Guns

[Yorkshire pud]

Hopefully people realized the above was a tongue in cheek answer to those that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms.




I'm with Onan that we should have background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.  While realizing there is always going to be a black market for anything that's restricted.  I'm also with Sardondi that people just don't trust the current law makers to pass clean legislation.  I believe the true goal of too many currently in office is ultimatly to ban guns.

In a local news item, this week a 23 year old gang member was sentenced to 9 years for a failed robbery of Federal agents responding to his attempt to buy a grenade launcher.  This is the first time this person is going to jail after 6 arrests in 7 years on various gun charges.  I live in a pretty liberal area.  The people running things have lots of gun laws on the books, but very little apparent interest in enforcing them. 

I'm with you on that..no point having laws if they're not enforced.

My understanding is it's much the same everywhere that has restrictive guns laws.

Well, we have restrictive firearms laws. It makes the news if anyone is killed with a gun, it's that uncommon. A criminal going equipped and carrying (even a replica) firearm or knife is automatically going to jail. He can start adding the years for every round he fires, and if he injures or kills anyone, 20's to the initial sentence, before he's considered for parole. That is of course if he reaches court; The armed response units don't shoot to wound.


Because of that; we have very few incidents with guns.

  Maybe if gun laws we have were enforced, then got clean background check legislation that wasn't loaded up with other anti-gun measures, people would support it

More gun crime equals increased demand for more gun laws.

Many in the UK felt the tighter laws brought in after Dunblane didn't go far enough. The conspiracy theorists will have it as being as Alex Asshole had it about Sandy Hook and Boston..And although there are still many questions needing to be answered, it wasn't a false flag operation.

On gun registration I have an honest question - what is the point of it?  How does it reduce gun crime?

.

Because if a particular weapon is identified by (for example) the police in a siege  they can look on the records to see who in the area has such a weapon, and have the advantage when it comes to negotiation and trying to get a speedy and peaceful conclusion.. And if it's fired, they can check the ballistics to be certain. That could be mandatory; A firearm is fired on a closed range before it's issued for sale, and the ballistic signature recorded. If someone knew that they'd be identified as the registered keeper of a weapon they'd be less likely to use it (Or 'lend' it too someone) for reasons they shouldn't.

[Sardondi]

Ya know Sardondi, I give you a lot of credit and I don't like arguing with you because you are a pretty bright buy. But your response here is nothing more than I don't like it, so it is wrong. I won't let you piss on stats without better refutation than some ad hominems of moore and alinski.


There is nothing irrational about a waiting period. There is nothing wrong with registering weapons... At the moment I have 6 hand guns all registered and no one has attempted to take my guns. The only bother I get is from the NRA sending me pamphlets and wanting my membership. That is as bad as it has gotten.


My only dog in this fight is that I truly believe there is a percentage of our population that shouldn't have access to guns. Most people should have the every right to own a firearm.


No we can't stop crazy, but we sure as hell can work against it.

My point is, those figures are on their face simply incredible, because were they accurate everything you propose would have been done eons ago. 85%, of whoever the number was actually taken from, is a massive, game-changing, immediate-response majority. That's the kind of figure that gets things done today. It's the 800-pound gorilla, a tsunami, the true Irresistible Force. That is why I know it doesn't exist.

BTW, it's pretty funny that I don't like to cross swords with you for the very same reason. It's too damn much work, and it makes my head hurt to think that hard. What it feels like to see strong posts put up by folks with a sharply differing point of view is that I'm outnumbered, alone, cut off, and that I have a duty to, uh, make everyone see the perfect logic of my position. I suspect I'm not alone in that though.

[Jackpine Savage]

So how would you determine who and who isn't responsible and moral? To become competent and experienced in any notable skill or profession requires a modicum of intelligence (to a lesser or greater degree). Hours, days, weeks or years of training, more training, skill development, assessment, re-evaluation, and more improvement. The very good quite quickly rise to the top, the less good fade away. Selection to be a fighter pilot for example is ongoing, from day one. Very very few of the initial very good intake, ever sit in the cockpit of a jet fighter. And even fewer are selected to go on to be on the front line. I was told by someone close to the Army air corp (Uk helicopter regiment) that the aspiring Apache pilots on the first selection are the top 5% of military helicopter pilots (who are themselves the best)..of those 5%, fewer than 10% will finally go on to be Apache pilots.


If you cannot assess with any meaningful certainty that someone who has a firearm is a) rational b) competent c) entitled. You have problems. The pro gun 'at any cost' lobby won't allow the scales to fall from their eyes. Guns kill people. It's avoidable. If it had been discovered today, I very much doubt that tobacco and alcohol would be classed as anything other than class A drugs. Beer came about because a lot of water at the time was undrinkable unless it was straight from the spring, beer was a method to drink a clean liquid. Tobacco kills more people than all class A narcotics combined..Back as recently as the 50's there were televison adverts with doctors saying how good smoking was for you! Fortunately we've moved n, but it still doesn't stop the industry promoting what they do as a good thing.


There is every possibility that back in the 1770's, they too had a less than firm grasp of what the future would hold (I'd say it's a dead cert). Who would have predicted in 1900 that the first powered flight and manned flight to the moon, and a space station would happen in the same century? If the US population at large is terrified of their own government's nefarious intent, (Which is the underlying justification for everyone holding firearms) then hold a referendum to eliminate the government. Make the Whitehouse a theme park; an annex of Disney world or something, and have instead a peoples parliament with no one leader and an equitable and mutually supporting utopia. In fact, why not eliminate the whole state system. Have small mutual hamlets all over the continent, self sufficient?

Wow, a lot of words to basically prove my point.  A point I made in two lines. One side believes in living life by Big Boy rules: personal responsibility, innocent until guilty, morals not "values". The other side believes the state of man can be perfected by tweaking this or that until the possibility to engage undesirable behavior is mitigated beyond a shadow of doubt.  Murdering someone is wrong, no matter what the implement or technology. That doesn't change no matter what new tech shows up. Of course no one knows what the future may hold, that's why you hold MAN to a moral standard, not his tools.

[Jackpine Savage]

And if the two ammendments used the same wording you would have a point.If words could indescriminantly kill people in a movie theater or in a class room your point would have some legs to stand on.




I believe that is why this conversation is going on. 85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns.





This is a lot of words with no focus and certainly no following of the current discussion. Cars and guns aren't the same thing and if one is one is mentally ill with a psychotic disorder a doctor has to notify the DMV in the appropriate state to the patient's condition and if the patient is not compliant with meds they can't drive. There is little risk of a molatov coctail burning down your house they are still illegal. Anyone can make a boogie man like you just did. This discussion isn't about limiting anyone's freedom it is about who merits owning a firearm. Certainly there is enough reason here to see that some people do not merit owning a firearm.


And to add, since there is so much discussion about the second amendment, and that amendment is somewhat vague, how about requiring some military service to firm up the regulated militia part?

I'm not making a boogie man, you are. I'm saying human behavior is to blame. You are saying the gun is. Guns in the hands of a responsible public are an important check on the power of the state, a power that when wielded incorrectly can commit far more evil than handguns or rifles in the hands of a few individual madmen. Look at history. The power of the state in the hands of a madman is far more dangerous that the power of small arms in the hands of the relatively small percentage that comprise the mad or criminal element in the private citizenry.

[onan]

On gun registration I have a serious question - what is the point of it?  How does it reduce gun crime?

This is a very good question. And it is probably one of the most complicated questions as well. Scalia made a statement referencing the second amendment that:

The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up

But that would only mean arms for the militia. And then a question needs to be asked... if we are registering for a militia, when are we militia practicing? If there is no practice why register?


One of the latest arguments for registration is for police to have accurate information regarding firearms in a house they have to investigate. And yes I see the potential for the slippery slope opposition.


So why register? Is it a feel good piece of legislation? maybe. I really don't know.


What I can tell you anecdotely, I know a few fellows that go to gun shows and buy multiple guns with the intent to sell them out of their trunk. Yeah its the black market thing. And that type of behavior does need limiting/stopping.

[onan]

I'm not making a boogie man, you are. I'm saying human behavior is to blame. You are saying the gun is. Guns in the hands of a responsible public are an important check on the power of the state, a power that when wielded incorrectly can commit far more evil than handguns or rifles in the hands of a few individual madmen. Look at history. The power of the state in the hands of a madman is far more dangerous that the power of small arms in the hands of the relatively small percentage that comprise the mad or criminal element in the private citizenry.

I think you read differently than I write. I have made no other point than human behavior is the problem... HELLO mental illness.


I am all about people having firearms if they want them and they train to use them properly.


And yes your vision of the madman who wants to take your gun is the boogeyman.

[Jackpine Savage]

So no government ever has systematically disarmed a population and then precede to tyrannize or slaughter them. Got it. Just a figment of my imagination. Could never happen. I hope you know what is happening to the civilian population in parts of Mexico, just over the border. A generally disarmed civilian population, I might add. But no, could never happen here. It's that special American dirt and air that makes tyranny impossible.

[onan]

So no government ever has systematically disarmed a population and then precede to tyrannize or slaughter them. Got it. Just a figment of my imagination. Could never happen. I hope you know what is happening to the civilian population in parts of Mexico, just over the border. A generally disarmed civilian population, I might add. But no, could never happen here. It's that special American dirt and air that makes tyranny impossible.

OK bone head... lets follow your secenario out. Madman Obama declares all guns illegal and you and your posse start the new US militia and you start fighting... who? What target are you going after? And once you get your battle going and lets say you take out some infrastructure and the result is reducing the US to a third world country... now who steps in to manage the disarray? China? The Russian Federation? The lack of foresight is beyond stupid.

[ItsOver]

My point is, those figures are on their face simply incredible, because were they accurate everything you propose would have been done eons ago. 85%, of whoever the number was actually taken from, is a massive, game-changing, immediate-response majority. That's the kind of figure that gets things done today. It's the 800-pound gorilla, a tsunami, the true Irresistible Force. That is why I know it doesn't exist.

BTW, it's pretty funny that I don't like to cross swords with you for the very same reason. It's too damn much work, and it makes my head hurt to think that hard. What it feels like to see strong posts put up by folks with a sharply differing point of view is that I'm outnumbered, alone, cut off, and that I have a duty to, uh, make everyone see the perfect logic of my position. I suspect I'm not alone in that though.

I greatly enjoy your thoughtful and well-written analyses, Sardondi.  It probably helps that most of the time I agree with your positions.


One thing I've observed with the advent of the internet and the opportunity to see different but anonymous viewpoints is my assessment that no matter how well-reasoned, logical, and factual arguments may be, I rarely see another person's basic viewpoint changed.  It's one reason, over the years, I've greatly decreased my discourse on-line concerning anything related to politics.  It's interesting to note there definitely do seem to be two major, fairly distinct groups of political opinions, though.  Call it conservative and liberal, left and right, libertarian and statist, whatever.  Why is this the case, I wonder?  Regardless, it seems to be rare for one to cross from one side to the other, regardless of the arguments from the other side.  It would seem more likely for an apple to become an orange.  If there's anything I've learned from the internet, it is this assessment.


It is comforting to see some consensus on one topic, though, if nothing else than to have a distraction from the frustration of the above.  George Noory sucks!

[West of the Rockies]

OK bone head... lets follow your secenario out. Madman Obama declares all guns illegal and you and your posse start the new US militia and you start fighting... who? What target are you going after? And once you get your battle going and lets say you take out some infrastructure and the result is reducing the US to a third world country... now who steps in to manage the disarray? China? The Russian Federation? The lack of foresight is beyond stupid.

It would be a bit like Red Dawn, but the Soviets would be, uh, well, us.  Wait... didn't we do that once before?  A little shindig called The Civil War?

[Sardondi]

I greatly enjoy your thoughtful and well-written analyses, Sardondi.  It probably helps that most of the time I agree with your positions.

One thing I've observed with the advent of the internet and the opportunity to see different but anonymous viewpoints is my assessment that no matter how well-reasoned, logical, and factual arguments may be, I rarely see another person's basic viewpoint changed.  It's one reason, over the years, I've greatly decreased my discourse on-line concerning anything related to politics.  It's interesting to note there definitely do seem to be two major, fairly distinct groups of political opinions, though.  Call it conservative and liberal, left and right, libertarian and statist, whatever.  Why is this the case, I wonder?  Regardless, it seems to be rare for one to cross from one side to the other, regardless of the arguments from the other side.  It would seem more likely for an apple to become an orange.  If there's anything I've learned from the internet, it is this assessment.

It is comforting to see some consensus on one topic, though, if nothing else than to have a distraction from the frustration of the above. George Noory sucks!

You make an excellent point. And I think you reached a mature decision. When I insist on bloviating my usual wall o' text which I hope will be a rhetorical mental wristlock on my ideological opponent, forcing him to follow the force of my argument or be broken asunder, it must look like I'm acting out the very definition of insanity - repeating obvious past failures but for some inexplicable reason expecting success this time.

Or maybe it takes years and years of such back and forth to see an change. It could be like trying to pilot an iceberg: it takes immense resources of time and effort to get the smallest change, and then there's no real telling where it will go or how far. I hope it's possible for us to change our attitudes ingrained from youth. And I think it is. Take me. I was born middle-aged, always super-responsible and comfortable conforming with authority. I was truly contemptuous of hippies, revolutionaries and the anti-war crowd who were rough contemporaries, because to me they were merely preening, spoiled children who had the hubris to think there was actually something morally and spiritually superior about them and their cadre. Okay, I still pretty much feel like that. Oh, man, the sheer arrogance of those people. And I have no love for the Occupy Whatever crowd either.

But after some 50-odd years I'm actually regressing in some ways. I'm not following the usual formula, which says that we tend to become more conservative and rigid as we age. Perhaps it's because I started out that way, but my views on many social issues have gotten much more flexible. While I might not be actually "pro" everything my contemporaries were for back in the day, I at least have taken on a more libertarian view, or "ain't nobody's business" attitude.

One example is the so called war on drugs. Even though I spent some 25 years pursuing major international drug organizations, I really despair of what it has accomplished, and, worse, how it has transformed our country, and particularly our law enforcement practices and attitudes. Today I would come down on the side that says our drug policy has resulted in little more than fief-building, budget-growing and even a de facto policy of taxation of what is supposed to be this illegal drugs trafficking (via our greatly expanded forfeiture laws, which are so confiscatory as to shock the conscience). I think it's mostly a cynical game now. The Constitution has actually been damaged by the drug war, and the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures have been severely weakened. All for the best motives of course, of course. But the precedents, particularly in non-drug cases, are unintended consequences which are terribly harmful.

Not that I think drugs are okay or the people who banded together to get rich selling them aren't vicious thugs (you truly have no idea of the depravity and downright evil of the Mexican cartels). But folks in government pretend that our drug policies work. But they don't. At a minimum it's a travesty that marijuana isn't freely available as a pharmaceutical; and a travesty as well that DEA has any involvement whatsoever in physicians' management of their patients' pain by treatment with opioids.

That's just one area in which my ideas have changed. There are others. And I read all the time about people who in middle age or even later make 180°-changes in their political views. It's not unusual at all for young people to drop their socialism-tinged college attitudes as soon as they are introduced to the working life. (With some reports which say 50% of recent college grads are unemployed for up to a year or more after graduation, said joblessness all too often ended only by part-time or low-paying jobs outside of their area, I wonder if this will remain the case.)

And I still feel a sort of obligation to fight the good fight. Hey, I think I'll write a song:

"Almost stopped my posts
It was just the other day
They were gettin' kinda long
I coulda said they had no sway
But I didn't and I wonder why
Felt like holding the Tea Party high
And I feel
Like I owe it
To someone"

(David Crosby would blow another liver out if he saw that.)

[Yorkshire pud]

So no government ever has systematically disarmed a population and then precede to tyrannize or slaughter them. Got it. Just a figment of my imagination. Could never happen. I hope you know what is happening to the civilian population in parts of Mexico, just over the border. A generally disarmed civilian population, I might add. But no, could never happen here. It's that special American dirt and air that makes tyranny impossible.

I suppose if you really think that will happen (or could) in the USA, it's a terrible reflection on the majority of the population..Your government is drawn from the same population. However..in the Realworldâ,,¢...IF (and it's a real leap of paranoia) it were to happen, the population would be fucked anyway.

[Yorkshire pud]

Wow, a lot of words to basically prove my point.  A point I made in two lines. One side believes in living life by Big Boy rules: personal responsibility, innocent until guilty, morals not "values". The other side believes the state of man can be perfected by tweaking this or that until the possibility to engage undesirable behavior is mitigated beyond a shadow of doubt.  Murdering someone is wrong, no matter what the implement or technology. That doesn't change no matter what new tech shows up. Of course no one knows what the future may hold, that's why you hold MAN to a moral standard, not his tools.

Oh...I wasn't trying to prove your point. I asked how you would determine who was responsible before they had an opportunity to prove your faith (and faith is what it is) was misguided? The 'other side' or alternatively the ones who can see the elephant in the room don't have any desire to tweak humanity (Evolution does that), but I for one don't want anyone with a firearm near me who a)shouldn't have one b) hasn't the mental aptitude to have one c) is a nut job. If you can determine who is not any of those with a high degree of accuracy simply on the basis they're 'innocent until proven guilty' I'd be keen to know. The 'tools' stuff is a red herring. Guns have one purpose only, deflecting it by saying a gun murder would have been committed anyway, but with a ball point pen, car, iron bar or a piece of wood is fanciful. Guns are used because they're easy to use, even a chimp can use one; can inflict a lot of damage very quickly and even a wounding can kill.

[Yorkshire pud]

It would be a bit like Red Dawn, but the Soviets would be, uh, well, us.  Wait... didn't we do that once before?  A little shindig called The Civil War?

Pretty much WotR. I know I've said it several times before, but what the US 'right' are advocating is a peoples front. A collective that is anti government...a common goal..a common purpose...




Some might call that a community.....Being social even... Yikes.

[Sardondi]

Here's an answer to the question of why it's "all guns all the time" with many, many Americans: a Washington D.C. man was "let off" with having to "only" pay a $1,000 fine for having saved an 11-year-old boy's life with an unregistered firearm. It seems Benjamin Srigley was the crime lord who shot an attackingpit bull with an unregistered pistol before it could maul the boy to death. Of course D.C.'s finest knew just what to do in this case: search the hero's house and arrest him. Police found three unregistered firearms and ammunition. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/dc-man-wont-face-gun-charges-shooting-pit-bull-att/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed What a reward for heroism.

It would be a shameful abuse of justice if this man were punished only to the extent of being compelled to pay a $1,000 fine. But there's a greater wrong here. Although the article doesn't mention it, the man's guns will be confiscated. Since they were unregistered. the firearms are contraband. Who knows, some of Capital Hill's Corruptest will have some nice new personal firearms any day now. Yep, gotta make D.C.'s streets safe for killer pit bulls. It probably cost this man somewhere between $2,000-$3,000, minus legal fees and additional court costs, to save this little boy's life.

It's not just the principle which many people adhere to that it's none of the government's goddam business how many or what kind of guns we have. It's also a matter of sheer self-preservation. Because here the police couldn't have helped: they would have been much too late.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[West of the Rockies]

Or maybe it takes years and years of such back and forth to see an change. It could be like trying to pilot an iceberg: it takes immense resources of time and effort to get the smallest change, and then there's no real telling where it will go or how far. I hope it's possible for us to change our attitudes ingrained from youth. And I think it is. Take me. I was born middle-aged, always super-responsible and comfortable conforming with authority. I was truly contemptuous of hippies, revolutionaries and the anti-war crowd who were rough contemporaries, because to me they were merely preening, spoiled children who had the hubris to think there was actually something morally and spiritually superior about them and their cadre. Okay, I still pretty much feel like that. Oh, man, the sheer arrogance of those people. And I have no love for the Occupy Whatever crowd either.

But after some 50-odd years I'm actually regressing in some ways. I'm not following the usual formula, which says that we tend to become more conservative and rigid as we age. Perhaps it's because I started out that way, but my views on many social issues have gotten much more flexible. While I might not be actually "pro" everything my contemporaries were for back in the day, I at least have taken on a more libertarian view, or "ain't nobody's business" attitude.

Hey, Sardondi ~ I have included only a small portion of your "wall of text" because I only wish to respond to the words in above passage.  I actually had a fairly similar youth, I suspect.  A child of depression-era parents, I learned the value of hard work, the importance of conservation (a conservative principle in theory).  My parents were rather terrified of "long-haired hippies".  I went to private Catholic school, went to church, and entered the work force before I was in high school (with a six-day-a-week bicycle paper route).  My career goal as a child was to be a police officer.  My mother worked as a clerk in the field and I grew up rather idolizing those officers.  My favorite show was Adam-12.  ("One-Adam-Twelve, see the man...."  ).  My parents were extremely conservative, though my father, in particular, liked to say he was independent because he had voted for JFK.  (Probably the only time he "crossed the aisle"....)

We are probably very much products of our generation, our environments.  I very fondly recall lots of science fiction programs/films:  Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, CE3K, In Search Of...  My parents always urged their four children to go to college (3 of us did).  I value education and science.  I think we should take very good care of our environment, "our pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known".  I lament how we seem to have so many career politicians.  I detest the power that big-money lobbyists have now in Washington.  Perhaps I long for a time that never really was -- I daresay that if we could peek into the closets of most of our politicians, we'd find plenty of skeletons, moments of hubris, greed, corruption.

And we probably do choose a side and stick with it for better or worse (conservative or liberal).  I -- like you it seems -- have tendrils in both camps.  I was in law enforcement as a civilian for 13 years.  I have never used any drugs illegally, but I think our so-called War on Drugs is pretty much a disaster and a waste of resources.  I'd much rather see money spent on pre-abuse education and rehab.  I see that there are some (many) drug offenders who SHOULD be incarcerated.  I wish we took much better care of our mentally ill.  The idea of neighbors helping neighbors is not a conservative or liberal principle.  It's one we share.  I wish we could grasp a better hold on principles we all have in common rather than on those which divide us.  Here, I think, is where bloviating media pundits are causing great harm to our country.  (See a very recent post I made in the Politics thread of this forum.)

Well, I gotta go... lots of essays to read for finals week.

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh come on Sardondi! Is that the case for the defence?


Let's break it down; The dog. That particular breed is illegal in the Uk because of it's reputation, but as this story is the USA, and it isn't illegal but still has the reputation it has; you have the consequences of a very nasty and lethal animal. (Perhaps relevant, but many criminals use such dogs as weapons-maybe that is the case here?)..Sure the dog was shot. But that's happened here too, by the police. We also had one dog not far from here strangled by a copper with his night stick through the dogs collar and twisted.


This Crime lord..Criminal then? Possibly drugs? Possibly class A? Possibly involving feeding addicts?  Now remind me isn't the reason for good people having firearms to stop the bad people? Is this crime lord redeemed for all his previous? Some of the posts on here have been specifically posted with the view of being used against criminals.


Let's not jump to conclusions, but perhaps he isn't already inside because he's leaned on certain people to keep him out of custody? Protection rackets perhaps? Threatening witnesses (with unregistered firearms?)...who knows. Do you seriously think a $2000 cost to him will break the bank? I'd be interested to find out the eventual outcome if he's the crime lord cited.

It's not just the principle which many people adhere to that it's none of the government's goddam business how many or what kind of guns we have. It's also a matter of sheer self-preservation.

Really? Would you have the same attitude of this crime lord was throwing his weight around your neck of the woods? Or would you be keen for the local police to have all information they could muster in order to effect an arrest? Or would you and your friends make sure your guns made bigger bangs, just in case? I must say you've surpassed yourself on this one when it comes to an argument against gun registration!

[Sardondi]

Oh come on Sardondi! Is that the case for the defence?

Let's break it down; The dog. That particular breed is illegal in the Uk because of it's reputation, but as this story is the USA, and it isn't illegal but still has the reputation it has; you have the consequences of a very nasty and lethal animal. (Perhaps relevant, but many criminals use such dogs as weapons-maybe that is the case here?)..Sure the dog was shot. But that's happened here too, by the police. We also had one dog not far from here strangled by a copper with his night stick through the dogs collar and twisted.


This Crime lord..Criminal then? Possibly drugs? Possibly class A? Possibly involving feeding addicts?  Now remind me isn't the reason for good people having firearms to stop the bad people? Is this crime lord redeemed for all his previous? Some of the posts on here have been specifically posted with the view of being used against criminals.


Let's not jump to conclusions, but perhaps he isn't already inside because he's leaned on certain people to keep him out of custody? Protection rackets perhaps? Threatening witnesses (with unregistered firearms?)...who knows. Do you seriously think a $2000 cost to him will break the bank? I'd be interested to find out the eventual outcome if he's the crime lord cited.


Really? Would you have the same attitude of this crime lord was throwing his weight around your neck of the woods? Or would you be keen for the local police to have all information they could muster in order to effect an arrest? Or would you and your friends make sure your guns made bigger bangs, just in case? I must say you've surpassed yourself on this one when it comes to an argument against gun registration!

Wha...? You do realize the "crime lord" quote was mine, and that it was sarcasm, yes? Pit bulls are illegal in the UK? I think the classic ancient Latin to this is, "What the bloody hell are you talking about?" It's rare that this can be said about your posts, but this one is near to incomprehensible. Am I missing the satire myself? Please tell me I'm missing the joke, because none of this makes sense otherwise.

[onan]

So, a crime lord using the alias pf Pitt Bull was shot for stealing the guns from a kid who was mauling him. Is that about it?

[onan]

Actually:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/dc-man-wont-face-gun-charges-shooting-pit-bull-att/




D.C. man won’t face gun charges for
shooting pit bull attacking boy

The hero will lose his unregistered weapons however.

[Sardondi]

Actually:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/dc-man-wont-face-gun-charges-shooting-pit-bull-att/

D.C. man won’t face gun charges for
shooting pit bull attacking boy

The hero will lose his unregistered weapons however.

Yes. Stuff I pointed out. But boy am I ever sorry I chose to mockingly call him a "crime lord" for his unregistered weapons. How rumors and internet "facts" get started.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes. Stuff I pointed out. But boy am I ever sorry I chose to mockingly call him a "crime lord" for his unregistered weapons. How rumors and internet "facts" get started.

Let that be a lesson then. (Tongue firmly in cheek)




Your posts are usually so comprehensive (and I assume factual) I didn't bother clicking on the link. Lesson learned on my part. 

[Sardondi]

Okay, at least now I understand. I was panicking about finally having lost my last remaining bit of reasoning ability.

[West of the Rockies]

A partial quotation from Sardondi (see above):  "Or maybe it takes years and years of such back and forth to see an change. It could be like trying to pilot an iceberg: it takes immense resources of time and effort to get the smallest change, and then there's no real telling where it will go or how far. I hope it's possible for us to change our attitudes ingrained from youth. And I think it is. Take me. I was born middle-aged, always super-responsible and comfortable conforming with authority. I was truly contemptuous of hippies, revolutionaries and the anti-war crowd who were rough contemporaries, because to me they were merely preening, spoiled children who had the hubris to think there was actually something morally and spiritually superior about them and their cadre. Okay, I still pretty much feel like that. Oh, man, the sheer arrogance of those people. And I have no love for the Occupy Whatever crowd either.

But after some 50-odd years I'm actually regressing in some ways. I'm not following the usual formula, which says that we tend to become more conservative and rigid as we age. Perhaps it's because I started out that way, but my views on many social issues have gotten much more flexible. While I might not be actually "pro" everything my contemporaries were for back in the day, I at least have taken on a more libertarian view, or "ain't nobody's business" attitude. "

Hey, Sardondi ~ I have included only a small portion of your "wall of text" because I only wish to respond to the words in above passage.  I actually had a fairly similar youth, I suspect.  A child of depression-era parents, I learned the value of hard work, the importance of conservation (a conservative principle in theory).  My parents were rather terrified of "long-haired hippies".  I went to private Catholic school, went to church, and entered the work force before I was in high school (with a six-day-a-week bicycle paper route).  My career goal as a child was to be a police officer.  My mother worked as a clerk in the field and I grew up rather idolizing those officers.  My favorite show was Adam-12.  ("One-Adam-Twelve, see the man...."  ).  My parents were extremely conservative, though my father, in particular, liked to say he was independent because he had voted for JFK.  (Probably the only time he "crossed the aisle"....)

We are probably very much products of our generation, our environments.  I very fondly recall lots of science fiction programs/films:  Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, CE3K, In Search Of...  My parents always urged their four children to go to college (3 of us did).  I value education and science.  I think we should take very good care of our environment, "our pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known".  I lament how we seem to have so many career politicians.  I detest the power that big-money lobbyists have now in Washington.  Perhaps I long for a time that never really was -- I daresay that if we could peek into the closets of most of our politicians, we'd find plenty of skeletons, moments of hubris, greed, corruption.

And we probably do choose a side and stick with it for better or worse (conservative or liberal).  I -- like you it seems -- have tendrils in both camps.  I was in law enforcement as a civilian for 13 years.  I have never used any drugs illegally, but I think our so-called War on Drugs is pretty much a disaster and a waste of resources.  I'd much rather see money spent on pre-abuse education and rehab.  I see that there are some (many) drug offenders who SHOULD be incarcerated.  I wish we took much better care of our mentally ill.  The idea of neighbors helping neighbors is not a conservative or liberal principle.  It's one we share.  I wish we could grasp a better hold on principles we all have in common rather than on those which divide us.  Here, I think, is where bloviating media pundits are causing great harm to our country.  (See a very recent post I made in the Politics thread of this forum.)

Well, I gotta go... lots of essays to read for finals week.

[slipstream]

Wow, it is really too bad British soldiers don't have the option of carrying their side arm with them.

[Juan]

Yep, and too bad one of those British women who rushed to help didn't have a pistol in her purse as an American woman may have.  She might have saved the guy.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yep, and too bad one of those British women who rushed to help didn't have a pistol in her purse as an American woman may have.  She might have saved the guy.

Here we go!! I was counting down til the first post about how things would have been different if some/all members of the public were armed.


As you haven't obviously seen or read the course of events I'll outline what the police and security services have released so far;


The young soldier was run down by a car driven onto the pavement (sidewalk) the soldier was walking on. The occupant of the car got out and was seen huddled over the victim, believed by the few (then) onlookers to be giving CPR. Another car drove up and another man got out and walked over to the first man, and was seen huddled like the first..At this point onlookers still believed it had been a collision and the two men were trying to save the life of the victim..


A few minutes later (by now the police had been called) the two stood up and were being remonstrated by onlookers, in particular a woman who was very close and clearly had seen what was going on.  It was also obvious that the two suspects had no interest whatsoever in carrying out another attack on members of the public, and were indeed inviting people to video their rantings. The police turned up, and the police armed response unit very close behind them.. One of the suspects rushed an armed officer, the officer dropped him, and his accomplice was dropped too..Both alive but clearly injured, both now in hospital. BOTH will now be questioned and any information gathered..


Here's a scenario if firearms to the general public were widespread:   


Up to the point where the woman remonstrates with the first murderer and realises the victim is dead and horrifically mutilated.


The two accomplices are black and have weapons that can be hidden easily under a coat. Public gun hero one assumes that the two are three or more...looks around and spots another tall black guy with a similar coat and decides arbitrarily that he's involved. He doesn't open fire, but he does shout at him to get down or he will..Another two gun hers draw their firearms and open fire on the two guys with the weapons .Hero one panics and opens fire (because he hasn't yet seen the other two heroes)..The woman who was remonstrating is stabbed and killed before hero two gets a clean shot, and misses..Woman dies. Police turn up and haven't a clue what's going on, because they can see two guys with knives and one gun, and three others (two of them tall black guys) with firearms pointing in the direction of the woman lying on the ground.


Meanwhile the guy with two knives still rushes at the police officer but the officer has four potential suspects with firearms who are threatening the public (that's the important thing to remember).. So you go from two suspects dropped (but alive and able to provide information), to a potential blood bath. Because a) the general public don't generally have a clue about using machinery in high stress fast moving, quickly evolving situations, let alone facing someone with several weapons, who clearly are capable of savage murder. b) doing 'a' whilst the machinery is a firearm. The police dropped him calmly and efficiently because they're trained.


So now, the police have raided two houses, and are still gathering the information. The two in hospital may or may not survive, if they do I would imagine they'll be in a pretty mess.

Wow, it is really too bad British soldiers don't have the option of carrying their side arm with them.

Some do. But not all, because it isn't needed or even wanted by the military. Accidents happen with firearms, even if the user is trained to use them.

[slipstream]

Some do. But not all, because it isn't needed or even wanted by the military. Accidents happen with firearms, even if the user is trained to use them.

I think it is needed after the events of today, but I'm sure the military will continue to strongly discourage it. Britian is politically correct after all.   Accidents happen with cars, even if the user is trained to use them.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think it is needed after the events of today, but I'm sure the military will continue to strongly discourage it. Britian is politically correct after all.   Accidents happen with cars, even if the user is trained to use them.

It's nothing to do with being politically correct. There are practical reasons. Our military don't need to advertise they're military. It's often counter productive if they do. There's always some drunk asshole who fancies his chances (usually ones who couldn't get into the military) and breaks a bottle over another's head if they think they're soldiers.  In the case yesterday, being armed wouldn't have helped anyway, because the victim was rammed by a car driving at speed..Probably driven onto the pavement a second or two before impact.

[slipstream]

It's nothing to do with being politically correct. There are practical reasons. Our military don't need to advertise they're military. It's often counter productive if they do. There's always some drunk asshole who fancies his chances (usually ones who couldn't get into the military) and breaks a bottle over another's head if they think they're soldiers.  In the case yesterday, being armed wouldn't have helped anyway, because the victim was rammed by a car driving at speed..Probably driven onto the pavement a second or two before impact.

OH yes, the next argument from the politically correct, "something could possibly happen, so we shouldn't allow it."  This is the way the politically correct restrict freedom.  However, when it comes to guns the politically correct have another motive, control.


I am not sure of the state of the victim yesterday after he was hit, but going forward British soliders should carry their side arm for protection.  Apparently there are many Muslim extremists in Britian due to immigration policy.