View previous topic | View next topic

Gun laws

Page 4 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

exnihilo
835671.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:54 am Reply with quote

Generally if I'm saying something I say it. I didn't say that, so, no, I'm not saying that.

The likelihood of being placed in that situation is statistically negligible. Put a gun in your bedside cabinet and it rises exponentially. But let's not clutter things up with laws, due process, courts, prisons and so forth, let's just go straight to shooting people as the first response, after all that shopping channel gewgaw is probably irreplaceable.

 
Bealzybub
835702.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:09 am Reply with quote

rewboss: Of course, if the police are so useless that they can't keep law and order without the assistence of members of the public, perhaps a better strategy would be to train the police better and give them more resources, rather than have to resort to giving just anybody, trained or untrained, the right to carry and use deadly weapons as they see fit.


Actually, in order to be able to carry a concealed weapon in most parts of this country it requires that you take a training class and aquire a special permit. Contrary to popular belief (here), when you obtain one of these permits you are not allowed to intervene in any conflicts unless your own life is in danger. In the few instances a CCW permit holder has intervened in someone elses business the courts have strictly enforced this. It is against the law in every case to go out and try to be a vigilante regardless of what you folks are seeing or hearing on TV.

Posital: But what do the Afghan, Iraqi, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Mexican, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, etc governments feel about this? But as far as immigration to the US is concerned, it would further cripple the economy if the illegal immigrants were deported, not simply harassed.

All I can speak to is Mexico. Mexicos policy is strict deportation, you enter illegally and are discovered you are immediately sent through the deportation process. So far as crippling the economy should we deport all illegals (mexicans in particular) I agree. Its unfortunate but I agree.

Spud boy: Well, I can't be held responsible for his decisions. I'd have thought that there were plenty of jobs in computing available at the time in the UK, but that was his decision, not mine. I didn't just have the friend; we became friends about 30 years ago, when we discovered a common love of playing blues & ragtime piano. And he didn't just move to Portland; I can't remember exactly how long he's been there, but his eldest daughter was born there, and is now about 20 years old.

Why would anyone even insinuate that you should be held responsible for his decisions? I must say though that it is even odder that first you happen to have a friend that moved to the city I live in "several years ago" and now that "several" has turned in to over 20 years. I'm sure as I go along here you will present me with many many more coincedences that seem to lend some sort of creeedence to the fact that you even know what you're talking about. Yes, I predict many more oddities from you.

Why would you feel the need to protect yourself if you weren't in fear of attack?

This surely deteriorates into stupidity. Along the lines of that question why would we need a police force unless of course everyone were living in fear. You're only supporting my reasoning for owning a weapon. Was that your intention?

The people on this forum arguing against you live in the UK and Australia, where gun ownership and use is much more stringently controlled, and they obviously don't feel the need to protect themselves with guns. That's an actual situation, not a hypothetical one.

Now this goes to his attitude and demeanor (spud boy). I dont see anyone here arguing against me, except you. We were having a discussion of the pros and cons on the issue of gun control.

Although he expresses it more bluntly that I would, I'm with bob on this one. You don't like our gun laws, so you're staying out of the country. I think that's the most sensible course, for all our sakes.

Well at least we agree on one thing !!!!!!!

exnihilo: Just as an aside, protecting your family and/or property and purposely discharging a lethal weapon at someone are not even remotely the same beast.

The use of a weapon (gun) to me is a last resort option. Each individual situation requires its unique response. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this but there a numerous cases of intruders coming in to peoples homes here and taking their children, very few of which a found alive if ever even found. Should you be presented that situation what would you do if you were to find a rapist child molester walking out of your home with one of your kids? Oh, yeah, you'd call the police, nevermind.

exnihilo: The likelihood of being placed in that situation is statistically negligible. Put a gun in your bedside cabinet and it rises exponentially. But let's not clutter things up with laws, due process, courts, prisons and so forth, let's just go straight to shooting people as the first response, after all that shopping channel gewgaw is probably irreplaceable.

I can agree with most of this. Statistically when unarmed intruders are faced down by armed would be victims in the case of buglaries the intruder generally runs away for fear of being shot. Rarely is it that buglars threaten would be victims for their "shopping channel gewgaw".

I'm hoping you all arent misunderstanding me, its not my belief that everyone should own a weapon in particular those that are deathly scared of them. Its your own choice. Statistically, (skewed statistics which I wont go into now) based on my history and number of weapons owned I should have a couple dozen kills under my belt, but I dont. How can this be explained? Yes, I believe there are many out there that should not be in posession of a gun, especially criminals. But the over 20,000 gun laws currently on our books dont provide for that.

 
exnihilo
835705.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:16 am Reply with quote

The use of a gun is a last resort? So you find a robber in your home and invite him to sit down for a coffee or a chat before you run to wherever the gun is (securely) stored?

As someone pointed out upthread, let's also get away from the idea that gun death and homicide are the same thing. Do you know the chance of your kid dying from a fatal gunshot at home? It's an awful lot higher than finding a stranger there who wants to spirit him/her away. Do you know what the chances are when there're no guns in the house? That's right, zero.

And your argument seems now to boil down to "I like guns, I should have one, because I'm uniquely to be trusted with them", what're the chances every loon with a semi-automatic thinks exactly the same?

 
CB27
835707.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:35 am Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Keep trying people, your arguments fail at this point. You point out hypothesis, not reality. Not in the sense of whether one should own a gun or not, but in your own petty pity.

Apart from the last 5 words which I don't understand (it could be a phrase I'm not aware of), I disagree with that comment and I think it's just your personal opinion.

Putting bob's post into the context that it's bob, and a few random comments here and there, I think there has beene quite a decent discussion with plenty of evidence to show that it's safer to live in a place like the UK, with it's stricter gun laws, than it is in the US.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it's not just about gun laws, there are also other reasons why the UK, and Western Europe, have lower homicide rates than the US, but the attitudes that need changing are very much linked to the ones which defend "the right to bear arms".

I notice your defence of gun ownership is that you yourself have never killed anyone or used your guns on others, so that means it must be safe to allow people to own and carry guns, but the laws on guns (in the US as well as everywhere else) are not there to protect us from the majority of people who might never use their guns on another person, it is there to protect us from the minority of people who will.

You say that you wouldn't allow criminals to carry guns, but majority of criminals were never convicted with any connection to firearms charges, so by the definition that majority of people are safe, shouldn't we argue that the same goes for criminals?

 
rewboss
835712.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:07 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Actually, in order to be able to carry a concealed weapon in most parts of this country it requires that you take a training class and aquire a special permit.


37 states are "shall-issue" states, meaning that the granting of concealed carry permits is automatic when certain legal requirements are met. This may include some basic safety training, but not much more than that. About four other states have no restriction at all.

 
Spud McLaren
835715.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:14 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
Spud boy: Well, I can't be held responsible for his decisions. I'd have thought that there were plenty of jobs in computing available at the time in the UK, but that was his decision, not mine. I didn't just have the friend; we became friends about 30 years ago, when we discovered a common love of playing blues & ragtime piano. And he didn't just move to Portland; I can't remember exactly how long he's been there, but his eldest daughter was born there, and is now about 20 years old.

Why would anyone even insinuate that you should be held responsible for his decisions? I must say though that it is even odder that first you happen to have a friend that moved to the city I live in "several years ago" and now that "several" has turned in to over 20 years. I'm sure as I go along here you will present me with many many more coincedences that seem to lend some sort of creeedence to the fact that you even know what you're talking about. Yes, I predict many more oddities from you.
That's fair enough in a sense; I am pretty odd. However, my oddities don't extend to lying. Semantics, maybe, but in my book several and over 20 aren't opposites. And I expect quite a lot of UK residents will know someone in, or who has moved to, Portland. If it's such a bizarre and incredible "coincidence" as you're implying, Portland must be rather more sparsely populated than I'd imagined.

Bealzybub wrote:
I wrote:
Why would you feel the need to protect yourself if you weren't in fear of attack?
This surely deteriorates into stupidity. Along the lines of that question why would we need a police force unless of course everyone were living in fear. You're only supporting my reasoning for owning a weapon. Was that your intention?
As you wrote:
This surely deteriorates into stupidity.
Of course we have a police force because people were living in fear of attack. Now we've got one, the fear is lessened. You evidently feel that the police force in your area is insufficient, and that therefore your fear will only be lessened by buying and knowing how to use a gun. The UK police force does seem to be broadly sufficient, though, which is why the general resident of the UK does not need to own such an item, nor have knowledge of how to use one.

Bealzybub wrote:
Now this goes to his attitude and demeanor (spud boy). I dont see anyone here arguing against me, except you. We were having a discussion of the pros and cons on the issue of gun control.
Well, if we have a discussion, and I'm pro and you're con, then we're arguing against each other. And I haven't seen anybody here arguing for your point of view except you.

Bealzybub wrote:
I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this but there a numerous cases of intruders coming in to peoples homes here and taking their children, very few of which a found alive if ever even found. Should you be presented that situation what would you do if you were to find a rapist child molester walking out of your home with one of your kids? Oh, yeah, you'd call the police, nevermind.
I wasn't aware that Oregon suffers more in this regard than anywhere else (honest question - does it?), but if that were the scenario then the last thing I'd do, even if I had a gun (I don't) and knew how to use one (I do), would be to shoot, for fear of hitting the child. The intruder is unlikely to be able to run faster than me if he's carrying a child, so I'd think a simple breaking of the neck ought to suffice.
But, as exnihilo wrote:
The likelihood of being placed in that situation is statistically negligible.
at least in the UK.


Bealzybub wrote:
I'm hoping you all arent misunderstanding me...
And we hope you're not misunderstanding us. I don't presume to speak for the Portland area*. I merely observe that, if you were to emigrate to the UK or Australia, there would be little need for you to own a gun for self-defence, unless you were engaged in some pretty nefarious activities. If you wanted to own a gun for recreational shooting, fine - you can do that, contrary to what many on your side of the pond believe - you can't do it in the same way as you can in the US, though.

*In bringing mention of my mate into the discussion, it was to say that he - a Brit - doesn't feel the need in the USA to own a gun. I was questioning whether it might be the case that it is the perception of US nationals (such as yourself) that the US is a more dangerous place to live than it actually is. Again, it was an honest inquiry, so I'm sorry if my wording led you to think otherwise.

 
Jenny
835720.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:29 pm Reply with quote

Bealzybub wrote:
The laws here favor the criminals and hinder law abiding citizens.


How does that square with the undisputed fact that the USA imprisons more of its population, and has a higher percentage under correctional supervision, than any other country in the world, a long way ahead even of China?

S: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

 
Spud McLaren
835722.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:31 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Bealzybub wrote:
The laws here favor the criminals and hinder law abiding citizens.


How does that square with the undisputed fact that the USA imprisons more of its population, and has a higher percentage under correctional supervision, than any other country in the world, a long way ahead even of China?
They're considered favoured because they get cheap board & lodgings?

 
Jenny
835723.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:33 pm Reply with quote

I live in the state of Maine, where gun ownership is I believe among the highest in the USA in per capita terms. You never see guns except in hunting season and carried by the police though, and our crime rate is very low. I suspect all these factors to be related to the relatively low population of the state (1.2 million) and the largely rural nature of much of it though. Rural = a lot of hunting and not much crime.

 
Efros
835729.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:47 pm Reply with quote

I think the Mainer attitude is probably different to most other states too, I've found them to be temperamentally very similar to Brits.

 
rewboss
835736.  Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:41 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
How does that square with the undisputed fact that the USA imprisons more of its population, and has a higher percentage under correctional supervision, than any other country in the world, a long way ahead even of China?


If our friend claims that the US law enforcement agencies and judicial system are corrupt to the extent of routinely imprisoning innocent people while letting criminals off on technicalities, I think I may just faint.

 
bobwilson
836342.  Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:02 pm Reply with quote

Aside (noting there’s been no posting on this thread for a few days so this can’t really be said to be derailing the thread) post 835624

Both suze (post 835639) and CB27 “Putting bob's post into the context that it's bob” seem to be saying
Quote:
don’t worry about what bob says – he’s the resident snarling nutter we keep in the corner and bring out to frighten elderly aunts at Christmas – oh how we laugh!!!
Whilst this may in itself be true, I don’t think it applies to the particular post in question.

Just to clarify – what I referred to was Bealzybub’s statement (“I just wish the gun laws were a little different over where you guys are. I'd be there in a heart beat but I do love my guns”) that s/he didn’t want to visit the UK because s/he wouldn’t be permitted to wander around with gun in hand. That’s a personal decision for the person in question. Equally, I won’t be visiting the US any time soon for similarly personal reasons, some of which I listed.

I didn’t suggest that Bealzybub was responsible for any of those perceived faults in the US, and no Bealzybub, I didn’t damn you at all let alone make any assumptions about you. If you want to wander around with gun in hand there’s a nice big tranche of land, considerably larger than the UK, where you are free to indulge your passion – I believe you are familiar with it.

Oh and incidentally – “illegal invasions” – I was referring to illegal invasions by the US, not of the US by migrants so
Quote:
I think illegals should be deported but the federal government doesnt (again those that I didnt vote for)
isn’t relevant.

So, thanks (sort of) suze and CB27 for the slightly backhanded defence of my right to speak.

 
Bealzybub
837449.  Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:07 am Reply with quote

Bobwilson: I didn’t damn you at all let alone make any assumptions about you. If you want to wander around with gun in hand there’s a nice big tranche of land, considerably larger than the UK, where you are free to indulge your passion – I believe you are familiar with it.

Um, er, yeah you did make an assumption. Nice of you to try to dodge your way out of your idiotic assumption though.

Oh? You didnt? Whats this part about?

If you want to wander around with gun in hand there’s a nice big tranche of land, considerably larger than the UK, where you are free to indulge your passion – I believe you are familiar with it.

"Wandering around with gun in hand" is just as illegal here as it is there. So now if you want anyone here to believe your baseless derisive assumption all you have to do is cite the post wherein you claim I wrote that I wanted to come over there so I could wander around with gun in hand.

But I suppose I can see your point about your gun laws and the way you folks feel about them over there, after all, days on end of rioting and generational business's being destroyed is all that much more pleasant when its done by those that dont have guns.

You guys can save it. When you post with disdain rather than objectivity I'd rather have no part of it.

Bye now.

 
Jenny
837452.  Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:14 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I suppose I can see your point about your gun laws and the way you folks feel about them over there, after all, days on end of rioting and generational business's being destroyed is all that much more pleasant when its done by those that dont have guns.


I suspect you may be being ironic here, but yes, one of the blessings of having a largely gun-free society and largely unarmed police is the low numbers of deaths when things get out of hand. Remember Kent State?

Oh, and it was the shooting of an illegally-armed man by armed police and the subsequent beating-up by police of a stone-throwing teenage girl objecting to this that provided the spark for the riots. Make of that what you will.

 
Grim
837642.  Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:56 am Reply with quote

Quote:
But I suppose I can see your point about your gun laws and the way you folks feel about them over there, after all, days on end of rioting and generational business's being destroyed is all that much more pleasant when its done by those that dont have guns.


Somewhat entertainingly opportunistic given how unprecedented current events are. But since you’ve brought it up, in 4 nights of rioting we’ve had a few dozen injuries and about 4 deaths. I believe the ’92 riots in LA were of roughly similar duration and resulted in over 50 deaths and thousands of injuries.

I’m not going to jump to any conclusions about whether gun ownership makes rioting any less likely to occur in the first place, but what’s apparent is it doesn’t act as a complete deterrent should circumstances conspire, and when things do kick off the fact that half the population have lethal armament is most definitely not a good thing.

 

Page 4 of 41
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 39, 40, 41  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group