Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > I wish I could disagree with you about that, but unfortunately, I > can't. I've often wished that there was a gun rights lobby out there > that could keep a calm demeanor and not resort to name calling, > polemicism, and the like. Agreed...for two reasons. First, I do believe that guns are not inherently evil. For a period of time, when I had threats against me, I kept a loaded gun next to my bed. It was a small bore rifle, that I usually used for target practice, but I was pretty sure that it would stop most people who broke into my house. I've probably fired 10,000 rounds from that gun, so I knew exactly how it responded - and I never shot anything " accidentally " or that I didn't know exactly what it was when I shot it. (strangely, it is the kind of gun that most people are least worried about people owning - a hunting rifle that doesn't even have a scope - although it is an automatic reloading gun, yet I find a rifle would probably be a much easier gun to protect myself with in this particular situation - I didn't feel a need to carry something with me to protect myself) Now, the threats against me were credible (it caused a public government building to be " locked down " for over two weeks because of threats against me and two others - I was the team leader for a guy we fired when he began to threaten employees, myself among them; All of us that were directly involved were also relocated anonymously to other workplaces so that no one knew where we were working at that point in time). And I had no intention of shooting anything I couldn't identify. Fortunately, I never needed to fire it and the person involved has moved to another state so I no longer feel the need to keep a loaded gun in my house (normally I store the gun on one side of the house, locked up, and the ammo on the other, also locked up). That said, I've seen too many of the gun rights lobby that basically says, " It's my right to do whatever I want to do " which I don't agree with. We require training to drive an automobile. Heck, I can't even run a network wire at work without being a certified electrician (ah, the benefits of working in an industry with a strong union - but that's a different subject entirely). So I have no problem with someone being forced to demonstrate competency with a firearm. I've been to several training classes, starting at age 10 or 11, so I don't really think this is too much to ask the normal citizen. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: >> My first thought was that were it real life, chances are she was shot to >> death by a gun in the first place > > Right, that was the point of the cartoon: the criminal had a gun, she didn't > because of the waiting period. (That is, the waiting period didn't affect > the criminal at all, it only stopped the woman from defending herself.) No, but it would have deterred a more spontaneous murder attempt, and if actually used properly (which obviously it isn't) could give time to look into the person's background past whether anybody has legally charged them with anything. > Under federal law, it is a felony for stalkers to own or possess firearms. > (This includes not just people who have been convicted of stalking, but even > those who have been convicted of nothing at all and just have restraining > orders against them.) That's not to say that they don't do it, of course -- > but it *does* " rule out being a gun owner " . Except not all people that act like stalkers actually have a restraining order taken out against them. Usually the target tries to just ignore them until they cross a specific line, and even then the person might not take action. (Obviously I didn't.) >> Or that given this would be her first gun, the killer likely was more >> properly trained, so he/she could out-shoot her to begin with. > > In fact, criminals rarely train with their firearms at all. I'm not talking about hardened criminals here. I'm talking about jealous partners or stalkers or similar, that could have trained well before whatever provoked the urge to attack. > Courts have consistently ruled that law enforcement agencies have no > obligation to protect any individual member of society, only society at > large. There have been a number of cases when someone called for police > assistance during a violent crime, did not receive any assistance, and > subsequently sued the police department. Courts have always ruled in favor > of the police department, saying that the police are not obligated to protect > individuals, only society as a whole. Right, and I tend to not feel that is correct. That's one of the various things that should be addressed, and that some areas are attempting to, as in the case of domestic violence cases that ultimately turn deadly. >> I have to wonder what percentage of non-financial murder or murder-suicide >> cases were committed by somebody that was legally armed. > > Very few. > > Statistics on this vary a bit from state to state, but most crimes committed > with firearms are not committed by those who are licensed to carry them. I wasn't talking crime in general. I was specifically talking about cases suggested in that cartoon, where somebody was murdered by a stalker, ex, partner, family member, etc. for emotional rather than financial reasons. > ...Revocation rates throughout the rest of > the nation are similarly very low. Except that's a completely different subject. I'm not asking how many legally armed people kill, I'm wondering what percentage of emotionally-laden type crimes were committed by somebody that was legally armed. > The reason is really very simple. Criminals don't get licenses because, > after all, they *are* criminals, and they don't care whether they're carrying > illegally. Again, though, we're not talking " criminals " -- we're talking about seemingly ordinary people that get a gun for completely different reasons, and then go over the edge. Like if you, for example, were pushed from refraining-from-suicide over to refraining-from-homicide, then for some reason slipped. >> Certain aspects of the gun lobby turn me away pretty strongly from ever >> wanting to be associated with it. >> > I wish I could disagree with you about that, but unfortunately, I can't. > I've often wished that there was a gun rights lobby out there that could keep > a calm demeanor and not resort to name calling, polemicism, and the like. Yes, though it's not just that. It's also that I don't care for the paranoia, to start with. In cases like 's, I can completely agree that he had a justified reason to fear for his life -- but there are too many where it's just some kind of nameless " they're out to get me " terror without a specific threat. Being ready for a burglary in a violent area, okay, I can understand that. But again, I hear of too many folks in particularly safe locations that seem to think that the mafia is going to knock their door down, or that they're a homing beacon for criminals or something. Another aspect I dislike is the idea that the person is somehow magically going to one-handedly fend off " the government " . If our government decides to do something, it's going to do it -- all the guns in Iraq didn't stop them, all the guns in the various cult compounds they've demolished didn't make a dent, huge crowds of violent rioting citizens (some armed) didn't help, and so forth... So I'm not really into associating with a group that actually believes it's going to do as individuals what no other group in the past, highly trained or otherwise, has accomplished. Finally, the lack of awareness of motives in those that commit crimes, and the " criminals are just evil inferior beings while legal gun owners are good " attitude disturbs me. It always reminds me of the test created long ago where you ask a person whether somebody robbing a pharmacy to obtain overpriced medicine or money to pay for it for his cancer-stricken wife is being unethical/bad or not. The first bunch of stages, the person will say he's bad because he's breaking the law, and the second set of stages take into account his situation to say he's good. -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > No, but it would have deterred a more spontaneous murder attempt, and if > actually used properly (which obviously it isn't) could give time to > look into the person's background past whether anybody has legally > charged them with anything. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Legally charged != guilty. > Except not all people that act like stalkers actually have a restraining > order taken out against them. Usually the target tries to just ignore > them until they cross a specific line, and even then the person might > not take action. (Obviously I didn't.) Nor do all restraining orders actually prevent getting a gun legally. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 jotted this down: >> No, but it would have deterred a more spontaneous murder attempt, and if >> actually used properly (which obviously it isn't) could give time to look >> into the person's background past whether anybody has legally charged them >> with anything. >> > > What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Legally charged != guilty. I was partly just responding to Parrish mentioning that anybody with a restraining order can't legally buy a gun, unless I was misunderstanding what he meant. Though another aspect of my point is that finding out whether the person is safe (for him/herself and others) while armed would seem like a good idea, though I don't know how that could be done. >> Except not all people that act like stalkers actually have a restraining >> order taken out against them. Usually the target tries to just ignore them >> until they cross a specific line, and even then the person might not take >> action. (Obviously I didn't.) > > Nor do all restraining orders actually prevent getting a gun legally. Okay, then I must have misunderstood what Parrish meant, or he was misinformed. My main point is that while the " she should have had a gun " idea might be valid, the idea that her attacker was necessarily *illegally* armed isn't. Are there still ways to buy guns legally without the waiting period? I remember hearing that there is, but that was several years ago, and I can't remember if it was specific guns, or specific trade shows, or similar loopholes available. -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > jotted this down: >>> No, but it would have deterred a more spontaneous murder attempt, >>> and if >>> actually used properly (which obviously it isn't) could give time >>> to look >>> into the person's background past whether anybody has legally >>> charged them >>> with anything. >> >> What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Legally charged != >> guilty. > > I was partly just responding to Parrish mentioning that anybody with a > restraining order can't legally buy a gun, unless I was > misunderstanding what he meant. I'd have to double-check the law on this, but IIRC, it's not *all* restraining orders. > Though another aspect of my point is that finding out whether the > person is safe (for him/herself and others) while armed would seem > like a good idea, though I don't know how that could be done. Psychic powers don't exist. > Are there still ways to buy guns legally without the waiting period? > I remember hearing that there is, but that was several years ago, and > I can't remember if it was specific guns, or specific trade shows, or > similar loopholes available. It depends on which state you live in. Most states don't have a waiting period. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: > > >> I was partly just responding to Parrish mentioning that anybody with a >> restraining order can't legally buy a gun, unless I was misunderstanding >> what he meant. > > I'd have to double-check the law on this, but IIRC, it's not *all* > restraining orders. I'm certainly curious what kinds do/don't work for keeping a potential attacker from arming him/herself, and what kinds fail. >> Though another aspect of my point is that finding out whether the person is >> safe (for him/herself and others) while armed would seem like a good idea, >> though I don't know how that could be done. > > Psychic powers don't exist. I am aware of that. There are other means of determining safety, though. It seems that there are certainly (more) stringent checks and testing of anybody that wishes to get a job teaching children, for example, so something must exist. >> Are there still ways to buy guns legally without the waiting period? I >> remember hearing that there is, but that was several years ago, and I can't >> remember if it was specific guns, or specific trade shows, or similar >> loopholes available. > > It depends on which state you live in. Most states don't have a waiting > period. That's what I had thought. It would be interesting to see the domestic homicide rate in states that have a waiting period versus those that don't have them, and whether it made a difference or not. -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > I'm certainly curious what kinds do/don't work for keeping a potential > attacker from arming him/herself, and what kinds fail. I know with my potential attacker, he put in a request for a concealed weapon. Because my job involves work with law enforcement, I tried to get them to do something to prevent the request (which was pending at the time of the threats - he was bragging about doing it). Unfortunately, they could only say, " Unless he's broken the law, we can't really do anything. " (fortunately, somehow, the application got lost in the law enforcement office after I mentioned this - so I still would recommend people let law enforcement know about these things...) > I am aware of that. There are other means of determining safety, > though. It seems that there are certainly (more) stringent checks and > testing of anybody that wishes to get a job teaching children, for > example, so something must exist. All a teacher has to do besides pass the hiring process (just like anyone has to do for *any* job) is prove they don't have any criminal convinctions that would affect their ability to care for children. Of course there is always the first conviction. > That's what I had thought. It would be interesting to see the domestic > homicide rate in states that have a waiting period versus those that > don't have them, and whether it made a difference or not. I suspect there may be a correlation, but you'd have to correct for other factors. States with poor IT infrastructures will have waiting periods. They also tend to be rural and poor states, which introduce other variables. It's hard to conduct a *good* study with a control and experimental group on this. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: >> >>> I was partly just responding to Parrish mentioning that anybody >>> with a >>> restraining order can't legally buy a gun, unless I was >>> misunderstanding >>> what he meant. >> >> I'd have to double-check the law on this, but IIRC, it's not *all* >> restraining orders. > > I'm certainly curious what kinds do/don't work for keeping a potential > attacker from arming him/herself, and what kinds fail. I believe the only ROs that legally bar a firearm purchase are those pertaining to domestic violence. Nevertheless, if someone is determined to get a gun, he can get one. You can certainly put obstacles in his way, but you can't stop him. At best, you can only slow him down. > There are other means of determining safety, though. It seems that > there are certainly (more) stringent checks and testing of anybody > that wishes to get a job teaching children, for example, so something > must exist. What kind of tests do they give teachers? >>> Are there still ways to buy guns legally without the waiting >>> period? I >>> remember hearing that there is, but that was several years ago, and >>> I can't >>> remember if it was specific guns, or specific trade shows, or >>> similar >>> loopholes available. >> >> It depends on which state you live in. Most states don't have a >> waiting >> period. > > That's what I had thought. It would be interesting to see the > domestic homicide rate in states that have a waiting period versus > those that don't have them, and whether it made a difference or not. That kind of thing wouldn't be hard to Google and put together. The Brady Campaign web site will give you a state-by-state breakdown on which states have a waiting period and which ones don't. It varies quite a bit. Here in land, there's no wait on long guns, but there's a seven-day wait on handguns. IIRC, California has a 15-day wait on all guns. Vermont has no waiting periods at all. New York City has a de facto waiting period of several months, since that's how long it takes to get all the legal garbage processed. And so on. The FBI would be your best source for a categorical breakdown on homicide and/or other crime rates (it's also included with each year's World Almanac), although I'm not sure whether they break homicide rates down by type in the way that you're asking about. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > No, but it would have deterred a more spontaneous murder attempt, and > if actually used properly (which obviously it isn't) could give time > to look into the person's background past whether anybody has legally > charged them with anything. The point you're missing is that background checks, waiting periods, and the like have no impact on criminals because most criminals do not acquire their firearms legally. I remember seeing a story about this on " Sixty Minutes " once when I was a kid. They went to an elementary school in New York City, which has (arguably) the strictest controls on handguns in the nation, short of an actual ban. Buying a handgun legally in New York City typically takes the better part of a year, but buying one on the street is quick, easy, and cheap. " Sixty Minutes " went into that elementary school and asked all of the kids there if they knew where to get a handgun if they wanted to get one, and they all said yes. > Except not all people that act like stalkers actually have a > restraining order taken out against them. In which case, legally, there is a presumption of innocence. >>> Or that given this would be her first gun, the killer likely was >>> more >>> properly trained, so he/she could out-shoot her to begin with. >> >> In fact, criminals rarely train with their firearms at all. > > I'm not talking about hardened criminals here. I'm talking about > jealous partners or stalkers or similar, that could have trained well > before whatever provoked the urge to attack. Those who take the time to train with their firearms, take safety courses, and so forth are not typically of the same mentality as criminals are. >> Courts have consistently ruled that law enforcement agencies have no >> obligation to protect any individual member of society, only society >> at >> large. There have been a number of cases when someone called for >> police >> assistance during a violent crime, did not receive any assistance, >> and >> subsequently sued the police department. Courts have always ruled >> in favor >> of the police department, saying that the police are not obligated >> to protect >> individuals, only society as a whole. > > Right, and I tend to not feel that is correct. I don't blame you, but regardless of whether that's the way things should be or not, it's the way things *are*. The plain simple fact of the matter is, in this country, the government has no obligation to protect you from criminals, which means that you need to make arrangements to protect yourself rather than relying on someone else to protect you. > I wasn't talking crime in general. I was specifically talking about > cases suggested in that cartoon, where somebody was murdered by a > stalker, ex, partner, family member, etc. for emotional rather than > financial reasons. It's still the case. Those who are licensed to carry are generally much more law-abiding than those who are not. > I'm not asking how many legally armed people kill, I'm wondering what > percentage of emotionally-laden type crimes were committed by somebody > that was legally armed. Some Googling will help you with this. :-) In Utah, for example, there are over 40,000 permit holders. Five permits have been revoked for either murder or attempted murder. (Then, of course, there's the question of whether all five of those murders/attempted murders would have been avoided if the perp had not had a permit. It's possible they would have happened anyway.) > It's also that I don't care for the paranoia, to start with. In cases > like 's, I can completely agree that he had a justified reason to > fear for his life -- but there are too many where it's just some kind > of nameless " they're out to get me " terror without a specific threat. > Being ready for a burglary in a violent area, okay, I can understand > that. But again, I hear of too many folks in particularly safe > locations that seem to think that the mafia is going to knock their > door down, or that they're a homing beacon for criminals or something. One of the reasons that a lot of those locations are " particularly safe " is precisely *because* the population at large is generally armed. A while back, for example, Kennesaw, Georgia, made gun ownership mandatory, and after that happened, the crime rate dropped like a *rock* because criminals knew that no matter which home they wanted to break into, they were guaranteed to be facing an armed homeowner. > Another aspect I dislike is the idea that the person is somehow > magically going to one-handedly fend off " the government " . If our > government decides to do something, it's going to do it -- all the > guns in Iraq didn't stop them, all the guns in the various cult > compounds they've demolished didn't make a dent, huge crowds of > violent rioting citizens (some armed) didn't help, and so forth... So > I'm not really into associating with a group that actually believes > it's going to do as individuals what no other group in the past, > highly trained or otherwise, has accomplished. " No other group has ever accomplished that " ...? Have you ever heard of the American Revolution? ;-) Admittedly, the idea of keeping the people armed to prevent tyranny doesn't always work out in practice. But also in practice, a lot of tyranny is preceded by public disarmament. Germany, Laos, and Turkey come to mind. > Finally, the lack of awareness of motives in those that commit crimes, > and the " criminals are just evil inferior beings while legal gun > owners are good " attitude disturbs me. It always reminds me of the > test created long ago where you ask a person whether somebody robbing > a pharmacy to obtain overpriced medicine or money to pay for it for > his cancer-stricken wife is being unethical/bad or not. The first > bunch of stages, the person will say he's bad because he's breaking > the law, and the second set of stages take into account his situation > to say he's good. The right's attitude toward crime and criminals is often disturbingly simplistic, I agree. There is too much emphasis on preventing the crime without addressing its root causes. It's probably not coincidental, for example, that crime goes up when the economy is bad, or that most criminals have poor reading skills. Those things need to be addressed, but the right tends to ignore that. Big mistake, I agree. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: >> There are other means of determining safety, though. It seems that there >> are certainly (more) stringent checks and testing of anybody that wishes >> to get a job teaching children, for example, so something must exist. >> > > What kind of tests do they give teachers? I'm sure it varies by state... In California, one of the requirements is completion of the " Character and Identification Clearance " which requires that the person not only report any convictions, but even allegations (including pending) of misconduct regarding children -- which the state then double-checks on based on SS#, fingerprints, and so forth. There's also that the design of the system here makes it difficult to get hired if you have much in the way of difficulties. The required teaching prep programs after the bachelor's degree tend to include being carefully monitored (including under high-stress situations with students), frequent checks with the campus counselor as well as one's supervising advisor, and so forth. Getting a bad report from any of these would then mess up one's ability to ever manage to be hired in what's already a fairly competitive field here. On top of that, in many districts, potential new teachers (including student teachers) have to face grilling by both boards of admin/teachers *and* students in order to earn recommendation. On top of that, though less importantly, teachers here are required to have a bachelor's degree, pass the GRE (to get into a grad school), the California Basic Education Skills Test, a U.S. Constitutional knowledge examination, assessment in teaching literacy, plus exams (or grad-school recommendation letters) for each of the subjects that the person will be teaching. It's possible to get an emergency 30-day permit to substitute-teach once one has obtained the bachelor's degree, passed the CBEST, and dealt with other misc. evaluations, but that's more of a glorified baby-sitting job. (Though if you wish to be a credentialed childcare provider, incidentally, it requires many of the same hoops listed above, including the in-depth examination of " character " and an avalanche of training.) -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > I'm sure it varies by state... In California, one of the requirements is > completion of the " Character and Identification Clearance " which > requires that the person not only report any convictions, but even > allegations (including pending) of misconduct regarding children -- > which the state then double-checks on based on SS#, fingerprints, and so > forth. Yes, they can move here if they have a clean record, a degree, and can pass some basic professional tests. And if they move to CA from WY, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't give CA a way of verifying that information other then convictions. > It's possible to get an emergency 30-day permit to substitute-teach once > one has obtained the bachelor's degree, passed the CBEST, and dealt with > other misc. evaluations, but that's more of a glorified baby-sitting > job. (Though if you wish to be a credentialed childcare provider, > incidentally, it requires many of the same hoops listed above, including > the in-depth examination of " character " and an avalanche of training.) I had credentials in WY to substitute teach for a while. I think you needed 60 hours of college. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: > The point you're missing is that background checks, waiting periods, and the > like have no impact on criminals because most criminals do not acquire their > firearms legally. Again, I'm NOT talking about " criminals " -- I'm talking about domestic violence situations. >> Except not all people that act like stalkers actually have a restraining >> order taken out against them. > > In which case, legally, there is a presumption of innocence. Yes, which is a bit of a problem when the " innocence " is because the victim either doesn't know enough to take out a restraining order, feels too threatened to do so, or otherwise can't manage to do it. >> I'm not talking about hardened criminals here. I'm talking about jealous >> partners or stalkers or similar, that could have trained well before >> whatever provoked the urge to attack. > > Those who take the time to train with their firearms, take safety courses, > and so forth are not typically of the same mentality as criminals are. Exactly what mentality are you referring to here? Are you saying that people that train with firearms and take safety courses can't be domestic abusers (those most prone to the specific kind of murder I'm talking about)? Or can't get into emotional/financial situations that would drive them to attack others for money or out of rage/desperation? > I don't blame you, but regardless of whether that's the way things should be > or not, it's the way things *are*... I'm not denying that's how things are. I'm saying it's a problem that should be addressed, and that some areas (at least) are attempting to rectify. > Those who are licensed to carry are generally much more > law-abiding than those who are not. That doesn't mean that they lack personality elements that would lead to them killing, which is more my point. The cause of the kind of violence I'm referring to (including violent robbery) is basically that of either being too desperate to care about the consequences or incapable of understanding enough; I've been there enough times myself. Yet I could easily obtain a gun if I jumped through the legal hoops, then blow somebody away the next time I hit that " desperate and furious " point. >> I'm not asking how many legally armed people kill, I'm wondering what >> percentage of emotionally-laden type crimes were committed by somebody that >> was legally armed. >> > > Some Googling will help you with this. :-) In Utah, for example, there are > over 40,000 permit holders. Five permits have been revoked for either murder > or attempted murder. (Then, of course, there's the question of whether all > five of those murders/attempted murders would have been avoided if the perp > had not had a permit. It's possible they would have happened anyway.) You're still talking in terms of revoked permits, rather than percentage of the attacks. They're very different things... To turn things around: most calico cats are female, but not all female cats are calico. I'm asking what percentage of female cats are calico, and you just keep telling me most of the calicos are non-male. > One of the reasons that a lot of those locations are " particularly safe " is > precisely *because* the population at large is generally armed. Not necessarily the case. It's sure not the case where I live... It's because the area is predominantly well-off financially and doesn't have a large population of people in life situations that would push them to rob houses or kill. (Most people where I live are *not* armed.) It still also doesn't address the paranoia issue. I'm talking about people in safe areas that are unreasonably afraid of attacks, rather than the theorized reasons that there's a lack of crime. > A while back, for example, Kennesaw, Georgia, made gun ownership mandatory, > and after that happened, the crime rate dropped like a *rock* because > criminals knew that no matter which home they wanted to break into, they were > guaranteed to be facing an armed homeowner. There are also other ways to address that issue. How can you make gun ownership mandatory when not everybody in the town/city can legally own one (which, unless the area had virtually no crime rate, wouldn't make any sense)? > " No other group has ever accomplished that " ...? Have you ever heard of the > American Revolution? -) I was referring to the US Government, which *was* the one that won the American Revolution. Can you name a successful citizen uprising against it since then? On US soil? > Admittedly, the idea of keeping the people armed to prevent tyranny doesn't > always work out in practice. But also in practice, a lot of tyranny is > preceded by public disarmament. Germany, Laos, and Turkey come to mind. I haven't studied Laos or Turkey. Germany, however, didn't need to disarm its citizens -- they were perfectly willing to go along with what was happening there, as you might recall. Similar to in the USA, where people have at various points been quite content to blindly support our government in persecuting various groups. > It's probably not coincidental, for example, that crime goes up when the > economy is bad, or that most criminals have poor reading skills. Those > things need to be addressed, but the right tends to ignore that. Big > mistake, I agree. Exactly, and no, it's not a coincidence at all; think about how desperate poverty has made you... It's not just the political right, though -- leftist gun-right activists like yourself fall in the trap as well. If it were just the Right, I wouldn't care as much. -- DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 > Again, I'm NOT talking about " criminals " -- I'm talking about domestic > violence situations. Those who commit domestic violence *are* criminals. > Yes, which is a bit of a problem when the " innocence " is because the > victim either doesn't know enough to take out a restraining order, > feels too threatened to do so, or otherwise can't manage to do it. Maybe so. I will readily agree that the system isn't perfect, but presumption of innocence is the foundation upon which a free society rests. It simply can't be discarded -- that would be *far* too dangerous. >> Those who take the time to train with their firearms, take safety >> courses, >> and so forth are not typically of the same mentality as criminals >> are. > > Exactly what mentality are you referring to here? Are you saying that > people that train with firearms and take safety courses can't be > domestic abusers (those most prone to the specific kind of murder I'm > talking about)? No, I'm saying only that it's less likely because those who actually trouble themselves to study their firearms, take safety courses, and the like are not generally the type to engage in that kind of behavior. (Generally. Of course there are exceptions.) > Or can't get into emotional/financial situations that would drive them > to attack others for money or out of rage/desperation? Same response. >> I don't blame you, but regardless of whether that's the way things >> should be >> or not, it's the way things *are*... > > I'm not denying that's how things are. I'm saying it's a problem that > should be addressed, and that some areas (at least) are attempting to > rectify. Some of us choose to address by recognizing that the primary person responsible for our safety is ourselves, not someone else. If someone else wants to help, that's great and is certainly welcome, but it's not something that you should rely on. Besides which, even if the police did have an obligation to protect individual citizens (which they don't), in an emergency, you'd still have to hope that: 1) you'd actually have a way to summon the police, and 2) they'd get there in time to help. Neither of those is a given, not by a long shot. >> Those who are licensed to carry are generally much more >> law-abiding than those who are not. > > That doesn't mean that they lack personality elements that would lead > to them killing, which is more my point. No, but it does mean that they're less likely to have them. >> Some Googling will help you with this. :-) In Utah, for example, >> there are >> over 40,000 permit holders. Five permits have been revoked for >> either murder >> or attempted murder. (Then, of course, there's the question of >> whether all >> five of those murders/attempted murders would have been avoided if >> the perp >> had not had a permit. It's possible they would have happened >> anyway.) > > You're still talking in terms of revoked permits, rather than > percentage of the attacks. They're very different things... To turn > things around: most calico cats are female, but not all female cats > are calico. I'm asking what percentage of female cats are calico, and > you just keep telling me most of the calicos are non-male. The number of revoked permits refers directly to the percentage of attacks, because there have been five permit holders who had their permits revoked for being convicted of either murder or attempted murder (over a period of several years). Utah's " shall issue " law was passed in 1995. From 1995 to date, Utah has had approximately 530 murders, out of which fewer than five -- that is, less than one percent -- were committed by CCW permit holders. In other words, murderers don't obey the law. Go figure. ;-) >> One of the reasons that a lot of those locations are " particularly >> safe " is >> precisely *because* the population at large is generally armed. > > Not necessarily the case. No, not necessarily, true. Crime is complicated. > (Most people where I live are *not* armed.) How do you know? (Seriously; I'm not trolling, here, do you know what the gun ownership rate is in your area? Most people don't.) > It still also doesn't address the paranoia issue. I'm talking about > people in safe areas that are unreasonably afraid of attacks, rather > than the theorized reasons that there's a lack of crime. *shrug* I'll probably never been burglarized or anything here. I'll probably never have a fire, either, but I still have a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher. >> A while back, for example, Kennesaw, Georgia, made gun ownership >> mandatory, >> and after that happened, the crime rate dropped like a *rock* because >> criminals knew that no matter which home they wanted to break into, >> they were >> guaranteed to be facing an armed homeowner. > > There are also other ways to address that issue. How can you make gun > ownership mandatory when not everybody in the town/city can legally > own one (which, unless the area had virtually no crime rate, wouldn't > make any sense)? There were exceptions to the law, of course -- convicted felons and the like were exempted. >> " No other group has ever accomplished that " ...? Have you ever heard >> of the >> American Revolution? -) > > I was referring to the US Government, which *was* the one that won the > American Revolution. Can you name a successful citizen uprising > against it since then? On US soil? No, of course not -- but it has happened elsewhere. The mujahedeen, for example, which was basically a bunch of ragtag desert folks with no training and nothing but a variety of small arms, going up against the military might of the Soviet Union -- one of the two most powerful armies in the world at the time. And the mujahedeen *won*. So the idea that bunch of schmucks with rifles can't stop a government is obviously not true. > Germany, however, didn't need to disarm its citizens -- they were > perfectly willing to go along with what was happening there, as you > might recall. Much of Germany was. The Jews and others were not, which is why the government disarmed them. That one Jewish uprising (I can't remember the name) would probably have gone very differently if they'd been a bit better armed. >> It's probably not coincidental, for example, that crime goes up when >> the >> economy is bad, or that most criminals have poor reading skills. >> Those >> things need to be addressed, but the right tends to ignore that. Big >> mistake, I agree. > > Exactly, and no, it's not a coincidence at all; think about how > desperate poverty has made you... I'm very much aware of that. > It's not just the political right, though -- leftist gun-right > activists like yourself fall in the trap as well. All five of us? *chuckle* ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 DeGraf wrote: > It's also that I don't care for the paranoia, to start with. In > cases like 's, I can completely agree that he had a justified > reason to fear for his life -- but there are too many where it's just > some kind of nameless " they're out to get me " terror without a > specific threat. Most of us will be victims of violent crime during our lifetimes. You can check the National Crime Victimization survey results online to see this. At what point does it become paranoia? > Being ready for a burglary in a violent area, okay, > I can understand that. But again, I hear of too many folks in > particularly safe locations that seem to think that the mafia is > going to knock their door down, or that they're a homing beacon for > criminals or something. So is it also paranoia for people that do not have a particular threat of a fire to own a smoke detector or a fire extinguisher? Or for people that do not particularly expect to be in a car accident to wear seat belts? > Another aspect I dislike is the idea that the person is somehow > magically going to one-handedly fend off " the government " . If our > government decides to do something, it's going to do it -- all the > guns in Iraq didn't stop them, all the guns in the various cult > compounds they've demolished didn't make a dent, huge crowds of > violent rioting citizens (some armed) didn't help, and so forth... > So I'm not really into associating with a group that actually > believes it's going to do as individuals what no other group in the > past, highly trained or otherwise, has accomplished. In World War II, the one thing that deterred the Japanese from planning an invasion of mainland US was their fear of American " deer hunters. " In the Warsaw Ghetto in Poland during that same war, a small group of poorly-armed Jews held off the Nazis for quite some time, until they were burned out. It does not take much of a popular resistance (in " asymmetrical warfare " ) to render all of the technology of an army irrelevant. The Americans and others were unable to prevail against a guerilla foe in Vietnam. If the insurgents had the popular support of the Iraqis (and they don't), then it would be wholly impossible for even the US military, with all its power and technology, to defeat them... some even now suggest that this is a war the US cannot win. > Finally, the lack of awareness of motives in those that commit > crimes, and the " criminals are just evil inferior beings while legal > gun owners are good " attitude disturbs me. Yes, it has been quite clear that the opponents of gun rights seem to believe that there is no real difference between those out there that seek to victimize others for a living, and those who are just and reasonable in their conduct. The attitude that any of us, if allowed to possess tools of deadly force, is likely to " snap " and take out several innocent passers-by disturbs me. There is a difference between criminals and non-criminals-- it is the same small group of criminals that is responsible for the majority of crime, violent and nonviolent. Most of the violent criminals have LONG histories of violent crime; they are not just people that " snapped " and went nuts. While those cases capture the attention of the news media, they are in fact quite rare. > It always reminds me of > the test created long ago where you ask a person whether somebody > robbing a pharmacy to obtain overpriced medicine or money to pay for > it for his cancer-stricken wife is being unethical/bad or not. The > first bunch of stages, the person will say he's bad because he's > breaking the law, and the second set of stages take into account his > situation to say he's good. That is a made-up hypothetical example. I am dealing with the real world here. In the real world, most violent crime is committed by people that have long rap sheets. The myth of the criminal as good person turned bad by circumstance is just that-- a myth. It happens at times, but the vast majority of cases are not like this. And the answer is yes, the armed robber who robs a pharmacy is bad/criminal/unethical. There are lawful ways of dealing with crises such as his; ways that do not involve the victimization of others. " Need " may play a role in sentencing of the robber of the pharmacy, but it should not play a role in whether he is convicted. And, it should be noted, there are a LOT of people in this situation; cancer treatment is expensive, and a lot of the people that get cancer are poor... yet there are not many armed robberies of pharmacies going on. Most lawful people don't turn criminal just because of circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 DeGraf wrote: > Okay, then I must have misunderstood what Parrish meant, or he was > misinformed. My main point is that while the " she should have had a > gun " idea might be valid, the idea that her attacker was necessarily > *illegally* armed isn't. Not " necessarily, " true, but if the fictitious woman was afraid enough to go purchase a gun, it would be quite rational for her to get a restraining order against the person stalking her. I certainly would if I had a stalker, even though I realize that " paper protection " does little good against someone that wants to do you harm. Murder is illegal; so is stalking... so if you have a stalker intent on murdering you, he has already shown that he is not concerned with the laws. A piece of paper that says " stay at least 1000 feet away " is not going to mean much. However, it can still prove useful... but in and of itself, it means little. From the above-mentioned cartoon example, we do not know that the attacker even used a gun to kill the woman. He may have used a length of re-bar, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, or a knitting needle to kill her. A woman is at a severe disadvantage against a male with contact weapons or no weapon. > Are there still ways to buy guns legally without the waiting period? Not in California. In California, all gun sales must go through licensed dealers, and there is a mandatory ten day waiting period. Here in Arizona, as in any other state that has no specific regulation on this (and is thus governed by federal law), there is no waiting period. You pass the National Instant Check (background check), which takes 30 seconds, and you fill out the forms and paythe money, and you are handed your gun and sent on your way. If neither the seller nor the buyer is a licensed dealer, and the seller is actually just a private seller and not someone that is actually an unlicensed dealer, than you simply buy the gun as if it were a VCR or any other item you may sell lawfully. > I remember hearing that there is, but that was several years ago, and > I can't remember if it was specific guns, or specific trade shows, or > similar loopholes available. There is no " gun show loophole. " That's propaganda by a bunch of people out there that want to regulate guns out of the hands of citizens, one incremental, " reasonable " step at a time, and they rely on people hearing about a loophole so many times that they take it as fact that said loophole exists, without knowing what that loophole is. The " loophole " that some people think exists is in the laws as described in the paragraph I wrote before this one. Licensed gun dealers in any part of the US have to do background checks and paperwork on every person to whom they sell a gun-- this is true whether these licensed dealers sell at a shop, out of the trunk of their car, at a gun show, or at their house. Anyone who is a licensed dealer must do this for every gun transfer (sale), without exception... and everyone who sells guns for profit must have a license (called a Federal Firearms License, or FFL). Private parties, who are just regular people that own guns without intent to engage in commerce or to sell those guns for a profit, are not subject to the federal legislation governing what licensed gun dealers must do. People who do sell guns for profit or commerce without a license are breaking the law, and if they try to do that at a gun show, they will no doubt be arrested quickly, as gun shows are always fairly *crawling* with undercover BATFE agents. What has some people so upset is the idea that a person can lawfully collect a great number of guns over time, and then decide that, for whatever reason, he must liquidate them. Often, the gun collector has died, and the next of kin would prefer cash, not several safes filled with guns. These people could then lawfully go to a gun show and sell off the collection without requiring background checks, since the seller is not engaged in commerce; he is simply liquidating assets. I can tell you that such things at gun shows are quite rare, having been to gun shows, and I can also tell you that the BATFE is *all* over the people that do this... BATFE assumes up front that this is illegal commerce going on, and leaves it up to the accused to prove otherwise. This is, of course, illegal; we have a little thing called " innocent until proven guilty " in the US, but that tends to be flatly ignored where the BATFE is concerned. In California, it is not legal for a private seller to sell a gun to anyone. They must go through a licensed dealer, and do all of the background checks that would be required if the seller were himself a licensed dealer. I forget exactly where the report was, but it was from the FBI or some similar federal agency... approximately three percent of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 DeGraf wrote: > Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: > > > > > >> I was partly just responding to Parrish mentioning that anybody > >> with a restraining order can't legally buy a gun, unless I was > >> misunderstanding what he meant. > > > > I'd have to double-check the law on this, but IIRC, it's not *all* > > restraining orders. > > I'm certainly curious what kinds do/don't work for keeping a > potential attacker from arming him/herself, and what kinds fail. None of them keep a potential attacker from arming him/herself. The best they can do is keep the potential attacker from *legally* arming him/herself. That is the point-- making things illegal does not make them go away. If it did, this discussion would not be necessary, because murder already is illegal. > I am aware of that. There are other means of determining safety, > though. It seems that there are certainly (more) stringent checks > and testing of anybody that wishes to get a job teaching children, > for example, so something must exist. Here in America, there are not supposed to be prior restraints upon the exercising of rights. You should not have to prove to anyone that you are qualified to exercise any right before you are allowed to do so. If you are, that means that the right has been transformed into a privilege... and privileges can be revoked at any time. We don't go around restricting people every which way until the government is convinced that the person is worthy of more liberty. We don't lock all people in their houses until the government is convinced that those people will not go out victimize other people. We don't gag everyone that enters a theater, until we are convinced that the person won't yell " fire. " We don't put chastity belts on everyone until we are convinced that the person will not commit rape (forcible or statutory). We don't lock blindfolds on everyone until we are convinced that they will not use their vision to go invade another's privacy. We don't require that people making speeches, writing books, web pages, or articles in newspapers get a government license before they be allowed to express themselves. What we do in America is to presume that a person is going to do the right thing, to follow the laws, until we have some evidence to the contrary. That's part of " innocent until proven guilty. " That's a requirement for living in a free society. There are some people that abuse their rights; they do have nefarious intent when they exercise their freedoms, and they can, and should, be penalized. Even knowing that, though, we as society should not be looking to make people prove that they are worthy before having rights that, if abused, can have terrible results for others. Living in a free society requires some risk, and it is folly to assume that we can eliminate all risk from our lives by means of legislation. In terms of the vast majority of violent crimes, though, this is a moot point-- most criminals, as I mentioned before, have very long rap sheets. In any city, it is a relatively small number of people committing many crimes, not a large number of people committing a crime or two apiece. (FBI Universal crime statistics and other sources prove this.) Making first-time gun buyers and other innocent people prove their worthiness to own these defensive tools will not do anything to stop the repeat offenders-- who, if they have at least one felony conviction, are FOREVER prohibited from owning or possessing guns anyway. The bottom line is that guns are not the issue-- murderers are. It is the person that aims the gun at another person (who is not a direct threat to him at that exact moment), and who has so little regard for that other person's life that he pulls the trigger, in cold blood, that is the problem. Think about what kind of person would do that. I wouldn't, and neither would the vast majority of people in society. Would you feel safe knowing that such people are in your neighborhood even if there was some sort of magical spell preventing them from possessing guns? I don't fear guns-- I fear people that would just as soon kill me as let me walk on by, and that is true whether they have guns or not. (And, of course, if you ban guns, you set up a dynamic in which people like that, who do not care about laws, will still get guns, but where lawful people will no longer have them.) > That's what I had thought. It would be interesting to see the > domestic homicide rate in states that have a waiting period versus > those that don't have them, and whether it made a difference or not. If one spouse thinks that the other is going to harm him/her (usually her, of course), she should get a restraining order, whether or not there is a waiting period. That restraining order extends the prohibition on buying arms beyond the period of the wait, and it also bans the subject from possessing guns he already has while the order is in effect (a waiting period only delays obtaining new guns). That takes care of the person possessing guns *lawfully.* It does not prevent him from getting a gun. If he can figure out how to get ahold of illegal drugs, he can figure out how to get ahold of an illegal gun. And, unlike legal guns, illegal ones require no paperwork, cost about one fifth to tenth of what lawful arms cost, and are generally sold with the identifying marks (serial numbers) already removed. That's the whole point here-- criminals don't go to gun shops, show their ID, pay hundreds of dollars, and fill out paperwork. Making it harder and harder to get a gun at a gun shop only affects the people that go to gun shops-- and these are not the ones that commit the vast majority of crime. Now, as to your comment about studying the effects of waiting periods: There has not yet been a single credible study that has shown that *any* effort at gun control has reduced crime. There was a series of reports published (the most recent in the last few weeks-- I will search for a citation if you want) based on studies pushed by Bill Clinton and done by Janet Reno's Justice Department, in which they tried to find some bit of evidence that their gun control had reduced crime, and they found nothing. Lott's studies have shown that allowing ordinary people to carry guns concealed in public reduces violent crime (but results in an increase in property crimes, as criminals switch to less hazardous forms of offenses). Chicago has long had one of the worst records of violent crime in the US. So has Washington, DC. Both cities have draconian gun bans that make it essentially impossible for an ordinary citizen (who is not a cop) to even own a gun, let alone carry one. Baltimore, MD is not far behind, and neither are New York City and Los Angeles. Those, too, are areas of strict gun control. If you look at the states that have the worst crime problems, they are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. Criminals prefer defenseless victims. The real story is that gun control is an attempt to affix an easy answer to a complex problem. Crime is not something that can be solved by banning anything; crime itself is already banned. New York City, for example, has historically had a murder rate about five times higher than London's, and this was true even when guns were legal in both cities. Here in the US, we have always had a great diversity of peoples and cultures, and while this is a strength in many ways, it is not without its pitfalls. Homogenous societies have long tended toward (all else being equal) less crime than those that are more mixed. Racial and cultural differences create natural lines where dominant groups can seek to bully less dominant groups; the smaller groups often end up (rightly) thinking that they are disenfranchised and not permitted equal participation in society, and this breeds contempt for society and its laws. This is a very complex social problem, and it won't be undone with gun laws. Here in the US, black people represent about 13 percent of the population, but commit more than half of the violent crime, murder, and murder with guns. Blacks are seven times more likely than whites to commit murder. Most of these crimes are against other blacks. Now, of course, I am sure that no one reading this (I hope anyway) thinks that there is any peculiarity with black people themselves that makes them gravitate towards violent crime. It's not that. It's a function of decades of institutional racism, in which large numbers of black individuals feel so disempowered and disenfranchised that they are not a part of society, but a victim of it... and so there is no reason to abide by its laws. It also shows that gun availability (guns are no more or less available to blacks than whites) is not a big issue in terms of rates of violent crime. Citation: US Dept. of Justice statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm In some circles, it is too politically incorrect to bring up the vastly different crime rates of various racial groups, but it is fact, no matter how unpleasant it may be. This makes getting at the real causes of violent crime politically dangerous; if a politician touches on any of this, his political opponents will immediately brand him a racist (unless he is black, I suppose), and that will seriously hurt any efforts to deal with this. It is much easier to propose things like gun control, injunctions against gang members (an abomination invented in Los Angeles), Project Exile (another abomination, one that is in this case promoted by the NRA), et cetera. Some research on the topic of violent crime in the black community indicates that the real problem is one of the lack of family support that is typical within inner-city black households. When you factor in whether there is a father figure in the household, the race difference disappears; white " broken " households are just as likely to produce children that grow to be criminals as black " broken " households. The reason, as this study suggests, for the great divide between the white and black races, in terms of violent crime rates, is that the incidence of single-parent households is far, far greater in the black community. That, of course, is a social problem, not a problem with too little legislation regarding any specific object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 > Weird thing with me, and I don't mind admitting this on this group (in part because my girlfriend doesn't read it!). I find pictures of good-looking women holding guns to be sexy. So I order something of the kind (not porn, I'm not into porn), and they assume I like guns in general, and I get on all these mailing lists and get ads for guns, gun magazines, etc. I don't care a whit about guns and am largely neutral on gun-control questions ... I just like the _women_with guns.... (And my fellow West Virginian Garner *does* kick ass in her TV show and movies.) > > I was referring to the US Government, which *was* the one that won the > > American Revolution. Can you name a successful citizen uprising > > against it since then? On US soil? The American Revolution was won by Washington stitching together a rag-tag army of poorly-equipped, poorly-trained soldiers and outrunning the British, who didn't *really* give a damn or they would have put more men and resources into the fight, for long enough until the French fleet showed up and cornered Cornwallis into a surrender. > No, of course not -- but it has happened elsewhere. The mujahedeen, > for example, which was basically a bunch of ragtag desert folks with no > training and nothing but a variety of small arms, going up against the > military might of the Soviet Union -- one of the two most powerful > armies in the world at the time. And the mujahedeen *won*. Along with a lot of material and monetary help from the United States, including directly to some guy named Osama. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 DeGraf wrote: > Parrish S. Knight jotted this down: > > The point you're missing is that background checks, waiting > > periods, and the like have no impact on criminals because most > > criminals do not acquire their firearms legally. > > Again, I'm NOT talking about " criminals " -- I'm talking about > domestic violence situations. Domestic violence is illegal. People that commit domestic violence are criminals. Do you think that if you were a man that wanted to kill his wife, that having a gun shop tell you " no " when you try to buy a gun would make you go home and forget about murder? Let's be real here. Laws prohibiting guns are no more effective than laws banning drugs. > > In which case, legally, there is a presumption of innocence. > > Yes, which is a bit of a problem when the " innocence " is because the > victim either doesn't know enough to take out a restraining order, > feels too threatened to do so, or otherwise can't manage to do it. That is the risk of living in a free society. > Exactly what mentality are you referring to here? Are you saying > that people that train with firearms and take safety courses can't be > domestic abusers (those most prone to the specific kind of murder I'm > talking about)? Or can't get into emotional/financial situations > that would drive them to attack others for money or out of > rage/desperation? What he is saying (correctly) is that the people that train with guns do not have the kind of mentality that lends them to thinking that it is okay to victimize people when your bank account is empty, or if your wife left you for your best friend. Training with guns is something that people who take responsibility for their actions do-- miscreants who think that society owes them the right to victimize others tend to possess such an unrealistic opinion of themselves that they don't think they need any training. If you have ever tried to teach someone to shoot, you know it is the macho men that are the biggest problem-- they think they know everything about guns from the start. > > I don't blame you, but regardless of whether that's the way things > > should be or not, it's the way things *are*... > > I'm not denying that's how things are. I'm saying it's a problem > that should be addressed, and that some areas (at least) are > attempting to rectify. The police will never have an obligation to help anyone. Think of the lawsuits that would follow-- every time a crime was committed, the victims could sue the police department. That would destroy the police department, for sure-- if all of the cops were busy in court rather than patrolling, and the revenue were used to pay for lawyers and to pay settlements instead of policing costs, we would have no police department of which to speak. The bottom line is that if you will not bear arms in your own defense, you should not expect some anonymous agent of the government to be *required* to do it on your behalf. > > Those who are licensed to carry are generally much more law-abiding > > than those who are not. > > That doesn't mean that they lack personality elements that would lead > to them killing, which is more my point. Actually, it does, which is why concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the general public. It means that the kind of person that would go through the hassle of getting a permit (rather than to just shove a gun into his waistband and go off to commit whichever crime he chose) are the ones that do not have the " laws don't apply to me " personality trait. > The cause of the kind of > violence I'm referring to (including violent robbery) is basically > that of either being too desperate to care about the consequences or > incapable of understanding enough; I've been there enough times > myself. Yet I could easily obtain a gun if I jumped through the > legal hoops, then blow somebody away the next time I hit that > " desperate and furious " point. That kind of scenario is largely a myth. As I mentioned, most crimes are committed by criminals with very long rap sheets (and they would be longer still if the police knew all the things they had done). The otherwise good person that is desperate enough to commit crimes is an aberration, a statistical blip that amounts to insignificance. Of course, prolonged poverty and disenfranchisement (poverty alone is not sufficient) can lead to an attitude that one has been forgotten by society, so to hell with society and its rules... but these are the people that become career criminals, and at the moment when they first decide to commit a gun offense, they almost always have long histories of lesser offenses and unarmed assault. The myth of the good person that flips out is just that-- a myth. That's not to say it does not happen, but it is very rare, and the vast majority of crimes are not committed in this way. > You're still talking in terms of revoked permits, rather than > percentage of the attacks. They revoke permits for any violent crime, not to mention for most nonviolent crimes, and in some cases, things that are not crimes at all. A little simple extrapolation will get you to the answer you seek. The number of permit holders that have had their permits revoked for cause (crimes committed, generally) is almost statistically zero... so the number of permit holders that have committed violent crimes is essentially nil. With that in mind, you can see that the percentage of violent crimes committed by permit holders is statistically almost zero. > Not necessarily the case. It's sure not the case where I live... > It's because the area is predominantly well-off financially and > doesn't have a large population of people in life situations that > would push them to rob houses or kill. (Most people where I live are > *not* armed.) Wow... if I were a criminal, I might like to know where you live. People are well-off, and are relatively defenseless. > It still also doesn't address the paranoia issue. I'm talking about > people in safe areas that are unreasonably afraid of attacks, rather > than the theorized reasons that there's a lack of crime. " Safe areas " is a myth. There is no safe area. There can be relatively safe areas, but there is no area that is " safe, " as in you know you will not be victimized. A great many victims of violent crime thought that they were safe; it was only the occasion of the crime that shattered the illusion of safety. Ask yourself this: In these so-called safe areas, are your cops armed? If the area is safe, and there are no criminals lurking in that neighborhood, why are the cops still protected with body armor, and armed with guns, tasers, clubs, pepper spray, and shotguns (which are in most every patrol car)? If the area were truly safe, as in free of criminals, the police would not need to be armed. Having a lower incidence of crime does not mean there is none, and if you ever find yourself in the position of wishing you had a gun right at that moment, it will be something you need more than you can ever remember needing something for your whole life. You only need a piece of safety equipment like a seat belt, a fire extinguisher, a smoke detector, or a gun once to make it worth all of the effort... and since none of us can tell if or when that will happen, we have to decide in advance how prepared or helpless we want to be if fate comes a-calling. > > A while back, for example, Kennesaw, Georgia, made gun ownership > > mandatory, and after that happened, the crime rate dropped like a > > *rock* because criminals knew that no matter which home they wanted > > to break into, they were guaranteed to be facing an armed > > homeowner. > > There are also other ways to address that issue. How can you make > gun ownership mandatory when not everybody in the town/city can > legally own one (which, unless the area had virtually no crime rate, > wouldn't make any sense)? There were exceptions for all of those cases, and the ordinance was never enforced (no one ever went to jail for not having a gun). However, it sent a very clear message to criminals, who are not the maniacal, unthinking beings that a lot of people make them out to be. They can and do respond to things like Kennesaw's ordinance. > > " No other group has ever accomplished that " ...? Have you ever > > heard of the American Revolution? -) > > I was referring to the US Government, which *was* the one that won > the American Revolution. Can you name a successful citizen uprising > against it since then? On US soil? The thought behind the Second Amendment was partly that such an uprising against tyranny would not be necessary in America *because* the citizens were armed. It hasn't happened on American soil because people have not, in a broad sense, seen it as necessary. > I haven't studied Laos or Turkey. Germany, however, didn't need to > disarm its citizens -- they were perfectly willing to go along with > what was happening there, as you might recall. Not correct. Hitler and the Nazis authored extremely restrictive gun control a few years before the war started. This gun control law was translated into English and used as the base of the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States. > Similar to in the > USA, where people have at various points been quite content to > blindly support our government in persecuting various groups. In that case, it wasn't the government persecuting groups, per se; it was the majority group that was persecuting people, using goverment as its tool (in part). This is why majority rule does not always make something right-- this is tyranny of the majority. > Exactly, and no, it's not a coincidence at all; think about how > desperate poverty has made you... It's not just the political right, > though -- leftist gun-right activists like yourself fall in the trap > as well. If it were just the Right, I wouldn't care as much. A lot of what I have written in this thread would get me branded as a hardcore right-winger in some groups, but many of theriht-wing gun-rights people would call me a bleeding-heart liberal for blaming institutionalized racism for the high rate of crime in the black community. This is one thing that neither the left nor right seems to grasp-- that jingoistic slogans and easy answers don't exist on either side. Banning guns will not eradicate crime, and neither would repealing all gun control laws and issuing guns to every person that might someday be a crime victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Hello all, I have watched this fascinating topic from a distance; I know citizens arming or not is a big debate in the USA. There is much less or none in Romania and Europe generally. There are a few sporting stores selling hunting weapons, and quite harsh licencing rules. A point: If almost everyone in a locality is armed, doesn't the " risk shift " on the few people known to be unarmed ? Will criminals deliberately pick on them ? or are they supposed to be defended by the network of neighbours ? And a nit-pick about the word " guns " . I suppose you all are talking about personal weapons like pistols or rifles. " Guns " are defined as artillery pieces, long relative to calibre, designed to fire at high velocity in a flat trajectory (As different from howitzers or mortars). The M1 Abrams tank has a 120 mm Gun, very penetrating The M109 has a 155 mm Howitzer, much longer-ranged. Has any US citizen a licence for such heavy Guns ? Best wishes, Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 > A point: If almost everyone in a locality is armed, doesn't > the " risk shift " on the few people known to be unarmed ? > Will criminals deliberately pick on them ? or are they > supposed to be defended by the network of neighbours ? Criminals generally don't know who is armed and who isn't, so in an area where a lot of people are armed, you get what is known as the " halo effect " . Since criminals know only that some people are armed, but not exactly who, they're less likely to try to attack anyone at all for fear that the victim they choose might be one of the ones who *is* armed. > And a nit-pick about the word " guns " . I suppose you all > are talking about personal weapons like pistols or rifles. For this discussion, yes, that's what we've been meaning. > " Guns " are defined as artillery pieces, long relative to > calibre, designed to fire at high velocity in a flat trajectory > (As different from howitzers or mortars). That's another definition, but we haven't been using that one here. We're talking about the small arms, like the ones you mentioned above. > The M1 Abrams tank has a 120 mm Gun, very penetrating > The M109 has a 155 mm Howitzer, much longer-ranged. > Has any US citizen a licence for such heavy Guns ? In the United States, that type of weaponry is in a separate category, known as " Class III Firearms " (which includes a variety of items, such as explosives, silencers, machine guns, and " large bore destructive devices " such as the ones you mention). They are legal for private ownership, but they are very heavily regulated and generally very expensive. Also, while they are legal under federal law, they are illegal in some states. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 wrote: >>The reason, as this study suggests, for the great divide between the white and black races, in terms of violent crime rates, is that the incidence of single-parent households is far, far greater in the black community. That, of course, is a social problem, not a problem with too little legislation regarding any specific object.<< Or another problem of discrimination and economic inequality, which might be addressed by equal rights legislation and day care assistance. " In 2002, women were paid 77 cents for every dollar men received. . . . These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 70 cents and Latinas 58 cents for every dollar that men earn. " (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/women/equalpay/) - Debra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Parrish S. Knight wrote: > Criminals generally don't know who is armed and who isn't, so in an > area where a lot of people are armed, you get what is known as the > " halo effect " . Since criminals know only that some people are armed, > but not exactly who, they're less likely to try to attack anyone at all > for fear that the victim they choose might be one of the ones who *is* > armed. This however can work the exact opposite. When criminals know there is a possibility they will encounter weapons they will increase their offensive tactics. Then everyone is more likely to be confronted by violence. Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 > Parrish S. Knight wrote: >> Criminals generally don't know who is armed and who isn't, so in an >> area where a lot of people are armed, you get what is known as the >> " halo effect " . Since criminals know only that some people are armed, >> but not exactly who, they're less likely to try to attack anyone at >> all >> for fear that the victim they choose might be one of the ones who *is* >> armed. > > This however can work the exact opposite. When criminals know there is > a > possibility they will encounter weapons they will increase their > offensive tactics. Then everyone is more likely to be confronted by > violence. Except that research indicates that that's not what happens. In areas where private citizens are permitted to carry concealed handguns, the violent crime rate decreases; conversely, areas where it is difficult or impossible for private citizens to carry concealed handguns, violent crime rates are much higher. Probably the best text that goes into this is " More Guns, Less Crime " , which is a highly exhaustive study of the phenomenon throughout the United States. ----- Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home... Knight Scents http://www.knightscents.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 redhottech@... wrote: > Parrish S. Knight wrote: > > > Except that research indicates that that's not what happens. In > > areas where private citizens are permitted to carry concealed > > handguns, the violent crime rate decreases; conversely, areas where > > it is difficult or impossible for private citizens to carry > > concealed handguns, violent crime rates are much higher. Probably > > the best text that goes into this is " More Guns, Less Crime " , which > > is a highly exhaustive study of the phenomenon throughout the > > United States. > > That's the exact opposite to any research I have ever seen. What you've seen is propaganda (or just a proof surrogate). There has never been a piece of accepted research that indicates *any* positive effect of gun control on crime. There have been lots of attempts, by people such as Josh Kellerman, but peer review has shown them to be wishful thinking, not fact. This certainly was the case with Belleseiles' " Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. " Belleseiles initially received the Bancroft prize for the book, but it was not long before the true nature of the work came to light-- it was a total fraud. The Bancroft prize was revoked, and Belleseiles was forced to resign his position at Emory University. None of the " research " that supports gun control has withstood peer review as well as Lott's " More Guns, Less Crime. " > There is > also one other factor. The amount of deaths because of careless use > of firearms is far greater than those prevented by home owners arming > themselves. Estimates of defensive gun uses in the US every year range from 80,000 (which is the estimate put forth by those who would want to minimize defensive gun use) to over two million. The latter figure is generally considered to be the most accurate, as there are several different studies that put the number at over Contrast that with about 1,200 accidental deaths attributable to firearms per year. The real facts are often at odds with the things " everyone knows. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Parrish S. Knight wrote: > Except that research indicates that that's not what happens. In areas > where private citizens are permitted to carry concealed handguns, the > violent crime rate decreases; conversely, areas where it is difficult > or impossible for private citizens to carry concealed handguns, violent > crime rates are much higher. Probably the best text that goes into > this is " More Guns, Less Crime " , which is a highly exhaustive study of > the phenomenon throughout the United States. That's the exact opposite to any research I have ever seen. There is also one other factor. The amount of deaths because of careless use of firearms is far greater than those prevented by home owners arming themselves. Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.