BP and gun control


PDA






Donny
April 19, 2007, 07:39 PM
With the recent tragety at VT I have been advising my cartridge gun owning friends and family to buy at least one BP revolver as to still have something to defend hearth and home when the gun grabbers get busy taking away our 2nd amendment rights. No paper work to track you down with. If they come to confiscate your cartridge guns you can just take your BP guns out of hidding and go on. This may sound paranoid but I am a reformed Democrat and I know how they think. Any body who owns a gun is a loose redneck cannon about to explode at any moment. I became a Republican because I want nothing to do with their socialist ambitions.

Don

If you enjoyed reading about "BP and gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
6_gunner
April 19, 2007, 07:57 PM
Not a bad idea. Another option would be to buy from a gun show in order to avoid a paper trail.

O.S.O.K.
April 19, 2007, 08:19 PM
How about getting something like a good AK-47 or a AR-15, 6 mags and a case of ammo.

That way, you can do a thorough job of shooting when they come to take your cartridge guns.

I really like and enjoy the bp firearms that I have.

That has nothing to do with the situation though.

If they can take your cartridge guns, what makes you think they'll not include the cap and ball revolvers?

Oh, and while they're at it, may as well have a piece of your wife too. Why not?

Capitulate, appease or submit to any "gun control" and you lose the whole deal. The second amendement isn't negotiable.

Donny, you have done well to and come a long way to switch parties, but realize that the Republicans aren't imune from political "expediency" AKA "cowardice".

6 gunner - have you been to a gun show lately? You can only "avoid the paper trail" with "private collections" being sold and many exhibit halls are not allowing them to show.

We are doing well in terms of 2nd Amendment laws and issues right now, but we need to keep things in perspective.

Coyote Rider
April 19, 2007, 08:59 PM
When a SWAT team comes at you to disarm you and you try to play Rambo, not only will they kill you no matter how many of them you take out first, but they will kill your wife and children too. Almost certainly. Remember Ruby Ridge.

On the other hand, if you let them have their way with you, you're :cuss: ed anyway, and the next step a little further down the road could well be a FEMA death camp. Remember Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Turkey and the genocide of the Armenians, etc. First disarm the people, then kill them. It's what governments do.

:banghead:

O.S.O.K.
April 19, 2007, 09:12 PM
see the next reply - guess we can't delete huh?

O.S.O.K.
April 19, 2007, 09:13 PM
that is why if they decide to declare war on the american citizen, then the american citizen needs to declare war on them -those in power that allow this sh*t to go down. And that means being proactive.

Lets hope it doesnt' come down to that.

Be very careful who you vote into office! On all levels of government.

mec
April 19, 2007, 10:19 PM
the black powder guns have been under the radar but they are starting to notice them in England and to a greater degree in Zimbabwe and South Africa where the farmers went to them after the general disarmament.

Several things have happened in the last couple of decades:

The number of guns have greatly increased. Part of this is a response to the periods the leftists were in control. Every time they passed a gun law or tried to pass one, people went out and bought everything from semi-auto pistols to the various civilian models of military rifles. Between the Brady legislation and the AWB, the gun shows had crates of AKs and ARs moving out the doors and walls of surplus ammunition for both. People are again buying this type of arm because of the last election and the one to come.There will be a huge arsenal in civilian hands long after western civ has strangled on its on excrement

Legal ccw with interstate reciprocity has exploded.

The leftists have realized that they have lost several elections on the gun vote and have had to pull a temporary flip-flop. They no longer control all of the information media and people tend to go with the Second Amendment as an individual right when they hear the arguments. to some extent, this has impinged upon at least some of the media. Ted Nugent lives here. Our local commie rag, faced with much loss of circulation, has given him a column that really resonates with local readers of a libertarian/ Pro-American bent.

The best thing we can do is keep on buying and enjoying all sorts of guns. The next best thing we can do is exercise good manners so that the general populus doesn't see us as crashing boors and hairy thundereres.

hildo
April 19, 2007, 10:46 PM
Very interesting reading.
I guess that if I were an American I would be against gun control as well.
However I am a Dutchman in Holland and here in our small flat overcrowded country (Holland) we have quite strickt gun control. In general nobody is allowed to have firearms apart from the police and army. In fact, I do not see this as a really big problem, it keeps people that should not have guns, mentally disturbed or otherwise fruitcake's (for general and my own safety) away from them.

However, if you want to shoot and own guns in Holland, it's no real problem!
Rules are simple. You should not have a criminal or violent record that is younger than 8 years, that is all that is required.
Joining a shooting club is mandatory and you must shoot at least 18 times a year. Logical since there is not much use for guns if you don't intend to shoot them anyway. After a year shootingclub membership you can buy your first gun.
After the second year you can have upto 5 guns.
This includes any gun you can think of, AK47, AR15 or whatever as long as it is smaller than .50 caliber and it may not a full automatic machinegun.
BP guns may be of any caliber, no cannons though, you have to have a special license for that... but again it is possible if you enjoy shooting the really big things.

Antique BP guns are free to have for everybody, except cartridge revolvers made after 1873.
I have a antique Rolling Block in 50/70, and I can have the ammunition for that as well. In fact I may have ammunition for any antique gun that I own since I have a gun license. No restictions in how many antique guns.
Although the amount of ammunition that I may have is limited to a maximum of10.000 rounds. More than enough for me. Roundballs or loose bullets are not seen as ammunition.

So, even with gun control it does not mean you are not allowed to have guns or enjoy shooting, but there are just some safety restrictions. You may never 'carry' a gun on you, apart from your house to the range, westernweekend or so and back again. Licensed guns must be locked up in a safe in your home, same as the ammunition.
You can get a 'passport' for your guns so you can travel all over Europe to participate in shooting events. You must carry with you a paper from the shooting club to which you are travelling that's says you're invited. Nothing else needed, apart from your cowboy hat ofcoarse:D

The police will inspect your guns and serial numbers every now and then. Maybe once year, sometimes it takes years before they come by.
You will hand over the guns to be inspected, they may not take them because they are yours, and your responsibility. If you have no time, no problem, they will go and come back later at a time that suits you.
They are certainly not allowed to enter your house when you do not want them to!
I never have loaded guns in my home, and feel safe as it is.

My only true big problem is... I can't have more than 5 replica BP weapons:( . The rest must be true antiques and they are expensive!

O.S.O.K.
April 19, 2007, 11:33 PM
mec, sometimes it takes a little boorish language (intersting) to push awareness into the conciousness.

It's disturbing to read what could happen to your family in graphic terms no?

What do you think the families of the VA Tech shootings are thinking/feeling this evening?

We have a plethora of history and current abuses to draw on for example in addition to this current, backyard event.

I would rather startle a few people on a bulletin board than face the consequences of not doing so in the long run.

And just for the record, the leftist/socialists in this country are going to present us as they see fit regardless of what we say.

People need to wake up and realize just how important it it is to stand against tyranny at all levels.

Obviously, I feel very strongly about this and it's hard to remain politically correct when speaking about it.

Oh and hildo - no offense, but compared to the laws and feedom we have here in the USA, your laws are attrocious. I hope your country improves in that regard.

DixieTexian
April 19, 2007, 11:50 PM
With all this stuff going on the past few days, I just figured out a way to conceal my remington 1858 wearing blue jeans and (of course) my pearl snap shirt. Now, I need to get my CHL so I can carry it without getting wrongly arrested. I will probably carry something else when I get it, but I might carry my remmie every once in a while just because it has to be pretty darn intimidating to see someone pull a revolver with an 8 inch barrel out of their pants.

mec
April 20, 2007, 12:52 AM
Interestingly enough, your remington is not considered a firearm in Texas. Therefore, it is not considered a handgun and there is no law against carrying it. (yep, its right there in CH46). Of course, walking down the street with it will cause an eruption of the " Duck Syndrome." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck. and would be a perfect way to get surrounded by police with their guns out.

MatthewVanitas
April 20, 2007, 01:14 AM
mec, sometimes it takes a little boorish language (intersting) to push awareness into the conciousness.

It's disturbing to read what could happen to your family in graphic terms no?

Nope, it's not that. It's the fact that over-the-top statements like those reflect poorly on gun-owners, and this is a public forum.

Who is more likely to get positive results from their statement:

A: "I believe that Congress should not support initiative XYZ, because it sets bad precedent ABC, conflicts with the 10th Amendment, and will be extremely expensive with no guaranteed results"

B: "Those ******ers in CONgress are trying to ***** us over again! I'm gonna shoot the first cop I see trying to enforce this *******, the REVOLUTION STARTS NOW!!!"


I do, however, agree with some of O.S.O.K.'s other points, mainly that BP guns are not a "solution" to gun control, because a firearm bought through a legal FTF (face-to-face) private transaction is equally untraceable, and far more useful.

Vairochana
April 20, 2007, 04:47 AM
IBL

hildo
April 20, 2007, 05:48 AM
O.S.O.K.
'compared to the laws and feedom we have here in the USA, your laws are attrocious. I hope your country improves in that regard'

Nah... it's not as bad as it sounds. You must remember that the USA is a different country with a totally different historical background, and a different state of mind between Americans & European civilians because of it.
We were never allowed to have guns, even way back when.
The fear in United States civilians, 'I must be able to protect myself'. does not/hardly exist here.
I see it as a great freedom that my Country allows me to have whatever gun I want to have, even militairy assault weapons. There is not to much plainly forbidden, there are just some rules to follow. It does make me feel safe that not every whacko weirdo can buy one just like that.

I have travelled the United States in 1991 on my Harley-Davidson that I had shipped to the US, for three months. Been through 41 states and seen a lot. The best trip I ever made. I too got a unsafe feeling, probably because everybody told me to be carefull and watch out for crazy people.
I wanted to buy a gun for self defense, but in a gunshop I was told it was not allowed for me since I was a tourist. After these three un-armed months and around 16.000 miles I can honestly say that I met al lot of people, black & white, and all were friendly and have never feld threathend anywhere. Although there are some places that are better avoided.

Don't get me wrong, I surely am not against guns! I am in fact Pro-Gun in a big way. I have aquired 6 of them since I started shooting 1 1/2 year back, and not about to stop collecting any time soon:D
Even, if I would feel the need to shoot someone I would never use one of my legal guns since the impact of me doing so on the sport would probably be disastrous, like what happened in the UK a while back. I'd get me an illegal gun if I really would feel the need to shoot someone.

Freedom in Holland?
I have guns, not for self defense, just for the shooting sport.
I can travel wherever I want to go in the world.
Gay man or woman can marry(!), although I am certainly not gay myself I support this. It's freedom.
Abortion can be legally performed by a docter, if it is done early.
You can believe in God, Allah and just about anything. I support this although I am a non believer.
When following very strict rules it is allowed for people to end their lives when they are terminally ill. You will not need to see you loved one die in agony.
I can buy drugs, legally, in a coffeeshop around the corner. Even harddrugs like cocain and such you may pocess in quantities for personal use.
The funny thing is that in Holland, statisically, our drugsproblem is smaller and way less violent than the one in the USA.

Good laws are not too bad. For instance... I would not feel real safe on the public roads if there was no law that would say you require a drivers license when you want to drive a car. It does not mean you are not allowed to drive, there are just some restrictions and rules... a drivers license for one. staying on the right side of the road for another.

I would not want the laws to change like they are in the USA today since I do not think my freedom, of which I am very fond, would increase.
But I do understand the American point of view, no gun control, fully. I hope you can understand mine, from my background, as well.
If everybody would keep an open mind to eachothers views there would be a lot less wars!

Gotto stop now. Get my stuff together to blast the hell out of that paper target today:D
Hildo

rusty from italy
April 20, 2007, 08:56 AM
Beautiful post hildo!
I quote every single world, i live in Italy, our laws is sligtly more free than yours in a side and bad in one other, i like the freedom of USA people, but i like the minimun control on gun here too!
In many things in Holland you're more free than us, expecially in gay marriage, eutanasia, drugs, and more, but we have the problem of the catholic churc in Rome, with heavy intromission in political affair of the Italian state :mad:
Tomorrow i'll make some hole in a paper target with my '73saa and my navy colt,(proudly made in Italy:) ) and i will get lot of fun !
Now we're really OT:uhoh:

so long
Rusty

mec
April 20, 2007, 09:18 AM
Interesting that you mention the crazy people. a friend married a German woman and brought her home to visit. The first thing she saw when she got off the airplane was a crazy person causing a disturbance. Then they went into a department store and there was a crazy woman in the undergarment section. She was pitching panties up in the air and watching them float down.

Then they came to texas to visit the family and there was a crazy person standing in the middle of the street directing traffic (they like to do that) She had not seen a crazy person while living in Germany. Apparently it is not encouraged there.

I appreciated the report on the Dutch gun laws. The last thing I read about them claimed that you could own certain guns but had to leave them locked in a gun club armoury unless shooting or hunting.

DixieTexian
April 20, 2007, 02:06 PM
Interestingly enough, your remington is not considered a firearm in Texas. Therefore, it is not considered a handgun and there is no law against carrying it. (yep, its right there in CH46). Of course, walking down the street with it will cause an eruption of the " Duck Syndrome." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck. and would be a perfect way to get surrounded by police with their guns out.
I am fully aware of that and have considered printing out section 46.001 (think that is the one) of the Texas Penal code to keep with it, but I would still rather avoid the hassel.

Coyote Rider
April 20, 2007, 05:35 PM
I am fully aware of that and have considered printing out section 46.001 (think that is the one) of the Texas Penal code to keep with it, but I would still rather avoid the hassel.

Probably best to avoid the hassle. After all, you don't want the police to become embarassed when they find the printout while searching your body after blowing your head off. :uhoh:

TallPine
April 20, 2007, 07:18 PM
Freedom in Holland?
I have guns, not for self defense, just for the shooting sport.

And therein lies the problem. :(

O.S.O.K.
April 20, 2007, 08:59 PM
I have to tell you guys: I can't stand watchng the "news" about these shootings - they cover everything but the obvious. The obvious being that our campuses and schools are wonderful places for a psychopath to take a gun or two and shoot people until they grow tired of it and nobody will stop them, nobody is armed and the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage.

This drives me crazy.

I have a daughter in college, a boy in high school and a boy and my wife in Jr. High - all sitting ducks for some wacko.

Then I see somebody talking about how to "get around" a total gun ban....

:banghead: :cuss: :what:

Also please understand that I "hang out" most of the time on a board that declares that it is "not disneyland" and if you want to say a four letter word, it's no big deal. Not that I take advantage much of that but sometimes....

In the mean time, I e-mail fox news and my political representatives and suggest proper behavior and of course, vent some on the bulletin board. :o

mike101
April 21, 2007, 09:29 AM
In NJ, BP guns are controlled just like any other firearm. Thank God for the internet! There are some out of state dealers who will not ship a BP revolver to NJ, though. Taylor's and Dixie won't.

jeep-2
April 22, 2007, 09:25 AM
when threads like this are posted on the net, it won't be long before BP guns and black powder are gone after.

mec
April 22, 2007, 09:47 AM
"...before BP guns and black powder are gone after."

Possibly. A big factor is that anti-gun activists don't know anything about guns and probably don't realize that BP guns are any different than ctg guns. Gun people have convinced the legislatures that BP arms are not a crime factor and had them exempted. Some politicians have even used the "cultural aspects" of black powder arms to trick shooters into thinking tha they are not anti-gun. Birch Bayh rode this pony back in 1968.

It would probably surprise a lot of gun control advocates to learn that (1) non cartridge guns and replicats exist; and, (2) that they are not considered firearms in many jurisdictions.

On the other hand, most antigun types are sufficiently uninterested in guns that a post about muzzle loaders/ BP handguns is unlikely to draw their attention.

mykeal
April 22, 2007, 09:49 AM
Posted by O.S.O.K: "...the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage...."

I am insulted by that characterization of the police. It is simply untrue. I realize that is your opinion, and you are both entitled to it and to voice it. However, it is disrespectful of people who do a very difficult and dangerous job. Even more to the point, it is disrespectful to the hundreds of policemen and women who have died trying to enforce the law and keep us safe, and especially to their families. You owe them an apology.

Show me that you have the training and experience to be able to make the difficult tactical decisions in such a situation, and are thus qualified to make such judgments and might have more respect for you. Otherwise, as a result of your statement, I have none.

SniperStraz
April 22, 2007, 09:56 AM
How about buying in a private sale? Or how about just saying you sold your guns? I know what you're gonna say. "They'll search my house and find the gun even after I say I sold it." Your probably right. In which case having a BP gun won't help because they'll find that too. I've thought about it a few times, but if that time ever comes there won't be any laws protecting BP anymore and even if there are, no one will abide by them. Your best bet is to buy an SKS in a private sale and hide it very well under the tool shed along with 5000 rounds of ammo.

spocahp anar
April 22, 2007, 10:01 AM
Hildo;

I can't imagine having to be required to shoot 18 times ayear, and being required to join a club? So much for the right to free assembly (which is an American right). I own many firearms and have a free public range 20 minutes from my house and I'm lucky if I get out to shoot 5 times a year. I am glad you can live with that because I couldn't.

Also to drive a car is a priveledge, not a right as defined by our constituiton. Noone in America relishes the actions of crazed individuals and what happens when they snap. But what would happen in Holland if one of the Legal gun owners flipped out, unlocked his weapon and carried it into a school armed with many magazines and loads of ammo, chained the doors and started shooting? or kicked in the door to your house and walked in? Would you have time to run to your safe, unlock it, retrieve the gun, load it and then confront the individual?

These things happen here for many reasons: violent strereotypes perpetuated by various media as protagonists, a culture of selfishness, a culture of disobedience, or in general a lack of moral upbringing.

We have singers (used loosley) over here who cater to a gangsta crowd that have done interviews that claim they would never, under any circumstance, help the police in any way solve a crime, "that if a serial killer lived next door to me I wouldn't tell the police; I would just move." This is why we have so much gun violence. Becuase people in this country can't handle being "dissed". They don't have the proper upbringing to live in a society that doesn't condone violence. They aren't emotionally developed to handle being an adult.

Steve Swartz
April 22, 2007, 12:47 PM
Hilda and All:

1) It's not about "culture" as much as it is about "philosophy" (althought he two overlap significantly, and with "values"). In Europe, the philosphy-culture-values hold that "Rights" and "Freedoms" are retained by the State (monarch) and are granted to the people. Those who fled Europe and settled the New World created a system where "Rights" and "Freedoms" are retained by the People and only grudgingly loaned to the State in order to serve narrowly defined "public necessities." Therefore, any discussion of hte differences between "USA" and "Pretty Much All Other Country's" approaches to gun control will be colored by this "apples to oranges" problem.

2) Given that, we (Americans) have strayed far in terms of Culture and Values toward the European way of thinking. While our Constitution has not changed, we have allowed it to be re-interpreted along the European model.

3) The "philosophy" instructs "practice" with the application of the principle of "prior restraint" (see the sci-fi film Minority Report). In the European model, since the rights are retained by the monarch and granted byt eh monarch to the people, prior restraint is fine: the assumption is that an individual is forbidden from exercising rights unless he/she receives permission from the state. In the US, the opposite is true: the concept of "prior restraint is considered anathema to the exercise of civil liberties. Consider the arguments over the exercisxe of prior restraint to the First Amendment- what would our gun laws look like if we were to apply those arguments to the Second Amendment?

4) O.K., so philosophical arguments aside . . . in both the US and Europe, the state has no responsibility to protect the individual. This principle has been upheld consistently from the most libertarian tot he most totalitarian forms of government over time. O.K., so given that every society has Bad People, and given that the state has no responsibility to protect the innocent, what do the innocent do for the 10, 15, 20 or more minutes until the hostage negotiation team (or coroner) arrives? Without the ability of self defense, the innocent generally Die. Horribly.

5) As to the police- most are good people, well intentioned public servants. But understand their mission. They do not have a responsibility to save you. Indeed, attempting to save you through the application of force is generally frowned upon. Their duty is to society as a whole- not the hostages behind the barricade.

Yes, during Columbine-Virginia Tech- and more recently, the Houston Space Center incident- police procedure is to set a cordon, arrest/detain/question every living thing available in the cordon, and then bring in the hostage negotiation team. Hours pass. Eventually, the Bad Person decides to quit (one way or another). In the meantime, the innocent . . . ?

Steve Swartz

O.S.O.K.
April 22, 2007, 06:46 PM
Posted by Mykeal: "Posted by O.S.O.K: "...the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage...."

I am insulted by that characterization of the police. It is simply untrue. I realize that is your opinion, and you are both entitled to it and to voice it. However, it is disrespectful of people who do a very difficult and dangerous job. Even more to the point, it is disrespectful to the hundreds of policemen and women who have died trying to enforce the law and keep us safe, and especially to their families. You owe them an apology.

Show me that you have the training and experience to be able to make the difficult tactical decisions in such a situation, and are thus qualified to make such judgments and might have more respect for you. Otherwise, as a result of your statement, I have none."

You are entitled to your opinion too, and if you are insulted by the truth, then I certainly understand in this instance.

What do you call it when there's plenty of time for photojournalists to get hours of video of the police running around taking cover with their AR's? All the while, the shooting goes on. The same thing happened at Columbine, and just a few day's ago in Houston - it took them 3 hours - 3 hours to get inside and discover what had happened.

Sorry, but when I look at the facts, it takes hours for the police actually do anything. I know that they are restricted to what their "superiors" order and when I say "police" I am including the whole organization - not just the people that work the street and have to dogde bullets. Again, the truth is ugly and while I respect LEO's for the dangerous jobs that they do, the facts are the facts in these situations. You can't deny it.

Time after time after time in these shooting incidents the police wait outside while hostages and others are shot dead one after another - at VA Tech - over 30 people.

The point being that in today's litigious world (thank the lawyers for this - and no, I won't appologize to any of them either) the police are now pretty much worthless in these situations. That is why we the people must not be restricted in our firearm rights - the 2ndA says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that's what it means, and this is why.

I'm not going to appologize for speaking the truth. I was not intending to disparage LEO's but the fact of the matter is what it is. Yes it's ugly and yes it's quite embarrasing for the police.

Again, what do you think the VA Tech shooting victim's families think of the police's performance? I sure know what I would think.

Steve Swartz
April 22, 2007, 07:51 PM
. . . LEOs have no responsibility to protect "the people inside" during these situations . . . (see above)

No knock on them, just the reality. "Containment" is their mission, not "protection."

Steve in North texas

Vermonter
April 22, 2007, 08:12 PM
I believe the police at Virginia Tech DID storm the building once they realized what was going on.

The problem there was that they didn't shut down the campus while they looked for another suspect - the boyfriend of the first woman who was shot. They looked for him because ....... he owns guns :banghead:

Meanwhile Cho was back in his room making his videos and getting ready for his rampage in the classrooms.

mykeal
April 23, 2007, 01:12 PM
Well, I must say I'm a little surprised and very disappointed.

I was rather hoping you would say that you had some tactical police experience or training, so you knew from first hand knowledge whether they did a good job or not. What I find out is that you get your "facts" from television news broadcasts.

If I understand you, you believe, from watching television, that the police simply stood around and waited for the killer to finish shooting people before taking any action.

Is it just possible that the reason you only saw police outside the buildings is because the "photojournalists" were prevented from taking video of the police at the front of their assault? Perhaps this is because the "photojournalists" 1) get in the way, 2) would provide the killer with real time data on where the cops are and what they are doing and 3) would be in danger of becoming additional casualties (and then blame the cops for "not protecting them").

You didn't see "truth" on television. You saw what was safe and easy for the "photojournalists" to film. I don't blame the "photojournalists" by the way. They did what they were allowed to do. I have no doubt if it was up to them they'd have run right up to the killer and tried to interview him while he was pulling the triggers. You are the one who drew a conclusion about what you saw and then called it "the truth".

So, apparently, in your mind, this is all the fault of the cops because they didn't stop it sooner. And the proof is the stock video footage taken by "photojournalists" who were unable (or perhaps unwilling) to film the real action. Let's certainly not blame the killer, he was just doing what the cops let him do.

I hope that my characterization of your position is in error, but based on the "truth" you have published, it looks like the truth to me.

O.S.O.K.
April 23, 2007, 03:59 PM
Mykeal, You have a point for the VA Tech shooting.

We will see how the facts pan out. But it sure looks like more of the same deployed policy that we've seen in past incidents.

And you must admit that when the cameras are rolling, the LEO's on hand will be sure to look good - only natural - they are people after all.

Columbine is a certainty and so is the incident in Houston at NASA - due primarily to it's small scope. In other situations, it has been private citizens that stop the killer, not the police - there was a school shooting were a teacher or principal retreived his handgun and stopped the killer that I remember. For some reason, this is downplayed...

Already succinctly stated by Steve Swartz: the police work for "containment", not "protection". And that's afer they actually arrive. A whole lot can happen in 10 minutes.

So, you are right about them not just standing around, they were acting to contain the situation.

That is the truth - like it or not. I don't like it - not one bit.

Especially when it's used as a cornerstone for location dissarmament - the police DO NOT PROTECT us. They mostly investigate and try and apprehend criminals AFTER THE FACT OF THE CRIME. Truth.

And that reality or truth eliminates one of the "logical points" for gun guntrol - that the armed police will protect us and we don't need guns because of that. This is a lie.

I think the LEO's should be allowed to do what I am certain their instinct is to do - shut the killer down upon arrival but again, they aren't allowed to do that.

Mykeal, I fully understand wanting to be supportive of the police and other LEO's. They do a very dangerous and neccessary job in our society. It just doesnt' include protection unless you are a VIP. Another unfortunate and embarrasing truth.

See where I'm coming from?

Again, I wasn't trying to purposefully cast the LEO's in a bad light - just commenting on the ugly facts as they are.

Finally, I DO blame the killer for the deaths of the students and professors. I Don't recall or see anything were I implied that the police were responsible?

I also DO blame the people in responsible positions that insist on creating so-called "gun free zones" that set-up our kids and teachers for mass slaughter. I do blame them for creating "law-abiding citizen gun free zone/mass murder killing field zones" accross our country.

The very people that bleat "for the children" are the very ones that are responsible for 80% of the deaths of our children at the hands of the psycho shooters - because that's the number of victims that would be saved if there was someone close at hand to stop the killers from racking up the body count.

Mikeal, your heart is in the right place and I am not mad at you for your response. I just don't agree with your insinuations regarding my motivations and I don't understand that you don't see or don't want to see my point?

hildo
April 23, 2007, 07:13 PM
spocahp anar,
I Have no problems to shoot 18 times a year. There are 52 weeks and have been shooting 48 of them last year, I love to go. My club shoots (rents) the range just once a week. I'd like to go more, would have to join another club or rent the range myself. I have no limit to where I or when I want to shoot, as long as it is on a range. If you would live in Holland you would not be a gun owner either since you refuse to shoot at least 18 times a year. Not interesting enough, or you have better/other things to do with your time. That's one of our burdons, some people are tight in time and have difficulties to get to their 18 shooting sessions. If you fall ill, have to work abroad or so exceptions to this rule can be made.
I will never say it is a perfect arrangement here but the mandatory 18 shooting sessions does keep guns limited to people that really want to shoot. I do regret we may not own more than 5 licensed weapons. It would not make a politician popular when he would suggest upping this to 10 weapons or even more... sigh.

Then: Yes it would be very well possible for a legal gunowner to flip out and kill everybody in sight. But this has never happened. We meet on a regular base and know eachother. If someone would become 'emotional unstable' it would probably be noticed. I would do what I could do for him so he would not use his guns in a wrong way. Would not turn my head and not care.

We probably have something like 60.000 legal gun owners on a total of 16 million people. That's how interested most people are in shooting, not really.
Imagine we would have no gun restrictions and would have 16 million gunowners I am sure Holland would not be a safer place. It would take just 1 crazy person out of that 16 million to mass murder childeren in a school or kill loads of people in another crowded place.
The chance to find a crazy person amongst 16 million is much higher than find a crazy person amongst 60.000 licensed gun owners.

Note that I have not mentioned guns for self defense. This is a big issue in the US, but not that much of an issue here.
I am not afraid that sombody will kick in the door and kill me. I am also not afraid that somebody will start shooting in a public place, I think that nobody will pull a gun on me and I am not afraid to open the door after 8.00PM.
If something would happen, in a country with 16 million people, there would be a giant chance that I would not be present. I feel I have a bigger chance on winning the lottery than getting shot.
I live in a small place in the north of Holland, farmer country so to say, and it is different from places as for instant Amsterdam. I may avoid some neighborhoods there. The lack in moral upbringing is present here as well. I guess some parents can definately do a better job.


Steve Swartz
You're way of thinking about our state (monarch) is interesting, but maybe not correct? Not sure since I'm not much into politics. Our monarch (the Queen) is sitting in here palace, but keeps well away from rule making and laws. She never even gives her opinion, since she may not. She basically has nothing to say or do apart from opening a bridge or shake hands. The fact is that we are ruled by political parties that are chosen by the people. From a practical point of view in every day life the 'Rights & Freedom' of Americans I do not see much different from our own, they differ somewhat here and there but I do not find the American Freedom better than ours. From a guncontrol point of view, yes, but from some others it seemes more restrained. Innocent things like drinking a beer on the street I believe is not allowed in the US?


It is nice to see the opinions of all the people here as Americans, and reflect those to mine as a Dutchman / European, and then trying to understand.
I do understand that I will not be able to win you over with my views on a some sort of guncontrol, and neither will I be in favour of no gun control.
Still it is good to see eachother opinions and beliefs and respect them for that as they are, and that I do.
Have learned many years ago that the truth is different depending on the angle from which you look at it.

I will be going to the US next saterday for a week long training for my job in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Will walk the streets unarmed and hope I will not get shot!:D
Hildo

mec
April 23, 2007, 07:46 PM
Sounds like you have a nice place to live

6_gunner
April 23, 2007, 09:43 PM
DixieTexian, coincidentally, I used to carry an 1858 when that was all I had. It DOES have quite a presence. It may be a 150 year old design, but it'll sure make the would-be bad guy reconsider his career choice.

jmabbott888@aol.com
April 23, 2007, 10:54 PM
Always wondered about something, guns made before 1899 are classified antique, not guns. Even in Cali I can mail order an original 1886 winchester in 45/70 & it can be shipped straight to the house. If I carried a Colt SA in say 44-40 & it was an original pre 1899 concealed, is that legal since it's not classified as a gun?

DixieTexian
April 24, 2007, 12:06 AM
We mentioned that earlier, except in Texas it is not just antiques, but replicas of antiques that do not use centerfire or rimfire. This means technically you could carry it. My roomate just bought an 1851 Colt in .44 with a five inch barrel (I know it never existed) because I am slowly converting him to the dark side. He is friends with the University Chief of Police and asked him about them. Basically, he said it wouldn't be a good idea.

rusty from italy
April 24, 2007, 03:43 AM
I Have no problems to shoot 18 times a year. There are 52 weeks and have been shooting 48 of them last year,
Hildo..a small question, if you, with your legal arms a day for a change in your lifetime can't go to shoot for the minimum of time per year??
You can keep your arms at home, for all your life without shoot a sigle round more??

We have in Italy many kind of weapon carry, and also a single licence for buy a gun (or more) to simply keep it at home!
I shoot weekly, but i don't loose my right do keep my arms if i stop every shooting activity!
And more, we can buy an illimitate number of hunting rifle, and for our laws are hunting rifles every long gun with a shell brass long more of 40mm and a caliber more of .22 (5,56) so, pratically only .22 long rifle isn't a hunting caliber.
For pistol and revolver we are limited to 3 common arms and 6 sprt arms , this number include short and long arms, that isn't "for hunt"!
Muzzleloader single shot are free.

A couriosity, the gun control in Italy started in 1956 (if i remember right) when two armed person take a school and close themself inside with the child!

ciao
Rusty

____hoot____
April 24, 2007, 06:39 AM
Who in their right mind[or wrong mind]in society would take it out on the kids if they had a general disagreement with how things are? Lots of alternative targets of the rich and powerful that are just as "soft". These school shootings are all government black psycops by "clear eyes" mind control subjects on flouride based antidepressent drugs such as Prozac[developed by the Bush family owned Ely Lilly Co. from nazi research]. Always fresh gun control legislation already written waiting in the wings for the next "act" in the play. How in the Hell else are they going to get rid of the second amendment?

Interesting how they have the cops stand down instead of going in and doing their job. When are you people going to wake-up to the fact that this place has already been taken over by an evil klan that has declared war on us?:banghead:

Steve499
April 24, 2007, 07:00 AM
Hildo, what are your rules about gun transfers between private individuals? If they limit you to 5 firearms but transfer between individuals is possible, I would be trading one of my 5 for one of your 5, then at some agreed upon point in the future, we'd trade back!

I used to 'own' guns I didn't really own. My best friend was married at the time to a woman who was difficult, to be nice about it, about his guns, particularly the acquisition of more. He would buy one with his stash money and tell her it was mine, which he was borrowing. He would contact me when he got an addition so we would be on the same page. I had 5 or 6 of 'my' guns at his house most of the time. From time to time we would swap our guns around in the old razzle-dazzle just to keep her hoodwinked. She never did figure it out and I got the use of my friends guns any time. After all, what could he say if I asked for one in her presence?

No doubt your government is smarter than she was, but it would be a great way to double your arsenal with only one good friend you could trust with your babies.


Steve

arcticap
April 24, 2007, 01:34 PM
Just like some people here opine about the Europeans, Iraqi and Afghani citizens probably think that the USA has too much oppressive gun control too, since they can buy just about anything they can afford. Would anyone here accuse the US or other armed forces of just standing down & watching all of the carnage over there? :rolleyes:

hildo
April 24, 2007, 03:40 PM
Rusty,
The rules in Italy are definately more liberal.
We must all shoot 18 times a year, minimum. If you don't it is considered you don't like shooting enough to own your own guns and you will have to give them up. The basic idea is that it should not be made too easy to have guns lying around in homes that are not/hardly used. All licensed shooters in Holland are therefore active shooters.
We can have no more than 5 licensed guns, and it don't matter what guns they are... a flintlock musket or an AR15 makes no difference. Weird, is it not?
I'm 50 miles from the border with Germany, where all single shot muzzleloaders are free as well. I could buy one easily, and there is no bordercontrol between Germany and Holland... but it would be a crime to take it back to Holland though.
Can't have that since I must stay free of a criminal record or I would loose my license in the blink of an eye.

The government here, and the general public as well, are scared of guns.
A good example is a guy that was an antique gun collector and licensed gunowner. Cartridge revolvers made in 1873 or later are not allowed here. Someone probably blew the wistle on him and the police came by.
A complete SWAT team in the middle of the night that rammed down his door and stormed in with loaded guns!
Massive unnecessary overkill but it does show how scared people in Holland are of guns. They called in the SWAT team since they wanted not to take any risk what so all... and he was just a simple antique arms collector, and he indeed possesed an antique gun that he was not allowed to have.
The rest of the free antique guns were returned to him, but he did loose his gun license because he had an illegal gun.
Those are the rules, and he knew it. Just got carried away a bit in his collecting.

I must say that in Holland blackpowder weapons were not seen as firearms either, and therefore free to have. Untill the rulemakers found out you could actually kill someone with a blackpowdergun, and they were quick to ban them. Believe this was the late 60's or early 70's.
Antique guns are still free to have though (lucky for me cause all I find interesting is BP only)

Steve
The above mentioned is why I would not try to have more guns than I legally should have. Violations of the gunlaw mean you will loose your license, all of your licensed guns and maybe even a fine too.
I may not give my licensed gun to anybody, it is my personal responsability. It must be with me or in my safe at home, nowhere else. However I may hand it over to everybody that would like to shoot it at the range, even if that person has no experience with guns what so ever. It is my responsibility that nobody accidentally gets shot and I must stay with to the shooter that shoots my gun.

Lemmie tell you how it works when you want to buy a new gun here in Holland.
First you get the OK for the weapon of choice from your gunclub. Then you go to the gundealer to buy the gun. You cannot yet take it with you but you will get a paper with the data of the gun on it. Then you go back to your gunclub where another paper is filled out which includes that data of your gun. With that paper you go to your local police. They will check your background once more (to make sure you did not comit a crime in the mean time). After the police has checked you out and found you to be a model citizen they will make an appointment to visit your home, to inspect if you have a proper gunsafe that is bolted down. After the gunsafe check you return once more to the police where you can finally get your gun license on which the specific weapon is mentioned, including serial number and caliber. With your gun license you travel once more to your gun dealer to get your gun and the ammo that is also mentioned on the license.
Congrats! You now own a gun:scrutiny:
Low and behold! It's not over yet! Then you must travel within 3 weeks, with your gun, back to the policestation again where you give it to the officer so he can check the serial number on the gun. If you do not visit the police with your guns within the 3 weeks, you will have to apply for another gunlicense.

Wow! They are carefull right?
But remember, it is not just what 'the state dictates' but there are not much Dutch people to be found that would have it more easy. Not even among the licensed shooters.
In view of these rules I am happy that I am allowed to shoot at all! Am sure we have one of the strictest gun laws in Europe and because of we do not have too much licensed shooters... you must really be enthousiastic about shooting! Very enthousiastic, and that I am.
I could do with more than 5 licensed guns though, but that's not going to happen I'm sure.

I can imagine the horror thinking about such gunlaws ever becoming reality in the USA. Then again, better have a gunlaw of any sort than a total gun ban...

As said before, freedom in Holland is not bad at all and you can get away with amazingly much, although there is some overruling in my view (how about tax deductibility for the illegal gun purchase by a criminal!? He could not show the bill that would have made it tax deductible I believe...). But the thumbscrews are on when it comes to owning legal guns.
Hildo

Coyote Rider
April 24, 2007, 05:13 PM
"Posted by O.S.O.K: "...the police run around outside the building with AR-15's posturing for the cameras but don't go in to stop the carnage...."
-------------------------------------------------------

I heard an interview with an eye witness who said the Feds ordered the police to wait for hours, and some of the police were so upset they were literally punching a wall.

O.S.O.K.
April 25, 2007, 02:51 PM
that's what I'm talking about - as stated, I wasn't trying to disparage the police (though it does sound bad - and it was bad).

Bottom line to that situation is that the victims are dissarmed and the police are also dissarmed, though they have their guns - they are dissarmed by policy.

The solution is to allow those on campuses to be legally armed. They are the real "first responders".

Steve Swartz
April 25, 2007, 03:45 PM
Hildo:

[Sorry about the long post. This is a greatly misunderstood and complex topic. Couple hundred years ago these issues used to be discussed, debated, and argued over by regular folks in pubs and restaurants, and discussed extensively in the mainstream media of the time. In both Europe and the US. Nowadays, you have to be a college professor or something to even think about this stuff!]

Just to follow up on your last couple of posts . . . and to clarify my use of the term "monarch."

- The power of the state in Europe historically was embodied in the monarchy.
- The underlying principle of the relationship between the staate (monarch) and the people (subjects) was that the state retained all rights, and granted them to the people.
- While Europe got rid of the "trappings" of monarchy, the underlying principle remains: power flows from the state (monarch) to the people (subjects).
- While the subjects may have various forms and levels of input into how the power of the state is wielded (monarchy vs. democracy and everything in between), fundamentally the powers (like rights) are retained by the state and flow to the people.

In the U.S., the fundamental premise is the exact opposite. Our country was founded on the premise that the power of the state should reside in the people, who only yield their power in specific circumstances for specific "public goods."

(At least that's what our constitution says. It used to be what we followed in practice, but today "European" political philosophy has taken over much of our culture. Indeed, those who follow our founding premise are considered "nu cases" or "radicals." Just like the old days!)

This is *not* a "distinction without a difference." This is fundamental to our two systems (U.S.A. vs "The Rest of the Planet"). You need only contrast the American Revolution to the French Revolution (and the two aftermaths) to see the difference in practice.

O.K., so how this is supposed to be operationalized is through the principle of "prior restraint" (PR). PR means you can be forbidden from doing something a priori by the state; ie, you need "permission" to exercise a "right." The European model is based on PR.

In the U.S.A., PR is "fighting words" and the basis for many civil rights laws and disputes. In the U.S.A., the state does NOT (well, is not supposed to)have the power of PR. In Europe, the state uses PR as a fundamental tool of civil order.

Hope that helped- sorry again about the long-windedness of the post. Regular folks used to talk about this stuff alot back in ~1750-~1850.

Steve in The Republic of Texas

Plink
April 25, 2007, 05:59 PM
Steve, that was an outstanding explanation. I'm going to commit that to memory for the next time I'm having a political discussion with my friends, many of whom seem to have a strong left leaning bent and no understanding of why their socialist ideas should be opposed.

hildo
April 25, 2007, 07:35 PM
Steve Swartz,

Long post is no problem, anyone can skip it if they want.
I did not and have red it several times even in trying to comprehend it all, since I am not much into politics, and then looking for the differences between Europe and the US.
History is mighty interesting and it can be followed back to the times we live in today.

For instance the ground on which my house is built was owned by the church, once a very mighty institution. The person rented the ground 274 square meters (something like 2500 square foot probably) from the church and had to pay 3 dutch guilders. He could do with the premisis what he wanted. Built a house on it, grow vegetables, or whatever. The ground was rented by all that was on it, or came from it, was his.
This is a fine example of the rights that you talk about
These 3 guilders was a lot of money back in 1600, they mayby only made 10 or 20 guilders a year. Somewhere in time the church decided to sell the land to a new owner. The new owner is still not me! I muist still pay these 3 guilders a year (1.50 US dollar) to the true owner of my land. His problem is that he can only sell the rights to cash the 3 guilders a year, but he is not even allowed to set one footstep in my (rented) premisis. Nobody is interested in them rights any more. He wanted to sell me my land for 50 guilders (25 US $) once, but I did not take him up on the offer. Too expensive.:neener:

Well, this whole story does not say much, apart from the fact that it shows how things have changed in modern times. It is the same with our Queen, it's hardly anything more than a symbol these days and I do not see much difference between the US and Holland. We may both vote and choose whom we want to represent us. Although one big difference remains. The power that the US president has is much bigger, not quite like a dictator (no offense though!) but he is very powerfull. In Holland this is not the case, that's why there will be discussions, almost without end, before we can ship a couple of soldiers to Iraque or Afganistan. Just imagine if one of them would get hurt!
In fact the influence of the people on the state is extremely high and they could not make a discision that would be against the whishes of the majority of our inhabitants. That is why we have a welfare state, not because the state wants it, because the people want it. It is very simular to the Swedish welfare state. People that make a lot of money should pay a lot of income taxes to help support those that do not make a lot of money, or have no income at all. In the 1980's it was at it's high, and there was a lot of fraud too. Why work if your welfare check would not be much lower? It has been changed a bit now but still it is not necessary for any Dutch inhabitant to go hungry or become a bum and live on the streets. The only bums on the streets are those that have a mental problem, and it is not allowed to take them in for better care, unless they are a direct danger to other civilians.
The freedom of the individual is quite high, higher than it ever was probably, but it ends when there is an expectancy of that the freedom or safety of other civilians would be at risk.
Hence our strickt gunlaw. Not forbidden, ofcoarse not since we pound ourselves on the chest for being so liberal, but very much regulated since it poses a potential threath to safety in our society.

The US constitution has a different base as our 'granted rights', I understand.
But that was century's back and society changes and it does so at an ever quicker rate. I think the major difference is that in Europe the individual must adapt to society, less so in the US where the individual's rights are more important than those of the society because it says so in the constitution.

By the way, in Holland we had a civil war too. In 1830 or so. Holland send in a couple of thousand soldiers, lost the fight, and the rebels got their own state. It's called Belgium now.

We should drink a beer together, talk and do some shooting.
Damn, just too far away!

By te way, I will keep my posts shorter from now on. Promised!:)
Hildo

drdirk
April 25, 2007, 08:03 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Very interesting discussion and proably now is more part of the politics section. Let me give you my personal view on this: I grew up in Europe. I have been in the US for a very long time now and am a US Citizen. I CHOSE to live in the US because I did not like the restrictions put on "free citizens" in Europe. The above post is correct, the European history is of being subjects to a monarch and the attitutes are still the same. The state takes care of you, the state tells you what you can do and can not do. As a general rule everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed. In the US, everything is allowed until forbidden. This is a HUGE cultural difference. Take firearms: Unless prohibited, I can own them. In Europe I need permission. Take aviation (yes, I am a pilot): Unless it is ALLOWED you can not land anywhere in your helicopter. In the US, unless it is specifically forbidden you ARE ALLOWED anywhere you want. Want to have your own airport? Just do it, put a sign out and you are done. In Europe you will need PERMISSION to do so from the state, monarch or current representative.

Take helmets on motorcycles: In the free states you have the right to splatter your blood without a helmet if you want to. In Europe, you better wear that helmet or you will get fined. In Texas I can wear it or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes not. It is up to me and I am well aware of the rist of not wearing it. But hell, it is 100+ and I sometimes just don't want to!

Imagine you are a store owner in Europe: Again, the monarch will DICTATE when you can have your store open. No, you are NOT ALLOWED to work hard and sell your products on Sunday or late at night. Needless to say, in the US you can work as much or as little as you want.

Back to firearms: Although a lot of Europeans argue the US is more dangerous because of more guns I certainly feel safer in the US, at least in the area I live in. Yes, we have more shootings per capita but also don't have all these eastern european gangs stealing, breaking and entering. This happens a lot in Europe and is always downplayed.

So, these are NOT 200 year old outdates differences. These are cultural differences that are here today and will be here tomorrow.

I can tell you from my unscientific sample of friends and family that they are subjected to much more crime than my friends and family in the US. And the are completely defenseless!!!

Happy shooting to all, no matter where you are!

hildo
April 26, 2007, 03:02 AM
My last post on this subject, since I do not feel I have much left to add.

DrDirk
Excellent post. It sums the basics up in one go.
The European restrictions, although basically always done for the better of the people, can drive one nuts. We have a lot of burocraty, too much.
The truth about the matter in Europe is variably depending on which angle you look at it.

Motorcycles.
I ride 27 years now, and not just on a sunday afternoon cruise but for regular transport. My life has been saved by a helmet probably twice, would not write this post without it. I am no saint, and took my helmet off in helmet free states during my 3 month trip through the US and Canada. It can be blazing hot indeed.
Because of the design of my chopper, high neck and handlebars, I would probably be severely hurt or die when hitting a car since I cannot be thrown clear of the bike as on a regular motorcycle. I am extra carefull with cars and take the risk.

Store owner.
Open from 9.00 to 18.00 and you go home to enjoy your family or what ever.
Your competitor will have to do the same. More free(dom).
The money that is spend in total will not be more or less because in general people will spend all they have anyways. The only difference will come when one store owner is open longer than another. In some degree this is already happening and this is not a good thing for the one man operated shops. You will have to put in may more hours to make the same money.
Goodbye family life.

Firearms.
I have traveled, by motorcycle & tent, into each European country at least ones. This includes Iceland, Turkey upto the Iran border and all of the former eastblock states. All unarmed. I was taken out of my tent at gunpoint only once (1988) by people in Turkey armed with double barrel shotguns, just to see if I was a terrorist. (Imagine what would have happened when I would have started shooting in self defence by a wrong interpetation of the situation!). After checking me I was invited the next day to come to their nomad camp and eat with them in their tents and to look at their sheep of which they were very proud.
Last year I completed a trip through the Baltic States, again with nothing but a tent. People seemed unfriendly at first, but I ran into some trouble and everybody was there to help us out. Same thing in Poland, where I broke my rear axle once, they were more than glad to help me out. Excellent people.
Sure there are gangs out there, sure they can mug you. But it never happened to me yet. People should not be too scared of everything since most is of hear say and the actual chance of something happening is not that great. It is mostly the fear in your own head. and once it's there it is hard to get it out.
My trip trough the US was the best since people are friendly, interested and the countryside can sometimes be awsome in beauty. Since my looks and the look of my bike attrack all kinds of strange people I had a lot of contact. What struck me the most is that many Americans are scared ****less. I ran out of petrol a couple of times. Nobody stops to help! I once pushed my bike along the road upto a house, in Georgia somewhere, where an oldtimer came out after I rang the door bell. A very friendly man and we hopped in his car before I knew it to the next gas station for some gas. He told me that if I would have rang his doorbell after 20.00h he would not have opened. Too dangerous. He shook his head in disbelieve when I told him I was traveling the US on my bike and with a tent to sleep in. He whished me a safe trip and told me to look out for crazy people 'that will shoot through your tent just for the hell of it'. He was absolutely not the only one with simular remarks.
Because of all these people warning me I got an unsafe feeling myself and I must say this trip through the US was alltogether the one with the unsafest feeling.

Even if I would have been mugged and had a gun, would it protect me or just let the criminal pull the trigger on his one quicker?
If I would be on the othet side of the law I sure as hell would not take any chances in the US and shoot my victem dead at his very first flinch.
I would not want to trade in Europe for the US. Nothing is for free and the American freedom is paid for in my view. I would, for instance not travel the former Yougoslave anymore, I did shortly before the war started there, but now feel there are to many angry people, armed with guns left over from the war. Maybe the situation is not that bad... but fear can be in ones head and limit your freedom. If you have no fear of someting happening, you need no self defence guns.
Hildo

Tommygunn
April 26, 2007, 01:03 PM
Even if I would have been mugged and had a gun, would it protect me or just let the criminal pull the trigger on his one quicker?

There is a good point that the criminal often has the advantage, in that he gets to know what his plans are and initiate them. But keep in mind, in the United States, there are between 1 and 2 million incidents each year in which honest law abiding citizens use fire-arms successfully to defend themselves, in spite of the "advantage" the criminal supposedly has. If people defend themselves wisely, and aggressively, it can be done."...would it protect me..." IT would do nothing. It would sit there, inanimate, unthinking, uncaring. A gun is a tool.
YOU have to defend yourself, your weapon won't do anything for you.

Gaucho Gringo
April 27, 2007, 06:14 PM
Steve

Enjoyed your well written articles on the differences between American and European philosophy and laws. I am surprised you left out another item, "presumed guilt or innocence". In the US a person is considered innocent until proven guilty of a crime or infraction. In Europe the opposite is true. It is harder to prove your innocence when the burden of proof is on you rather than your prosecutor. In the US the prosecutor has to prove you guilty. Just another item of cultural and legal differences between the US and Europe.

hildo
April 27, 2007, 06:47 PM
Gaucho Gringo
I don't think you are quilty in any European country before proven guilty, not in mine anyway. You're nothing more than a suspect and you are free to go if they can't get hard evidence. I know first hand:)

Tommygunn
April 27, 2007, 08:49 PM
I think Gaucho is refering to the old French Napoleonic Law, where the burden of proof is on the defendant.
The burden of proving the case used to be on the accused.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn this code has been changed or altered so it isn't as harsh as it used to be though.

Gaucho Gringo
April 27, 2007, 11:38 PM
If I am wrong I apologize, but when I was in college in the late 60's through early 70'e this is what I was taught in both Law and History of Western Civilization classes. They said the Napoleonic code was the basis for European law with the presumption of guilt on the accused and they took great pains to explain in the US it was different except in the state of Louisiana, which state & local laws are based on the Napoleonic Code.

Steve Swartz
April 29, 2007, 03:41 PM
Gaucho et al:

I think you are both right- the "presumption" is still on the guilt of the defendant; however, the rules and procedures were liberalized in the 70s and 80s to make it more palatable.

Just like doing away with a monarch but retaining the principle of rights/power residing in the state. We may make it easier for you to defend yourself, and allow you limited freedom of action and movement while awaiting trial, but evidentiary rules nad the presumption is that "you wouldn't have been arrested if you were innocent."

Also- forgot to mention one of hte most common ways these philosophies are described:

USA: "That which is not forbidden, is permitted."
ROW: "That which is not permitted, is forbidden."

I am of German ancestry, and I love Germany and the German people- but in many parts of Germany this Rest of World (ROW) philosophy is so deeply embedded in the culture that many citizens [primarily over the age of 30 or so] actually have a deep-seated fear of liberty. Alle es en Ordnung [sorry for spelling/translation] (civil peace and order) is threatened by any hint of liberty; heaven forbid your neighbor plant the wrong color flowers in his flowerpot- Es Verboten!

Anyhow- sorry for continuing off-topic thread/postings here . . . it's that danged Texan Independent streak I guess!

Steve in North texas

O.S.O.K.
April 29, 2007, 08:11 PM
Well, I have to give the KC police a big KUDOS for the way they handled the shooting in KC at the mall - now being reported on Fox News.

From what I've been able to gather (yes, have to get it from the news), they promptly went after the bad guy and shot him down.

Now this is a different PD than others, so this may just be the KC police executing their department's policy, but regardless, I see this as the very best way that a really bad situation can be handled by law enforcement.

I wish this was the standard way of handling these situations nationwide...

If you enjoyed reading about "BP and gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!