Return with us now, to the thrilling days of yesteryear.... by Dayve

Keep the Shiny side up

Well, you could always move somewhere safer, like Washington, D.C., where gun ownership is just about banned. Only 44 murders per 100,000 population per year (as of 2003) as opposed to a soaring 18.4 in wild west Dallas...ummm, maybe in wilder west Houston. Nope - 13.6. San Antonio - 7.0. Austin, 4.0. El Paso - just 3.6.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

The whole "Castle doctrine will make it High Noon all day" routine has shown itself pretty bogus in places where it has been passed. This is mainly because law-abiding citizens are law-abiding anyway, and don't shoot people for trifles, whereas law-breakers are gonna shoot people whether there's a law or not.

Since you apparently think "Castle doctrine" is a bad idea, you no doubt have statistics on increases in shootings in states where it has been passed. I'd like to see them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
going into someone else's house

kman, read the whole story... this new law, if passed, will mean open season on anyone who you feel threatened by, ANYWHERE!

I totally agree that defending your family in the home should be legal, but down on the street corner?? just shooting someone because you feel threatened... dude, this is a whole different can of worms... even if the worms deserve it.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, you could always move somewhere safer......

Geezer, sometimes moving is not an option.

Quote:
....Since you apparently think "Castle doctrine" is a bad idea,

As far as the Castle Doctrine goes, I do not oppose it, but the extention worries me. This state (TX) already has it's fair share of licensed gun carriers - and also it's fair share of totally batshit crazy rednecks - sooner or later that combination will spell disaster.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:05 AM

ARCLIGHT

YyeeeeHhaaawwww! I loves being a Texican. Now it gets even better. The next time one of those “peace loving, left headed, alGoreian cultist, street corner protesters threatens to “bash” me with his profanity laced placard, I get to shoot the miserable bag of puss. LEGALLY! It’s a dream come true.
The whole “If you let citizens carry guns they will kill everything that moves” argument has failed to materialize resoundingly. Everywhere across the country it just hasn’t happened. I don’t think that will change by expanding the “castle law”. People, however, may start treating each other a bit more polite. I got no problem with that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
As far as the Castle Doctrine goes, I do not oppose it, but the extention worries me. This state (TX) already has it's fair share of licensed gun carriers - and also it's fair share of totally batshit crazy rednecks - sooner or later that combination will spell disaster.

You might want to read the Law and form your own opinion, not what prosecutors and the paper say about it. Take your pick of formats here.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=S
B378

Also check the legislature's analysis of the bill at the same link.

Basically, if someone is trying to murder you, kidnap you, rape you, or rob you using violence, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force without having to try to retreat first. Also, if you're cleared of wrongdoing in a self-defense situation, you cannot be civilly sued for your actions.

The reason so many of the "Duty to retreat" clauses in self-defense laws are being reversed is because they have been used by some anti-gun prosecutors to charge people in such situations who did not do stuff such as jump out windows or retreat to rooms with no other exits.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:19 AM

Other countries that own even more guns per head (Canada for instance) have far lower gun crime. Most firearms are illegal in the UK and the violent crime rates are much lower.

There's something seriously wrong with the Gun culture of the states that isn't going to be solved by making it legal for law abiding citizens to shoot each other for telling someone to "fuck off".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

kman, read the whole story... this new law, if passed, will mean open season on anyone who you feel threatened by, ANYWHERE!

I like this better than the other way around; you break an attacker's leg and get sued for defending yourself.

Life is extremes, it seems Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You might want to read the Law and form your own opinion, not what prosecutors and the paper say about it.

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have formed my own opinion (i am capable of doing so, thank you)... The article from Dallas Morning News was current and seemed like a Real World topic worth discussing - maybe not.

But, can you imagine a world without guns? I know mankind would find a way to kill someone just as dead without one, but if you could just stop laughing for a second and think about what a difference there would be in this country, at least, if it were not so easy to end a life with the squeeze of a trigger... I know it will never happen, but it's not a totally unreasonable idea. (for me anyway)...

Quote:
Basically, if someone is trying to murder you, kidnap you, rape you, or rob you using violence, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force without having to try to retreat first. Also, if you're cleared of wrongdoing in a self-defense situation, you cannot be civilly sued for your actions.

Ok, no-brainer, I get it. If I were in a situation where i felt my life was threatened, i would try to protect myself by any means possible, regardless of laws - But, I still believe there will be abuses of this expanded version of the law and the potential is there for innocent lives to be lost....

Quote:
ARCLIGHT
People, however, may start treating each other a bit more polite. I got no problem with that

You could very well be right - hope so...i'm not ready to go back to dueling in the streets...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:06 AM

MARINA

Just wanted to chime in with :

Dayve, I agree that this is definitely an issue worth discussing, but it also appears to be one of those subjects people just don't want to get roped into arguing about.

All opinions about gun control aside, I think the bill is silly; not necessarily dangerous (I hope), but rather ridiculous. When you're fighting for your life you're not considering whether there is a statute to protect your actions - you just want to live in safety. Promoting this bill serves to perpetuate an atmosphere of fear by implying that the right to SHOOT someone if you feel threatened is a right that is sorely needed, and personally I think America has quite enough fear on its plate right now.

Don't make faces.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's something seriously wrong with the Gun culture of the states that isn't going to be solved by making it legal for law abiding citizens to shoot each other for telling someone to "fuck off".

Thanks Citizen, this was my first thought as well.

I want to try and clarify the term ‘threatened’.
If someone wants to do you violent harm, surly you are justified in using any means necessary to defend yourself. But suppose you are in a situation where you feel threatened simply because of perceived danger. Unfortunately, many prejudices still exist in this world and if someone feels they have the right to use deadly force because they are outside of their comfort zone and don’t like the ‘company’ they find themselves in, doesn’t a more lenient gun law invite a kind of old west, vigilante mentality?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
But, can you imagine a world without guns? I know mankind would find a way to kill someone just as dead without one, but if you could just stop laughing for a second and think about what a difference there would be in this country, at least, if it were not so easy to end a life with the squeeze of a trigger... I know it will never happen, but it's not a totally unreasonable idea. (for me anyway)...

Yeah but it would not be "a world without guns". It'd be like Washington DC..."a world without guns owned by law-abiding citizens."

If you pass a law against guns the criminals will not obey it...because they are criminals...as in folk who don't obey laws.

Now in the REAL wild west bad guys had guns. Then guns became cheap and readily available and any everyday man or woman could own one and use one and suddenly law and order was a lot more available. If every Momma and Granny in Washington was given a gun whenever they lost a child to drug violence then I suspect that the local crack houses would quickly find themselves out of business.

"Dear Mrs. Soandso, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your child. I promise that the City will do all it can to bring his killers to justice. In the meantime please accept this semi-automatic rifle, high capacity magazines, and this case of .308 Winchester ammunition. I know it will bring you no comfort in this time of grief. Be assured that we will dilligently pursue this matter at 3123 West Pennsylvania Circle, the address of those responsible for the death of your son and as a well know local gathering place for those engaging in the illegal drug trade. Be assurred that we have that address under surviellance at all times with the exception of 3pm-4:30pm daily. I advise you to not go to that place at that time as there will be no law enforcement persons in place to witness anything that may occur. Should you find yourself wishing to rid yourself of the weapon provided by the City please call 555-6723 to turn your weapon in for immediate destruction, no questions asked or forensic testing done. Sincerly Wyatte Earp, Washington DC, Citizen-Police Cooperative Association."

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
....one of those subjects people just don't want to get roped into arguing about.

Yes, I agree. There are definite opinions on both sides of the gun issue, and to argue each point ‘for or against’ is usually frustrating if not completely useless.

As for myself, I have lived in Texas for most of my life and gun ownership is taken for granted here. The crime rate in most major cities here may not be as high as Detroit or D.C., but there are plenty of violent crimes committed here each day. The border towns involved with the drug cartels of Mexico are particularly bloody.

I just feel that we are losing a little more humanity each time we give in to the more violent side of our nature. I guess I hoped that mankind would have progressed a little more than it has.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:49 AM

SHINYED

We already have that in Florida....no big deal. You must take a concealed weapons course, pass a test, & be licensed by the State. After that you can shoot anyone you want...but you damn-well better be prepared to 'splain it to the law.

I am not aware of ANY incidents of illegal shootings under this new law which took effect last year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:52 AM

MARINA

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

As for myself, I have lived in Texas for most of my life and gun ownership is taken for granted here. The crime rate in most major cities here may not be as high as Detroit or D.C., but there are plenty of violent crimes committed here each day. The border towns involved with the drug cartels of Mexico are particularly bloody.

I just feel that we are losing a little more humanity each time we give in to the more violent side of our nature. I guess I hoped that mankind would have progressed a little more than it has.

I'll second that (and just about everything else you've pointed out).

I'll also add (and I'm disabling response notification so I won't be tempted to come back and do exactly what I swore I wouldn't and get roped into a debate) that when we're comparing crime rates there seems to be this assumption that cities outside the US aren't useful reference points. Other countries (England?) have very limited gun availability - even to police - and far fewer firearm-related crimes and deaths. So while Hero and others may be able to use crime in DC vs. crime in Austin as a springboard for their positions, there is a LOT of data out there that works equally well for the opposing argument.

Don't make faces.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
Ok, no-brainer, I get it. If I were in a situation where i felt my life was threatened, i would try to protect myself by any means possible, regardless of laws - But, I still believe there will be abuses of this expanded version of the law and the potential is there for innocent lives to be lost....

The problem is, if you do this right now in Texas any place other than your home - say your place of business, or your car stopped at a traffic light - even if your are actually justified, you may likely be charged with a homicide, and get to go bankrupt paying for lawyers to keep you out of jail.

And if you aren't charged with a crime, you can still be sued in civil court by the person you had to shoot, or his relatives. More lawyers, more of your life down the drain.

In an ideal world, no one would ever have to resort to self-defense. However, you shouldn't end up saving your life from a killer just to lose it in endless litigation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Remember, if you shoot someone, shooting them in the back looks very bad.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Most firearms are illegal in the UK and the violent crime rates are much lower.

Depending on how you define "violent crime", rates in England and Wales seem to be about equal or higher than the US, just doing a little Goggle search.

Quote:
There's something seriously wrong with the Gun culture of the states that isn't going to be solved by making it legal for law abiding citizens to shoot each other for telling someone to "fuck off".

As a matter of fact, the Texas law specifically exempts shooting caused in any way by name calling.

BTW, the Gun Culture in the US is the guys who go hunting or target shooting, and are seldom involved as perpetrators of crimes. Now if we could do something about the Crime Culture, who do carry illegal weapons and do shoot(or stab, or hack, or firebomb, or...well you get the idea) someone for looking at them wrong.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Remember, if you shoot someone, shooting them in the back looks very bad.

"But officer, he was shooting at me. You mean you've never heard of a Parthian shot?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Bah, it's a common sense issue.

Not packing heat makes you an easy victim.

Packing a piece without the damn good sense to learn how to use well makes you an idiot, a danger to yourself and those around you.

Packing a piece without the damn good sense to know when, and when NOT to use it makes you a contributor to the problem.

The weapon itself is a tool, a thing, an object.
Why fear a mere object ?
For sure people are much scarier than mere things.

Think on this, and think well.

You have a fire extinguisher not because you think you can totally handle a fire, but to mitigate the situation until the cavalry, in the form of the local fire department, arrives.

A weapon should be viewed exactly the same.

Neither the Fire Dept nor the Police is gonna follow you around specifically protecting YOU, in fact they are not even legally obligated to protect you at all, specifically in the case of police.

Pistol in one hand, cell phone in the other, back against the wall, it's called self-defense, but the police despise it because when people do so, eventually they might start wondering what the police actually DO.

That being said, I prefer the Fire Dept, at least they won't show up with a flamethrower and torch your place in response to your hubris in attempting to control the fire yourself.

When it comes right down to it, living in fear of an inanimate THING is just plain silly - fear the people, not the tools.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:42 AM

KANEMAN

I agree that a firearm is just a tool and we should not fear or HATE inanimate objects. Think about the maniacs who chop people into refrigerator sized pieces with a knife. Do you fear the knife or the lunatic? Shit, I would rather be shot to death by a crazed bastard than hacked into bite size morsels anyway...I say we take the knives out of the hands of these people and give them guns instead, it will make it easier on those unfortunate enough to be on their menus. Come on show a little compassion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Depending on how you define "violent crime", rates in England and Wales seem to be about equal or higher than the US, just doing a little Goggle search."

But HOMICIDES are much lower in England - 5.9 US v 1.62 England and Wales in 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Would you prefer to get slugged in the face or shot in the gut?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Come on show a little compassion.

Aww, a compassionate K-Man, how sweet.. (I kid the Kman)… I know what you guys are talking about – the gun as a tool. After all, the Winchester repeater won the west, right… guess it depends whose side you were on.

The gun is a weapon. It is intended for killing. Self defense? Well yeah, because you are defending yourself against someone else with a gun. Ok, knives are scary, too, but I doubt if Samuel Colt intended his invention to be used as a nutcracker.

As Geezer points out, the culture of guns in America revolves around the hunter and sport shooter. I can’t argue with that. Guns, rifles in particular, were an integral part of survival, and the colonization of North America (maybe it still is in some of the more remote areas), but the handgun is primarily a tool for criminals and as a result, a deterrent to criminals. I know a man who hunts feral hogs with a scoped .357 mag, but when you get right down to it, IMHO, a handgun is for one thing. To kill – man, beast, Alliance Blue Hand dude, whatever. Bullet in the brainpan…squish….

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Depending on how you define "violent crime", rates in England and Wales seem to be about equal or higher than the US, just doing a little Goggle search."

But HOMICIDES are much lower in England - 5.9 US v 1.62 England and Wales in 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Would you prefer to get slugged in the face or shot in the gut?

Citizen mentioned violent crimes, so that's what I responded to.

Trying to correlate crime rates to gun laws is tempting, but it works about as well as playing the stock market based on skirt length. Check out the gun laws of the countries highest on the list, and you'll find they're generally much stricter than the US, with some strickter than the UK. Plenty of other factors to factor in.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Depending on how you define "violent crime", rates in England and Wales seem to be about equal or higher than the US, just doing a little Goggle search.

Oddly enough I define "violent crime" as a crime where violence is perpetrated. Specifically in this case murder. The UK's murder rates are somewhat lower than the US's, and gun crime specifically in Canada (where there is more guns) is much lower.

We had this debate here a few months back, where we found that the UK has more "crime", final proof that you need a gun to be safe, save if it wasn't for the fact that the UK has more scratched cars and light bruising to the US's getting shot to death.

Quote:
BTW, the Gun Culture in the US is the guys who go hunting or target shooting, and are seldom involved as perpetrators of crimes. Now if we could do something about the Crime Culture, who do carry illegal weapons and do shoot(or stab, or hack, or firebomb, or...well you get the idea) someone for looking at them wrong.

Of course, which eloquently explains why a place with more guns, for instance Canada, has fewer violent gun crimes (by rate, before some 'smart arse' decides to point out Canada's lower population) than the US. Or not of course, because such a fact actually rather goes against the idea that there is nothing wrong with the US's culture of gun ownership.

Whenever gun ownership is mentioned in the US it seems someone is talking about their right to shoot another person if that person is engaged in taking what is theirs or threatens them in some way. Given that hunting is usually relegated to the "oh yeah, erm and hunting is fun too" long after the "I have a right to operate as State militia" defence I think perhaps the assertion that all the US's gun culture boils down too is hunting is somewhat incorrect.

It seems to me that Canadians generally fall in to you're somewhat idealised (and might I say misleading) assertions regarding US gun ownership, in other words primarily hunting. Perhaps the fact that Canadians do fall into you're ideal of US gun ownership and Americans do not goes some way to explaining the differences in the Gun crime rates, which would lead us back to the idea that maybe there is something wrong with American attitudes toward deadly weapons:

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Not packing heat makes you an easy victim.

EDIT:
It seems there is a peculiar fondness within America for the hand gun. It further occures that a 9mm pistol is rather useless for hunting game, but rather better for concealing to be used as a weapon against another person.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:33 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oddly enough I define "violent crime" as a crime where violence is perpetrated. Specifically in this case murder.

Okay. If you'd said "murder" then maybe I'd have addressed that. Violent crime is defined several ways in several studies, but never as only murder.

Quote:
Of course, which eloquently explains why a place with more guns, for instance Canada, has fewer violent gun crimes (by rate, before some 'smart arse' decides to point out Canada's lower population) than the US.

Err. "Overall gun ownership rates are significantly higher in the United States 41% of households vs. 26% in Canada (1998), and even to greater extent, handguns. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. More types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada than the United States. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

Quote:
Whenever gun ownership is mentioned in the US it seems someone is talking about their right to shoot another person if that person is engaged in taking what is theirs or threatens them in some way.

Provide a cite for this assertion, please.

Quote:
EDIT:
It seems there is a peculiar fondness within America for the hand gun. It further occures that a 9mm pistol is rather useless for hunting game, but rather better for concealing to be used as a weapon against another person.

Carrying a concealed handgun is either illegal or subject to background checks, training requirements, and licensing most anywhere in the US. Folks who carry illegally are the folks who don't obey gun laws anyway.

I like handguns because I can go to the local indoor range and shoot them anytime, as opposed to having to drive a few hours to get to a high-power rifle range. I've been punching holes in paper for 35 years, and never shot anything living with a handgun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:47 PM

FLETCH2

So what you're saying is that it's not guns that kill people, it's Americans with guns that kill people?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:54 PM

So for some reason my graphics tablet can't tell the difference between a right click and a submit. I'll be back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So what you're saying is that it's not guns that kill people, it's Americans with guns that kill people?

No, I'm saying that Americans have some of the worst incidences of violent gun crime and murder outside of warzones and somewhat less civilised areas of the world, and that this most likely stems from the (IMHO rather immature) idea that Americans have that they are entitled to use deadly weapons at the first sign of trouble. But if you'd like to continue to assert that I just hate Americans go for it, so much easier to attack the messenger rather than the message

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. If you'd said "murder" then maybe I'd have addressed that. Violent crime is defined several ways in several studies, but never as only murder.

I'd somewhat assumed since we were talking about deadly weapons you'd realise I was talking about murder and very serious assault, sorry.

Quote:
Err. "Overall gun ownership rates are significantly higher in the United States 41% of households vs. 26% in Canada (1998), and even to greater extent, handguns. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. More types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada than the United States. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls."

Really, last I heard gun ownership was more widespread in Canada, I'll have to do some googling of my own, eh. Though I'm not sure how this really goes too much against my point that it is US attitudes toward guns that is the problem, especially in light of this statement:
"Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes."

Quote:
Provide a cite for this assertion, please.

No, but I rather suspect you know that since it was my own independent observation as I noted based on whenever I hear Americans talk about guns from people here to the NRA they tend to talk about the 2nd Amendment which isn't aimed toward hunting and an Americans right to defend themselves and their property. Hunting isn't mentioned nearly as much, I think the likelihood that there being a google cite for everything I've ever read is rather remote I suspect. However if you'd like me to try and track down every sentence I've ever read on the subject I'll do so, but it may take me sometime to get the research grant so you'll have to bare with me.

But before we make a big thing about having no cite you haven't provide a cite for guns being used only for hunting either.

Quote:
Carrying a concealed handgun is either illegal or subject to background checks, training requirements, and licensing most anywhere in the US. Folks who carry illegally are the folks who don't obey gun laws anyway.

It's against the law to have a handgun concealed within your own home? I rather suspect we both know that's not true.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:02 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'd somewhat assumed since we were talking about deadly weapons you'd realise I was talking about murder and very serious assault, sorry.

No problem. Murder and serious assault, then.

Quote:
Really, last I heard gun ownership was more widespread in Canada, I'll have to do some googling of my own, eh.

Let me know what you find, please.

Quote:
No, but I rather suspect you know that since it was my own independent observation as I noted based on whenever I hear Americans talk about guns from people here.

Your observations or media observations?

Quote:
It's against the law to have a handgun concealed within your own home? I rather suspect we both know that's not true.

Weapons in the home are not considered "concealed weapons" and are seldom used in crimes. Besides, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon.

NCIS time. More later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:26 AM

ARCLIGHT

"IMHO, a handgun is for one thing. To kill – man, beast, Alliance Blue Hand dude, whatever. Bullet in the brainpan…squish…."

Nope. The're also good for bustin' up empty pop bottles. What a hoot. Also every year at Thanksgiving my family and I use ours to produce beautiful paintings. We call it "Blastart". Maybe one day if you ever have a spare million or two I sell you one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

On Topic: If I am in fear for my life, I want to have the right to resist with any and all force I feel is necessary to secure my life. I want to have this right for the same reason I'd like to have the right to free speech. In both cases, I'd do it anyway, but I'd prefer not to be arrested afterwards.

Off Topic: Here are some gun perspectives from luminaries. These quotes encapsulate my gun-ownership philosophy. I find myself in some good company, and in opposition to some bad company. I'll start by quoting the bad guys, then switch.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."
--Adolf Hitler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." ~Mao Zedong, "Selected Works of Mao Zedong"

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington

“There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.” ~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisk

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." ~Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." ~Noah Webster

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." ~James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~Richard Henry Lee

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." ~William Burroughs

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Why not just have a rule against violently attacking peeps, gun or no gun?

Oh. Lawyers.

I forgot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

There's rules against attacking peeps.

Just no police officer in my back pocket who I can pull out to defend myself, in case someone violates the rule.

Cops are real good at catching people after you're dead, though. All appropriate props for that.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There's rules against attacking peeps.

Just no police officer in my back pocket who I can pull out to defend myself, in case someone violates the rule.

Become a deadly weapon yourself, as I have.

Humble and deadly Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Become a deadly weapon yourself, as I have.

This works if you have the physical ability and your assailant is within your personal striking distance. For the aged, infirm, or just people who don't have the time and resources to develop skill in unarmed combat, a weapon is the best protection if a confrontation with an attacker occurs.

Sure - make yourself as secure as possible with locks, alarms, etc., but if someone defeats those and you face an armed intruder who threatens your life, or the lives of those you feel responsible for, you need the most effective method possible of stopping them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:56 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Become a deadly weapon yourself, as I have.

More like silent and deadly...open a window...light a match...for God's sake...

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal" post Civil War slogan.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:42 AM