Jump to content

Looking for a 'news' story about an experiment with kids and guns


Recommended Posts

No, I wasn't using a carjacking as a justification for unlimited self defense. I was pointing out that relying on the self restraint of people who are already committing one form of violent crime is foolish. You have not the slightest intimation where their threshold of behavior is.

Further, allow me to offer you the same advice I gave to the wee ironbars; when confronted by some one who has a gun, or threatens as though they have, toss your wallet to them and run. Do not comply with their instructions, or cooperate with them. If all they wanted was your money, they now have it and should be satisfied. If they want more from you, by running you just made the equation a lot tougher for them to solve.

"Most car jackings don't end like this," sux to be the anomaly, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok to put it in simpler terms for you, a kilo of coke is 1000 "hits" so to compare drugs and guns you need to compare 1kg of coke with 1000 individual guns. 1000 guns are a hell of a lot harder to smuggle than 1000 units of coke

This is crazy. The monetary value of an item has nothing to do with its portability or concealability. Nothing.

Guns are not hard to smuggle. They are smuggled every day across our borders. This idea of yours that we can just seal of our country to guns entering it is pure fantasy.

It could not happen because Mexico has much stricter gun laws than just about any body else and it's primary source of illegal supply is the US they don't have a domestic supply source and their import regs are far stricter. The example I mentioned before was for semi-auto weapons that are legal in the US being smuggled into Mexico where they are banned.

Mexico also has strict laws against drugs. See how well that has worked out for them? And as for their "strict" import regs, most of the drugs that come into the US from Mexico did not originate in Mexico. They are smuggled into Mexico first and then on to the US.

How do you figure that? You currently have tight controls on what is imported into the USA all you have to do is put another item on the list. Are you suggesting that a vast expenditure would be needed for the customs officials to be able to recognise a gun?

We have tight legal controls. Physical control is a completely different matter. This is the basic flaw in your idea.

As previously mentioned 1000 units of drugs can be hidden in a spare tyre of a car, 1000 guns even small ones are a much tougher concealment.

Again the conflating of monetary value with concealability.

No what I am saying is that 1.7 trillion dollars has been spent on the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is finished and Afghanistan is in draw down so what that means is there is 1.7 trillion dollars back into the economy which you would only need a tenth of to pay $500 of every gun in circulation.

Oh, if only that were true. Unfortunately your math is wildly off the mark. 1.7* trillion is the total spent to date. The amount spent per year currently is a small fraction of that.

* 1.2 trillion is the actual number, but no matter.

Not one of the arguments offered on this forum or any other where I have had this debate many, many times has ever offered a practical problem that is insurmountable.

Even if it were feasible it would be a colossal waste of resources.

I am not blithely dismissing anything.

Yes I understand that the US economy has some major difficulties at present.

You are blithely dismissing, or at least ignoring, the economic realities. We are looking at cutting sacred cow social programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Did you not read what I wrote previously? Programs and budgets are being cut left and right. Any money we save when we withdraw from Afghanistan will be a drop in the bucket compared to those cuts.

We are also 14 trillion dollars in debt. The idea of diverting resources from all these other critical needs to fund a misguided attempt to ban guns is insanity at its finest.

Countries that actively use the death penalty: People's Republic of China,Iran,North Korea,Yemen,United States,Saudi Arabia,Libya,Syria, Bangladesh, Somalia,Sudan,Palestinian Authority,Egypt,Equatorial Guinea ,Taiwan,Belarus,Iraq,Malaysia,Bahrain,Botswana,Singapore,Vietnam

In some esteemed company there.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

I sleep well at night. You don't like it, tough.

No and I guess that is the nub of the issue.

No, the nub of the issue is that you think you could run our country better than we are, while apparently having limited understanding of the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magpie Oz isn't comparing your punishments to other jurisdictions, but the punishment permissible to the "ordinary Joe" (summary execution) to administer to a perp caught red-handed to that available to the state (jail time) for the same crime (burglary). I have to admit that this does seem a bit unbalanced. If burglary is considered such a terrible crime that you're entitled to splatter an intruder all over your soft furnishings if you surprise them with a shotgun, surely that should be reflected in the punishment handed out to those who are convicted having been apprehended after the fact?

To me an execution is the killing of a helpless individual, not getting the drop on someone invading your home.

Secondly, how far do you take this logic? Does that mean that a person in Australia, which has no capital punishment, cannot use deadly force against someone trying to kill him because doing so would be inflicting a "punishment" greater than what the law would impose?

What about rape? Despite our noted unfriendliness towards criminals, rape is not a capital offense in the US. Should a woman be allowed to use deadly force to stop a rape? Magpie's criteria suggests not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me an execution is the killing of a helpless individual, not getting the drop on someone invading your home.

You're pretty helpless when you've got your arms full of 50" LCD.

Secondly, how far do you take this logic? Does that mean that a person in Australia, which has no capital punishment, cannot use deadly force against someone trying to kill him because doing so would be inflicting a "punishment" greater than what the law would impose?

That's not my call. That's the call of the jury, applying their interpretation of 'reasonable'. And, while Oz and the UK don't have capital punishment as something the courts can hand out, it's entirely permissible for a police marksman to shoot to kill (they shouldn't be shooting lead unless they are shooting to kill, according to most RoEs I've ever heard of) when there is a danger to life if they don't. While an untrained member of the public should be given a greater amount of leeway for overreacting than a highly trained police shooter, I don't believe they should be given "Carte Blanche".

What about rape? Despite our noted unfriendliness towards criminals, rape is not a capital offense in the US. Should a woman be allowed to use deadly force to stop a rape? Magpie's criteria suggests not.

It would all depend. If waving a gun at the intended rapist stops them, shooting them as they back away is out of order. If pointing a gun at them just makes them sneer and keep coming, fire away, and don't stop til the weapon's empty. I'm not arguing that lethal force should never be allowed, since all jurisdictions that I'm aware of have at least some cops with guns who'll kill your ass if you look like you're going to kill someone else, just that a blanket "You can kill anyone whom you find in your house without your permission," is just a mite unbalanced in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're pretty helpless when you've got your arms full of 50" LCD.

How long does it take to drop a TV? I probably wouldn't shoot right away in that situation, but I have no problem with it being allowed.

That's not my call. That's the call of the jury, applying their interpretation of 'reasonable'. And, while Oz and the UK don't have capital punishment as something the courts can hand out, it's entirely permissible for a police marksman to shoot to kill (they shouldn't be shooting lead unless they are shooting to kill, according to most RoEs I've ever heard of) when there is a danger to life if they don't. While an untrained member of the public should be given a greater amount of leeway for overreacting than a highly trained police shooter, I don't believe they should be given "Carte Blanche".

Then that seems to run counter to Mapie's "no action stronger than the legal punishment" principle as I understand it.

You are misrepresenting the law by saying it gives Carte Blanche. It does give considerable leeway, but there have been some cases here where an overzealous homeowner has been sent to prison, primarily when an intruder was shot while attempting to flee.

It would all depend. If waving a gun at the intended rapist stops them, shooting them as they back away is out of order. If pointing a gun at them just makes them sneer and keep coming, fire away, and don't stop til the weapon's empty. I'm not arguing that lethal force should never be allowed, since all jurisdictions that I'm aware of have at least some cops with guns who'll kill your ass if you look like you're going to kill someone else, just that a blanket "You can kill anyone whom you find in your house without your permission," is just a mite unbalanced in law.

We are required to have a reasonable suspicion they are there to commit a felony at least. If someone blows away their daughter's boyfriend caught sneaking in the window I think there would be some pointed questions asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long does it take to drop a TV?

Half a second. Then another variable time to get into some sort of threat posture. All less time than it takes to pull a trigger.

You are misrepresenting the law by saying it gives Carte Blanche. It does give considerable leeway, but there have been some cases here where an overzealous homeowner has been sent to prison, primarily when an intruder was shot while attempting to flee.

Actually, any misrepresentation of the law is down to correspondents on this thread and my interpretation of what they've said.

We are required to have a reasonable suspicion they are there to commit a felony at least. If someone blows away their daughter's boyfriend caught sneaking in the window I think there would be some pointed questions asked.

If I took your attitude towards defending me and mine from violent crime, I could assume any unidentified intruder was there to imprison, torture, rape and kill anyone they found in the house.

"Reasonable suspicion they are there to commit a felony" would cover returning home to a house that's supposed to be empty and discovering someone with your telly. So you could shoot 'em, even though they initially were at pains to avoid commiting crime against the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I took your attitude towards defending me and mine from violent crime, I could assume any unidentified intruder was there to imprison, torture, rape and kill anyone they found in the house.

"Reasonable suspicion they are there to commit a felony" would cover returning home to a house that's supposed to be empty and discovering someone with your telly. So you could shoot 'em, even though they initially were at pains to avoid commiting crime against the person.

My attitude? It's the law. Sorry if you don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea behind having no death penalty in the UK and Australia is aimed more at the idea that it sends the message that killing is unnecessary, a waste, a crime. If this idea is promulgated throughout the society to the extent that it influences the behaviour of the majority of the populace (as laws are supposed to do), then the result is less killing, in terms of violent crime and state supported killings.

There will always be law-breakers, no question. There will always be murders, again no question. The idea that you can reduce the harm, lead the society away from the escalation of violence that reduces the capability of the members of the society to co-exist peaceably (Mexico is a good case in point here, and the US might well be headed along the same path (no-one mention Israel, please)) is one that has to be held and put into practice by the leaders of the society: if they decide that killing people is the best or only solution, it is the solution they will look to. We are not so well endowed with natural resources on this mud-ball that we can afford the waste generated by war - we're now at the point where we have to recognise that the paradigm of profit based on wasteful consumption cannot lead to anything worth experiencing. The problems are big, the stakes are high - it is crunch time and we cannot afford to be found wanting for creative and appropriate solutions.

As far as gun control goes, I haven't heard any arguments for it that stand well - they all devolve into a desire for control. Criminalise guns and only criminals will have guns: police and soldiers included. A gun is a powerful tool, we aren't going to be rid of them, better to be educated as to their appropriate use than to be at the wrong end of them. If a society can trust its members to use guns appropriately, it has ensured its survival to a greater extent: if it can't, it is in a precarious position and trying to ban guns isn't going to make things any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie, some factoids I might regard as relevant:

- self immolation in front of a Hampshire County Court last month

- Hillary Clinton citing "domestic requirements" for the repatriation of three division's worth of troops from Afghanistan

- 44 million US citizens on food stamps at the same time as its political leadership is aiming at reducing its payments for social security and medical care, all the while continuing to spend on military adventures and propping up failed industries

- the best armed citizenry in the world, seemingly sure of its right to do what it sees fit.

History points to a rough time ahead: how rough it is is mostly up to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just seen this on another forum written by an American.

The town next to mine had a bad night last night.They raided a guys house because they had information that he had kiddie porn on his computer. He wasn't home but they got the computer and it had kiddie porn on.A person at his house stated the person they were looking for was at the movies.The movie got out at 2:30 am and the cops had the place all staked out.

The pervert came out into the parking lot and the cops yelled for him to get on the ground. Witnesses said he went to pull up his pants and because the cops knew he had a pistol permit they opened fire on him.A police cruiser pulled forward and some how got in the line of fire. The 2 cops in the car were shot and the pervert was shot once in the big toe.The pervert was not armed.There was no mention of the number of rounds fired and the police refused to comment.

So if the cops are too stupid to not shoot each other what chance have the untrained civilians gotlol-057.gif

Oh and it would seem the guy had a pistol licence so they thought they wouldn't take any chances.But he was unarmed when they tried to kill him and if having a pistol licence is a good enough reason to shoot some one then i would be very worried over there as most people have them don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie, some factoids I might regard as relevant:

- self immolation in front of a Hampshire County Court last month

- Hillary Clinton citing "domestic requirements" for the repatriation of three division's worth of troops from Afghanistan

- 44 million US citizens on food stamps at the same time as its political leadership is aiming at reducing its payments for social security and medical care, all the while continuing to spend on military adventures and propping up failed industries

- the best armed citizenry in the world, seemingly sure of its right to do what it sees fit.

History points to a rough time ahead: how rough it is is mostly up to us.

With regard to the US "going down the same path" as lawless Mexico, all this you provide falls flat in the face of the bigger picture. Violent crime has been going down every year for the last 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. Big-end of town crime has been ramping up over that same period (with outcomes that are only becoming measurable now; those outcomes were predictable way back) and the average joe's respect for the law is taking a beating as his face is being rubbed in something pretty smelly. People aren't starving in large numbers (yet) and the MSM is still managing to do its job in broadcasting the circuses - but we're a long way from looking forward to a secure and comfortable future. I'm not so much alarmed as very worried. With all good will, I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just seen this on another forum written by an American.

So if the cops are too stupid to not shoot each other what chance have the untrained civilians gotlol-057.gif

Oh and it would seem the guy had a pistol licence so they thought they wouldn't take any chances.But he was unarmed when they tried to kill him and if having a pistol licence is a good enough reason to shoot some one then i would be very worried over there as most people have them don't they?

Basing policy on single incidents is almost always a bad idea. After all, if we were to jump to conclusions based on this fiasco it would seem that the police should be disarmed.

Also, being a civilian does not necessarily mean untrained. I am a civilian who was never in the military, but I have received formal training from the local Sheriff department (it's offered free to the public; we only have to supply our own gun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basing policy on single incidents is almost always a bad idea. After all, if we were to jump to conclusions based on this fiasco it would seem that the police should be disarmed.

Also, being a civilian does not necessarily mean untrained. I am a civilian who was never in the military, but I have received formal training from the local Sheriff department (it's offered free to the public; we only have to supply our own gun).

Not using this as a reason to justify anything mate.Just an amusing incident.Which could have been much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for guns, well only those who actually NEED them should have them and that is a pretty short list.

You can apply that to an awful lot though and pretty soon we're not allowed to have anything at all.

You don't need games, movies, books, television, the internet, holidays, nice food, sex or anything like that, so we shouldn't be allowed to have them?

I realize guns are dangerous, but so are knives, stones, cars, and people. You can't take away everything that's dangerous, and even if you had a magic button that could: who on earth would want to live in such a world? It would be boring beyond imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can apply that to an awful lot though and pretty soon we're not allowed to have anything at all.

You don't need games, movies, books, television, the internet, holidays, nice food, sex or anything like that, so we shouldn't be allowed to have them?

I realize guns are dangerous, but so are knives, stones, cars, and people. You can't take away everything that's dangerous, and even if you had a magic button that could: who on earth would want to live in such a world? It would be boring beyond imagination.

I think you might be over reaching there just a bit. I would have said that the things you list, games thru to sex, are actually vital to modern humans for a variety of reasons.

Knives, Stones, Cars and people whilst they can kill things, it is not their sole purpose.

If you take away knives you cannot eat you dinner, take away stones and you cannot build houses from them, take away cars and you have to walk, and a whole host of other things they can be used for.

Guns have one use, to kill. Take away guns and the only thing you cannot do is shoot.

I don't think a world where people aren't concerned about their children being shot because of the ubiquitous nature of firearms would be a boring one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...