0
   

Thoughts on gun control

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 03:36 am
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Guns are inert objects. They are extensions of the hand, the hand an extension of the mind.

When we talk about gun control we are really talking about suppressing a increasingly violent and troubled society/culture.

I think it is a mistake to fucus on gun control as some kind of solution. Gun control is only a way of treating one of many symptoms in a larger problem that should not be suppressed but more widely acknowledged and confronted.

I'm totally against gun control. I always think about that guy on T.V. fighting the military with rocks in dressshoes


Yes but the difference between your society and mine (where the ratio of gun slayings per capita America:Britain is about 200:1) is that, although we also are human and sometimes fly into rages with each other....when there is no gun around, no-one gets shot. And kids don't have shooting accidents in the home.
Yes, but what is the historic down side of gun control?

Are we going to endorse a "brave new world"?(have you read the book?)

What is the ultimate outcome of a completely unarmed populace and a government armed to the teeth? Has our nature changed in the last 100 years? I am somebody who reads up on things like the East Timor Massacre. Things like that give me a different view on gun control.

People form opinions with a very narrow scope of information.(I don't mean you)

http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw39/east-timor.html

Shooting accidents? We don't ban cars because of car accidents.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 04:01 am
Amigo wrote:
Shooting accidents? We don't ban cars because of car accidents.


No, but you have to get a driver's license if you want to drive one.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:24 am
Amigo wrote:
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Guns are inert objects. They are extensions of the hand, the hand an extension of the mind.

When we talk about gun control we are really talking about suppressing a increasingly violent and troubled society/culture.

I think it is a mistake to fucus on gun control as some kind of solution. Gun control is only a way of treating one of many symptoms in a larger problem that should not be suppressed but more widely acknowledged and confronted.

I'm totally against gun control. I always think about that guy on T.V. fighting the military with rocks in dressshoes


Yes but the difference between your society and mine (where the ratio of gun slayings per capita America:Britain is about 200:1) is that, although we also are human and sometimes fly into rages with each other....when there is no gun around, no-one gets shot. And kids don't have shooting accidents in the home.
Yes, but what is the historic down side of gun control?

Are we going to endorse a "brave new world"?(have you read the book?)

What is the ultimate outcome of a completely unarmed populace and a government armed to the teeth? Has our nature changed in the last 100 years? I am somebody who reads up on things like the East Timor Massacre. Things like that give me a different view on gun control.

People form opinions with a very narrow scope of information.(I don't mean you)

http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw39/east-timor.html

Shooting accidents? We don't ban cars because of car accidents.


I suppose if you think of your "government" as your enemy, or potentially your enemy, you could hold views like that. We have an inbuilt safeguard however, called democracy.
I don't envisage anytime soon taking up arms against Her Majesty's Armed Forces. :wink:
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 07:04 am
McTag wrote:

I don't envisage anytime soon taking up arms against Her Majesty's Armed Forces. :wink:


Picture this. Sometimes it's just one stupid law or one stupid official the people need to take up arms against and not her Majesty's entire government.

The idea of the "no knock raid" arose under Nixon's administration due to paranoia concerning drugs. A worse law is not even imaginable.

It quickly became a favorite passtime amongst people who knew no better to finger people they didn't like as drug dealers (anonymous calls) and sit back and watch the excitement as the cops broke down the victims doors and ransacked their domiciles at two or three AM in the morning, without bothering to knock.

Now, all of that flies in the face of the very oldest tenet of AngloSaxon common law, i.e. the idea that a man's home is his castle and, in the United States at least, a person is legally entitled to shoot and kill anybody doing such a thing, whether they happen to be government agents or police or whatever.

Naturally enough, somewhere back in the mid to late seventies before the internet age, out around western Maryland, the situation got out of hand. There was a salesman whose entire life consisted of salesmanship, farmers daughters, and pistol contests, and somebody fingered this guy as a drug dealer because he was sleeping with a farm girl the fingerer thought was his, and the guy was lying asleep in a hotel room with a 44 magnum caliber pistol he'd been working on that night lying on a night table when five police and federal agents broke his door down at 3 AM in the morning. Only the salesman survived.

At the ensuing trial, the salesman's lawyer correctly pointed out that Al Capone's employees had been dressed as cops for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929 and that, when people break your door down at three in the morning, their manner of dress is basically irrelevant, and you have to assume the worst. The jury took fifteen minutes to reach a decision to acquit.

I kind of like that, and view it as a benefit of having an armed society. It tends to keep assholes in positions of authority in check somewhat.

It went for years afterwards and you never heard about "no knock" raids again and, unfortunately, lessons like that do not tend to stay learned forever and you're starting to read about no knock raids again, but I assume it will only be another year or so and some similar case will materialize, and the no knock idea will be gone for another twenty or thirty years at least and hopefully somebody will figure the whole thing out and ban the idea.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 07:10 am
Oh, yeah, I should probably mention that the favorable outcome in this one is only possible in an armed society like the US. I'd GUESS that when cops or government agents stage a no-knock raid in places like England or Holland, the people just bend over like in "Animal House" and say something like "Thank you, Sir, may I have another..."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:02 am
So gunga,
When are you going to use your gun against the Bush administration for its "no knock" invasion of your phone calls?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:15 am
parados wrote:
So gunga,
When are you going to use your gun against the Bush administration for its "no knock" invasion of your phone calls?


That your idea of an analogy???

Monitoring phone calls, particularly calls between AlQuaeda operatives over there and sleeper cells here, does not pose any sort of a direct physical threat to anybody as does having unknown people break your door down unannounced and invade your home.

I don't really give a rat's ass about having phone calls monitored. Anything I need to tell somebody in utter secrecy which I can't tell them in person will be sent email using PGP.

Got any other reasons for hating George W. Bush this morning? I mean, aside from his efforts to save your sorry ingrate ass from terrorists?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:21 am
So this statement had no meaning then..
Quote:
Picture this. Sometimes it's just one stupid law or one stupid official the people need to take up arms against and not her Majesty's entire government.
Thanks Gunga
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:50 am
gungasnake wrote:
McTag wrote:

I don't envisage anytime soon taking up arms against Her Majesty's Armed Forces. :wink:


Picture this. Sometimes it's just one stupid law or one stupid official the people need to take up arms against and not her Majesty's entire government.

The idea of the "no knock raid" arose under Nixon's administration due to paranoia concerning drugs. A worse law is not even imaginable.

It quickly became a favorite passtime amongst people who knew no better to finger people they didn't like as drug dealers (anonymous calls) and sit back and watch the excitement as the cops broke down the victims doors and ransacked their domiciles at two or three AM in the morning, without bothering to knock.

Now, all of that flies in the face of the very oldest tenet of AngloSaxon common law, i.e. the idea that a man's home is his castle and, in the United States at least, a person is legally entitled to shoot and kill anybody doing such a thing, whether they happen to be government agents or police or whatever.

Naturally enough, somewhere back in the mid to late seventies before the internet age, out around western Maryland, the situation got out of hand. There was a salesman whose entire life consisted of salesmanship, farmers daughters, and pistol contests, and somebody fingered this guy as a drug dealer because he was sleeping with a farm girl the fingerer thought was his, and the guy was lying asleep in a hotel room with a 44 magnum caliber pistol he'd been working on that night lying on a night table when five police and federal agents broke his door down at 3 AM in the morning. Only the salesman survived.

At the ensuing trial, the salesman's lawyer correctly pointed out that Al Capone's employees had been dressed as cops for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929 and that, when people break your door down at three in the morning, their manner of dress is basically irrelevant, and you have to assume the worst. The jury took fifteen minutes to reach a decision to acquit.

I kind of like that, and view it as a benefit of having an armed society. It tends to keep **** in positions of authority in check somewhat.

It went for years afterwards and you never heard about "no knock" raids again and, unfortunately, lessons like that do not tend to stay learned forever and you're starting to read about no knock raids again, but I assume it will only be another year or so and some similar case will materialize, and the no knock idea will be gone for another twenty or thirty years at least and hopefully somebody will figure the whole thing out and ban the idea.


Somebody (in authority, legally and honestly pursuing what he believes to be his duties) breaks down a door and gets shot dead, and you "kind of like that"?

I don't like that at all. It is perverse.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:57 am
The flip side is that a number of innocent people have been killed by cops in no knock raids.

I like the idea of cops and feds knowing that they are legally fair game when they engage in these activities. If the idea sinks in sufficiently, the activities will cease. What will happen is that some police chief or some prosecutor will try to order a bunch of cops to conduct a no-knock raid, and the cops will tell him to go f*** himself.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 09:10 am
gungasnake wrote:
The flip side is that a number of innocent people have been killed by cops in no knock raids.

I like the idea of cops and feds knowing that they are legally fair game when they engage in these activities. If the idea sinks in sufficiently, the activities will cease. What will happen is that some police chief or some prosecutor will try to order a bunch of cops to conduct a no-knock raid, and the cops will tell him to go f*** himself.


I still think this is perverse, although I admit I have little experience of America.

The police here are an arm of the Law....they uphold the law, and hunt down criminals. Anyone obstructing the police, therefore, is committing an offence and is probably a criminal. Anyone attempting to injure a police officer is guilty of a serious crime.
Why is it correct for an indivdual to decide when the police are "out of line", to the extent he would discharge a firearm? Something appears to be seriously wrong with this attitude. Surely society appoints its police force to uphold its laws.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 10:40 am
McTag wrote:

Why is it correct for an indivdual to decide when the police are "out of line", to the extent he would discharge a firearm? Something appears to be seriously wrong with this attitude. Surely society appoints its police force to uphold its laws.
'

If laws were written and enforced by God there would be no problem; laws are written and enforced by men and men are fallable.

The no-knock idea is totally wrong and yet even the supreme court of the US has approved it, and the ONLY thing which stands in the way of it being enforced is this basic idea of a man's home being his castle, of people having the right to self defense on their own property, and the fact that no jury in the Unites States would ever convict anybody of anything for killing a police official or federal agent who broke his door down unannounced.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 04:27 pm
So, the Supreme Court (the highest court in the land, the final arbiter and interpreter of the law) has decided something, and "you" have decided you will not accept that, and will shoot to kill.

Perverse? Legal?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:07 pm
The ultimate legal authority in the US is the people, and juries. No jury in the US would convict anybody of anyting for defending himself in his own home. That is the oldest tenet of AngloSaxon common law.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:51 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
I believe that gun control only works on a macroeconomic scale. Only through starving the market does it result in effective reduction of crime.


I don't quite understand including this remark--it seems to me that gun control legislation has only that intent.


Agreed, and what I was refering to is that legislation has often failed to acheive that, and is subsequently touted as evidence of the lacking relationship of gun control to crime.

In a situation where a particular city proscribes guns, but a 5-minute drive to a neighbouring state is all it takes to get them the market starvation was not acheived, and these kinds of examples illustrate, at least to me, a failure of legislation more so than a refutation of it's validity as an ideal.


Now it makes more sense to me--and this explains adequately without further appeal to statistical arguments why gun control is only notional and nearly ineffective in the United States.

On January 1st, 2002, an new gun law took effect in Canada. I often crossed the border at Detroit, and there was one immigration officer on the Windsor side whom is saw so often, that he would lip-synch my reponses to his questions. We developed a "Hey, how ya doin'" type of familiarity, and on the first occassion that i crossed the border after January 1, 2002, at night, i happened to run into him.

Only now, he was wearing a flack jacket, and had a nine mm. machine pistol slung under his arm. I was rather surprised, and after the quick, usual Q&A, i asked him about it. He said that just as soon as the law went into effect, nut jobs from the US would fill the trunk or the back of the pick up with fire arms, throw a tarp over them, and try to drive over the border. He was amused that they mostly showed up at night, because it's the busiest border crossing in the world--at 7:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m., they'd have a far greater chance of going unnoticed. He pointed out that although he thought most of them were harless, none of the border agents were stupid enough to approach any such joker without being armed and wearing body armor.

He then spoke to the issue of gun control, which he said he'd followed carefully for years. He pointed out that gun laws in the United States usually fall apart precisely because jokers respond to new legislation by filling up the trunk with guns, and heading for the affected area. I know that i've personally seen hand guns sold out the the trunk of a car on more than one occassion, and not in the ghetto, but among members of the middle class.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:58 pm
It is completely false that the Supremes have endorsed a "no knock" policy. The case recently reviewed by the Supremes came from Michigan, and the State of Michigan stipulated that it was an illegal search. The Supremes only considered what the appropriate remedy was in view of the illegal search, and determined that the suppression of all evidence was not an appropriate remedy.

For those who would rather read for themselves than to just swallow Gunga's typical propaganda rant, the ruling in Hudson versus Michigan can be read at this Find-Law-dot-com page. To reinforce the point, the Supremes did not undermine the Fourth Amendment, nor authorize "no knock" entries--the State of Michigan stipulated that the search was illegal before this case even made it into the Federal Court system.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 09:35 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is completely false that the Supremes have endorsed a "no knock" policy. The case recently reviewed by the Supremes came from Michigan, and the State of Michigan stipulated that it was an illegal search. The Supremes only considered what the appropriate remedy was in view of the illegal search, and determined that the suppression of all evidence was not an appropriate remedy.


Thanks. This is one of those cases in which I'm more than happy to be wrong and if I've heard this one the wrong way, that's good news.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 12:24 am
old europe wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Shooting accidents? We don't ban cars because of car accidents.


No, but you have to get a driver's license if you want to drive one.
Not where I grew up.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 12:43 am
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
McTag wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Guns are inert objects. They are extensions of the hand, the hand an extension of the mind.

When we talk about gun control we are really talking about suppressing a increasingly violent and troubled society/culture.

I think it is a mistake to fucus on gun control as some kind of solution. Gun control is only a way of treating one of many symptoms in a larger problem that should not be suppressed but more widely acknowledged and confronted.

I'm totally against gun control. I always think about that guy on T.V. fighting the military with rocks in dressshoes


Yes but the difference between your society and mine (where the ratio of gun slayings per capita America:Britain is about 200:1) is that, although we also are human and sometimes fly into rages with each other....when there is no gun around, no-one gets shot. And kids don't have shooting accidents in the home.
Yes, but what is the historic down side of gun control?

Are we going to endorse a "brave new world"?(have you read the book?)

What is the ultimate outcome of a completely unarmed populace and a government armed to the teeth? Has our nature changed in the last 100 years? I am somebody who reads up on things like the East Timor Massacre. Things like that give me a different view on gun control.

People form opinions with a very narrow scope of information.(I don't mean you)

http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw39/east-timor.html

Shooting accidents? We don't ban cars because of car accidents.


I suppose if you think of your "government" as your enemy, or potentially your enemy, you could hold views like that. We have an inbuilt safeguard however, called democracy.
I don't envisage anytime soon taking up arms against Her Majesty's Armed Forces. :wink:
We don't have a democracy.

I don't think my points can be dismissed as those of somebody who merely thinks of government as an enemy. They are widely held by many intelligent men. I don't see government as an enemy, I see it as a body of men.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jul, 2006 06:38 pm
We actually have a couple of people here who don't believe that a government with the form of a democracy can become tyrannical.

This might be of some help:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671728687/002-7366303-8900055?v=glance&n=283155


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/23/TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg/180px-TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.95 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:04:59