The 2nd Amendment and criminals.

[senojekips]

People like you are the problem, because you refuse to allow actions that would eventually get rid of the problem, or at least minimise it to a manageable size.

Criminals will not, as you say, "Have the sole right to bear arms" any more than they have the sole right to break any other law. They do it at the risk of being caught, but that is not the question nor the answer.

The answer is to get rid of the poor cultural attitudes that feed this stupidity. You are a typical examople of a person who advocates the continuance of that poor attitude because you will not allow laws that could reduce it. The first step in this new direction is to reverse the current situation where firearms flood your country and feature in the culture of your country.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[-- Dusty]

Go do a YouTube or even a Google search on bad cops. And when you see how they treat people here in the US.... and considering that most of the gun laws out there allow only cops to have guns.... you are essentially disarming the victims and giving carte' blanche' to the perpetrators.
You might as well give the gang bangers the rope when they're gang raping a teenage girl. I see literally, no difference.

 

[George]

George, lets get this debate above the level of desperate stupidity,

The answer is: For the same reason as Hamas doesn't recognise Israeli law,... or are you saying that the situation on the sttreets of the US has degenerated into civil war?

As I've said all along, single biggest stumbling block to any form of sensible legislation in the US is people who just don't want the present situation to change, and will use any reason to avoid the real issues.

Who was making the point that Euro culture & gun laws were keeping the peace? The Euro culture & gun laws are in effect in N. Ireland, so it's a CivilWar, why didn't it work? Same Laws that supposedly keep people safe in England, Scotland & Wales don't work in N. Ireland when those Laws have been in effect long before The Troubles started, or is it just not convienient to your argument about gun laws & denying people guns? Gaza isn't part of Israel, but N.I. is a part of the U.K. The real issue is we have a Right to defend ourselves, the Courts have ruled on the subject many times. Gun control is the ultimate in Govt dependance, something Libs seem to love.

 

[Yossarian]

What some people do not seem to understand, is how can someone who has owned a legal firearm in the U.S. all their life, and never have or will use it in a crime, and has more or less treated thier weapon as more of a tool, a piece of equiptment (although with care and safty) is responsible for thugs raping or murdering?

Draw me a direct line there, I want to see it, a clear direct line, show me how aparently a majority of the U.S. population supports and garuntees violent crime with firearms.....

I will wait, I have all day....

It's not all about culture, it's about practicality, believe or not you can have uses for a firearm, legitimate uses, that do not invovle killing people, and believe it or not, to infringe on those who do not use legal firearms in criminal acts is riducolous, you litterely would just bypass the problem right there, why put child A in the corner when it's child B who's hand is in the cookie jar?

 

[senojekips]

Who was making the point that Euro culture & gun laws were keeping the peace? The Euro culture & gun laws are in effect in N. Ireland, so it's a CivilWar, why didn't it work? Same Laws that supposedly keep people safe in England, Scotland & Wales don't work in N. Ireland when those Laws have been in effect long before The Troubles started, or is it just not convienient to your argument about gun laws & denying people guns? Gaza isn't part of Israel, but N.I. is a part of the U.K. The real issue is we have a Right to defend ourselves, the Courts have ruled on the subject many times. Gun control is the ultimate in Govt dependance, something Libs seem to love.

Wake up to yourself George.
What you very conveniently forget is that many of those firearms used were shipped in from the US. The "trounbles" in Northerm irekland have been over for years, and as a result the firearms crime rate is now 0.32 per 100,000 population as against 2.94 for the US. So in times of peace, it does work.

 

[senojekips]

What some people do not seem to understand, is how can someone who has owned a legal firearm in the U.S. all their life, and never have or will use it in a crime, and has more or less treated thier weapon as more of a tool, a piece of equiptment (although with care and safty) is responsible for thugs raping or murdering?

Draw me a direct line there, I want to see it, a clear direct line, show me how aparently a majority of the U.S. population supports and garuntees violent crime with firearms.....

I will wait, I have all day....

It's not all about culture, it's about practicality, believe or not you can have uses for a firearm, legitimate uses, that do not invovle killing people, and believe it or not, to infringe on those who do not use legal firearms in criminal acts is riducolous, you litterely would just bypass the problem right there, why put child A in the corner when it's child B who's hand is in the cookie jar?

You keep rabbiting on about responsible users, what you are saying is that 99 % of drivers obey the speed limit, therfore we shoud not have laws in place to regulate speed on the roads because it infringes on the rights of responsible drivers?

 

[Yossarian]

I have already mentioned the idea like speed regulations, I qouted that scenario with drunk driving and the impact of the autmobile related deaths on cases invovling alchohol.

And you dismissed it, I agree with regulating, but not banning, yes we do have a speed limit, but no, we did not jump straight to the obivous way to avoid speeders by just out right banning the autmobile all together did we?

See my point?

 

[senojekips]

I have already mentioned the idea like speed regulations, I qouted that scenario with drunk driving and the impact of the autmobile related deaths on cases invovling alchohol.

And you dismissed it, I agree with regulating, but not banning, yes we do have a speed limit, but no, we did not jump straight to the obivous way to avoid speeders by just out right banning the autmobile all together did we?

See my point?

Well obviously you haven't been reading my posts, because I have never at any stage in this debate, or anywhere else, advocated the banning of firearms. My primary thrust has been at a change in the firearms culture in the USA. The first thing needed is a re-interpretation of the second amendment which is at least 100 years out of date.

 

[GHR]

The fear of getting shot back, you argue, will deter most criminals. And there is a degree of truth behind this argument -- police, for example, wear sidearm precisely for their deterrence effect and protective benefits. A survey of criminal’s show that they tend to avoid targets they feel might be armed. But ultimately this argument fails, even in principle. A central tenet of game theory is that attackers have the advantage over defenders. A defender must defend against all possibilities of attack, and in doing so defends none of them very well. An attacker has to choose only one line of attack, and therefore can do it extremely well. Attackers have the advantage of surprise, planning and initiative. An example is a careful, well-considered plan to shoot someone in the back, even if the person is openly carrying a sidearm. Another example is bank robbery. The fact that banks are extremely well-protected hasn't stopped their robbery even today -- criminals simply arm themselves more heavily and take advantage of the fact that they are the attackers.

The heightened ability of guns has important implications for murder. When people experience a murderous impulse, they may attack no matter what the situation, and with whatever weapon is handy. Although they may attack with the same degree of ferocity and blind passion, a knife attack will probably result in injury, a gun attack in death. Killing a human being is a surprisingly difficult task, and that means that weapons with higher ability will kill in a greater percentage of attempts. Among common weapons, guns are unmatched for their killing ability.

Over time, gun ownership has become fused with a particular brand of American identity that prizes rugged individuality and libertarian notions of freedom - mostly freedom from government. An important thing to understand about your culture is that you tend to place responsibility and focus on individual behaviour rather than think about laws and regulations to affect behaviour. It´s common for Americans simply not to ask why guns are so prevalent or why mentally unstable people can so easily access them. Your attention focuses on what was wrong with the individual shooter. Did he have a troubled past or a mental illness? Your responses tend to be ones in which you punish the offender and try to enable individuals to protect themselves. But you are reluctant to act collectively to make your communities and your country safer.

The NRA has a large, extremely well-funded political lobbying operation - deeply supported by weapons manufacturers - that will not brook any infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms. The organisation has an enormous capacity to run political ads for and against candidates, based on their gun politics. It also has a very loyal core of members who care about firearm freedom above all else. Passions mostly run higher among the gun owners than the regulators. They demonise their opponents and whip their base into a frenzy about this issue. They bring up all these fears and anxieties about safety and government. How are the voices of reason and moderation supposed to battle that kind of opposition?

 

[Seehund]

In a society built on trust, the individual citizen does not need to arm themselves

Basically, I think it’s about Americans never naturally through the generations having developed trust in each other and to the state power. U.S. is a nation built up of many cultures without shared values and norms. Most countries of Europe consist of a community of values which has grown from the bottom up through the generations. There is a big difference between being "one people" and being a citizen of a country. To be "one people" is more about spirit, duty and responsibility - to be citizens is more a legal determination of rights and law.

On his long journey through the generations, this spirit found its expression in a community of trust. This is the result of a 1000-year development where the confidence was won through a long process where the clan logic and civil war scourge was slowly driven back. The King became an expression of law and order. And it was in that confidence that made our ancestors eventually hand the King their swords. Fathers broke their natural urge to defend their women and children with arms and gave in total confidence that right on to the community supreme - the King. This gave the King (or state if you will) the monopoly of violence in defense of the people. This still applies today. The weapons ban in most countries in Europe is not a limitation of our freedom - but is the bedrock of our freedom. In most countries in Europe, we move around between each other without weapons and this is the fruit of confidence in the community.

But when the weapons are moved from the home's four walls and over to the state then one is exposed - without State protection you are doomed. But this is exactly why trust is a strong community trademark. Trust is difficult to cultivate as it requires the willingness to be exposed. The biggest thing you can lose as a people is trust. If it disappears, the people disappear as families begin to demand their weapons back in defense of their family.

The ancient weapons which originally belonged to the family ancestral we find today in the police and military. The police will ensure that within our walls we can move between each other in confidence that no one will exploit our disarmed weakness and the soldiers are standing on the wall around us as a bulwark to them that in confidence in each other's common values no longer will carry weapons. The policeman and the soldier carry the sword you have given - it is for you and your family's sake that he has raised it. But it requires trust - trust in your fellow citizen, trust in your government. The only way you as a nation will turn this corner, are if you are totally real with yourselves, and are willing to steer the DNA of your culture in a new direction.

"We are a much better nation than the behavior exhibited."
Martin Luther King III

 

[George]

In a society built on trust, the individual citizen does not need to arm themselves

Basically, I think it’s about Americans never naturally through the generations having developed trust in each other and to the state power. U.S. is a nation built up of many cultures without shared values and norms. Most countries of Europe consist of a community of values which has grown from the bottom up through the generations. There is a big difference between being "one people" and being a citizen of a country. To be "one people" is more about spirit, duty and responsibility - to be citizens is more a legal determination of rights and law.

On his long journey through the generations, this spirit found its expression in a community of trust. This is the result of a 1000-year development where the confidence was won through a long process where the clan logic and civil war scourge was slowly driven back. The King became an expression of law and order. And it was in that confidence that made our ancestors eventually hand the King their swords. Fathers broke their natural urge to defend their women and children with arms and gave in total confidence that right on to the community supreme - the King. This gave the King (or state if you will) the monopoly of violence in defense of the people. This still applies today. The weapons ban in most countries in Europe is not a limitation of our freedom - but is the bedrock of our freedom. In most countries in Europe, we move around between each other without weapons and this is the fruit of confidence in the community.

But when the weapons are moved from the home's four walls and over to the state then one is exposed - without State protection you are doomed. But this is exactly why trust is a strong community trademark. Trust is difficult to cultivate as it requires the willingness to be exposed. The biggest thing you can lose as a people is trust. If it disappears, the people disappear as families begin to demand their weapons back in defense of their family.

The ancient weapons which originally belonged to the family ancestral we find today in the police and military. The police will ensure that within our walls we can move between each other in confidence that no one will exploit our disarmed weakness and the soldiers are standing on the wall around us as a bulwark to them that in confidence in each other's common values no longer will carry weapons. The policeman and the soldier carry the sword you have given - it is for you and your family's sake that he has raised it. But it requires trust - trust in your fellow citizen, trust in your government. The only way you as a nation will turn this corner, are if you are totally real with yourselves, and are willing to steer the DNA of your culture in a new direction.

"We are a much better nation than the behavior exhibited."
Martin Luther King III

But has crime ever been, in modern times, a truly serious thing in Europe? As has been pointed out in here it seems that gun control in Europe is more of a case of the Govt. not trusting it's own citizens, & using the occaisonal outrage, to further controll the people's ability to arm themselves. As you pointed out, if the Govt fails to protect you, your toast, either from the criminal, or from the Govt who protects the criminal from being harmed by his intended victim. As unrest grows in the Middle East there's pleny of Euro politicians who are glad they've done as much as possible to disarm the people. Must be nice going through life thinking the Govt always has your best intrests in mind.

 

[MontyB]

But has crime ever been, in modern times, a truly serious thing in Europe? As has been pointed out in here it seems that gun control in Europe is more of a case of the Govt. not trusting it's own citizens, & using the occaisonal outrage, to further controll the people's ability to arm themselves. As you pointed out, if the Govt fails to protect you, your toast, either from the criminal, or from the Govt who protects the criminal from being harmed by his intended victim. As unrest grows in the Middle East there's pleny of Euro politicians who are glad they've done as much as possible to disarm the people. Must be nice going through life thinking the Govt always has your best intrests in mind.

Yet the examples of Egypt and Tunisia would indicate that in countries where the military serves the people excessive violence was not necessary to topple dictatorships.

I also think you misunderstand government, I know the government does not have my best interests in mind but I know they have their own best interests at heart and therefore without the support of a military to keep them in power they placate the majority in order to be reelected.

However I would much sooner go through life thinking the government liked me than wondering which of my neighbours was out to get me.

 

[Seehund]

But has crime ever been, in modern times, a truly serious thing in Europe?

Yes of course it has. There is no difference in the type of crime being committed in Europe or U.S. But arms-related crime is not as widespread as in the U.S.

As has been pointed out in here it seems that gun control in Europe is more of a case of the Govt. not trusting it's own citizens, & using the occaisonal outrage, to further controll the people's ability to arm themselves.

There you are wrong. In Denmark there are approx. 65,000 civilian members of the Home Guard. A volunteer organization where people spend their leisure, without getting paid for it, to help defend Denmark. 65,000 people who all have military firearms stored in their homes. 65,000 it is about 3 times as many people who are permanently employed by the total Danish military. If that’s not to trust its own citizens – then what is it?

BTW. It’s approximately 20 years ago the last murder was committed with one of these weapons.

There are plenty of legal weapons in Denmark. We just have a law governing who has the right to own them. Basically you have to be approved by the police and have passed a practical and a theory test before you can get a weapon license.

As you pointed out, if the Govt fails to protect you, your toast, either from the criminal, or from the Govt who protects the criminal from being harmed by his intended victim.

We citizens, as well as our government, are charged with exercising due diligence to ensure that our laws are enforced and our government is properly run. More than arming all the citizens, we enforce the laws we have on the books, and there will be a substantial decrease in criminal activity. When laws are not enforced and there is no reasonable expectation that they will be enforced, these kinds of actions will continue to occur. When the laws are not enforced, then criminals have all the power. If we show the criminals that their actions will not be tolerated, the crimes committed will decrease substantially.

As unrest grows in the Middle East there's pleny of Euro politicians who are glad they've done as much as possible to disarm the people.

Sorry! Can you name who they are? I don’t think there are any European countries which have something to fear in that direction

Must be nice going through life thinking the Govt always has your best intrests in mind.

There is a difference between believing in government and to believe in the government. There are many tentacles of our government that seem and are sinister, so to speak, but our government will and must do basic protection of the citizens. Many of the actions and processes of our government, though distrustful, are ultimately for our protection as a whole. I don't agree with several things that our government do but I do believe in government.

In Denmark, we have great confidence in each other. And that one is not being cheated when you contact the police or tax authorities. We also have great confidence in social institutions such as the courts and the government. A society characterized by high trust does not need to arm all of society. General trust is the trust we have with people we do not know. And it is actually very high in Denmark. Most Danes, for example, are not anxious to stop a foreign driver to ask for help to change a flat tire. Many parents put the stroller with their baby outside in the garden, so it can sleep in fresh air. If one day we have forgot our money at the bakery, then we pay next time we come over. And if you take a drive in the country one summer day, you often see small unmanned stalls, selling potatoes and strawberries. Payment are put in a box - and if you only have large bills, then you take the coins yourself that you have to get back. The owner is confident that people do not just roar off with strawberries as well as money.

Several studies of the general confidence in key societal institutions such as courts, police, parliament and government has been made in Denmark. According to the Statistical Institute, almost 96% have trust in our police force, while 73% have trust in the government.

 

[RealNavy]

"legal" gun crimes

Yossarian: As a retired law enforcement officer in the great state of Arizona I think I can address your question. The fact is that exactly 0% of so-called "gun crime" is committed by law-abiding gun owners. This is obvious because the terms "law-abiding" and "criminal" are mutually exclusive. This is a fact that has consistently eluded gun-control advocates for decades.

Do people sometimes purchase guns legally and then go on to commit crimes with them, as in the case of the moron who went on his shooting spree in Tucson? Regrettably, yes, but these are rare exceptions. This is the price we pay for living in a free society, and make no mistake the freedoms we enjoy are butressed by gun ownership.

Ownership of firearms by criminals is forbidden in every state in the US, and I have absolutely no problem with that, despite my unwavering support for the 2nd amendment. My reason for this is simple. You do nothing to stem the tide of crime by restricting the rights of the law-abiding. This is another fact gun-control advocates just don't get. It is this faulty ability to make simple connections that leads one to question the intelligence--or the real motivation--of the anti-gun mentality.

When I was a patrol deputy the most frequent gun related complaint was about hunters discharging their weapons too close to inhabited dwellings. On investigation the reporting person was almost always wrong and the hunters/shooters were always perfectly willing to go somewhere else.

When I worked narcotics it was very rare to find a dealer holding drugs and a firearm.

When I worked gangs there were some guns but nothing like you see in any run-of-the-mill Hollywood crime drama. No AKs or machineguns, no RPGs, mostly cheap handguns.

When I worked Homicide I found that only about half of all murders are committed with firearms. The rest were from beatings, stabbings, strangulation, vehicular homicides, etc.

Do criminals commit crimes with guns? Yes. Do law-abiding gun owners sometime prevent crimes with guns? Yes. Do gun-control laws prevent gun crimes? No. Do gun-control laws violate your Constitutional rights as a law-abiding citizen? Yes. Has it ever been wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Answer that one for yourself.

 

[RealNavy]

Yes of course it has. There is no difference in the type of crime being committed in Europe or U.S. But arms-related crime is not as widespread as in the U.S.


There you are wrong. In Denmark there are approx. 65,000 civilian members of the Home Guard. A volunteer organization where people spend their leisure, without getting paid for it, to help defend Denmark. 65,000 people who all have military firearms stored in their homes. 65,000 it is about 3 times as many people who are permanently employed by the total Danish military. If that’s not to trust its own citizens – then what is it?

BTW. It’s approximately 20 years ago the last murder was committed with one of these weapons.

There are plenty of legal weapons in Denmark. We just have a law governing who has the right to own them. Basically you have to be approved by the police and have passed a practical and a theory test before you can get a weapon license.


We citizens, as well as our government, are charged with exercising due diligence to ensure that our laws are enforced and our government is properly run. More than arming all the citizens, we enforce the laws we have on the books, and there will be a substantial decrease in criminal activity. When laws are not enforced and there is no reasonable expectation that they will be enforced, these kinds of actions will continue to occur. When the laws are not enforced, then criminals have all the power. If we show the criminals that their actions will not be tolerated, the crimes committed will decrease substantially.


Sorry! Can you name who they are? I don’t think there are any European countries which have something to fear in that direction


There is a difference between believing in government and to believe in the government. There are many tentacles of our government that seem and are sinister, so to speak, but our government will and must do basic protection of the citizens. Many of the actions and processes of our government, though distrustful, are ultimately for our protection as a whole. I don't agree with several things that our government do but I do believe in government.

In Denmark, we have great confidence in each other. And that one is not being cheated when you contact the police or tax authorities. We also have great confidence in social institutions such as the courts and the government. A society characterized by high trust does not need to arm all of society. General trust is the trust we have with people we do not know. And it is actually very high in Denmark. Most Danes, for example, are not anxious to stop a foreign driver to ask for help to change a flat tire. Many parents put the stroller with their baby outside in the garden, so it can sleep in fresh air. If one day we have forgot our money at the bakery, then we pay next time we come over. And if you take a drive in the country one summer day, you often see small unmanned stalls, selling potatoes and strawberries. Payment are put in a box - and if you only have large bills, then you take the coins yourself that you have to get back. The owner is confident that people do not just roar off with strawberries as well as money.

Several studies of the general confidence in key societal institutions such as courts, police, parliament and government has been made in Denmark. According to the Statistical Institute, almost 96% have trust in our police force, while 73% have trust in the government.

Seehund: I would like to ask you a few questions. First I would like to assure you I have a great deal of respect for you and your country and the statistics you quote are indeed impressive. Now, to my questions:

Are members of the Home Guard allowed to have a store of ammunition for their weapons in their home? If so, is there a limit on the amount?
Are HG members allowed to take their weapons--at their discretion--and go shooting for practice or does marksmanship practice have to be supervised by government officials?
Thank you for the information on your country, it sounds like a very pleasant place to live.

 

[George]

Latest assault on Contitutional Rights. Proposal to ban ownership if you've ever been CHARGED with a drug crime, NOT convicted & reads as retroactive to old charges. I'd think all sides, Lib & conservative, should recognize this as way out of line, permanently loosing Rights for meerly being charged.

 

[MontyB]

Yossarian: As a retired law enforcement officer in the great state of Arizona I think I can address your question. The fact is that exactly 0% of so-called "gun crime" is committed by law-abiding gun owners. This is obvious because the terms "law-abiding" and "criminal" are mutually exclusive. This is a fact that has consistently eluded gun-control advocates for decades.

I disagree, I think we have all told him that at the point you commit a crime you are no longer "law abiding" it is as obvious as the nose on your face and is like saying that 0% of drunk driving accidents are caused by sober drivers.

Ownership of firearms by criminals is forbidden in every state in the US, and I have absolutely no problem with that, despite my unwavering support for the 2nd amendment. My reason for this is simple. You do nothing to stem the tide of crime by restricting the rights of the law-abiding. This is another fact gun-control advocates just don't get. It is this faulty ability to make simple connections that leads one to question the intelligence--or the real motivation--of the anti-gun mentality.

And how is this working for ya?
It does not appear to me that criminals are having any trouble finding firearms and I am guessing they are not manufacturing them on their own so I would take a rough guess and say that either (A) they are stealing them or (B) they are buying them but either way it shows that a sizable number of your "law abiding" gun owners are either inept enough to have a weapon stolen or the system is so unrestricted that it can not prevent sales to criminals.

Do criminals commit crimes with guns? Yes. Do law-abiding gun owners sometime prevent crimes with guns? Yes. Do gun-control laws prevent gun crimes? No. Do gun-control laws violate your Constitutional rights as a law-abiding citizen? Yes. Has it ever been wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Answer that one for yourself.

Tell me what are the proportions?
How many crimes are committed each year with guns?
How many crimes are prevented each year by gun owners?

I am prepared to bet that the ratio is not really all that close.
I would also suggest that once the bathwater is mud it is perhaps best to throw it out along with any babies that are on board.

Latest assault on Contitutional Rights. Proposal to ban ownership if you've ever been CHARGED with a drug crime, NOT convicted & reads as retroactive to old charges. I'd think all sides, Lib & conservative, should recognize this as way out of line, permanently loosing Rights for meerly being charged.

I agree that would be a bad law.

 

[RealNavy]

MontyB: I was responding to Yossarian, I will not get into an emotional debate with you, sorry. Next time use better bait when you troll.

 

[senojekips]

MontyB: I was responding to Yossarian, I will not get into an emotional debate with you, sorry. Next time use better bait when you troll.

This is a public forum for those granted membership, and as far as I am aware, threads and posts are not "by invitation only".

If you haven't got an answer just say so,...

 

[RealNavy]

I will not respond to trolling. Clear enough?