I'm interested in the British response on this thread.

i have had feeding issues.

But you have a good point. Their was all that fear of “plastic guns”. Now no one bats an eye lash. Its almost more strange when someone has an semi auto that is not black and plastic

 

I noticed that it came over the news here that presidential also-ran Newt Gingrich proposed - should he be elected president - that he would try to strong-arm the United Nations into requiring that every nation under their jurisdiction have a law requiring gun rights based on the U.S. model. What does everyone think about this?

Personally I think he's just tickling the NRA's ears, but I can never envision such a plan coming to pass. Like I said, I respect the U.S.'s right to have their gun laws, but I don't think Gingrich realises just how unpopular firearms are in other countries. I find it also slightly hypocritical that if any other country tried to force laws on his country, he'd likely drop a nuke first, so why is it okay for his supposed administration to attempt the same with other countries?

 

I think that's stupid and insane, if he tries to do that.

One of the reasons I will not be voting for him, if he makes it to the final race.

 

I agree. The Constitution grants the right to own weapons. Not toys for target shooting, not tools for harvesting meat. _Weapons_. I think that outlawing hunting would be perfectly compatible with the Constitution; outlawing access to weapons would not.

Now, I don't know for sure that I actually _agree_ with the Constitution's position here. But I do know that a lot of critical rights that I do agree with come from the Constition, so I'm not going to support ignoring the parts that I don't like. Amend it, using the full process, or follow it.

If that full amendment process starts, that's when I'll sit down and do my soul-searching about guns, to decide which way to vote. Until then, as far as I'm concerned the issue is not even open.

And just so you know, I am otherwise a "lefty". I'm a feminist. I'm in favor of universal health care and a drastic increase in the minimum wage. I'm against the death penalty. I'm in favor of near-absolute free speech rights. (I'm not sure where that falls in the political spectrum, actually.) But I am not in favor of gun control.

I'd have to think to see how I feel about controlling ammunition of certain types. If we assume that weapons are allowed _as weapons_, then what's the basis for outlawing ammunition that is too effective as a weapon? I realize that you're arguing that this type isn't even one of those types, but your mentioning it raised the thought.

But it's not a crime punishable by execution.

I think that I see your position, I see logic in it, and I still disagree with it. I think that killing someone should require substantial evidence that that someone intended substantial bodily harm, was capable of inflicting that harm, was highly likely to inflict that harm, and that firing the gun at them (as opposed to retreating, etc.) was the only feasible way to prevent that harm.

I know that that limits people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations, for example eliminating their ability to use deadly force early in the encounter, before harm is imminent, and thus reduce the chance of harm to themselves. I don't like the fact that innocent people could be killed by criminals because of my position. But the opposite just makes it too easy to kill, and the fact that it would usually be law-abiding people killing criminals doesn't make me OK with it.

I'm confident that we could argue for a month, and would not agree here. You're probably more likely to persuade me than I am to persuade you; for example, in a novel or movie, I could easily be emotionally swayed to your view. But in real life and law, I still can't support killing someone based on what might happen in the future, or killing someone when a decent possibility of everyone leaving the situation largely unharmed exists.

I'm not sure where you think we disagree on this one? The constitution supports the ownership of weapons, including weapons for use against humans. Unless I'm misunderstanding and the AR-15 is, say, a grenade launcher, I'm not seeing an issue with its being legal.

I see your position. I see the logic in your position. I disagree with your position. I understand that my position may seem intolerable. There are areas where it essentially gives more rights to the criminal than to the homeowner. I don't like that either. It's still my position.

However, you letting yourself be beaten up is not in my position. Once that attacker is actually through barriers and attacking you, and he appears capable of substantial harm, I consider that you have a right to fire the weapon. I think that the gray area lies in the fact that I demand that you wait for imminent attack, and that demand reduces your options and your likelihood of successfully completely defending yourself.

Again, I see the logic of your positions, and I see the flaws in mine, and I still hold to mine.

I agree that ownership and use of weapons for self defense is Constitutionally protected. I thnk that where we disagree is on where acceptable self defense starts.

ChickenFreak

 

I never did. My 1911s were customized by Terry Tussey, and one of them went for over five years without any kind of stoppage. FTF, FTE or a stovepipe. I'm thinking of sending him a Colt Defender or a little Kimber now that we have a CCW provision.

(BTW, if you ever talk to Terry--and be prepared to get chewed out, it's half of the fun--tell him that you communicate with "that crazy biker from Wisconsin." I was one of his first clients when he hung his own shingle.)

That's not all. We have a clause in our CCW act that allows businesses to post "no weapons" stickers. People tell me that it works for about six months. Then the window-washers either dull the printing or the glue lets go, and the most common issue, the CCW guys just quit caring and walk in anyway. No one cares after 'the big scare' goes away.

BTW, I only buy my latte' drinks from one place, B&N on the east-side. I spoke with their manager, and she told me guns are welcomed. One of the baristas pointed out that a 'no weapons' policy lets thugs know that the place is safe to rob--no one can shoot back. it makes eliminating the witnesses easy.

And for our European friends, to make sure no one is around to testify, it is common here for the robber to round up the workers and customers of the place, march them into a back area or a meat locker where noise isn't a problem and execute them all.

My state has a 'three strikes' rule. That means that on your third adjudicated felony you get life in prison. No witnesses, no trial, no third strike.

 

This is a gun argument then?

No. its not sensible to allow citizens to carry guns. There is a reason why the US has the highest rate of gun related deaths in the Western World - too many people with guns willing to use them.

If you have a legitimate market for hand guns or 'non-hunting weapons' e.g. semi-automatic machine pistols for example, then the industry has to encourage their use and purchase to make a profit. The easiest way to do so is play on your fears of being mugged / raped / killed by a gun wielding criminal.

If you have a legitimate market for guns, you make it easier for criminals to import guns and use them.

Sure, there will always be crime and there will always be death. Death by poision is pretty rare these days - it's mostly stabbings, grevious assualt e.g. baseball bat, cricket bat etc. But having a gun wont stop that - as evidenced by the US crime statistics. It's a counter effective argument. Arming the citizenry does not make them safer - it makes them more scared.

Good crime prevention is much more effective in a society than guns, and America simply refuses to accept it.
Make ALL guns really really hard to get - your gun related crime statistics will drop significantly.

If you're attacked by a nut with a bat or a knife - you have reasonale odds of living. One gunshot fired by an idiot can kill.

Guns are seriously bad.

 

Not true. Deaths are caused by, duh, deaths. Whether you shoot 'em, poison 'em, stab 'em, or just push them out of a window, the death rate for the USA is the same as for the rest of the Western world. We use guns, Europe likes poison.

If you include "the world,' we're 17th. It turns out a lot of really fanatic scimitar swingin' folks make us cowboys look like a bunch of pikers.

If you doubt this, check the numbers. Supposedly, the gun-grabbers keep relying on discredited figures. For example, they claim that Americans are "43 times more likely to be killed by their own guns" than that in crimes. Yikes, what a fabrication.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics report that citizens kill about 2,000 felons per year. That times 43 is 86,000 people. The entire Vietnam war killed 58,000 over 15 years. If we actually killed 86,000 people per year we'd have bodies stacked up here like cordwood.

I believe that the Los Angeles medical examiner's facility has room for 15 bodies. Looks like Sarah Brady better build that guy a new wing.

Gun grabbers will tell any lie, cry every tear, and toss any tragedy into the news to disarm America. And yet every year more and more areas open up for hunting and concealed carry.

If so many of us "hate guns" and actually believe liberal propaganda, why the increase?

Besides, an armed society is a polite society. If you don't want to get shot, don't bother me. In fact, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than I have, and he was a liberal.

 

That didn't take long.

Snick.