What do you do when gun control doesn't work? [NA]

[poadeleted3]

For those who still believe that gun control is about crime control instead of power, this little tidbit:

Just like everywhere else that has implemented strict gun control, violent crime in Britain is surging to ever higher heights. The response? Now British doctors are calling to ban kitchen knives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

 

[Richard]

Very interesting that the picture posted with the story shows a laceration which could have been made with the shortest of sharp blades.


I think they should outlaw people.

 

[poadeleted3]

Very interesting that the picture posted with the story shows a laceration which could have been made with the shortest of sharp blades.


I think they should outlaw people.

I find their contention that short blades cause only superficial damage particularly interesting, but I have reason to know better. One of my uncles was stabbed to death in Akron by a guy using a pen knife with a 1 1/2 inch blade.

 

[SkyHog]

all you have to do is see "Casino" to realize that next would be ball point pens....we gotta outlaw them all!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people... I just made that up !

 

[Brian Austin]

all you have to do is see "Casino" to realize that next would be ball point pens....we gotta outlaw them all!

Anything can be used as a weapon when applied properly. At some point we have to start holding people responsible instead of inanimate objects.

 

[Don Jones]

From a bumper sticker I saw today

"Gun Control-- The theory that a woman laying dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose is somehow more morally correct than her explaining to the police how her attacker received that fatal gunshot wound"

Don

 

[silver-eagle]

"When knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives."

Let's stop blaming the tool. It's a criminal mind that will find SOMETHING to kill with. And by the way, couldn't one strangle someone. So we need to outlaw HANDS!

 

[wbarnhill]

I'm all for concealed weapons permits, given that the person has proper training and background checks done before being issued one. Then perhaps use that as the only way to purchase a handgun? Then you'll have a standing record of handgun purchases and will know where the majority came from if one is used in an attack on someone. Yes, the black market will still exist, but I think this would be a fair compromise to allow maximum safety while also guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms.

On a side note, I wish I still had my HK Compact.

 

[Frank Browne]

I'm all for concealed weapons permits, given that the person has proper training and background checks done before being issued one. Then perhaps use that as the only way to purchase a handgun? Then you'll have a standing record of handgun purchases and will know where the majority came from if one is used in an attack on someone. Yes, the black market will still exist, but I think this would be a fair compromise to allow maximum safety while also guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms.

On a side note, I wish I still had my HK Compact.

I'm curious. If a carry permit is required to purchase, how is a persons "right to bear arms" being guaranteed?

Interviewer: Do you have a permit for that?

Ted Nugent: Yes. It's called the Constitution.

 

[ausrere]

I find their contention that short blades cause only superficial damage particularly interesting, but I have reason to know better. One of my uncles was stabbed to death in Akron by a guy using a pen knife with a 1 1/2 inch blade.

Had a fellow officer that was nearly killed by being stabbed with a small pocket knife. Less than a 2 inch blade, no sharp point, but still nearly gutted him.

I've worked lots of aggravated assaults with all sorts of weapons, from brick to knife to gun. But the most brutal I've ever worked were done with vehicles. No movement, at least not yet, to outlaw motor vehicles though is there?

It's stupid to blame the instrument, not the person wielding it.

 

[T Bone]

I'm all for concealed weapons permits, given that the person has proper training and background checks done before being issued one. Then perhaps use that as the only way to purchase a handgun? Then you'll have a standing record of handgun purchases and will know where the majority came from if one is used in an attack on someone. Yes, the black market will still exist, but I think this would be a fair compromise to allow maximum safety while also guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms.

On a side note, I wish I still had my HK Compact.

Uhuh..... Sorry Wm. but.... the only real reason to "have a standing record of handgun purchases" is so that the gvmt. can come and round them up when it decides to. Who really cares afterall, where they came from. And mostly, they come from theft from "the right people". I'm against permits in general. I have one, I just don't feel we should be required to get government "permission" to defend our lives (particularly when the US Constitution and Declaration of Independance give us not only the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as stating the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Militia is NOT the military, nor is it the National Guard, it is the individual citizenry).

"...would be a fair compromise to allow maximum safety while also guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms."
First, it by nature would limit, not guarantee the right of people to bear arms. You see, then "they" impose whatever restrictions "they" choose, which get more restrictive as time goes on.

Holding individuals responsible for their actions, and leaving them alone until they commit a crime is the only correct alternative in a truly free society.

Wm. I'll direct you to a quote I've seen you post here yourself, read it and then re-read your statement about "maxiumum safety". Freedom is not about compromise.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[poadeleted3]

Uhuh..... Sorry Wm. but.... the only real reason to "have a standing record of handgun purchases" is so that the gvmt. can come and round them up when it decides to. Who really cares afterall, where they came from. And mostly, they come from theft from "the right people". I'm against permits in general. I have one, I just don't feel we should be required to get government "permission" to defend our lives (particularly when the US Constitution gives us not only the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as stating the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Militia is NOT the military, nor is it the National Guard, it is the individual citizenry).

snip

But William's ideas could be worked a little bit to fit with the "well regulated" part of the amendment. If it weren't for the fact that the gun control movement's stated intentions are to disarm the citizenry, I think a lot of support could be garned for more regulation that did not infringe upon our rights. For example, background checks and mandated training could be required, and certificates issued on a "shall issue basis," upon satisfactory completion. Unfortunately, any move in this direction is quickly followed with registration and disarmament, so compromise remains impossible.

 

[fgcason]

I'm all for concealed weapons permits, given that the person has proper training and background checks done before being issued one. Then perhaps use that as the only way to purchase a handgun? Then you'll have a standing record of handgun purchases and will know where the majority came from if one is used in an attack on someone. Yes, the black market will still exist, but I think this would be a fair compromise to allow maximum safety while also guaranteeing the right of people to bear arms.

That's a nice idea...in theory only. Problem is that is not reality. We live in a society where when you start restricting things like guns and the power that be want them gone for whatever reasons, they will use that power they have to take the next step, then the next, then another minor step, and another little one, then eventually take the guns from the honest people. It's the classic cooking a live frog on the stove experiment by raising the water temp very slowly vs dropping them in boiling water. Now if the hooligans AND the powers-that-be both obeyed the rules too, the regulation idea would work just fine, but the hooligans/powers-that-be are exempt from the laws that you and I must obey. So they keep their guns and restrictive attitudes that put us honest types at serious life threatening risk.

The REAL problem here has absolutely nothing to do with the weapons. Not even a little bit. Zero, zip, nada, nil, nuthin, no way no how at all, nope. Guns, knives, crossbows, shoestrings, thermonuclear weapons, ziploc baggies, privately owned and unregulated heavily armed F111's making impromptu low level divebomb practice runs in front of the whitehouse on the capitol building, knitting needles, lego's, etc are not the problem here. It's the people who are exempt from the rules and function outside the law and impose that behavior on those of us who obey the rules that are the real problem. Until those people are under control, which is NOT going to happen, it will remain to be the actual problem. Every time THEY violate a rule, WE get another rule and more restrictions applied to US, NOT THEM. THEY remain exempt every time without fail. Think about it.

As for maximum safety; Let's be blunt here: That involves scared hooligans and the ability to shoot back. If we're subject to summary execution, then so should they. Fair's fair. Anyone that doesn't believe that (totally independent of whether you want/do carry a weapon or not) is a victim in the making. A scared hooligan is a well behaved hooligan. Scared hooligans are pretty good citizens for the most part because they know they have a 50/50 chance of ceasing to exist if they get out of line. I like scared hooligans. Best kind of the species.

This is a LOT closer to how SHOULD BE done:
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/alaska/

"to allow anyone who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit if 21 years of age or older."
They still have a few resistance free zones and good justifications for not allowing some people to carry, but at least they understand the reality of the situation.


FWIW, and this will set a few of you off bigtime, my apartment lease has a clause: To insure the safety of all residents, NO weapons of any kind are allowed on the property or in the buildings (including private vehicles) except LEO or otherwise approved by management. It goes on to say that unauthorized weapons are an immediate eviction item.
With that rule in effect, I have NO idea how I'm supposed to defend myself from the law exempt hooligan that want's to kill/injure me.

I'm thinking as soon as I can afford the move, I should move to Alaska. What do you guys think?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I bought a nice old Navy .44 six shooter a few years back for targets. It blows the hell out of those targets ! A few days later I realized the dealer didn't ask for a permit so I called them to get paperwork. You don't need one for black powder pistols !

 

[wbarnhill]

The hooligans are not the only problem. People who are not trained to properly use these weapons, or are so paranoid that they fire on anyone violating their 50 foot radius personal space are also an issue to deal with. These are projectile weapons. The bullets have no computer to tell them if they've hit the threat or a bystander. Needless damage to property and life will occur if there ISN'T regulation of some sort. At the very least, anyone purchasing a handgun should be required to be trained with that handgun for a minimum number of hours. I don't care if it has to be paid for by that person of if it's included in the cost of the gun, but I'd like to know that when that person fires the weapon, they have a good solid reason that will hold up under scrutiny and that they will do it in a manner that is responsible (i.e. hold them to the same standards as police officers). That way we don't have people just blindly firing, or emptying a clip into a person.

Finally, by allowing individuals to use deadly force, we are opening a possibility that people could get away with murder. The dead cannot speak in their defense.

 

[T Bone]

To insure the safety of all residents

Wow. Nearly speechless.... (note "nearly' ).

They should change that to read "To insure the safety of all criminals".
I'd love to see how that one stood up to a court challenge. And BTW, in most locations, "immediate eviction" is simply not a legal possibility.

 

[poadeleted3]

Wow. Nearly speechless.... (note "nearly' ).

They should change that to read "To insure the safety of all criminals".
I'd love to see how that one stood up to a court challenge. And BTW, in most locations, "immediate eviction" is simply not a legal possibility.

It would stand up to a court challenge just fine. It's their property, they can set the rules. That's their choice. I, personally, wouldn't live there. That's my choice. Now, what would be interesting would be a woman who sold her gun to live there, got raped, then sued the complex for not providing proper security, claiming they took that responsibility on when they denied her the tools to defend herself. Don't know if it would fly, but would make an interesting case.

Immediate eviction, though, wouldn't work in most places.

 

[fgcason]

Wow. Nearly speechless.... (note "nearly' ).
They should change that to read "To insure the safety of all criminals".

That's the way I read it.

I'd love to see how that one stood up to a court challenge. And BTW, in most locations, "immediate eviction" is simply not a legal possibility.

Yea, I'd like to see that hold up in a sensible court too. Scary thing is, they could probably get away with it since you did voluntarily sign an agreement to whatever terms they stated. It would probably take them weeks to pull it off though. I know it's most likely not legal and very likely unenforceable on a Friday evening at 6pm on a holiday weekend, but that doesn't stop them from putting it in to scare honest people deeper into submission. It's about forcing you to take that one more step backwards into submission as a sheep, and turning the heat up another 0.5F on the frog.

 

[wbarnhill]

I think "immediate eviction" always means that they file eviction paperwork. You still get 30 days I think to get out (At least in SC).

 

[corjulo]

Freakonomics

Read the book "Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything". It's currently number 1 on NY Times non fiction list and has a lot of very interesting things to say about gun control. Strictly statistics, no emotional arguments... (hint backyard swimming pool is way more dangerous than a gun...statically speaking)

Really, this is a great book, especially his analyses of white collar crime and bagel sales.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-7739690-9468118?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Brian Austin]

...are so paranoid that they fire on anyone violating their 50 foot radius personal space are also an issue to deal with. ...

I'd be curious of any evidence supporting something like this. I've never heard/seen anything like it.

 

[gismo]

NO weapons of any kind are allowed on the property or in the buildings (including private vehicles)

So what do you use when you need a kitchen knife (or a hammer for that matter, there've been plenty of people killed with them too)?

 

[Skip Miller]

I'm curious. If a carry permit is required to purchase, how is a persons "right to bear arms" being guaranteed?

You have the right to bear arms. You do not have the right to bear any specific weapon.

-Skip

 

[Brian Austin]

You have the right to bear arms. You do not have the right to bear any specific weapon.

-Skip

Ah, THAT'S what the authors were thinking when they drew up the amendments.

"Gee, we don't want to get too specific here. Should we say firearms, guns, weapons of mass destruction, bows/arrows, knives, swords, or what?"

"Nah, just put 'arms' in to drive them nuts 200 years from now."

What did you THINK they meant?

 

[Skip Miller]

What did you THINK they meant?

That's the rub, isn't it? Our congresscritters have decided that certain weapons have too high a risk of being used "improperly" to justify the right to carry for those who would use them "properly". Suitcase nukes, live hand grenades, and fully automatic weapons come to mind. Although I am personally glad that those weapons are outlawed, it is without a doubt a slippery slope and I am not in favor of strict gun control.

As to what the framers if the Constitution intended, I'm not sure they contemplated weapons beyond the state of the art firearms of the time.

-Skip

 

[fgcason]

So what do you use when you need a kitchen knife (or a hammer for that matter, there've been plenty of people killed with them too)?

Apparently those are harmless or at least overlooked. Speaking of slack weapons control, curiously they allow cars on the property too and actually issue parking permits for them. If you really want to cut down on the death rate, pull a Meigs on the road system of this country.

I wonder if an ice axe is considered a weapon? It's just a tool to keep you from falling off the mountain to your death.

 

[wsuffa]

For those who still believe that gun control is about crime control instead of power, this little tidbit:

Just like everywhere else that has implemented strict gun control, violent crime in Britain is surging to ever higher heights. The response? Now British doctors are calling to ban kitchen knives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Herinafter known as the "Bobbit Law"

 

[AirBaker]

Not sure how the rest of the country reacts, but when you tell people in California that you own a gun they look at you a little strange.

With the recent lift of the ban on assualt weapons, it got even worse. People here are just plain scared of guns.

 

[T Bone]

That's the rub, isn't it? Our congresscritters have decided that certain weapons have too high a risk of being used "improperly" to justify the right to carry for those who would use them "properly". Suitcase nukes, live hand grenades, and fully automatic weapons come to mind. Although I am personally glad that those weapons are outlawed, it is without a doubt a slippery slope and I am not in favor of strict gun control.

As to what the framers if the Constitution intended, I'm not sure they contemplated weapons beyond the state of the art firearms of the time.

-Skip

Actually, this is incorrect. Fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal at all! They are (too IMHO) heavily regulated by the Federal government though. Anyone willing to jump through substantial hoops, give up a few rights and pay a $200 title transfer tax has a large choice of fully automatic (class III) weapons to choose from. Most of the usual "suspects" are available, up to and including M-60 machine guns. There are some States (including Michigan ) that outlaw private ownership of them, but most do not. And there has never been a record of a crime being comitted with one of these lawfully registered firearms. Obviously, since so few even know about this fact, it must be a HUGE problem, right?

They will eventually whither and die though. Ronald Reagan (of all people!) signed a law ceasing the manufacture of new fully automatic weapons (based on the date of manufacture of the receiver or frame) after a certain date in the 1980's.

These must be purchased from a class III dealer (which is nothing more than a regular firearms dealer who applied for a special tax stamp and pays the tax of $500 per year......).

 

[Frank Browne]

Uhuh..... Sorry Wm. but.... the only real reason to "have a standing record of handgun purchases" is so that the gvmt. can come and round them up when it decides to. Who really cares afterall, where they came from. And mostly, they come from theft from "the right people". I'm against permits in general. I have one, I just don't feel we should be required to get government "permission" to defend our lives (particularly when the US Constitution gives us not only the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as stating the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Militia is NOT the military, nor is it the National Guard, it is the individual citizenry).

First, it by nature would limit, not guarantee the right of people to bear arms. You see, then "they" impose whatever restrictions "they" choose, which get more restrictive as time goes on.

Holding individuals responsible for their actions, and leaving them alone until they commit a crime is the only correct alternative in a truly free society.
[/i]

See below.

 

[Brian Austin]

Not sure how the rest of the country reacts, but when you tell people in California that you own a gun they look at you a little strange.

You get the same look here when you start talking about gun control. People carry openly outside the Phoenix area, especially out hiking near reservations or the Mexico border.