquote>And I suppose, with the strict laws on guns in Australia, there is fear in the streets of Australia. Criminals are running around with guns all over the place. They have the control of the streets. There is panic all over the place. People are so scared, they rarely leave their houses to venture out.

Australia is one of the safest places in the world. Sure, we have crime, but certainly not to the same degree as you have in the States.

shooter1201

11-09-2002, 10:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What Artie is failing to include is that he DOES NOT have the choice to carry offduty. Even if he felt the urge to do so, he isn't able to, as his dept does not allow it. <hr /></blockquote>SURE he has a 'choice'. We ALL have 'choices'. Before becoming an LEO or obtaining a CCW, I'll wager MOST of us....at one time or another....carried a firearm ILLEGALLY...when we thought it was in OUR 'best interests'. I did.

Sparky

11-09-2002, 12:38 PM

Artie: "Seeing as you prefer to put hypotheticals forward to prove your case, answer me this question. Lets pretend that the man that you gave back the gun is married and has three children under the age of 5 years. His marriage is breaking up. His wife is not letting him have what he believes is reasonable access to his kids. Just after you give back his gun and wave to him as he drives off, he goes to his wife's home and murders his three children and then turns the gun on himself. He does this in front of his wife. You are the first car to the scene and recognise him as the man who you give the gun back to. Do you tell his wife that although he didn't have a licence to carry his gun, you gave it back to him?"

Firstly, I don't prefer hypotheticals. The example I gave of the guy we let walk happened in real life. The second example I provided, while couched in non-specific terms, was been played out many times. I'll get back to that after I answer your question.

Your answer is yes. I would have to tell the truth. I allowed him to remain armed having no indication that he was up to no good, but having every indication that he had a reason to arm himself for defense.

Don't put the blame on ME for HIM murdering his kids. That's somethin that HE did, not me.

How about another turn of the same scenario?

I take the weapon and issue him a misdemenaor citation for CCW w/o permit. He returns home to his wife and family.

I couple of thugs break into his house in a home invasion. He tries to fight back even though the convicted felons have illgal wepaons and he is severly beaten. They tie them up and beat and rape the wife in front of him and the kids. I am among the first units to respond and as we are untying them she screams at him, "Why didn't you shoot them?" All he can do is look at me.

You see, Artie, you are right. Matches were made to set fires, but not to commit arson. However, arsonists do use matches to commit arson. Cars were made for transportation, not murder. However, some drivers drive drunk or run over people on purpose. Knives are tools used to cut materials. However, some people misuse them to commit murder and other crimes.

A gun is just a tool. A pistol is (for the most part) meant for shooting other people. Just as you and I would use them to great effect to protect our own life and the lives of others, some people will misuse them to hurt innocent people just as people misuse matches, cars, knives, and even ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

The evil lies not within the book of matches, or the car, or the knife, or the fertilizer, or the pistol. Evil resides within the heart of man.

AS for "hypotheticals" about whether to intervene or not, I will leave you with only one story as an example. It is the story of Suzanna Hupp.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59368-2000May12&notFound=true" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59368-2000May12&notFound=true</a>

Niteshift

11-09-2002, 01:17 PM

"See Nite, Salvatore Toscanno is just one criminal."

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

You asked for names, I gave you one. Rather than accept it, now you want 2 or 10 or 300.

Do you honestly think I ask that to everyone I arrest? I gave you an example of a time when it was asked because the perp literally had a choice and made it, based on the gun.

"But many of the posters on this forum that are pro-gun tend to say things like that to emphasis their point. And what I am saying is that relying on that type of argument is dubious in itself."

Except that they were actually there and you weren't. For you to dismiss it out of hand would be like telling someone they couldn't say that a seat belt or airbag saved their life because they don't know what would have happened if the belt wasn't there. Or asking how do you know if you would have died if you hadn't been wearing a vest?

Why can't we use logic? If the perp has a history of being more violent and backs down soon because of the presence of the gun, why isn't it a reasonable presumption to say that the gun prevented something worse from happening?

"I tend to disagree with your definition of the role of police forces."

Disagree all you want. I know what I'm talking about. And I'm NOT talking about the political/PR definition, I'm talking about the legal liability and responsibility.

Monty Ealerman

11-09-2002, 02:14 PM

Artie; Dave:

I think Sparky and Watchman (and others of concurring position) are on this issue factual, realistic, and completely right, and that you guys are wrong.

In his book "More Guns, Less Crime", Dr. John Lott (University of Chicago) explains and proves why at great length.

John Wayne gacy conned kids into allowing him to handcuff them, and then asphyxiated or strangled them. He didn't use a gun in his crimes. Should we start outlawing handcuffs?

Although I trust the police enough that I would not resist if a police officer decided to handcuff me for safety during a traffic stop, I would be foolish to trust the protection provided by the police, albeit valiantly and faithfully, to suffice for my constant defense, because the police are not everywhere at all times, so the primary protection the police can provide is to ensure appropriate consequences to criminal acts after the fact.

That seems fine for property crimes, which is why we're not allowed to use deadly force to defend mere property.

Even in gun-prohibiting places, using the gun in a deadly manner in a legitimate act of self-defense is not criminal; only having the gun in the first place is. Why should possession of the best means of self-defense be prohibited, while the right to self-defense is an inalienable right?

Consequences are later, and this is now.

Regards,

Monty

[ 11-09-2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Monty Ealerman ]

Oregon Mike

11-09-2002, 02:22 PM

Okay, Artie, you asked for it:

From More Guns, Less Crime (second edition), Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. Table 3.2, page 46. I'll condense it a little in the interest of saving space.

Crime rate per 100,000 in states with non-discretionary concealed handgun laws vs. all other states:

Murder 5.1 vs. 9.5
Rape 35 vs. 43.6
Aggravated Assault 229.9 vs. 417.4
Robbery 108.8 vs. 222.6

Property crime rates also negatively effected, by a smaller percentage.

Figure 4.5, page 77, is a graph which I can't reproduce, so I'll explain it. It shows the average violent crime rate per 100,000 of all jurisdictions before and after they adopted CHL laws. Four years prior to the new laws the rate bottoms out at about 375. It increased to about 485 by the time the law was passed, and continued to increase for one more year. It peaks at about 490 one year after the laws take effect, and then drops dramatically to less than 300 in just seven years after the laws take effect.

I could go on for many pages, but I suggest you buy the book and see for yourself.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you read an earlier posting, you will see that armed robberies and murder where the offender uses a firearms has reduced in New South Wales.<hr /></blockquote>Are you sure you're not a member of the media? You brilliantly twist facts to make your viewpoint seem correct. I have no doubt that firearms-related crime is down. But I said violent crime. If I'm doing something that requires a weapon, good or bad, and my gun's not available, I'll use a knife, OC, a baseball bat, whatever I can get my hands on. I don't have a source handy, but I've heard that violent crime has seen a sharp overall increase since the gun ban.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Police do carry guns in Oz. Why? Because not all guns have been removed from society. Once they have, I will put in a suggestion that we don't carry and see what happens.<hr /></blockquote>Wait, you mean to tell me that there are criminals possessing guns when they're not supposed to? You carry a gun to protect yourself, but what's a private citizen to do when you're not around to protect them?

Back in the day I worked for a sheriff's office that had an inmate fire a zip gun at a deputy in the jail. Somehow they smuggled a .22 round in and he made a gun out of a toothpaste tube. That's in the most secure facility between San Fransisco and Seattle. If an inmate made a gun in there, do you really think you're going to ever see a 100% gun-free society?

Meanwhile, I understand that guns and gun parts are being smuggled into Oz from Asia. You have a big island there, are there any legitimate plans for securing the borders?

And finally, doesn't Oz have a significant military? Soldiers don't usually go through the same background check that cops do, and yet you're giving them weapons. Occasionally here in the U.S. a soldier does something he's not supposed to with a government weapon. San Diego even had a guy steal a tank and cruise around town in it.

It's just people's nature to victimize others. As long as we have the ability to fashion tools, people will also build weapons, legal or not. Your country has done a great disservice to its citizens.

Mike

occiferdave

11-09-2002, 04:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
I would be open to a relaxed CCW policy if you can guarentee that everyone that holds a CCW is free from mental illness, can make sound life and death decisions in a split second, has coolness under fire, trained in shoot/don't shoot situations, not quick tempered, regular qualifies with their weapon, among other basic qualifications.

Can you guarantee the above qualitys in all cops ?
<hr /></blockquote>I am not sure about the cops in your state, but the cops in my state can say this:

Free from mental illness: MMPI, and many other psych tests.
Life and Death decisions: We

9-11

11-09-2002, 04:58 PM

Artie, you like to dance around the topic, but avoid answering the question. If you are a cop, and your job and oath both outline that you are employed to uphold the law, you cannot carry a firearm offduty in Australia. I am not talking about carrying it while on the way to or from work. I am talking about carrying your gun to the mall or the movies. If it against your dept's policy and against the law and you still think you have a choice, you need to find another job, as you just became a criminal. (And I'm still waiting for the "15 year penalty" to be proved.)

You know as well as everyone else that our govt, your govt and all govts cannot get "all the guns off the street". So be realistic. Your cops have been murdered offduty because they had nothing to defend themselves with. The law of your state does not allow them to carry a firearm offduty. Now they are dead. Our laws give us that right.

You don't live in the US and from your psotings I doubt you have even vacationed here. Although you have a right to comment on our gun laws, they don't apply to you so your opinion is basically void. It is like an untrained amatuer commenting on the style of a professional musician. Sure you can have your say, but it's not taken seriously.

Saying that, "I would hope that the situation doesn't happen" is a great example of saying nothing. The fact is, it will, and your officers have no way to protect themselves.

Finally, if you expect us to believe that you have confronted "more armed suspects than you have had hot breakfasts", you need to eat at more restaurants. What do you think Sydney is, Detroit? On one hand you are saying Australia is a safe country, where cops don't need to carry offduty. Then on the other you would have us believe that you regularly contact armed suspects? I'm afraid I don't buy it.

It must be very easy to work as a cop in a country as "safe" as yours, then try to comment on issues which don't affect you. But if you were truely involved in law enforcement, where your life and the lives of your partner or the citizens were at risk constantly, you would understand why US law enforcement has evolved the way it has. And why we, and our law-abiding population, insist on having the right to arm ourselves.

Mike Tx

11-09-2002, 06:43 PM

Posted by the the gun banner from Kali- <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mike, I must thank you for thinking my opinions are

Monty Ealerman

11-09-2002, 10:41 PM

Dave:

When I told you I thought you were wrong on this issue you apparently took it as a playground taunt, and responded in kind. Please understand that I think this is a serious issue, and I was not trying to use it as a opportunity to sneer at someone.

You can't seriously expect me to treat your obviously sarcastic earlier post as a genuine prior concession that you were wrong, so I do not accept your reference to it as an appropriate rejoinder to my post. Its sarcasm is not appropriate either. Those who advocate reasonable and responsible concealed CCW are not saying that it will stop all crime. If you respond to what you would like them to have said, rather than to what they have actually said, it will not be easy to take your words at all seriously.

Sincerely,

Monty

Watchman

11-10-2002, 12:32 AM

occiferdave :
[i]But I want to touch the point of Police Chief approval

CinaC

11-10-2002, 12:38 AM

The only non-LEOs I know of in Md who have CCWs are employees of gun stores. After the FBI shooting in Anne Arundel, I was in White Marsh Arms looking at Glocks, and the owner and I and another guy got to talking about proper "pull-over" procedure. His biggest worry was getting shot by a nervous rookie officer, and he'd put quite a bit of thought into how to alert the officer he had a CCW and was carrying.

Watchman

11-10-2002, 01:09 AM

occiferdave :

I am not sure about the cops in your state, but the cops in my state can say this:

ALL of the cops in your state or just the ones that serve with you ?

Free from mental illness: MMPI, and many other psych tests.

Sure...at the time of the test. What about 3 years later when the stress of the job starts showing up ? We've all heard of cops stressing out and going on a rampage, killing their spouses and often themselves. It's not common, but it happens.

[i]Life and Death decisions: We

Watchman

11-10-2002, 01:15 AM

The only non-LEOs I know of in Md who have CCWs are employees of gun stores.

Thats because Maryland is a "discretionary" issue state, not to mention one of the most antigun states.

In reality, "discretionary" means that the average citizen has a better chance of watching hell freeze over than he does of getting a permit.

Unless of course he is filthy rich, best friends with the govener, a moviestar, a politician or a healty campaign donor of issuing police chief or sherrif. :rolleyes:

Artie

11-10-2002, 05:05 AM

shooter1201:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />SURE he has a 'choice'. We ALL have 'choices'. Before becoming an LEO or obtaining a CCW, I'll wager MOST of us....at one time or another....carried a firearm ILLEGALLY...when we thought it was in OUR 'best interests'. I did.<hr /></blockquote>I sure do have a choice, just like you guys have a choice if, hypothetically speaking, the government introduces a law that takes away the right for citizens to own and carry firearms. You have a choice to hand in your firearms or hide them. Now, this is a hypothetical situation, and in my opinion, will never happen. But, in previous postings, many of you have quite strongly stated that you would break the law and hide your guns. In other words, you would become criminals.

Artie

11-10-2002, 05:22 AM

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Your answer is yes. I would have to tell the truth. I allowed him to remain armed having no indication that he was up to no good, but having every indication that he had a reason to arm himself for defense.<hr /></blockquote>Sparky, you are braver than I thought. What you did was allow him to continue committing a crime, no matter if it was a misdemeanour or a felony. You still allowed him to continue on with it. You compounded the situation. Now you have left yourself open for civil litigation.

I am certainly not puting the blame on you for him murdering his kids. What I am doing is trying to bring to your attention how you have let yourself open for civil litigation. It may have been more prudent for you to retain the firearm until he got the proper licence.

Had, as you suggest in your scenario, a couple of thugs broken into his house, and given him the beating, and rape his wife in front of his kids, the blame still falls upon him for not being properly licenced. Not you for doing your job.

I have read the article about Suzanna Gratia Hupp. She lost her parents in a senseless act of violence. She had a firearm, but the fact that she had one did not help her parents at all.

Artie

11-10-2002, 05:46 AM

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You asked for names, I gave you one. Rather than accept it, now you want 2 or 10 or 300.<hr /></blockquote>Nite, MikeTx wrote, "Criminals are afraid of armed citizens Dave, they have even said so". My original posting was directed at him, not you. I am still waiting for him to substantiate his statement with some evidence.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Disagree all you want. I know what I'm talking about. And I'm NOT talking about the political/PR definition, I'm talking about the legal liability and responsibility.<hr /></blockquote>Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind, and to have an opinion. The definition that I put forward is one that all police officers should aspire to. To not, means that you are not giving the community what they are paying you for.

Artie

11-10-2002, 05:54 AM

Monty Ealerman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Artie; Dave:
I think Sparky and Watchman (and others of concurring position) are on this issue factual, realistic, and completely right, and that you guys are wrong.<hr /></blockquote>You have every right to have your opinion, just like Dave and I.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In his book "More Guns, Less Crime", Dr. John Lott (University of Chicago) explains and proves why at great length.<hr /></blockquote>Dr Lott is a staunch pro-gun advocate. Quoting his writings is as convincing as me quoting the writings of an Anti-gun advocate.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />John Wayne gacy conned kids into allowing him to handcuff them, and then asphyxiated or strangled them. He didn't use a gun in his crimes. Should we start outlawing handcuffs?<hr /></blockquote>In New South Wales, only police and licenced security guards are permitted to have handcuffs.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Although I trust the police enough that I would not resist if a police officer decided to handcuff me for safety during a traffic stop, I would be foolish to trust the protection provided by the police, albeit valiantly and faithfully, to suffice for my constant defense, because the police are not everywhere at all times, so the primary protection the police can provide is to ensure appropriate consequences to criminal acts after the fact.<hr /></blockquote>You do not trust the police to protect you because, from reading postings from other members of this forum, you have no other choice. It seems that police do not even attempt to prevent crimes. They are reactive, and not proactive. A pity.

Artie

11-10-2002, 06:11 AM

Oregon Mike:
As I wrote to Monty, Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is a staunch pro-gun advocate. If I were to produce statistics that countered the statistics in his book, produced by an anti-gun advocate, would you accept them? I doubt it. Instead of providing statistics from someone biased, provide statistics from a neutral source. Surely, there are organisations in the US that do not give a fig about the gun debate that can produce statistics on the subject.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You brilliantly twist facts to make your viewpoint seem correct. I have no doubt that firearms-related crime is down. But I said violent crime. If I'm doing something that requires a weapon, good or bad, and my gun's not available, I'll use a knife, OC, a baseball bat, whatever I can get my hands on. I don't have a source handy, but I've heard that violent crime has seen a sharp overall increase since the gun ban.<hr /></blockquote>Thank you for the complement. I try.
The theme here is on guns. The debate is on guns. The focus is on guns. The statistics are quite clear. With the introduction of anti-gun law, the number of gun related crime has reduced.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Wait, you mean to tell me that there are criminals possessing guns when they're not supposed to?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, there are criminals who still possess guns in our society. Damn shame, too. If we could remove all the guns, they wouldn't have any. We are working on that, though.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You carry a gun to protect yourself, but what's a private citizen to do when you're not around to protect them?<hr /></blockquote>Ensure that they do not put themselves in a position that they are in danger. Easy to say, sometimes hard to do.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />do you really think you're going to ever see a 100% gun-free society?<hr /></blockquote>No, but I can dream, can't I?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Meanwhile, I understand that guns and gun parts are being smuggled into Oz from Asia. You have a big island there, are there any legitimate plans for securing the borders?<hr /></blockquote>Interestingly, yes they do. At present, 2 out of 3 containers are searched when they come into Australia by Customs. The Govt. intends to increase this.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And finally, doesn't Oz have a significant military? Soldiers don't usually go through the same background check that cops do, and yet you're giving them weapons. Occasionally here in the U.S. a soldier does something he's not supposed to with a government weapon. San Diego even had a guy steal a tank and cruise around town in it.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, we do have a significant military. The members of our military are human, just like yours. They make mistakes, they are subject to temptation, they can act silly. That's what being human is all about. We also had an incident where one of them stole a tank and drove it around Sydney. That incident does not change my view on gun control.

Artie

11-10-2002, 06:33 AM

911:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Artie, you like to dance around the topic, but avoid answering the question. If you are a cop, and your job and oath both outline that you are employed to uphold the law, you cannot carry a firearm offduty in Australia.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, that is correct.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I am not talking about carrying it while on the way to or from work. I am talking about carrying your gun to the mall or the movies. If it against your dept's policy and against the law and you still think you have a choice, you need to find another job, as you just became a criminal.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, I understand what you are saying.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />(And I'm still waiting for the "15 year penalty" to be proved.)<hr /></blockquote>Yes, I am sorry, I overlooked your request. Well, no, nobody that I am aware of has received the full sentence. Do you know of any criminal in the US system that has received the full sentence for a crime when a judge has a discretion as to what sentence he can hand down? Unfortunately, there are too many liberal judges on the bench.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Your cops have been murdered offduty because they had nothing to defend themselves with. The law of your state does not allow them to carry a firearm offduty. Now they are dead. Our laws give us that right.<hr /></blockquote>Sure, and still they are murdered at an alarming rate.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You don't live in the US and from your psotings I doubt you have even vacationed here.<hr /></blockquote>No, I never have.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Although you have a right to comment on our gun laws, they don't apply to you so your opinion is basically void. It is like an untrained amatuer commenting on the style of a professional musician. Sure you can have your say, but it's not taken seriously.<hr /></blockquote>Thank you for allowing me to comment. Does one have to be trained in the use of firearms to have a valid opinion on this subject? Does someone have to be trained as an astronaut to have an opinion on inter-planetary travel? Does one have to be trained as an oceanographer to have an opinion on where the best fishing spots are?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Finally, if you expect us to believe that you have confronted "more armed suspects than you have had hot breakfasts", you need to eat at more restaurants.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, it was a flippant answer. What I meant was that I have been confronted by many armed suspects than just the one that carried a shortened pistol. It is just that I cannot remember how many. How many have you stopped? Can you tell me the exact number?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What do you think Sydney is, Detroit? On one hand you are saying Australia is a safe country, where cops don't need to carry offduty. Then on the other you would have us believe that you regularly contact armed suspects? I'm afraid I don't buy it.<hr /></blockquote>Thank goodness it is not Detroit! Yes, Australia is a safe country. And again, I will repeat myself, there are criminals in Australia. Some of these criminals are disposed to use violence. However, compared to the US, whose citizens are far better armed than their Aussie conterpart, crime is out of control.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It must be very easy to work as a cop in a country as "safe" as yours, then try to comment on issues which don't affect you.<hr /></blockquote>Unfortunately, the issue of gun control does affect us. It is sometimes a sad fact that things that occur in the US generally happen in Australia, only later in time. I am just getting in my opinion early.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But if you were truely involved in law enforcement<hr /></blockquote>Ouch, that hurt.

Niteshift

11-10-2002, 07:25 AM

Artie: 2 things:

1) You can reply to more than one person in a post. Please refrain from artificially raising your post count over and over by posting replies in seperate posts. It is needed sometimes, but you do it consistantly.

"Nite, MikeTx wrote, "Criminals are afraid of armed citizens Dave, they have even said so". My original posting was directed at him, not you. I am still waiting for him to substantiate his statement with some evidence."

So you'll ignore evidence from other sources? That's pretty lame.

"Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind, and to have an opinion."

Anymore sarcasm you want to spew? :rolleyes:

"The definition that I put forward is one that all police officers should aspire to. To not, means that you are not giving the community what they are paying you for."

The difference Artie is that your opinion is nothing more than an opinion to me. The Courts opinion has effect on me. Which one do you think I'll give more weight to?

JRT6

11-10-2002, 07:38 AM

Artie,

If your read the article about Suzana Hup like you said your did and that your giving a valid opinion; then why did you say that "her having a gun didn't help her"? She didn't have a gun. The article clearly said that she had left her gun in the car where it was useless to her. Kind of like the same situation that would happen to you if while off duty you are faced by a criminal(depending on what definition of Australian crime your using that day :rolleyes: ) and you left your gun locked up at work.

After five pages on this thread we get how you feel loud and clear: You know the US better than us, you know what's good for us, and you'll say anything to prove it.

Time to move on.

[ 11-10-2002, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: JRT6 ]

Watchman

11-10-2002, 07:39 AM

Dr Lott is a staunch pro-gun advocate. Quoting his writings is as convincing as me quoting the writings of an Anti-gun advocate.

As I wrote to Monty, Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is a staunch pro-gun advocate. If I were to produce statistics that countered the statistics in his book, produced by an anti-gun advocate, would you accept them? I doubt it. Instead of providing statistics from someone biased, provide statistics from a neutral source. Surely, there are organisations in the US that do not give a fig about the gun debate that can produce statistics on the subject.

Bad example Artie...very bad example.

At one time John Lott was a very staunch opponent of gun ownership, so much so that he intended to write a rather lenthy thesis on it. In his opinion, much of the statistical evedence that he found was flawed or skewed in the methods used to collect it, so he used "neutral" sources such as the FBI, Burea of Criminal Justice and several other government entities.

Being an expert statician himself and even teaching classes on it, the information that he complied on gun ownership pretty much blew his thoughts right out if the water. What he found simply did not add up.

As a result, he became a very staunch pro-gun advocate and an anti-gunners worst nightmare. You see he "jumped ship" so to speak and incurred the wrath of his colleagues, so much so that they tried to discredit his research. What I find interesting is the fact that after much review from his peers , no one coould say that his methodology was not accurate, in fact a couple of higly respected peers that sought to discredit him actually became progun advocates also.

I have conversed with him several times on his "conversion" over the internet and have found him to be highly intelligent and completely honest about his thoughts.

One thing ya gotta respect him for...

He had the balls to change his well known and well documented opinions when the facts disagreed with his preconcieved ideas.

Unlike MOST anti-gunners that dont wanna be bothered by the facts, he was man enough to say that he had been wrong.. and he said it publicly.

There is no better weapon against lies, distortions and half truths than someone that has "seen the light".

Dont take my word for it...look it up. It might help if you read his book and got the story straight from him.

[ 11-10-2002, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Niteshift

11-10-2002, 07:50 AM

Oh, I missed this:
"Dr Lott is a staunch pro-gun advocate. Quoting his writings is as convincing as me quoting the writings of an Anti-gun advocate."

That just proves to me that you are talking out of your azz.

Lott set out to prove the merits of gun control. He WANTED gun control. However, he was honest enough to change his mind when his studies proved the opposite. He chose to believe FACTS over both rhetoric and "good intentions".

Making a statement that ridiculous proves to me that you aren't nearly as educated about the topic as you'd have us believe.

9-11

11-10-2002, 09:10 PM

Artie, yes, I can give you an exact number. Six last month, how about you?

Monty Ealerman

11-10-2002, 11:20 PM

Artie:

I can't belive you don't understand that the police cannot prevent crimes they are not present to prevent.

I am always present if I am attacked. The police are not always present if I am attacked. That's why they can't adequately protect me from attackers.

Chicago's mayor is constantly favoring gun prohibition, even suing gun manufacturers for the existence of handgun crimes in Chicago. He seems to think we don't need guns, but his wife never goes anywhere without an armed police escort.

Unfortunately, not every Chicagoan has the luxury of a police escort. There are about 13,000 police officers, and over 3,000,000 Chicagoans.

You say possession of handcuffs in NSW is restricted to police and licensed security guards in New South Wales.

Are plastic ties illegal there too? They work about as well, although they are more injurious to strain against. Outlawing them would in my opinion be about as reasonable as outlawing walking sticks.

In Chicago, although anyone may posess handcuffs, it's at least a misdemeanor, and usually a felony, to use them unlawfully against someone.

Apparently, your government thinks that trying to prevent the crime of unlawful restraint, by restricting the availability of handcuffs, is better than merely imposing sanctions after the fact.

CCW holders would of course agree that preventing crime is better than merely imposing sanctions thereafter, but would not agree that dis-equipping law-abiding persons is a good way to go about that.

I don't always carry handcuffs, but I often do. I am not a police officer, but I do make lawful arrests if I witness crimes in progress. The police are happy to do all the real LE work for me. All I have to do is grab the BG, and summon the police. The BG's prefer handcuffs to martial art holds, and they are less strenuous to me. I am
subject to extreme scrutiny every time I make a non-LEO arrest, but so far, I've passed every time.

To me the strongest point is that persons who make illegal use of equipment have no compunction about having it, while those who would not make illegal use of equipment do not need to be prevented from having it. Only equipment for which there can be no lawful use need be made illegal to possess.

Regards,

Monty

[ 11-10-2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Monty Ealerman ]

Artie

11-11-2002, 12:47 AM

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You can reply to more than one person in a post. Please refrain from artificially raising your post count over and over by posting replies in seperate posts. It is needed sometimes, but you do it consistantly.<hr /></blockquote>Nite, I do not reply to individuals to artificially raise my post count. I could not care less how many times that I have posted to this forum. Do I get a prize if I reach a certain number of postings? However, seeing as you are a moderator and have requested that I refrain from doing it, I will comply.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So you'll ignore evidence from other sources? That's pretty lame.<hr /></blockquote>No, I will not ignore evidence from other sources. I gave you that explanation because it appeared to me that you felt that I was directing my comment to you, which I was not. If you feel offended by my stance, sorry.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Anymore sarcasm you want to spew? :rolleyes: <hr /></blockquote>I don't know what you mean by this sentence. Can you rephrase it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The difference Artie is that your opinion is nothing more than an opinion to me.<hr /></blockquote>Ouch, that hurt.

JRT6:
Yes, I did read the whole article. She did leave her gun in her car. The point I was unsuccesfully trying to make is that even though she was allowed to carry, it was her decision to leave it in her car, to her detriment. The fact that she was permitted to carry did not assist her in this situation.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />After five pages on this thread we get how you feel loud and clear: You know the US better than us, you know what's good for us, and you'll say anything to prove it.<hr /></blockquote>I have been arguing this point on this forum for the past two years. I would have thought that other members of this forum knew exactly where I stand on the subject. I am sorry that I cannot write things that make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Nite and Watch:
I am not attacking Dr Lott. I am asking you to provide me with statistics from a neutral source. Or can't you do that?

911:
None.

Monty Ealerman:
I do understand that the police cannot prevent crimes they are not present to prevent. However, I do believe that the police have a duty to try to prevent crime. It is not just their role to sit in the police station eating donuts, and wait for the phone call, before they act. Often, by then, it is too late for the victim.

Let me just make this last comment. Whether you agree with me or not, it does not matter. Anything I write on gun control is not going to affect your rights there in America. I know my opinions cut at the quick of those who strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment. For that, I am sorry.

My opinion is my opinion. Your opinion is your opinion. The difference between me and many of you is that I respect your opinion, even though it does not agree with mine. I do not get offended with your stance. My words are just that...words.

I have enjoyed the banter. If you wish to continue this debate, I will. All you have to do is direct a posting to me. If you do not wish me to continue, then don't.

Niteshift

11-11-2002, 03:16 AM

"Nite, I do not reply to individuals to artificially raise my post count."

Did I say you did it intentionally?

"I don't know what you mean by this sentence. Can you rephrase it?"

Read what I quoted when I responded. It's pretty clear.

"Ouch, that hurt."

Typical of you Artie. You ignore the second part of the thought and repost only the first.

"I am not attacking Dr Lott. I am asking you to provide me with statistics from a neutral source. Or can't you do that?"

Artie, you're not listening. Dr. Lott began his research to prove the case FOR gun control. His research proved he was wrong in his thinking. At least he was honest enough to recognize it and admit it.

How much more neutral could you get than a guy who set out to support gun control and found that the facts contradicted his beliefs?

Monty Ealerman

11-11-2002, 06:59 AM

Artie:

So you concede that the police cannot adequately protect everyone, and then you pretend that the issue is not whether individuals should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves, but whether the police should eat donuts instead of trying to protect people.

Come on now, Artie, no-one is saying that the police should not prevent crimes if they can. You know that's a gross twisting of what Niteshift said about the lawful role of the police.

You have failed to address the issue raised, which is that given the fact that the police cannot protect everyone, and the fact that everyone has the right to and necessity for appropriate protection, gun prohibition denies people what they have a right to and necessity for.

Regards,

Monty

[ 11-11-2002, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Monty Ealerman ]

Sparky

11-11-2002, 12:42 PM

Artie:

"Sparky, you are braver than I thought. What you did was allow him to continue committing a crime, no matter if it was a misdemeanour or a felony. You still allowed him to continue on with it. You compounded the situation. Now you have left yourself open for civil litigation."

Either brave or foolish depending on your point of view. :) I do see your point Artie and I understand that you were trying to point out possible liability exposure. I appreciate your motives.

They could sue me for allowing him to keep the weapon, and they could sue me for taking it away from him. I will concede that there would likely be more personal liability exposure in letting him illegally keep the weapon than in following the letter of the law and arresting him.

I don't stress too much about liability. You can never predict liability and I beleive that it is probably stressed too much by many agencies. It is truly a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation in many ways.

You would take the gun assuming that it was likelier (is likelier a word?... it should be) that he was up to no good.

I, on the other hand, did not get any sort of vibe like that from him in this case and felt it was not very unreasonable for him to want to be armed considering the time and place.

It's officer discretion. I gave him a pass. You would have arrested him.

We could "what if" the situation to death.

I feel sure, that although you ultimately may disagree, you understand many of our points regarding a citizen's ability to defend themselves from thugs. Likewise, although I may feel differently in the end, I do see your (and Dave's) point of view.

Watchman

11-11-2002, 07:18 PM

<a href="http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm</a>

John Lotts home page. Educate yourself. <a href="http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

Sparky

11-11-2002, 11:52 PM

Dave,

If you are still reading this thread... considering your recent break in...

Has your experience as a victim of crime led you to any insights regarding armed self defense?

I realize that, previously, we were in many ways speaking different languages.

By the time I was 22 I had been burgled three times (two car, one apartment), and mugged four times (three at knifepoint, one at gunpoint).

That is the experience I speak from in addition to my experience as an officer. I guess that since most people I know have been the victim of some sort of crime that I tend to think of the experience is somewhat universal.

Upon reading about your unfortunate break in, I realize to someone who doesn't have that first hand experience of being a victim may have no point of reference.

Anyway... it was just a thought I had and I was wondering if you had any insights.

You previously mentioned being concerned and clearing rooms.. and I know that you supported people being able to have weapons at home.

However, are you now glad that you have the ability to be armed upon approaching and entering your home?

[ 11-11-2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

Artie

11-12-2002, 02:40 AM

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did I say you did it intentionally?<hr /></blockquote>No you did not, but if it was such an issue, wouldn't it have been more more professional to send me an email or IM instead of referring to it on the forum?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Read what I quoted when I responded. It's pretty clear.<hr /></blockquote>If I could not understand it the first time, I won't be able to understand it the second.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Typical of you Artie. You ignore the second part of the thought and repost only the first.<hr /></blockquote>For you not to take my postings seriously really hurts my feelings.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Artie, you're not listening. Dr. Lott began his research to prove the case FOR gun control. His research proved he was wrong in his thinking. At least he was honest enough to recognize it and admit it.<hr /></blockquote>That may be the case, but you still have not put forward any statistics that are from an unbiased source.

Monte:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />So you concede that the police cannot adequately protect everyone,<hr /></blockquote>Yep.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and then you pretend that the issue is not whether individuals should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves, but whether the police should eat donuts instead of trying to protect people.<hr /></blockquote>What I am saying is that from the response I read in this forum, American police officers are only prepared to react to crime, and not implement any proactive strategies. They may as well be back at the station eating donuts whilst they wait for crime to happen.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You have failed to address the issue raised, which is that given the fact that the police cannot protect everyone, and the fact that everyone has the right to and necessity for appropriate protection, gun prohibition denies people what they have a right to and necessity for.<hr /></blockquote>If that were true, then why is there no great hue and cry by Australians, British and Canadian citizens. Australians, Brits, and Canadians are not as brainwashed as some members of this forum seem to think.

Sparky:
Thank you.

Monty Ealerman

11-12-2002, 04:08 AM

Artie:

You want to know why the British, Australians, and Canadians are not clamoring for the right to keep and bear arms, if in fact RKBA is a self-defense necessity.

Politically, those countries are comprised of subjects of one sovreign. The subjects are historically accustomed to not having any rights not granted to them by the crown.

In fact, some of the subjects were so rankled by the despotism of monarchy that they forced the king to sign the Magna Carta.

Americans, being across the ocean from the monarch, were able to throw off the despotism much more completely.

Americans are sovreign citizens; not subjects. Partly in order to ensure that Americans remained that way, the Bill of Rights of the Constitution provided for the right to keep and bear arms.

Although in this discussion, that aspect of RKBA has not been emphasized, while the right to self-defense has, the fact that others do not not clamor for a necessity their right to which has never been acknowledged by their government, is not reason for us to be complacent about infringement of the rights our government is constituted to not have the right to infringe.

Necesssity is still necessity, even if some are erroneously persuaded otherwise.

Regards,

Monty

occiferdave

11-12-2002, 04:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sparky:
Dave,

If you are still reading this thread... considering your recent break in...
<hr /></blockquote>Sparky, et al:

I am still reading this thread (gotta have something to do when you are only sleeping 2 hours a night)....

I want and will respond to your post. However, I don't want to post my opinion until I am somewhat back to 'normal'... since my viewpoint at present time is that any criminal should receive capital punishment by the arresting officer. Sorta like in Judge Dredd, ironically, that was the last movie I saw on my stolen DVD Player...

So until the voices in my head returns and guide me through life... I am only active in the 'fluffy' posts... about Cats and Ladybugs... :)

[ 11-12-2002, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: occiferdave ]

Niteshift

11-12-2002, 07:34 AM

"No you did not, but if it was such an issue, wouldn't it have been more more professional to send me an email or IM instead of referring to it on the forum?"

In cases like this, no Artie, it wouldn't be better.

There are several thousand people on this forum. I am one, unpaid staff memember. I can't send PM's to everyone about everything.

If you'd only done it once, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Even a couple of times. But it's something you were doing consistently. By posting a non-accusatory request, not only do you get the message, but so do others, cutting down my need to PM everyone.

Instead of taking the request for what it was, you decided to make an issue of it. You made it an issue in public, so it will be discussed in public.

"If I could not understand it the first time, I won't be able to understand it the second."

Nor will you understand the explaination, I'm sure.

It all referred to your sarcasm about how thankful you were that I "allowed" you to have an opinion.

"For you not to take my postings seriously really hurts my feelings."

I'm sure you really care. :rolleyes:

Look at the whole thought...... then tell me if you'd value my opinion over the opinions of your courts, opinions you are required to comply with. I highly doubt you'd place more value on me than your court.

Likewise, I'll place more value on my court than your opinion.

"That may be the case, but you still have not put forward any statistics that are from an unbiased source."

How is Lott biased? He set out to prove one thing and found out the opposite was true? That sounds pretty unbiased to me.

What do YOU deem as an unbiased source? Is there even such an animal in this topic?

Mike Tx

11-12-2002, 08:04 PM

Apparently the only unbiased source Artie recognizes are the Australian politicians he is paid to protect and serve. :D

That Guy

11-13-2002, 12:29 AM

Unintended Consequences Of Gun Control
By Vin Suprynowicz

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

Can gun control reduce crime?

One year ago, Australian gun owners were forced to surrender for destruction 640,381 personal firearms (including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns). This program cost the Aussie government more than $500 million and produced heart-stopping photos as veritable boneyards full of Browning A-5 shotguns and other beloved collector's items were surrendered up to be crushed by steamshovels in a kind of steel-and-walnut charnel field. Now, Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association reports the results are in.

Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:

Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent.
(Up until the government gun grab, figures for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)

Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up their military-style weapons.)

Mr. Tidswell reports: "Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in 'safety' has been observed after such monumental effort and expense to successfully 'rid society of guns.' "

Is this correct or am I "brainwashed" by pro-gun nuts? :confused:

TG

Artie

11-13-2002, 03:37 AM

Niteshift:
Lott is an unabashed proponant of the pro-gun advocates. That is how he can be seen to be biased. By having an opinion on the subject, it makes him biased.

An unbiased source is one that does not have any connection to either side. Do you not have any organisation that collects statistics, uninhibited.

That Guy:
{quote]One year ago, Australian gun owners were forced to surrender for destruction 640,381 personal firearms (including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns).[/quote]
The gun owners were not forced to surrender these guns. A gun amnesty gives you the choice, you surrender the guns or hide them. The choice is yours. However, if the police have a cause to search your house and locate the firearms, then you may be charged with an offence. The Government does not, I repeat, does not send the police around to kick doors in to locate these firearms.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This program cost the Aussie government more than $500 million and produced heart-stopping photos as veritable boneyards full of Browning A-5 shotguns and other beloved collector's items were surrendered up to be crushed by steamshovels in a kind of steel-and-walnut charnel field.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, and I still have the video, if you want a copy. It was almost an epithany.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Now, Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association reports the results are in.<hr /></blockquote>Keith Tidswell, the Australian version of Charlton Heston. Certainly an unbiased representative of the Australian population.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:<hr /></blockquote>A FULL year? That long?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Is this correct or am I "brainwashed" by pro-gun nuts?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, yes you are brainwashed.

If you are really interested in the crime rate from an unbiased source, maybe you would be interested in this site from the Australian Institute of Criminology:
<a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.pdf</a>

Instead of just one year of crime statistics, it produces the statistics from 1989-2000, which shows a trend, overall, in Australia of a downtrend of homicide victimation rates. A downtrend. The statistics for one year do not indicate a trend.

Monty Ealerman

11-13-2002, 06:50 AM

Artie:

You are truly astonishing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />However, if the police have a cause to search your house and locate the firearms, then you may be charged with an offence.<hr /></blockquote>You think this is as good as legal?????

You tell us that the police are not charged to go around kicking doors to find these now illegal guns, as if that were enough to make gun ownership lawful.

Don't you understand that law-abiding gun owners want to remain law-abiding, and if guns are outlawed, they will turn them in, so as to continue to prefer a society of laws, to any alternative?

It's only when the laws are so oppressive that we are better off without law that law-abiding persons will abandon the law.

Please don't simply deny the efficacy of gun laws in disarming the law-abiding. It's plainly obvious that gun prohibitions genuinely succeed in disarming the law-abiding.

And please don't deny the similarly obvious fact that gun prohibitions don't disarm the lawbreakers.

Maybe then you'll stop denying the failure of gun prohibition to accomplish the stated purposes of its proponents, stop denying its effectiveness in accomplishing things its proponents deny that they want to accomplish, and acknowledge that gun prohibition does no good, and great harm, and consequently stop advocating it.

Optimistically,

Monty

[ 11-13-2002, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Monty Ealerman ]

xtf567r

11-13-2002, 07:03 AM

As a news photographer, I've on occasion been sent to cover "gun buy-back" programs, where people are encouraged to come to a certain location at a school or fire department, and turn in their guns to police in exchange for cash. How do these buy-backs fit in, or not fit in, with the way officers feel about gun control?

Watchman

11-13-2002, 07:34 AM

Total waste of resources.

People that "sell" decent quality guns are getting ripped off because the value of the guns far exceed what they are getting paid for them.

People that sell pieces of junk that dont even work are getting more than they are worth and the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Police Chiefs and anti gun politicians are giving simple minded folks the illusion that they are actually making a difference by getting guns "off of the street" and making a difference. The only thing they are really acomplishing is getting 15 minutes of fame in the local news media.

Not to mention that it is a very convient way to dispose of any weapons used in a crime, and getting paid for it just encourages thugs to rip off some more so that when the next buyback scheme comes up, they can get enough money to support their habits.

Just my take on it.

Artie

11-13-2002, 07:55 AM

Monty Ealerman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You tell us that the police are not charged to go around kicking doors to find these now illegal guns, as if that were enough to make gun ownership lawful.<hr /></blockquote>No, I am afraid I have not explained myself properly. What I am saying is that the gun owners have the right to say, "ok, I will obey the law and hand in my guns, because although I do not like the law, I may as well get some money for my firearms." or they can say what many of the members of this forum have said, "they can take my gun from my cold dead hand", or words to the effect.

Yes, I do understand that law abiding gun owners want to remain law abiding. That is why so many guns were handed in. Generally speaking, gun owners are law abiding members of society. It is just the minority that are non law abiding.

I agree, gun prohibitions genuinely succeed in disarming the law-abiding, but I disagree that gun prohibitions don't disarm the lawbreakers. Although, I agree criminals that possess firearms will not hand their firearms in, by removing firearms from law abiding citizens, it reduces the opportunity for criminals to obtain their firearms.

Gun prohibition does accomplish more than it sets out to do. In Australia, it makes the community feel more safe. They are sick of seeing police officers murdered by criminals. They are sick of women and children murdered by their husbands and fathers. They are sick of seeing people who are mentally ill taking their firearms and blowing their heads off. They are sick of children picking up their fathers' guns and killing themselves or others. And by having these gun buy-back schemes, they feel that it makes a difference.

xtf567r:
In Australia, the gun owners have to attend a local police station to hand in their guns. The majority of police officers in Australia have no problem with the gun buy-back schemes.

Niteshift

11-13-2002, 08:55 AM

"Lott is an unabashed proponant of the pro-gun advocates. That is how he can be seen to be biased. By having an opinion on the subject, it makes him biased."

That is the most ridiculously circular argument I've ever heard!

He sat down and started a project, INTENDING to prove the case FOR gun control. But the FACTS showed him that his original beliefs were wrong!

So because he recognizes and accepts FACTS, he now becomes biased? That is just ridiculous. If that standard were valid, nobody could ever be unbiased in your opinion. We're all "math biased" because 2+2 REALLY does equal 4. We're all "science biased" because the earth REALLY isn't flat. :rolleyes:

That standard is ludicrous. Lott is a scientist who conducted research, found FACTS that conflicted with his personal beliefs and presented them. Just because he can accept facts and you can't doesn't make him biased. It makes HIM open-minded enough to not dismiss truth.

"An unbiased source is one that does not have any connection to either side."

Lott's project was NOT funded by pro-gun types. What exactly is Lott's CONNECTION? Show me a SINGLE factual connection between John Lott and ANY pro-gun group BEFORE the results of his study were finalized and I will post a HUGE apology to you.

Of course, when his findings supported their position, they all wanted copies and Lott did the only reasonable thing, made money by selling the findings. But the results were published BEFORE anyone in the pro-gun world had ever even heard of Dr. Lott. You can't dismiss the results as biased just because a group seized on them AFTER they were published.

"Do you not have any organisation that collects statistics, uninhibited."

I've presented Lott and why he is unbiased. I've also asked you whom you would consider unbiased. I'll ask it again and maybe you'll actually answer this time: Whom would you consider unbiased?

"Certainly an unbiased representative of the Australian population."

It would appear to the casual observer that anyone who disagrees with you is simply dismissed as biased.

One could argue that YOU are terribly biased yourself Artie.

"If you are really interested in the crime rate from an unbiased source, maybe you would be interested in this site from the Australian Institute of Criminology:"

If we apply the "Artie standard", this source IS BIASED. They are funded by the government of Australian, therefore they have a vested interest in making it appear that the government is correct in enacting it's draconian measures. Do you suppose the government wants to see results that show that the over $500 million it spent was a waste of money?

Remember, you defined "unbiased" as: "An unbiased source is one that does not have any connection to either side." Clearly, this source is on the side of the government, since that is who funds it.

So one is forced to ask: Do you have any UNBIASED sources to support you? Ones that will pass your own standard?

"How do these buy-backs fit in, or not fit in, with the way officers feel about gun control?"

Waste of time and money, for the reasons Watchman outlined.

I personally watched a person take a box of non-working pistols to a buy-back and sell them. His plan, get enough money to buy a new, WORKING Glock, compliments of gun-grabbers. LMFAO!

How many crimes are prevented by buying non-working guns? How many are prevented by buying TOY GUNS (yes, toy guns)? How many are REALLY prevented by buying grandpa's old double-barrel shotgun that hasn't been taken out of the closet in over 2 decades?

Turn them in, no questions asked? Oh puh-leeze! :rolleyes: How many times have we heard of guns collected in these schemes that turned out to be a match to a gun used in a crime? Well, we asked no questions, so now we have sh*t to use as evidence. We don't even have the chance to catch the guy in possession of the weapon any longer, because we handed him the perfect way to get rid of it. Not to mention that we make it easy for burglars to sell their ill gotten booty.

Poppy-**** !!! Total, feel good poppy-****

Watchman

11-13-2002, 09:18 AM

Hey ARTIE !

You either overlooked my post or you refused to answer it. In dealing with MY guns,what is your answer here ? I'll post it again for you and eagerly antcipate your response.

Why should I give up a family heirloom just because some liberal thinks it should be so? A gun that my grandfather and me hunted with, a gun that I can pick up at any time and instantly be reminded of many fond memorys,like the beautiful sunrises when we were up at the crack of dawn, the days at deer camps with the friends, the jokes and the good food. The days spent on the range looking for that last bit of accuracy with tailor made handloads.

There is no sastifactory anwser. Why should I give up my highly valued private property ? Ive never commited a crime with it, its never been a danger to anyone, yet someone thousands of miles away want me to "give it up".

People would throw a fit if they had to relinquish thier highly valued property for the "good of the state". Do you expect me to beleive that everyone in Australia did it willingly ? Why should the fact that its a gun make it any easier ?

Also, your leaders say that personal defense is not a valid reason to have a gun. If your leaders said that to jump off a cliff would help you to receive "enlightenment" would everyone there be willing to do that too ?

Bill R

11-13-2002, 12:43 PM

Niteshift, you're going to jinx it for me! I have several POS firearms that are just waiting for a buy-back program <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Niteshift

11-13-2002, 04:13 PM

I've got a junky Russian single shot .410, a couple of worthless .25 autos and a broken H&R 20 ga. waiting for the occasion myself :D

Monty Ealerman

11-14-2002, 09:57 AM

Artie:

From my post:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And please don't deny the similarly obvious fact that gun prohibitions don't disarm the lawbreakers.<hr /></blockquote>From your response:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I agree, gun prohibitions genuinely succeed in disarming the law-abiding, but I disagree that gun prohibitions don't disarm the lawbreakers. Although, I agree criminals that possess firearms will not hand their firearms in, by removing firearms from law abiding citizens, it reduces the opportunity for criminals to obtain their firearms.<hr /></blockquote>And I thought it was obvious that gun prohibition didn't stop criminals from getting guns. How could I have been so naive?

So let me get this straight. The firearms of law abiding citizens are the main source from which criminals get their firearms? I'm reaching here, but assuming you didn't just make this up, can you quote an unbiased, or even a biased source that actually made this ludicrous claim?

Do you think illegal drug users get most of their drugs by breaking into pharmacies and medicine cabinets?

Criminals buy guns from people that illegally sell them.

Go look at the facts, Artie. Outlawing guns, or anything else for that matter, has never done more than increase risks and prices. No prohibition has ever succeeded in eliminating the thing prohibited.

But let's, for the sake of argument, say that gun prohibition accomplishes some disarmament of the bad guys. One would still have to admit that it does not do that anywhere near as well as it disarms the good guys.

So gun prohibition tends to disempower the good guys, and because it doesn't disempower the bad guys nearly as much, it shift the balance of power in favor of the bad guys.

Reason enough to not prohibit guns.

Regards,

Monty

Sparky

11-14-2002, 01:28 PM

Monty,

Well reasoned and articulated!

Artie

11-15-2002, 02:50 AM

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />That is the most ridiculously circular argument I've ever heard!<hr /></blockquote>Why is the argument that I put forward ridiculous. What is your definition of bias? Lott had a bias in favour of gun control prior to his shift towards gun ownership, and now has a bias towards gun ownership.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We're all "math biased" because 2+2 REALLY does equal 4. We're all "science biased" because the earth REALLY isn't flat. :rolleyes: <hr /></blockquote>If there were two differing sides in a debate on mathmatics, or two differing sides in a debate on science, then a person supporting either side would have a bias towards the side that he or she supports.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That standard is ludicrous. Lott is a scientist who conducted research, found FACTS that conflicted with his personal beliefs and presented them. Just because he can accept facts and you can't doesn't make him biased. It makes HIM open-minded enough to not dismiss truth.<hr /></blockquote>Just because Lott now supports the pro-gun lobby, you claim that he is unbiased. I suppose he was unbiased when he supported the gun control side.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Lott's project was NOT funded by pro-gun types. What exactly is Lott's CONNECTION? Show me a SINGLE factual connection between John Lott and ANY pro-gun group BEFORE the results of his study were finalized and I will post a HUGE apology to you.<hr /></blockquote>I will repeat it again. Lott was biased in favour of the gun control advocates prior to his changing over to the side of the pro-gun advocates. Of course the pro-gun advocates were not going to give Lott any money to fund his research. They were too afraid of the result. Had they known what the result of his research was going to be, would they have funded him? I think that is a possibility.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I've presented Lott and why he is unbiased. I've also asked you whom you would consider unbiased. I'll ask it again and maybe you'll actually answer this time: Whom would you consider unbiased?<hr /></blockquote>I still do not accept Lott as being unbiased, based on my definition of bias. It is not for me to provide an unbiased source of American statistics on crime. You are there. You produce one.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It would appear to the casual observer that anyone who disagrees with you is simply dismissed as biased.<hr /></blockquote>And I suppose that Charlton Heston is unbiased in your opinion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />One could argue that YOU are terribly biased yourself Artie.<hr /></blockquote>Absolutely, just like you, Watchman, MikeTx, and many other members of this forum are. We are all bias on many different subjects. Gun control is just one of them.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If we apply the "Artie standard", this source IS BIASED. They are funded by the government of Australian, therefore they have a vested interest in making it appear that the government is correct in enacting it's draconian measures.<hr /></blockquote>Looking at it in that light, I have to admit that they are bias. I will have to do some more research to come up with an organisation that is not tainted by either side. Thanks for setting me straight.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So one is forced to ask: Do you have any UNBIASED sources to support you? Ones that will pass your own standard?<hr /></blockquote>Maybe, I am not able to produce a source that is able to pass my own standard. But, I haven't given up yet.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How many are prevented by buying TOY GUNS (yes, toy guns)?<hr /></blockquote>What government buys back toy guns? Get real.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How many are REALLY prevented by buying grandpa's old double-barrel shotgun that hasn't been taken out of the closet in over 2 decades?<hr /></blockquote>Does grandpa's gun still work? Can it kill, or seriously injure someone?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How many times have we heard of guns collected in these schemes that turned out to be a match to a gun used in a crime?<hr /></blockquote>What criminal would turn in his piece? Pleeeeeese. Its far easier to just grind them down, if they are afraid of being caught with them.

Watchman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You either overlooked my post or you refused to answer it.<hr /></blockquote>No, I didnt overlook it, was just thinking of a reasonable response.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why should I give up a family heirloom just because some liberal thinks it should be so? A gun that my grandfather and me hunted with, a gun that I can pick up at any time and instantly be reminded of many fond memorys,like the beautiful sunrises when we were up at the crack of dawn, the days at deer camps with the friends, the jokes and the good food. The days spent on the range looking for that last bit of accuracy with tailor made handloads.<hr /></blockquote>Memories of your grandfather are a wonderful thing. I am sure that the gun that your grandfather handed down to you is not the only thing that reminds you of the good times that you had with your grandfather. No doubt, it was a wonderful time for you. I have no answer for you. If it does happen in the future where you are forced to hand in your grandfather's gun, then I suggest you take a photograph of it. It will last longer, you can hold it in your hand and it will remind you of all those things that you mentioned.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />your leaders say that personal defense is not a valid reason to have a gun. If your leaders said that to jump off a cliff would help you to receive "enlightenment" would everyone there be willing to do that too?<hr /></blockquote>Believe it or not, we Aussies are not as silly as you seem to think.

Monty:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />And I thought it was obvious that gun prohibition didn't stop criminals from getting guns. How could I have been so naive?<hr /></blockquote>I have never stated that gun control will prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The firearms of law abiding citizens are the main source from which criminals get their firearms?<hr /></blockquote>Did I write that? I dont think so. What I said was that the firearms of law abiding citizens is one source of firearms for criminals, not the main source.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Criminals buy guns from people that illegally sell them.<hr /></blockquote>Is that the only way that criminals get their guns in the US?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Outlawing guns, or anything else for that matter, has never done more than increase risks and prices. No prohibition has ever succeeded in eliminating the thing prohibited.<hr /></blockquote>That being the case, then why does the US spend so much money on trying to prohibit illicit drugs.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But let's, for the sake of argument, say that gun prohibition accomplishes some disarmament of the bad guys. One would still have to admit that it does not do that anywhere near as well as it disarms the good guys.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, I agree with this.

Niteshift

11-15-2002, 03:28 AM

"Just because Lott now supports the pro-gun lobby, you claim that he is unbiased. I suppose he was unbiased when he supported the gun control side."

You're missing the obvious Artie...... whether Lott himself supports one side or the other is irrelevant. His RESEARCH was unbiased. Can you find any fault with his research?

"Of course the pro-gun advocates were not going to give Lott any money to fund his research. They were too afraid of the result."

No, his goal was to prove gun control works. He found out that it does not. Why would they fund a project intent on proving that gun control works? That's not fear, that's common sense. Do you suppose the Toyota should fund research and development at Nissan simply because they believe they have a superior product, so the results won't matter?

"It is not for me to provide an unbiased source of American statistics on crime. You are there. You produce one."

Because YOU don't accept it as unbiased, doesn't make it so.

Aside from that, I'll repeat my request, in case you missed it above: Show me the flaws or bias in Lott's actual research.

"And I suppose that Charlton Heston is unbiased in your opinion."

No. And why would you suppose something that foolish?

"What government buys back toy guns? Get real."

I'm being real. It has already happened in the US Artie. Do you think I pulled that out of my azz?

"Does grandpa's gun still work? Can it kill, or seriously injure someone?"

So could grandpa's Buick...........but if neither one are misused, neither will kill anyone.

Want to discuss the odds of which one is more LIKELY to kill or injure someone....the Buick or the shotgun that has sat in the closet for 20 years?

"What criminal would turn in his piece? Pleeeeeese. Its far easier to just grind them down, if they are afraid of being caught with them."

I guess criminals are different in Australia, but don't lecture me about how they are here. It has happened a number of times. One that I am very aware of was in St. Louis in 1994. A friend of mine was working the case that one of the weapons collected turned out to be the murder weapon on. I've read of it happening in other cases.

BTW, here are a few interesting buy-back stories:

St. Louis-1991- One individual turns in a box with over 100 old pistols and is given $50 each for them. In the same buy back, a 42 year old insurance salesman sold 5 old pistols. He was a target shooter and kept plenty of his good guns. Still in the same buy back, an admitted gun dealer turned in 12 long guns and 15 pistols. Only half of those guns were functional. Another was a 42 year old man who sold 4 rifles. He'd previously tried to sell them to gun shops. His response "Now I have a buyer". And to wrap up that buy back...... a 68 year old man who sold his old shotgun and said he didn't need it because he had a .38 for his protection.

Artie

11-15-2002, 07:42 AM

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You're missing the obvious Artie...... whether Lott himself supports one side or the other is irrelevant. His RESEARCH was unbiased. Can you find any fault with his research?<hr /></blockquote>Have you read the "Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard" by Stephen Teret, a member of The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

<a href="http://www.pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/hopkins3.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/hopkins3.shtml</a>

His paper challenges the findings of Lott. Some of his criticisms include:
"The study uses incorrect and discredited methodology."

"The technique used in most of Lott and Mustard's analyses has been deemed by criminologists and econometricians since the early 1970s to be inappropriate for this type of study."

"The authors failed to use state-of-the-art analytic techniques which would distinguish a true effect of the law from an expected downward drift towards average levels."

"The study's results depart from well-established criminologic theory and facts about crime."

The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to reducing gun violence. The Center provides accurate information on firearm injuries and gun policy; develops, analyzes, and evaluates strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and conducts public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs. Is the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago biased against gun ownership?

Now Lott is not an idiot. Here is someone in the acadamia who is challenging his findings and the way that he has resourced those findings. Why has he not defended himself and his paper? Is it that one cannot defend the undefendable?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Because YOU don't accept it as unbiased, doesn't make it so.<hr /></blockquote>Absolutely. I agree with you.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Aside from that, I'll repeat my request, in case you missed it above: Show me the flaws or bias in Lott's actual research.<hr /></blockquote>Read above.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm being real. It has already happened in the US Artie. Do you think I pulled that out of my azz?<hr /></blockquote>Whoever sanctioned that was a f*ckwit. As for me knowing what you have shoved up your azz...pass.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Want to discuss the odds of which one is more LIKELY to kill or injure someone....the Buick or the shotgun that has sat in the closet for 20 years?<hr /></blockquote>Are we debating gun control or murder by motor vehicle?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I guess criminals are different in Australia, but don't lecture me about how they are here. It has happened a number of times. One that I am very aware of was in St. Louis in 1994. A friend of mine was working the case that one of the weapons collected turned out to be the murder weapon on. I've read of it happening in other cases.<hr /></blockquote>You make a good point. My experiences are from what happens in Australia, as your experiences are what happen in the US. If you feel that I am lecturing you on how criminals act in the US, that was not my intention.

[ 11-15-2002, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Artie ]

Artie

11-15-2002, 07:50 AM

By the way, if you claim that this arguement is all about self-protection, why do you need to own more than one gun? Why do you need long barrelled firearms?

Watchman

11-15-2002, 08:53 AM

The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is dedicated to reducing gun violence. The Center provides accurate information on firearm injuries and gun policy; develops, analyzes, and evaluates strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and conducts public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs. Is the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago biased against gun ownership?

Artie:
you've got to be kidding.

Another extremely poor example for your cause. This is one of the most ,if not THE most biased anti-gun organizations out there. In case you didnt know, Jonh Hopkins is a medical research facilty. Just because some antigun doctors are posting "facts" about guns doesnt mean they have any more of a clue about guns anymore than an auto mechanic has about brain surgery. These people have a political agenda here. Abolishment of weapons. Period.

To use the famous Artie word here..they are extremely BIASED.

One of the "strategies" it uses to prevent firearm injurys is the total elimination of guns from society.

Nobody takes them serious except for gun banners and simple people that are impressed by big official looking titles.

I will repeat it again. Lott was biased in favour of the gun control advocates prior to his changing over to the side of the pro-gun advocates. Of course the pro-gun advocates were not going to give Lott any money to fund his research. They were too afraid of the result. Had they known what the result of his research was going to be, would they have funded him? I think that is a possibility.

They arent "afraid" of what someone will find, as long as they report the FACTS, which stand alone on their own merits.

Why would they give money to an anti-gunner ? They'd be better off throwing the money in the trash. I dont know how they do things in Aussieland,but here we are not accustomed to giving the enemy any help. You gonna sharpen the knife for him so that he can cut your throat ?

If it does happen in the future where you are forced to hand in your grandfather's gun, then I suggest you take a photograph of it. It will last longer, you can hold it in your hand and it will remind you of all those things that you mentioned

First of all, you must understand that if some ****ant politician decides I need to give mine up, it aint gonna happen.

Are you serious about a picture ? You really think a photograph will laster longer than a gun ? :rolleyes: For some reason a photograph just dosent do justice, much like looking at pictures of naked women and actually having one to play with are two completley different things.

By the way, if you claim that this arguement is all about self-protection, why do you need to own more than one gun? Why do you need long barrelled firearms

Beleive it or not, different guns have different purposes. Here it is still legal to hunt,I do it quite a bit. A .22 caliber pistol, while adequate for small game is totally inadequate for deer. A .300 mag. long rifle is totally inadequate for small game if you intend on eating it. Then there is the shotgun, very useful due to its many varied loads. If you like to shoot targets like I do at extended ranges, there is no better caliber than the .50 BMG. due to its accuracy at long range(600 yards and beyond) A brute of a weapon for sure, but due to its weight, not very practical to hunt with.

But all of this is basic knowledege Artie. If you dont understand that, then you really are in way over your head here. Therefore, to answer your question in a way that ANYONE can understand,
here it is...we "need" more than one Because we CAN.

Why do you need more than one car ?
Why do you need more than one TV ?
Why do you need more than one pair of pants ?

Same difference. In case you use the argument that my guns are made to kill, I could use the same argument that I can smash your skull with a TV, run you over with a car, or strangle you with a pair of jeans. Just because the potential is there, dosent make it dangerous, I'll leave that up to the individual that decides what to do with them. Just because people use products irresponsibly, dosent mean that everyone should be punished for the actions of a few and it appears that is exactly what you are advocating.

You "safe society "argument doesnt wash here.

[ 11-15-2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Artie

11-15-2002, 10:08 AM

Watchman:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has just as much credibility for the anti-gun advocates as John Lott has for the pro-gun advocates.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Just because some antigun doctors are posting "facts" about guns doesnt mean they have any more of a clue about guns anymore than an auto mechanic has about brain surgery.<hr /></blockquote>Isn't that like an academic posting "facts" about guns. Just because the academic's "facts" support your agenda, his "facts" are more believable.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To use the famous Artie word here..they are extremely BIASED.<hr /></blockquote>Or are they extremely BIASED because they have put out a paper that shoots down (no pun intended) the findings of John Lott?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />First of all, you must understand that if some ****ant politician decides I need to give mine up, it aint gonna happen.<hr /></blockquote>I understand your feelings. As I have mentioned in this forum before, you have a choice.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Are you serious about a picture ? You really think a photograph will laster longer than a gun ? :rolleyes: <hr /></blockquote>I think that if you read my response before, I said that if you had to give up your grandfather's gun, you should take a photograph of it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For some reason a photograph just dosent do justice, much like looking at pictures of naked women and actually having one to play with are two completley different things.<hr /></blockquote>So true. But when you do not have the real thing, a photograph is better than having to play with yourself just using your memory.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Beleive it or not, different guns have different purposes.<hr /></blockquote>I quite understand the uses of various guns, but the main thrust of many of the pro-gunners in this theme is that they need their guns for self protection.

The Second Amendment does not, as I see it, give you the right to bare arms to hunt. Nor does it give you the right to bare arms to skeet shoot.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />we "need" more than one [b] Because we CAN. <hr /></blockquote>See, that is the problem. You base your argument on the need for firearms to protect yourselves and family because the police cannot protect you, but your answer to why you have more than you need to protect yourself is "because we can". Sorry, not a very convincing argument.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why do you need more than one car ?
Why do you need more than one TV ?
Why do you need more than one pair of pants ?<hr /></blockquote>We are not discussing the ownership of cars, tvs, or pants. We are discussing gun ownersip.

Just for your information, I did log onto Dr Lott's site and have read some of his papers. Did you take the time to read the article by Stephen Teret?

Watchman

11-15-2002, 11:15 AM

The Second Amendment does not, as I see it, give you the right to bare arms to hunt. Nor does it give you the right to bare arms to skeet shoot

At the time that it was written , hunting was such a common thing that it didnt even merit discusion.

Also, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

What does SHALL NOT mean to you Artie ?

Just for your information, I did log onto Dr Lott's site and have read some of his papers. Did you take the time to read the article by Stephen Teret?

No ,I didnt read it but I did look for the link. Perhaps you could post a link to it ?

Ya know, we could argue this forever and get no where. Perhaps by reading some of the posts here, you have gained more of an understanding about gun ownership in America. The fact is, the attack on gun ownership has only been intensified for the last 20 years or so. Before then, it was hardley ever even questioned.
I guess you could say that for over 200 years this subject was all but non existant.

Perhaps this very subject correlates directly to the lack of common sense displayed nowadays and the brain washing techniques used by ultra liberal college proffesors these days that would rather teach an agenda than just teach the facts.

I am old enough to remember walking down main street with a shotgun slung over my shoulder. Thing about it was, nobody ever gave it a second look. It does appear to me that the more we restrict ownership, the more bad things happen. When I was in school there was no such thing as a school shooting, yet one could walk out in the parking lot at the highschool and see dozens of guns in the back windows of pickup trucks. It was safer then than it is today. Perhaps the fact that we have turned many places into target rich environments for crazys where they have no reason to fear getting shot just encourages these people.

Ownership of guns in Australia is much different than here in the US.In fact gun ownership just about anywhere is much different. For one thing it is in our Constitition as a right, whereas many other countrys such as yours it is not a right but a priveledge,hardly granted to the commoners these days.

[ 11-15-2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Niteshift

11-15-2002, 11:31 AM

This is pointless.

You consider Johns Hopkins, an institution that takes money from Handgun Control Inc. to fund research and is located in one of the most anti-gun cities in the US, unbiased? :confused:

How can a school that takes money from HCI be unbiased, but a researcher who believes in his own test results that contradicted his goals and beliefs be dismissed as biased?

Sounds like a trip into the Superman comic book Bizzaro World to me.

[ 11-15-2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Niteshift ]

Sparky

11-15-2002, 11:42 AM

Just throwing this out -

The Claremmont Institute: Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
<a href="http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/" target="_blank">http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/</a>

An interesting letter from two Drs.
<a href="http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/gallant.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/gallant.htm</a>

Some Drs don't agree with the Johns Hopkins study
<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/30/222633.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/30/222633.shtml</a>

Artie:

I respect your opinion, whether it's on gun control or which flavor of ice cream is better.

It's your opinion.

But your refusal to concede ANY weight to Lott has got me thinking that you are being purposefully obtuse.

Personally, if you find someone who is COMPLETELY unbiased, then I won't really respect what they have to say. I mean how much credibility do any of us want to give someone who can't make up their mind one way or the other?

I may not agree with the pro-gun control folks, but at least they have an opinion on the matter. Someone who can't figure it out either way has got to be a little dull in the head.

Lott started out as anti-gun. He started out to prove that hypothesis. Instead, he ended up disproving his hypothesis.

Sure, there are folks who disagree, and that's fine.

I don't expect that alone to change your mind. If John Browning himself rose from the grave and denounced gun ownership, it wouldn't change my mind in the slightest, either.

You are obviously just as firm in your own beliefs.

It makes me a little sad to see anyone so vehemently against law abiding citizens having the ability to defend themselves against either criminals or tyranny.

But it is your choice. Like always, we will agree to disagree in the end.

Earlier, I posted a question concerning intervening to protect a family member -

"I happen to be traveling through Australia and am illegally carrying my weapon.

Your sister is being approached by a man with a knife telling her to get into his van.

Do you want me to intervene with my illegal weapon, or should I call the police?"

Your response was that you would hope I would intervene on behalf of the criminal implying that, otherwise, your sister might hurt him worse than I would.

Is this really an honest representation of your primary concerns?

Oregon Mike

11-15-2002, 12:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Artie:
By the way, if you claim that this arguement is all about self-protection, why do you need to own more than one gun? Why do you need long barrelled firearms?<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />The Second Amendment does not, as I see it, give you the right to bare arms to hunt. Nor does it give you the right to bare arms to skeet shoot.<hr /></blockquote>A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed.

Artie, you clearly don't understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. This country was founded by rebels that took up arms against their own government. Today we call them patriots, but at the time they were committing treason. They knew that if it were not for their personal weapons, they would not have been able to create a free state. The Second Amendment is our guarantee that we own the government, and not the other way around.

I love my country, but I won't blindly follow the government. In the 1930s a man took power of a country through a fair and legal election, and ended up being history's most hated figure. Prior to Hitler, German civilians did own guns. One of the first things he did when he took power was to require registration of firearms. He gave them the same BS about safety from crime that we hear today from your type. Shortly after civilian guns were registered, they were confiscated. The same thing that will happen here if we start requiring registration of guns. If Germans in the 1930s and 40s had been allowed to own firearms, the war would have been over much sooner. Hitler knew that. He was certainly crazy and evil, but he wasn't stupid.

If the time comes when I have to fight against my government (God forbid), I want a rifle. I want several rifles, a couple of shotguns, and at least one good handgun. Right now we can use rifles and shotguns for hunting, skeet shooting, or whatever. It's recreation. But more importantly, owning these weapons now keeps us safe from tyranny.

Mike

[ 11-15-2002, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Oregon Mike ]

Sparky

11-15-2002, 01:51 PM

Oh..and before we have to hear the tired old "That couldn't happen here." or it's cousin, "That couldn't happen again."

A whole bunch of people have marched quietly to their graves muttering, "I didn't think this would happen."

Most people did not suspect that things would go so far as they did in Germany during the '30s. And the few people who did and said so were treated like they were being overly paranoid and unreasonable.

Germany in the '30s wasn't the only time such things have happened.

As if we were more "enlightened" now. They thought they were more "enlightened" then, too. That was one of the big selling points behind the Reich and facism in general. I mean, have you ever met a communist who didn't think he was "enlightened"?

Here's a list of places where the government enacted gun registration in the name of public safety, later confiscated those weapons and disarmed the greater populace, and then later killed a lot of their own people.

Soviet Union - enacted gun control laws in 1929 and by 1953 had killed about 20 million anti-communists and anti-stalinists.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935 and by 1952 had killed about 20 million anti-communists and pro-reformists.

Guatemala enacted gun control legislation in 1871 and then more in 1964. From 1960 to 1981 they killed about 100,000 Mayan Indians.

Uganda enacted gun control legislation in 1955 abd 1970 and from 1971 to 1979 they killed about 300,000 Christians and political rivals.

Cambodia enacted gun control legislation in 1956. Under Pol Pot during 1975 to 1976 they killed about 1 million people, mostly anyone with an education.

These are all since we've "learned the lessons from Hitler" during "enlightened times". Where was the sweeping protection from the UN? Or other countries?

We've seen it happen since in Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Bosnia, Iraq, teh list goes on and on proving that that murderous tyrants aren't just some aberration of the mid 20th Century.

Here's another interesting essay -
<a href="http://www.donkates.com/genocide.html" target="_blank">http://www.donkates.com/genocide.html</a>

Watchman

11-15-2002, 03:56 PM

Sparky,

That was an interesting link you posted and I read it. However, due to the fac that the author uses actuall historical events as the basis for his argument, you must realize that he is BIASED . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

and later down the page we read this:

Accordingly, the anti-gun movement seeks to have Congress enact a national gun licensing program under which self-defense would not be accepted as a ground for gun ownership. Only sportsmen would be allowed to own guns.[41]

HEY ARTIE !
Does this sound familiar ? Sounds almost like your quote:
And self protection is not a good enough reason..

Intresting. Very interesting. If I didnt know any better, I might think that there was a some diabolical scheme to disarm everyone in the world by using the the same methods employed by Hitler.

Andu1

11-15-2002, 06:15 PM

I noted the Australian Institute of Criminology link Artie used showed the decline in firearms homicide began before the 1996 legislation and was acutally unassociated with any government legislation relating to firearms.

I would suggest that such a long term trend, so obviously not influenced by any government firearms legislation, is due to other factors than the gun control Artie appears to be in favour of.

More recently the Australian Institute of Criminology presented data at a Criminology conference in Brisbande (October) which showed the following:

1) NO CHANGE in a downward trend in murders since 1989
2) NO CHANGE in a downward trend in firearms use in murder since 1980
3) NO CHANGE in a downward trend in firearms use in armed robbery since 1993 (but armed robberies without guns rose sharply, reducing guns as a proportion)
4) NO CHANGE in a downward trend in firearms use in suicide since 1979 (but suicide is rising anyway)
5) NO CHANGE in the rate of firearms use in attempted murder.

Accepted America is not Australia, but even in Australia it is not 'gun control' that is driving the trends in crime.

Sparky

11-15-2002, 06:18 PM

Watchman,

I feel ya, but I can't agree that the anti-gunners are up to some Machiavellian tomfoolery.

I think this documents expresses my opinion better than I could myself:

From the same document-
OBLIVIOUSNESS, NOT COMPLICITY
"...Indeed, insofar as such analogies have any validity, American anti-gun advocates are comparable not to the Nazis but to their victims. Like those victims, anti-gun advocates simply cannot conceive or believe the depth of evil to which a government having "a monopoly of the means of force" may sink. In this connection, it is noteworthy that it was not the Nazis who disarmed the Germans. That was the well-intentioned policy of the Nazis' predecessors, beginning with the liberal democratic Weimar government, which thus sought to control violent elements of the extreme Right and Left. The Nazis merely accepted the previous policy whereby, all firearms having first been confiscated from the citizenry, acquisition and ownership required licensure by the police or military who had discretion to confine it to friends and supporters of the state (or at least of the military and police).[27] The only change the Nazis made was forbidding Jewish possession of any kind of weapon while exempting Storm Troopers and Nazi Party officials from the Weapons Law.[28]" emphasis added

Bill R

11-15-2002, 06:34 PM

Sparky, I'll agree that the average rank and file gun-grabber has good (but mislead) intentions. I do however, believe that those leading the movement have more sinister motives.

Artie

11-15-2002, 06:40 PM

Watchman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />At the time that it was written, hunting was such a common thing that it didnt even merit discusion.<hr /></blockquote>What I am trying to put forward to you is that the Second Amendment does not grant you a right to bear arms to hunt.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.<hr /></blockquote>But isn't that related to the setting up of a militia?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No ,I didnt read it but I did look for the link. Perhaps you could post a link to it?<hr /></blockquote>I did post it before, but here it is again:

<a href="http://www.pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/hopkins3.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/hopkins3.shtml</a>

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ya know, we could argue this forever and get no where. Perhaps by reading some of the posts here, you have gained more of an understanding about gun ownership in America.<hr /></blockquote>I have been discussing this topic with you guys and gals for the past two years. Neither of us has been able to sway the other with our arguments. Why? Because the issue is a complicated one. It may not seem it to you and the others, but I do respect your opinions on the subject. And the purpose of me starting the topic was to gain a better insight into your thoughts and feelings on the subject. Earlier, I posted that I had read some of Dr Lott's papers. He has written quite a few. What I intend to do is read all his papers that are online. I doubt that it will sway my opinion on guns, but my opinion only relates to Australia. What you guys do in America is your own business. You have been passionate in your defence of gun ownership. So you should. It is important to you.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I am old enough to remember walking down main street with a shotgun slung over my shoulder. Thing about it was, nobody ever gave it a second look. It does appear to me that the more we restrict ownership, the more bad things happen. When I was in school there was no such thing as a school shooting, yet one could walk out in the parking lot at the highschool and see dozens of guns in the back windows of pickup trucks. It was safer then than it is today. Perhaps the fact that we have turned many places into target rich environments for crazys where they have no reason to fear getting shot just encourages these people.<hr /></blockquote>I think that you are simplifying what has happened in the world over the years and trying to blame it on the laws that prohibit gun ownership. Don't forget that issues such as drug abuse, the breakdown of family values, mental illness, introduction of chemicals into our food chain, and unemployment tends to increase the incidents of crime.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ownership of guns in Australia is much different than here in the US.In fact gun ownership just about anywhere is much different. For one thing it is in our Constitition as a right, whereas many other countrys such as yours it is not a right but a priveledge,hardly granted to the commoners these days.<hr /></blockquote>A very astute comment, for which I agree whole heartedly.

Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />but a researcher who believes in his own test results that contradicted his goals and beliefs be dismissed as biased?<hr /></blockquote>I have to apologise to this forum for accepting something without first confirming the validity of it. You profess that Dr Lott was an anti-gun proponant prior to producing his research. Well, that is not what he says. This is part of an interview with ReasonOnline that was conducted in January 2000:

Reason: How did you become interested in guns?

John R. Lott Jr.: About six years ago, I was teaching a class dealing with crime issues at the University of Pennsylvania, and it dawned on me that my students would be interested in some papers on gun control. It forced me to look at the literature systematically to decide what papers to assign to the class. I was shocked by how poorly done the existing research on guns and crime was.

You had very small samples. By far the largest previous study on guns and crime had looked at just 170 cities within a single year, 1980. Most of the rest looked at, say, 24 counties or 24 cities within a single year. No one had tried to account for things like arrest rates or conviction rates or prison sentence lengths. And the studies were all very limited in the sense that they were purely cross-sectional, where you look at the crime rates across jurisdictions in one year, or [purely longitudinal], where you pick one city or one county and look at it over time.

It was basically because of that class that I saw the benefit to going out and trying to do it right. So I put together what I think is by far the largest study that's ever been done on crime. The book has data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period. And simply having that large a data set allows you to account for hundreds of factors, thousands of factors, that you couldn't have accounted for in those smaller data sets.

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Lott started out as anti-gun. He started out to prove that hypothesis. Instead, he ended up disproving his hypothesis.<hr /></blockquote>Please read his own words. It does not support the assertion that he was anti-gun and that he started out to prove that hypothesis at all.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Like always, we will agree to disagree in the end.<hr /></blockquote>I agree whole heartedly with these sentiments.

Had you, in your scenario, suggested that my daughter, instead of my sister be the victim of a man with a knife, my answer would have been totally different.

Oregon Mike:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In the 1930s a man took power of a country through a fair and legal election, and ended up being history's most hated figure. Prior to Hitler, German civilians did own guns. One of the first things he did when he took power was to require registration of firearms. He gave them the same BS about safety from crime that we hear today from your type. Shortly after civilian guns were registered, they were confiscated. The same thing that will happen here if we start requiring registration of guns. If Germans in the 1930s and 40s had been allowed to own firearms, the war would have been over much sooner. Hitler knew that. He was certainly crazy and evil, but he wasn't stupid.<hr /></blockquote>There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But not only can you elect your leaders, you can un-elect them as well. You have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and you have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, you have at least ten thousand a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. You must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that your well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Here's a list of places where the government enacted gun registration in the name of public safety, later confiscated those weapons and disarmed the greater populace, and then later killed a lot of their own people.<hr /></blockquote>Do you consider the people of the United States on the same par as those in the Soviet Union, China, Guatamala, Uganda, Cambodia,Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Bosnia, or Iraq? The people of these countries are not half as sophisticated as those in the US. Give yourself a little credit.

Artie

11-15-2002, 06:53 PM

Andu1:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I would suggest that such a long term trend, so obviously not influenced by any government firearms legislation, is due to other factors than the gun control Artie appears to be in favour of.<hr /></blockquote>Andu, the purpose of my quoting such a long term trend was to indicate to That Guy that one year's worth of statistical information does not make for valuable hypothesis on the trend of gun related crime. As a person who deals in statistics, you would have to agree with this, or do you agree with That Guy and accept one years worth of statistics.

Sparky

11-15-2002, 07:03 PM

BillR,

I agree somewhat.

I look at it this way.. follow my logic here..

The premise of guncontrol is that it is this huge public safety issue, right?

They try to do the "Million Mom" march and all, but they are doing good to get a few hundered people to show.

The "gun control movement" (If you will) not only didn't start with a public outcry, but it hasn't even attracted a very big public outcry. Not really big.

The gun control movement has mostly started with folks like Sarah Brady whose husband was tragically shot during the assissination attempt on President Reagan.

Now, from her point of view, it was some nut who shot her husband, and important presidential advisor.

There is Sen. (D) Dianne Fienstien (sp?) from CA... career politican. I'll leave it at that.

We also have folks like Rosie O'Donnell. She is someone who, as a celebrity, has been threatened by nut jobs.

Now... two of these people either have a permit to carry a weapon themselves (Feinstein), or have armed bodyguards and secure homes (O'Donnell).
They have legitimate needs for this even more than most, I would say. they are public figures and often are the targets of credible threats.

And Ms. Brady bought a rifle not long ago as a gift for her son.

But these same folks believe that they are the ONLY ones who need to protect themselves. At least that's the message I get.

Now, most of us can't afford gated estates, VIP protection details, etc. We have to rely on ADT and protecting ourselves as best as we can.

You don't see a bunch of middle class or lower class people demanding for thier neighborhoods to be made safer. There aren't any heated town meetings in the high crime neighborhoods shouting where they demand gun control.

Sure, there are people out there, but it is not a movement of the masses.

The masses are not driving their representatives crazy with demands for gun control.

It's the people living "on the hill". It's the sneetches with stars upon thars.

Why?

These people may look at the "public" in a "us vs. them" kind of way. I mean, that's the way we look at them, right?

I mean think about it... some nut shoots your husband, an important aid to the President, you are a politician who gets threats, your a star and get threats from nut jobs... these things can isolate you and make you think in a "me vs. them" kind of way.

Other "big name" gun control people tend to be relatives of victims, etc. Some "nut" hurt them.

So yes... in a way many of the gun control folks do have a motive... they want to make the world safer for themselves by taking away other people's ability to hurt them.

I can't help but think about the pig from 1984 saying "some are more equal than others".

Sparky

11-15-2002, 07:19 PM

Artie, the question was about what got him interested in guns, not about what his personal view of people carrying guns was before the study.

Also from the same interview:

Reason: Do you still hear the argument that you're in the pay of the gun industry, or has that been discredited?

Lott: I think the gun control people are going to continue to bring it up. I've been in debates this year with people from Handgun Control Inc. and other gun control groups in which they asserted flat-out that I've been paid by gun makers to do this study.

Reason: When they raise this charge, how successful are you in making the point that people should be able to assess evidence and arguments on their merits and that your motives don't matter?

Lott: Well, most people aren't going to look at the data. They're not going to have the data in front of them. The credibility of the data and the message depends on whether or not they believe that the person who's telling them about the data is credible. And I think the gun control groups feel that it's a win to the extent that they even divert three minutes of a show to talking about this issue. Even if it doesn't stick in people's minds, it's still three minutes that I couldn't talk about something else.

<a href="http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=391" target="_blank">http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=391</a>

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Artie:
Do you consider the people of the United States on the same par as those in the Soviet Union, China, Guatamala, Uganda, Cambodia,Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Bosnia, or Iraq? The people of these countries are not half as sophisticated as those in the US. Give yourself a little credit. <hr /></blockquote>There is nothing about American society that makes us all exempt from human nature.

Do you believe, Artie, that people in those countries somehow aren't as highly evolved as those from western cultures?

I am a little taken aback on this one. I had you figured for alot of things Artie, but racist was not one of them.

Artie

11-15-2002, 07:30 PM

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Do you believe, Artie, that people in those countries somehow aren't as highly evolved as those from western cultures?<hr /></blockquote>No, you misunderstand me again. Generally speaking, the people in these countries are not on the same socio-economic level and educational level as Americans are, and are therefore open to being manipulated by corrupt governments. Of course, this does not include China and Russia. These two countries are communist and therefore the people do what they are told to do.

It is not a matter of my being racist, and I certainly did not intend to couch my language in such a manner.

Sparky

11-15-2002, 07:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Artie:
Generally speaking, the people in these countries are not on the same socio-economic level and educational level as Americans are, and are therefore open to being manipulated by corrupt governments.
<hr /></blockquote>So..

you think these people were more vulnerable to tyranny because either, no one told them to watch out for it, and/or they were to stupid to figure it out for themselves?

You're basically saying that such things can't happen to you as long as you aren't poor and stupid.

Are you serious? You're pulling my leg.

Niteshift

11-15-2002, 07:40 PM

Sparky beat me to it Artie...........

All the prose posted and NONE of it saying he was pro or anti-gun. It merely addressed why he decided to do the study.

Once again, Artie posts PART of the information and it STILL doesn't prove his point. :rolleyes:

Look at the words you posted:It was basically because of that class that I saw the benefit to going out and trying to do it right. So I put together what I think is by far the largest study that's ever been done on crime. The book has data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period. And simply having that large a data set allows you to account for hundreds of factors, thousands of factors, that you couldn't have accounted for in those smaller data sets.

Lott is an economist by training. He looked at it in the bigger picture and realized that you can't look at 20 people and extrapolate those results on 20 million. Likewise, studying less than 200 cities won't be as accurate as studying 3000.

Lott simply tackled the big task. You've STILL showning nothing to prove a pro-gun bias that existed before his study was completed.

Artie

11-15-2002, 07:44 PM

Sparky,
If I were pulling your leg, I am sure that you would know it.

No, I am not saying that these people are stupid. That is your word. What I am saying is that they are not on the same par as you.

Sparky

11-15-2002, 08:11 PM

I dunno Artie.

Maybe I am just not understanding you.

What do you mean when you say that you don't think they are on the same par?

[ 11-15-2002, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

Artie

11-15-2002, 08:33 PM

Sparky,
No doubt it is just my poor way of trying to explain myself. The peoples of these countries do not have the same education standards, the same employment opportunities, the same government structure, the same idiology, as Americans have, and therefore are susceptible to government by the point of a gun.

Mike Tx

11-15-2002, 09:06 PM

Fact is these people will never get it because they don't want to. Innocent civilians deaths are acceptable to those like them. This mindset is what the founding fathers warned us against.

Remember, these gun banners carry a gun, but don't think you should. You could produce 10 jillion dead bodies as evidence that gun control is a total absolute failure. and the response of those like that would be simply to bury them.

They would still be armed though.

Sparky

11-15-2002, 09:27 PM

Okay.

Now I am convinced that you are putting me on.

Watchman

11-15-2002, 09:32 PM

But isn't that related to the setting up of a militia?

The "militia" consists of any able bodied man in the US that might be called upon to defend it from aggression. I may be wrong on the age but I beleive the ages from 17-59 are eligible.At the time of the writing of the Constitition it was common practive for men to gather once a month and drill. Each man was to provide his own rifle and ammunition. At that time, there was little difference in weaponry that civilians could own , some even owned artillery pieces.

If we use the "militia" as an example, then technically civilians should be able to own the same state of the art weapons that the military uses.

As a matter of fact, the first shots of the revolutionary war were fired at the Brits becuase they were marching to confinscate the weapons in the armorys that the "militia" kept for defensive purposes. It could be argued that the war started because of gun control imposed upon them by the King of England. Fortunatley for us, they had the intelligence, ability and the guts to stand up and say NO to the king. The rest is history.

The definition of militia, is still as valid today as it was over 200 years ago. There has been lots of debate on this over the years, but after much research on the subject, the anti-gunner leaders have pretty much steered away from it. Many mistakenly referred to the National Guard, which wasnt even established until the early part of this century.

Watchman

11-15-2002, 09:44 PM

Artie:
I read the link you posted from John Hopkins U.
Thankyou for that.

After reading it, I thought to myself after the years of study and the many numbers posted, the finds of JHU are basically minor.

This is the same University that claims that 40 children a day are killed by handguns, yet they fail to note that less than 6 are actually chidren under the ages of 5 and the rest are actually gangbangers from the ages of 14-20.

A bit misleading dont you think ?

John Hopkins University saying that a survey that counters their "facts" as "flawed" or misleading is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

[ 11-15-2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Mike Tx

11-15-2002, 09:51 PM

Many think the Second Amendment refers to the National Gaurd which was created by an act of congress in the very early part of the twentieth century. 1903 or 1917, I can't recall, somewhere between there. I could look it up, but it really does not matter.

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, I think, which is over 100 years earlier. Only a politician would say they are the same.

Politician=Liar.

Bill R

11-15-2002, 10:11 PM

Artie,
You have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and you have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years.

Yes, one of our checks and balances is an armed citizenry. It was an armed citizenry that secured our liberty and an armed citizenry is also it's last line of defense. We certainly all hope that we will never need to take up arms against tyranny but that is a possibility. Hitler was lawfully elected as Chancellor. He then decided to use the power to make himself a tyrant. It would be difficult to remove someone peacefully in that situation. Hopefully the knowledge that our citizens are armed will be a deterrent to those that would seek to enslave us.

Sparky, Sarah Brady may very well have misguided good intentions and could be acting out of fear. I'm sorry but in my opinion Diane Fienstein is a power grubbing socialist who believes she and her elitist cronies should be able to run roughshod over us peasants without fear of retaliation. IMO Rosie O is simply an overweight ignorant b***h.

Artie

11-15-2002, 11:12 PM

Bill R:
Lets assume that the government turned into a dictatorship. The citizens do not accept that and arm themselves in an endeavour to overthrow the government. How will they decide who will lead the revolt? What well regulated supervision would they be under? Who would they answer to? Would they be a law unto themselves? How far would they go?

I mean, it is all well and good to say that the people will rise up, but you need to have plans in place. Do you have any?

[ 11-15-2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Artie ]

Oregon Mike

11-15-2002, 11:39 PM

The Second Amendment isn't a battle plan, it's an insurance policy. As long as the citizenry is well-armed, we won't have to fight tyrannical government. Even if we do, the problem of leadership and revolutionary goals will sort themselves out.

I started to type a long answer to each of your individual questions, but the fact is it's not something we plan for. With a few fringe exceptions, nobody is ready to fight the government. When a population revolts against the government, the individuals fighting have made the choice that they would rather die in combat (usually against a better trained, better armed military) than continue living under opression.

Questions like "who's gonna be the in charge?" have no relevance when you're risking your life for liberty.

Mike

Artie

11-16-2002, 12:08 AM

Oregon Mike:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Second Amendment isn't a battle plan, it's an insurance policy. As long as the citizenry is well-armed, we won't have to fight tyrannical government. Even if we do, the problem of leadership and revolutionary goals will sort themselves out.<hr /></blockquote>Are you that naive to believe that the weapons that you possess are any match for the weapons that the armed forces are provided with, and that any tyrannical government with the best equiped armed forces in the world would be afraid of the well-armed citizenry?

I do not write this to belittle you, just to try to have you see from my perspective, standing outside the US, looking in. You wouldn't have a chance.

Sparky

11-16-2002, 12:46 AM

Artie,

There were a bunch of people in the UK who felt exactly the same way about a bunch of uppity colonists who were foolish enough to take on the most powerful military in the world at the time.

Besides, even if losing was inescapable, it's more about not making it easy for anybody.

The bee dies after stinging, but you still avoid it's sting.

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is our first right in that it is what enpowers us to protect our other rights.

It's hard for a government to shut down radio stations and newspapers if the citizens are armed to protect them.

Get it?

I say this with all due respect, but I think you would find it worthwhile to study up on your history. How exactly do oppressive governments go about oppressing their own people? What is the process that history shows us for those who seek power for the wrong reasons are able to obtain that pwoer and misuse it?

Our forefathers were very learned and educated men who knew well what befell Sparta, Greece, Rome, and continued to England.

Oregon Mike

11-16-2002, 12:59 AM

He have 300 million citizens. I don't remember the estimates of how many private guns we have, but 200 million sounds right. Half of American households have guns in them. The military is a few hundred thousand people. Many of them are overseas. And many of us are conservative enough that we would not fight to support a tyrannical government.

What good is military technology against civilians? Are F-22s going to target individual citizens? Is the government going to drop nukes on residential neighborhoods? Of course not. A revolution would involve citizens against soldiers, on the ground fighting with small arms. Yes, I really do think that citizens would win a revolution, provided that the government was bad enough that enough people were willing to fight.

Mike

JRT6

11-16-2002, 01:25 AM

Why do I get the feeling that certain people who have posted on this thread are really good at getting into the fetal position at the first sign of danger?

209

11-16-2002, 01:28 AM

Here's the newest twist on Guns don't kill people argument: Gun Distributors kill people. A recent article said in the sunny state of Florida that a jury ordered a weapons distributor to pay $1.2 million to the widow of a teacher. The jury found the dealer 5% guility of failing to sell the gun with a "safety feature", such as a lock.

Interesting, the article pointed out the jury found the gun owner and the school district 95% at fault but they were not named as co-defandants in the lawsuit.

Of course, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the decision as a "huge victory for safer guns."

So there you have it folks, it's not the gun or the person who uses it- it's the gun dealer that kills people.

The logic is chilling. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Mike Tx

11-16-2002, 07:02 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The citizens do not accept that and arm themselves in an endeavour to overthrow the government.<hr /></blockquote>You must have missed it Artie. We do not have to arm ourselves. We are already armed.

MadMax

11-16-2002, 06:14 PM

Artie,
I agree with you in regards to the 3rd world countries, they are not on par with the Western World.

Sparky,
You have to be putting us on...

Monty Ealerman

11-17-2002, 12:11 AM

Sparky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Monty,
Well reasoned and articulated!<hr /></blockquote>Thanks. Kudos to you guys, too. You, Niteshift, Watchman, and others have written very cogently on this topic. "Eschew obfuscation", but embrace elucidation!

Artie:
From your post:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have never stated that gun control will prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms.<hr /></blockquote>Really? You said words to that effect. Please allow me to show you:

Requoting from your prior post (this time with my emphasis added):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I agree, gun prohibitions genuinely succeed in disarming the law-abiding, but I disagree that gun prohibitions don't disarm the lawbreakers. Although, I agree criminals that possess firearms will not hand their firearms in, by removing firearms from law abiding citizens, it reduces the opportunity for criminals to obtain their firearms.<hr /></blockquote>Doesn't that mean you think gun control does prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns? It should mean that.

Quoting part of my response:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />So let me get this straight. The firearms of law abiding citizens are the main source from which criminals get their firearms?<hr /></blockquote>You replied:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did I write that? I dont think so. What I said was that the firearms of law abiding citizens is one source of firearms for criminals, not the main source.<hr /></blockquote>You offered the idea of criminals getting guns from law-abiding owners in support of the contention that gun prohibition disarms criminals. Remember?

For that to have been a valid point, you would have had to have meant that criminals can be effectively deprived of guns by ensuring that no guns were in the posession of the law-abiding. If getting guns from the law-abiding is not mainly or substantially how criminals get their guns, then drying up that source is not going to put much of a dent in the criminal arsenal.

So either you meant to say that guns owned by the law-abiding are the main source from which criminals get guns, or you offered as support for your contention that gun prohibition really does disarm criminals something which does not support that contention.

That being the case, now that you've said you didn't mean to say that it's the main source, your contention has become a bare unsupported assertion.

When I said:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Criminals buy guns from people that illegally sell them.<hr /></blockquote>in support of my contention that gun prohibition does not disarm criminals, I would have had to have meant that illegal sales were the main source from which criminals get their guns.

When you responded:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Is that the only way that criminals get their guns in the US?<hr /></blockquote>you were holding me to the standard that the source I specified as that from which criminals get their guns had to be the "only" one, while holding yourself to the standard that the source you specified had merely to be one from which "some" guns were obtained. That's clearly employing a "double standard", which is not a legitimate argumentative technique.

In fact, the appropriate single standard is the "main" source, and yes, illegal sales are the main source.

Strictly speaking, it's a bit more complicated than that: many of the sales are illegal only for the purchaser, assuming the seller does not know the purchaser is a criminal.

When a person who has no criminal record or other disqualifier buys a gun, it is lawful for the dealer or individual to sell it. But if it is purchased with the intent of selling it to a criminal or other disqualified person, it is an illegal purchase. When such a "straw purchaser" sells it to the criminal buyer, it is an illegal sale.

Straw purchases are a significant source of guns in the hands of criminals in the US, and I acknowledge that gun prohibition would dry up this source by disqualifying all buyers; however, illegal sales of one kind or another would continue to be the main way for criminals to get guns, and such sales would continue despite prohibition, just as is the case with other prohibited things.

The real problem prohibiters face is that there is no way to tell money what it is and is not allowed to buy. By sanctioning buyers and sellers, all they can really do is make prohibited things cost more money.

Gun prohibition actually provides a strong incentive to the bad guys to get more guns.

When the opponent is disarmed, having guns is even more advantageous: guns are more effective weapons when used against those who can't shoot back.

You and your government suggest that guns are not necessary for self-defense. Everyone who has brought a knife to a gunfight or a gun to a knife fight, or faced a pair of 150 lb. fighting dogs that ignore pepper spray, knows better.

Only those who (dishonestly) think no-one is ever going to be seriously attacked could ever honetly suppose that guns are not necessary for self defense.

The Chinese martial arts are very useful for self-defense, but not so much against guns. The British proved that conclusively during what they called the "Boxer Rebellion", which the Chinese called "The War of the Righteous and Harmonious Fist". Fists, swords, and halberds were no match for Springfield repeating rifles.

When having guns becomes more advantageous, guns become even more valuable to the bad guys, so they try even harder to get them, making "gun control" actually increase the number of guns in the hands of the bad guys.

Whether gun prohibition increases or decreases bad guy gun ownership, or leaves it alone, you conceded the important point.

You quoted from my post as follows:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />But let's, for the sake of argument, say that gun prohibition accomplishes some disarmament of the bad guys. One would still have to admit that it does not do that anywhere near as well as it disarms the good guys.<hr /></blockquote>And your response was:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, I agree with this.<hr /></blockquote>So you conceded that point, but then you ignored its implication.

I had continued immediately after that with:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />So gun prohibition tends to disempower the good guys, and because it doesn't disempower the bad guys nearly as much, it shifts the balance of power in favor of the bad guys.

Reason enough to not prohibit guns.<hr /></blockquote>If you agree with the premise, why do you ignore the conclusion I draw from it?

If you agree with the conclusion, too, why don't you say so?

If you disagree with the conclusion, while agreeing with the premise, you must think I am wrong in thinking that the premise entails the conclusion. If that's the case, why don't you say so?

You simply dropped this. That's not a responsible way to argue on such a serious topic.

Neither was the way you argued with Niteshift.

You asked Niteshift:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why is the argument that I put forward ridiculous. What is your definition of bias?<hr /></blockquote>Niteshift characterized your argument as "ridiculously circular", not simply as ridiculous.

A circular argument is one which offers as support for a conclusion the very conclusion that it purports to prove. A "ridiculously" circular argument is one whose circularity is extremely obvious, yet is presented as if it were a legitimate argument.

I think this definition of "bias", from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which I trust even you will accept as an "unbiased" source, whatever your definition, is a clear enough definition for purposes of this discussion:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />... 3 ... b : an inclination of temperament or outlook, especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE<hr /></blockquote>There's a big difference between having an opinion on a topic, and being prejudiced toward one side. You act as if the two were the same, when in fact, they are clearly very different.

A study may legitimately be dismissed as biased if the person conducting it can be seen to have decided in advance what the results will be, or to have been influenced too strongly one way or the other in advance, as for example when the study is funded by a group which has a vested interest in one result over another.

No such characteristic is attributable to Dr. Lott's study. As Niteshift pointed out, repeatedly and eloquently, with perspicuous examples and illustrations, Dr. Lott was not biased in favor of gun ownership. Your quoting other things he said notwithstanding, he did in fact say that he was against gun ownership prior to learning from his study that his opinions did not square with the facts. If he been biased, he would have not allowed the facts to persuade him to revise his opinions.

A biased or prejudiced person selects the facts that appear supportive of conclusions he has already come to prior to seeking the facts, and ignores or hides the facts which do not tend to support his conclusions. Dr. Lott did the exact opposite. He thought the facts would support his opinions, but when he discovered that they did not, he changed his opinion. That's what a true scientist or scholar does.

Here's another example of how 2 persons can have opposite opinions, with only one of them deserving to be called biased or prejudiced.

In Galileo's time, the Pope had proclaimed that the Ptolemaic theory of the universe was correct, and that the Copernican theory was incorrect. The reason the competing theories co-existed was that no-one had enough facts available to conclusively prove one or the other to the satisifaction of scientific minds.

Then Galileo built a large telescope, looked in the sky, and found that the Copernican theory was not incorrect, and that Ptolemy and the Pope had been wrong. when he published his results, the Pope was furious, and because there was no separation of church and state, and no academic independence from the state, the Pope forced Galileo to recant.

Galileo previously, so the story goes, had asked the Pope to take a look into the telescope, and the Pope had refused, saying that he did not need to investigate a matter the truth of which he already knew, whereupon Galileo had left the Pope alone in the room with the telescope, and had returned a short time thereafter to find the Pope visibly shaken, but still undeterred in his determination that the Ptolemaic theory was correct.

In this story, the Pope was clearly biased, and Galileo was not. This is true despite the fact that Galileo was not neutral regarding which of the competing theories of the universe was the more correct. About 500 years later, the current Pope, on behalf of the Church, issued an apology to Galileo, and a confession that what the prior Pope had done was an offense against the truth.

I hope you will come around sooner than 500 years.

From your post to Watchman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I quite understand the uses of various guns, but the main thrust of many of the pro-gunners in this theme is that they need their guns for self protection.<hr /></blockquote>The natural inclination is to cite the most compelling reasons for not prohibiting guns. Protection is clearly the most compelling reason. That doesn't mean we don't have any other good reasons to want to keep guns.

What gun is used for protection depends on the situation. Sometimes it's a handgun, sometimes a long gun.

In the famous news film of the 60's with the man on the Texas tower shooting down at pedestrians, you see a police officer walk over to some random civilians standing by their cars, point at the tower, and then you see the civilians go to the trunks of their cars, get rifles out of them, and start shooting back at the man on the tower.

When I was growing up, I learned to shoot with rifles. I wasn't allowed to touch a rifle without supervision, and I wasn't allowed to touch a handgun at all. Because rifles have a longer barrel than a handgun, it takes more travel for them to be pointed in an unsafe direction.

In your subsequent response to Watchman, you discuss the second amendment. There are 2 clauses, separated by a comma:

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.

In its amicus brief to the Appelate Court, HCI propounded the idea that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow states to have militias, but not to allow individuals to keep and bear arms outside the context of their participation in a well organized militia.

That idea was plainly dishonest. If you read the works of the founders, especially James Madison, the intent was to allow individuals to participate in well-regulated militias, and to protect themselves from any excesses that such militias might inflict if the right to keep and bear arms were not guaranteed. It was considered by the framers to be unseemly to write specifically of the possibility of governmental excesses in the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; however, that the framers were intensely aware of such possibilities is evident throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The second clause of the second amendment proclaims the RKBA without reservation, whether we use it for self-defense, hunting, marksmanship, or any other purpose. No-one has the right to do something wrong, but in the US, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

Monty

occiferdave

11-17-2002, 12:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sparky:
Has your experience as a victim of crime led you to any insights regarding armed self defense? <hr /></blockquote>Yes. I didn

Sparky

11-17-2002, 09:03 AM

dave,

I know it takes alot to say that you changed your mind. I commend you.

I am sorry about what happened. I know it creeps you out in ways that you wouldn't think. But it really is normal.... being creeped out I mean.

One thing... you said, "... with a weapon, I am more likely to stand my ground."

I know that you are talking about you, but I am going to be so forward as to say that you shouldn't be so sure about that.

I know that for myself, I am just as likely, if not more lkely, to avoid confrontation and even "run away" perhaps because I am armed.

Just having a gun doesn't make me any less reluctant to be in a life or death situation or to shoot someone.

Plus, just because you have a gun doesn't mean that you lose your head.

As an example, I was off-duty in a restaraunt once and noticed that the cashier was being robbed. She wasn't in immediate danger, the guy grabbed the cash and ran. Sure.. I thought about the "Dirty Hairy" thing, but that would've been stupid... I just got a good look at the guy and the car he got into. Ended up being an ex-employee.

Anyway.. as another example.. I still carry all of my money in a money clip. I haven't been mugged in years as my lifestyle has changed and I avoid those situations like the plague. But my planned strategy is still the same... they want my money and threaten me with force.. fine I'll throw my money one way and run the other way.

I don't want to shoot some thug and go through all of that BS over some money.

Your arguement didn't sound circular, it's just that you do want the best of both worlds. So do I . I hate carrying a gun. I resent the hell out of it. I shouldn't have to be armed. It is a real PITA. It's heavy. It screws with my wardrobe. I don't want to have to keep an eye on things when I am out and about! If we could keep violent criminals actually IN the prison for awhile, maybe I wouldn't have to... I could go on and on..

But in the end, thugs will always be thugs. Human nature is human nature. Build your homes on the sloves of Vesuvius and all of that....

Take care!

Sparky

11-17-2002, 09:17 AM

More about the rights of "the people"

"Some say the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but rather a collective one that can be regulated. This is completely false. It refers to "the right of the people," but so do other sections of the Constitution when referring to individual rights. In addition, the Supreme Court decided that "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments means "all individuals." Every single one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights. In fact, only one, the Tenth, even makes a mention of a collective right: that of the states. "
<a href="http://morphogeneticjon.tripod.com/amnd2.html" target="_blank">http://morphogeneticjon.tripod.com/amnd2.html</a>

[i]"Every time the word "people" is used in the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is clearly intended to refer to individual Americans. This means each and every individual

Bill R

11-17-2002, 10:42 AM

Are you that naive to believe that the weapons that you possess are any match for the weapons that the armed forces are provided with, and that any tyrannical government with the best equiped armed forces in the world would be afraid of the well-armed citizenry?

Artie, I have faith in the fact that the members of our armed forces are citizens. Approximately half of our military folks are reservists. They are truly citizen soldiers. I believe that if things got bad enough that a significant portion of the civilians found they had no better option than to take up arms, a significant portion of the military would join us. When those members of the armed forces joined us they would bring resources. It would not just be grunts I believe there would be at least field grade officers joining. No we don't have pre-selected leaders. We pray that none of these things would ever come to pass. Leaders have a way of rising to the occasion.

Sparky

11-17-2002, 12:56 PM

reminds me of a survey..

<a href="http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html" target="_blank">http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html</a>

<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no20/vo11no20_survey.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no20/vo11no20_survey.htm</a>

in a survey presented to US Navy and Marines -

Q46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

Strongly Agree
agree
No opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree

[ 11-17-2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Sparky ]

Watchman

11-17-2002, 07:28 PM

We have discussed this very survey at work when news of it first came out. We have several people at work that are in the Reserves, Army,Navy,Airforce and even a few "Jarheads" :D although most of ours are USN.

We have Captains USN,Commanders,Majors,Colonels, LT Colonels and about every rank of officer and enlisted man.

At the time of the survey the general consensus was if the US Military was tasked to confinscating and seizing weapons that most of those that commanded units would refuse to participate. Of course, I realize that this is but a small percentage that believe that way but they most thought that the military stood and exellent chance of splitting down the middle. I'm sure that some people would do whatever they were told, but in any case IF a scenario like the one posted presented itself, in the very least it would be very interesting.

Since we already have an idea of how the military "feels", Ive often wondered how many COPS would participate in rounding up weapons if asked to do so ? Any insights on that ?

[ 11-17-2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Sparky

11-17-2002, 08:58 PM

Citizen: I'd like to register my weapons.

Officer Sparky: Sure, just fill this out.

-wait-

Citizen: Okay. All filled out.

Sparky: Yes, sir. We'll forward these through the proper channels. Habe a nice day.

<the faint whirring of a shredder can be heard in the background>

Watchman

11-17-2002, 10:19 PM

:D <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Mike Tx

11-18-2002, 03:59 AM

This is not meant to flame the police, but, and it's a big butt :) , If the police were told to go out and confiscate weapons, I'm sure many would refuse/resist doing that. But in reality, unless they are prepared to be fired, or quit their job, I can't see how they could not confiscate.

What I mean is this: Joe Officer does not think the government has the authority to confiscate weapons from privately owned citizens because the constitution gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. He doesn't want to do it and will not.

Bill The Cop doesn't see a need for people to be armed, and has no problem going house to house taking firearms for their own good.

Now here is where it gets tough. As I see it, it involves the way police work. If the police were going to collect firearms, they would know that some people are going to refuse to turn them in, and may even become violent and try and shoot first. So, the police would naturally go house to house in groups of more than one officer, right? Most likely four or five?

So the problem comes about when Bill The Cop sees Joe Officer refuse to do his job by not taking a citizens gun and tells on him. Joe either has to comply with is orders or face charges or resign, and give up his guns. And that's tough to do when you have a family.

In reality, I don't think this will ever happen, but that's how it would happen, in my opinion.

Niteshift

11-18-2002, 08:15 AM

"Are you that naive to believe that the weapons that you possess are any match for the weapons that the armed forces are provided with, and that any tyrannical government with the best equiped armed forces in the world would be afraid of the well-armed citizenry?"

A citizenry armed with small arms can never prevail against a large, well-equipped army. :rolleyes:

That's why it didn't happen to the US in Vietnam, the French in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the British in the US, Chiang Kai-Shek in China, Battista in Cuba or Somoza in Nicaragua.

In fact, I'd submit to you that the countries of Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique and Zimbabwe wouldn't even exist if guerilla warfare didn't defeat standing armies.

Now then..... This arguement is simple Artie. We have a Constitutional RIGHT to own firearms for self protection.

Now, before you start arguing again about that RIGHT, allow me to give you a few unbiased sources:

Attorney Michael Kinsley, Co-host of CNN's Crossfire and member of Handgun Control Inc. (CLEARLY for gun control): "Unfortunately there is a Second Amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you are trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way that they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory"

Another interesting Kinsley quote during his review of a Michigan Law Review article: (and if this doesn't qualify him as unbiased, nothing will): If there is a reply, the gun controllers haven't made it... Establishing a flat ban on handguns would be unconstitutional. Kates builds a distressingly strong case. Gun nuts are unconvincing, at least to me, in their attempts to argue that the individual right to bear arms is still as vital to freedom as it was in 1792. But the right is still there."

Kinsley doesn't agree with "gun nuts", but has to admit that the RIGHT still does apply.

Professor Robert Shalhope, a non-gun owning historian: "Clearly, these men (the authors of the Constitution) believed that the perpetuation of the republican spirit and character in their society depended upon the freeman's possession of arms as well as his ability and willingness to defend both himself and society"

Professor Sanford Levinson, author of a standard law school textbook on the Constitution, (Processes of Constitutional decision Making) admitted, to his own embarrassment at having to conclude after his research that private gun ownership could NOT be prohibited. This is contrary to the opinions of the ACLU, of which Stanford is a member.

I can give you more from similar sources. If these people, ones who openly admit that they want to ban gun ownership, don't qualify as unbiased under the Artie Standard, then nobody could possibly qualify.

Bottom line: Argue all you like. The right is there and even the anti-gun folks that are honest enough to look at it objectively can see it. So arguing that we don't have the right is not going to go anywhere.