Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

The meaning of burglary : "Burglary is a crime, the essence of which is illicit entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence." But as we see you are already widening it to include anyone who breaks into your house, regardless of intent.

"I" am not widening it. That is what the law states. I think we have already had this discussion. In any event the law clearly does not allow people to shoot just anybody they feel like.

Won't be long:

New York: A 45-year-old man in New York shot at two teenagers after they refused to pull up their baggy pants when he had asked them to, a media report said.

Kenneth Bonds from Memphis area was charged with assault after he fired shots using a semi-automatic pistol at two teenagers - aged 16 and 17 - after he asked them to pull up their baggy pants and the teens refused, Fox News reported.

The boys ran as Bonds fired more shots, hitting the younger one in the buttock.The injured boy was later admitted to a hospital.

So a guys shoots two people illegally and is charged with a crime for it. And this supports your point in what way?

A lot of people think Casey Anthony got away with killing her kid. Does that mean we are on the road to the legalization of toddler killing?

Ok how about this? If you tried to cross the border with 1 gun and 1 hit (or even a 10 hits) of coke, how easy would it be to secret the gun on your person as compared to the Coke?

The one hit, of course. But drugs intended for distribution are not typically smuggled across the border in those amounts, nor are they typically smuggled hidden on a person. They are moved by the kilo, and they are moved by vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The one hit, of course. But drugs intended for distribution are not typically smuggled across the border in those amounts, nor are they typically smuggled hidden on a person. They are moved by the kilo, and they are moved by vehicle.

Ok your getting there, now the same applies to guns, 1 gun won't have much more impact than 1 hit so they too have to be smuggled across the border in amounts that are analogous to "by the kilo" which for guns would be "by the tonne"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a guys shoots two people illegally and is charged with a crime for it. And this supports your point in what way?

A lot of people think Casey Anthony got away with killing her kid. Does that mean we are on the road to the legalization of toddler killing?

A guy shoots 2 children in the back as they are running away from him because he didn't like the way they are dressed and he is charged with the same offence that he would have been charged with had he grabbed them by the arm and that is OK ?

As for Casey Anthony from a quick skim of the trail her acquittal seems more based on a lack of sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the offences of what she was charged, that has no bearing on this.

Had it been proved however that she did kill the child but was acquitted on the basis that she though it was a burglar ...........

Ingham County, Michigan 22 July 2010:

"Burton testified he then ran upstairs to grab his gun from his closet. Several shots were fired by the intruder and Burton attempted to shoot back.

"I heard foot steps coming up the stairs and thought it was the intruder. It sounded like a grown person running up the stairs. I stepped out into the hallway, and I just pointed and fired. When I opened my eyes my daughter was laying on the floor," said Burton.

Amaia Edmund, 7, was shot. Burton said he exited through a window to the roof and saw two men standing near his neighbors yard.

"I looked down and saw D'angelo Jordan and Jerry McKinney standing in front of the tree," said Burton pointing to the defendants.

Once he watched the three men flee, Burton says he tried to take Amaia to the hospital when police arrived. The county prosectuor granted Burton immunity from future charges in exchange for his testimony.

Note that the assailants were not actually in the house or indeed on his property, in fact they were next door and that the guy shot and killed his daughter and was not prosecuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy shoots 2 children in the back as they are running away from him because he didn't like the way they are dressed and he is charged with the same offence that he would have been charged with had he grabbed them by the arm and that is OK ?

As for Casey Anthony from a quick skim of the trail her acquittal seems more based on a lack of sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the offences of what she was charged, that has no bearing on this.

Had it been proved however that she did kill the child but was acquitted on the basis that she though it was a burglar ...........

Ingham County, Michigan 22 July 2010:

Note that the assailants were not actually in the house or indeed on his property, in fact they were next door and that the guy shot and killed his daughter and was not prosecuted.

There are different levels of assault. I don't know why the idiot who shot at something he couldn't identify wasn't charged. It doesn't matter. You are attempting to argue that the US is turning unto a free-fire zone where any one can shoot anybody for any reason, and you are using anecdotal evidence to try to prove it. This is so patently stupid I really don't think there is any point in even trying to refute it. All I really have to do is point to the dramatic decrease in violent deaths in the US over the past 2 decades.

Sure but if you want to use a gun the same number of times you can use 1kg of Coke you will need 15kg of bullets. (9mm round weighs about 15g give or take)

I think I may be done with this conversation. It's pretty clear you are not serious in anything you say. Guns are one of most commonly smuggled items the world over. They are easily transportable by person or vehicle. You know this. Everyone knows this. The fact that you are trying to argue against it tells me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are different levels of assault. I don't know why the idiot who shot at something he couldn't identify wasn't charged. It doesn't matter. You are attempting to argue that the US is turning unto a free-fire zone where any one can shoot anybody for any reason, and you are using anecdotal evidence to try to prove it. This is so patently stupid I really don't think there is any point in even trying to refute it. All I really have to do is point to the dramatic decrease in violent deaths in the US over the past 2 decades.

No I am not saying the US is turning into a free fire zone at all I am however saying that the waters are very darkly muddied as to what constitutes legal or illegal shootings and give an example where a man shot his daughter and walked away free.

The decrease in crimes has been in some cases put down to the rising attrition of the perpetrators.

I think I may be done with this conversation. It's pretty clear you are not serious in anything you say. Guns are one of most commonly smuggled items the world over. They are easily transportable by person or vehicle. You know this. Everyone knows this. The fact that you are trying to argue against it tells me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

On what do you base the notion that guns are the most smuggled items?

The number of guns brought into Australia pales in comparison to the amount of drugs, particularly when most of the guns are intercepted as they are so hard to conceal (!)

In Turkey the most smuggled item is red meat, in Rwanda it is milk, Uganda cigarettes, the list goes on.

Everyone knows that saying everyone knows is a cover for saying something nobody knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am not saying the US is turning into a free fire zone at all I am however saying that the waters are very darkly muddied as to what constitutes legal or illegal shootings and give an example where a man shot his daughter and walked away free.

As the law goes little by little the precedent is set to broaden the interpretation, first it becomes you are allowed to shoot someone who was entering your house, then someone crossing the lawn, then to someone who looked like they would enter your property with intent, then to someone who just looked like they would enter your property, then to someone who just walked past your property and looked at you funny, and then to someone who looked at you from their property and it looked to you like they thought you were walking with intent so you had to shoot them before they shot you for walking by and on it goes.

Looks to me that you were at the very least saying we are on the road to a free fire zone, or something close to it.

As for the particular case you keep harping on about, prosecutors in the US have some leeway in how and when to persecute. Maybe the DA felt bad for the father, or thought that throwing him in prison would just hurt the rest of the family even more. I don't know. It doesn't matter. Cherry picking isolated cases in an attempt to show larger trends doesn't work, especially when the subject is something as vast as the US where there are hundreds of thousands -- probably millions -- of criminal justice cases every year.

On what do you base the notion that guns are the most smuggled items?

I didn't say they were the most smuggled item.

You have a compartment in a vehicle, or in a container being transported by vehicle. As long as the gun can fit in that compartment/container it is smuggleable. Putting guns in that container does not make it any easier to find than if you put drugs in it. It is not feasible to search -- or even find -- every vehicle and every container that crosses the 8600 kilometers of US border with Canada and Mexico. Although I can't locate the exact numbers right now, I have read that the US-Canada border is the most heavily trafficked border in the world, and that the second most is the US-Mexican border.

I was recently reading an article from a Canadian newspaper about the struggles they have with combating smuggling across the border. I think the Mayor's comments at the end are telling:

"If we'd ever thought of an easy solution - a long-lasting solution, a stable, permanent solution - I'd like to think that we could have nailed her down by now,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a compartment in a vehicle, or in a container being transported by vehicle. As long as the gun can fit in that compartment/container it is smuggleable. Putting guns in that container does not make it any easier to find than if you put drugs in it.

But guns as a rule are easier to detect because they are a dense lump of metal which a cheap easily deployed metal detector can find, can't do that with drugs.

You'd get more drugs in the same compartment you also have other options with drugs, you can swallow them for example which you can't do with a gun.

But you are of course forgetting the fundamental flaw in the baseline of the discussion in that the notion is that guns will flow across the Mexican border if you should happen to ban guns in the US but the guns go the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vehicles are made of metal, as are many containers. Dogs can be used to help find drugs.

The amount of drugs you can transport by swallowing is very small. It's only really used by people traveling by plane that are certain to be searched. It any event, whether smuggling drugs is a better bang-for-the-buck is a separate question than if guns are prohibitively difficult to smuggle.

But you are of course forgetting the fundamental flaw in the baseline of the discussion in that the notion is that guns will flow across the Mexican border if you should happen to ban guns in the US but the guns go the other way.

The only flaw is the baseless assumption that they wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vehicles are made of metal, as are many containers. Dogs can be used to help find drugs.

True but vehicles are of different densities of metal and a metal detector can be configured to detect changes in metallic density and hence find a gun quite easily even if buried some distance into the object.

Dogs can sniff out drugs for sure but they have trouble with deep concealments.

The amount of drugs you can transport by swallowing is very small.It's only really used by people traveling by plane that are certain to be searched. It any event, whether smuggling drugs is a better bang-for-the-buck is a separate question than if guns are prohibitively difficult to smuggle.

Still a hell of of a lot bigger amount than guns, rememberer the unit for unit comparison.

I travel by plane all the time across the country and the world and it is very rare that I am searched for drugs, in fact outside of Australia I have never been searched, scanned or sniffed for drugs. I am searched, sniffed and scanned for guns and explosives every time. Coming back into Australia is about the only time I can be certain of a scan (AQIS Xray) for organic material.

Not prohibitively difficult just a lot more difficult than drugs.

The only flaw is the baseless assumption that they wouldn't.

From where ? There is no were near the number of arms manufacturers in Canada or Mexico if any, so any weapons that are to be smuggled would have to avoid 4 different customs searches country of origin, on import to Canada or Mexico, on export from Canada and Mexico and on Import to the US. You'd be better off just trying to go direct to the US.

We are managing just fine there has been no sky rocket in crime since the gun by back with the streets full of armed desperadoes packin' imported heat, quite the opposite in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but vehicles are of different densities of metal and a metal detector can be configured to detect changes in metallic density and hence find a gun quite easily even if buried some distance into the object.

And if the cargo being transported also contains metal? The amount of metal in a gun can vary greatly from model to model due to the proliferation of polymer frames.

And of course, all this is assuming you even get the chance to search. That is not a given.

From where ? There is no were near the number of arms manufacturers in Canada or Mexico if any, so any weapons that are to be smuggled would have to avoid 4 different customs searches country of origin, on import to Canada or Mexico, on export from Canada and Mexico and on Import to the US. You'd be better off just trying to go direct to the US.

Canada's guns laws are more restrictive than the US's but they have nothing close to a total ban. Mexico's guns laws are very strict, but that doesn't seem to help them much.

MEXICO CITY – The most fearsome weapons wielded by Mexico’s drug cartels enter the country from Central America, not the United States, according to U.S. diplomatic cables disseminated by WikiLeaks and published on Tuesday by La Jornada newspaper.

Items such as grenades and rocket-launchers are stolen from Central American armies and smuggled into Mexico via neighboring Guatemala, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reported to Washington.

Link

We are managing just fine there has been no sky rocket in crime since the gun by back with the streets full of armed desperadoes packin' imported heat, quite the opposite in fact.

I'm happy for you, mate. Crime is way down here too. I don't know why you think we need your expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the cargo being transported also contains metal? The amount of metal in a gun can vary greatly from model to model due to the proliferation of polymer frames.

yes but they are looking for suspect things not just "ooo there's a gun"

Canada's guns laws are more restrictive than the US's but they have nothing close to a total ban. Mexico's guns laws are very strict, but that doesn't seem to help them much.

No because Mexico is overrun with guns from the US, ban your and they benefit too.

MEXICO CITY – The most fearsome weapons wielded by Mexico’s drug cartels enter the country from Central America, not the United States, according to U.S. diplomatic cables disseminated by WikiLeaks and published on Tuesday by La Jornada newspaper.

Items such as grenades and rocket-launchers are stolen from Central American armies and smuggled into Mexico via neighboring Guatemala, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reported to Washington.

OK so some of the cartels have a couple of heavy hitters, still doesn't off set the thousands of guns they get from the USA, and if they are getting them from Central America and the border is leaky, how come they aren't in the US? obviously something is working.

I'm happy for you, mate. Crime is way down here too. I don't know why you think we need your expertise.

Because the OP asked for it. Besides we don't claim to have any particular expertise rather that we tried something and it worked. Twice in fact should have a look at Operation Bel Isi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[you] should have a look at Operation BEL ISI

That is a very interesting operation. I was lucky enough to have the guy who mounted and led the first tap for it as a lecturer a couple of years ago. He employed an extraordinarily maneauverist approach, to great success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but they are looking for suspect things not just "ooo there's a gun"

Oh. That's a very good idea, to look for suspect things.

No because Mexico is overrun with guns from the US, ban your and they benefit too.

Mexico is overrun by gangs. That you blame the guns instead of the people wielding them is typical.

And I reject your assumption that banning guns would benefit us.

OK so some of the cartels have a couple of heavy hitters, still doesn't off set the thousands of guns they get from the USA, and if they are getting them from Central America and the border is leaky, how come they aren't in the US? obviously something is working.

We don't have powerful organizations waging war on the government. There is little demand for that stuff in the US. We have gangs, but not like Mexico has gangs.

Because the OP asked for it. Besides we don't claim to have any particular expertise rather that we tried something and it worked. Twice in fact should have a look at Operation Bel Isi

Actually, the OP was just looking for a news story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mexico is overrun by gangs. That you blame the guns instead of the people wielding them is typical.

That's ridiculous. Do you think Europe would have trembled in the 1940s if it'd been overrun by Germans wielding cameras, like the are these days?

Incidentally, BEL ISI directly addresses fallacy this too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, almost missed this.

That's ridiculous. Do you think Europe would have trembled in the 1940s if it'd been overrun by Germans wielding cameras, like the are these days?

Incidentally, BEL ISI directly addresses fallacy this too.

Ridiculous? There are far more guns in the United States than in Mexico, both in terms of total amount and per capita. Yet the US has a homicide rate that is a small fraction of Mexico's.

The point isn't whether or not it's a good or bad thing for bad people to have guns. The point is really how effective gun laws are at preventing crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on that comment a bit, let me clarify that if the question is would it be preferable for the Mexican gangs to be armed with pointy sticks rather than guns, the answer is yes, yes it would. My point is that banning guns in the US would not make that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting operation. I was lucky enough to have the guy who mounted and led the first tap for it as a lecturer a couple of years ago. He employed an extraordinarily maneauverist approach, to great success.

I have a number of friends who went on the operation and all of them look back on it as their greatest achievement.

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...