Texas park shootout

[Sgt.Slappy]

So... there are laws against murder, and you somehow equate this clearly pathological behavior, with laws and firearm ownership? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? This is a reasonable analogy to you?

Do you mean to tell me you believe firearm owners are murderers-in-waiting?

Similarly, some restrictions on the ownership of firearms may be reasonable quite apart from whether or not such restrictions prevent crime.

April 1st has past, so I can only believe you actually endorse that flawed liberal clap-trap. You know you really want to say: "Laws against firearms ownership don't prevent crime, but since our ultimate goal is the complete banning of firearms ownership, these laws are good. Then we may impose our socialist agenda upon an unarmed peasantry."

Those reasons deserve reasonable consideration, not stupid remarks like peeing up a rope.

In light of what little you have to say about the merits of rights that are enumerated (NOT given by) in the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights... the above activities sound very reasonable for the likes of people who endorse victim disarmament.

Now, for crap's sake can we get back on topic? You know... the park shootout?

 

[rino451]

I think that the debate is that to some, the idea of gun control means limiting access to guns or a certain "type" of gun in general not just for a specific group. Issue should be felon control. I haven't seen anyone say that we should dump laws limiting a felon's legal ownership to a firearm. Unfortunately, lots of laws try to too broadly limit access to firearms (as opposed to regulating the legal ownership). The idea being that if in the US firearm A can'tne legally made, imported, sold, or owned, then how could a felon possibly get one and just maybe use one to commit a crime other than and including the crime of ownership. There, ya for us, we've just reduced crime.

Argh....

Randall

 

[Maxwell]

Yes its illegal to drive a car without a license, but what good will a longer registration line at the DMV with dozens of background checks ever do?
Do you want to be pulled over every 10 miles for the government to be sure your a legal driver?

Well maybe if it makes the roads 50% safer.
...but what if there are still just as many accidents, crimes, and illegal drivers as before?

The Government meddeling would be far worse than the "extra risk" of driving without their help. Most of us would rather take the risk of driving alongside an illegal driver than to be constantly harrassed in the name of the law.
-----------------


I was reading an interesting page on knife fighting the other day.
( http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html for anyone that fancies)
The author had some interesting conclusions... not all of them I agree with, but still interesting. One of which is that there has never been a "Stabbing in self defense".

Now personaly I know of a few knife brandishings that chased off badguys, but I had admit I could not immediatly think of any case were someone was hacked to death and their attacker walked on the grounds of self defense.

This says to me that anyone carrying a fighting knife is probly up to no good. Chances are great that if they actually use this weapon, its on a murder their gonna do serious time for.

Now do I use that theory to arrest everyone with an unregisterd knife?
...or would you rather live with the risk and keep the government out of your kitchen?

There are some laws we should try to enforce no matter what, and others that are simply pointless.
A criminals going to get a gun, why not spend the billions searching for them instead of blocking my access in the store or checking to see wheather my guns are legitimate?

 

[MechAg94]

Maxwell, I think that is exactly what baz was trying to say.

This whole thread seems to have turned into people who agree arguing over pointless details. It's like if a big grizzly bear is coming at you and you are arguing with your friend over whether to shoot it with 45/70 or the 12 gauge slug gun. Take of the bear (anti-gunners) first, then we can argue over the little things. (not that I advise shooting anti-gunners. )

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.

It never ceases to amaze me how eloquent some people can be when defending their cause.

It also never ceases to amaze me how some people feel that children and known violent criminals should be able to walk into a store and buy a firearm with no questions asked. Really makes it hard to win over a skeptical society when you have people like the ones who oppose the simplest safety measures running off at the mouth.

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

 

[Maxwell]

How do you tell who is a "rightful owner" or part of the militia?
Does that mean even more buearacracy?

I dont disagree that letting felons own weapons by law is a not great idea, but the current meathods to sort felons from regular citizens and deal with them has been more destructive to legit owners.
I would argue that we have stopped only the felons who wanted to go strait, and not the ones who dont give a damn for your laws.

For a militia to work, we need guns. Lots of people with lots of guns. Not just hunting rifles and pistols, but military grade and even mounted weapons. All sized of firearm and possibly even explosives.
We need to be able to take any gun we can get in a pinch, train someone to use it, and have them comfortable and ready to take that weapon to war.
You've seen what they give the soldiers, we need those kinds of guns in large quantities.

In our zest to make sure criminals were unarmed, we decided to sit on the source instead of the lawbreakers. We wrote a law that said all buyers must first prove their innocence. Then we wrote other laws to let states tac on as many more resrictions as they want.

So far for my 9mm cz Ive had to take a gun ownership course, fill out fed paperwork, get a background check...bad enough, now comes the local: I purchase the weapon (only one gun dealer left in town so I paid a premium, same as I pay $14 a box for 50 blazers to practice with) then I had to fill out local paperwork which means to gather signatures and phone numbers from friends as part of a further background inspection, collect a police report and file an affidavit (cause you need proof that you have reason to fear for your life to carry it anywhere besides the shooting range) and then I hand that all in and they can choose wheather or not I get the gun... yea and I get to pay a $30 fee every year to keep the weapon, one they can choose to "recall" at any time.

In the end I get to keep it in a locked box in my home, in a seperate container to the ammunition. Can I train with it? Yea... at the only indoor range.
So pray the enemy does not shoot from beyond 25 yards or we're all screwed.

Can we arm a militia here?
Unlikely since Im on month 3 of getting a simple handgun. My chances to own ANY military grade weapon are zero. Your average Iraqi is better armed than your average American, and we're the ones with a constitutional right to firepower.

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

In the act of trying to disarm felons, the ones our crime rate clearly shows have NOT been disarmed yet, we have disarmed and made ineffective any hope of raising a militia in this territory...which is rather sad because we used to have good sized one when under Danish rule.

 

[Sgt.Slappy]

I guess my biggest question is what does it harm to prevent a violent felon from owning a handgun? Does it prevent there being a militia?

It sure does... when our "representatives" take it upon themselves to monkey around with how we legally define certain things. Like "terrorist". The day may come*, when what we would normally call an American Patriot, or Militiaman... is now a "terrorist" (fascist, felon, boogie man, etc.).

Laws do not prevent anyone from obtaining anything. For example: drugs, cigarettes, child pr0n, bootleg recordings... The criminally determined are only temporarily inconvenienced, and stand to make even more money through a black market. Laws that seem (spit)sensible(spit) at the time, but can (have, and will always) be used to disarm the populace should be regarded with extreme caution and subject to the most exacting scrutiny.

*...may already be here.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So you are saying if you remove felons from the gun owner pool that there are not enough law abiding, responsible, gun owning citizens left? If that is not what you are saying then I repeat my question of "how does preventing violent felons from owning handguns hurt legal owners or prevent the existance of a militia?"

 

[Maxwell]

So you are saying if you remove felons from the gun owner pool that there are not enough law abiding, responsible, gun owning citizens left?

No, Im saying the meathod youve chosen to block the felons is actually preventing everyone else from accessing these weapons freely. Most likely while not hampering a single felon in the process.
What you get is an unbalanced power. The bad guys still have them, granny and pops dont.
Another law still wont stop the bad guys and even if it did, your asking granny to wrestle to the death with an intruder 1/3rd her age because she certainly cant get a gun now and the cops have not gotten any faster.

In my territory blackmarket guns are common. I've had friends who owned illegally for years. We've got more than enough shootings to prove the wrong people can still find them easily despite all the limitations.
I choose the legal path and what do I get?
Frustration, fees, lines, legwork, and still no weapon in hand.
Why should I bother?

Now add to this the fact that after obviously failing to protect us from the evil bad boogymen with guns, they've blocked everyones access to any real military gear.

Your worried about finding people?

Im worried about buying enough basic hardware to match even the most rag-tag third world army in modern war. When you can find me ten thousand brand new select fire M-16's for a realistic price, we'll start talking about people to carry them.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Maxwell

Okay, I must be missing part of this argument. What part of not allowing people with a vioiolent felony record to buy firearms is preventing law abiding citizens from purchasing them?

 

[Coronach]

It is viewed as a slippery slope argument. If you can deprive felons of rights, you can then deprive others who fit narrowly-defined categories of rights, etc etc etc.

I am perfectly cool with violent felons losing RKBA and voting rights as conditions of their release. Their crimes must be violent, however, and must be felonies. Misdemeanor assault does not cut it, nor does felonious nonsupport if dependents.

Most people do not have a problem with violent felons losing RKBA, even those who oppose such bills/provisions. What they have a problem with is the precedent it sets.

Mike

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Slippery slope arguments are wealk at best. I am afraid people will have to do better than that to convince me or ost of america why violent offenders should be allowed to purcgase firearms.

 

[1911Tuner]

Slippin' on da Slope

Playboy...You're on a pretty slippery piece of real estate yourself.

Please explain how a few more "Reasonable" gun laws will affect a convicted felon's ability to obtain a gun if he is determined to get one. The same way that more laws against illegal drug use will somehow prevent drug addicts and abusers from gettin' their daily dose of happy? Or the same way that lowering the speed limit on a stretch of road will magically result in nobody speeding on that road? Please...

Note that "everybody" just knew that gun ownership was strictly verboten in the former Soviet Union...yet when the wall came down, tens of thousands of
arms suddenly appeared out of thin air...from AKs to anti-tank weapons...and the carnage is still raging to this day. But...They had LAWS! Yep. Worked like a charm, didn't it? Really believe that all those rifles were stolen during raids on armories after the collapse? The tooth fairy will be along any minute now...

Want to know the secret to keeping violent felons from getting guns? Lock them up and melt the damned key, is how.

Nobody here...nor anybody that I know...would support the ability of a minor or a known violent felon to "walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked"
any more than we'd support consenting sex between adults and children. To suggest that we would is beyond absurd. But...do carry on.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

1911turner

Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think. In fact a local news station (where a friend of mine is an Emmy award winning cameraman) did just such a thing not to long ago to try and show that the "shall issue" and no wait period policies in Oregon would flood the market with illegal guns. They were unable to secure a purchase of an illegal firearm after trying for weeks. So in reality it is nowhere near as easy to get an illegal gun as it would be to walk into a gun shop and buy one if there were no restrictions.

Furthermore, I do believe that statistics have shown that most offenders obtain their guns through theft not buying them illegally. Therfore if they could not buy them and gun owners did more to make the ones they have secure then criminals would have a very hard time getting them

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

 

[MechAg94]

Please explain how a few more "Reasonable" gun laws will affect a convicted felon's ability to obtain a gun if he is determined to get one. The same way that more laws against illegal drug use will somehow prevent drug addicts and abusers from gettin' their daily dose of happy? Or the same way that lowering the speed limit on a stretch of road will magically result in nobody speeding on that road? Please...

We are not talking about a "few more gun laws". These laws already exist. If we had no laws, I can see your argument, but since that and many worse laws already exist, I don't understand where you are coming from here. No one is suggesting more laws, just a maybe a few that most wouldn't get rid of if given the choice.

 

[MechAg94]

Nobody here...nor anybody that I know...would support the ability of a minor or a known violent felon to "walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked"
any more than we'd support consenting sex between adults and children. To suggest that we would is beyond absurd. But...do carry on.

I read the same posts. I saw that very thing argued. What were you reading?

It was mentioned that laws restricting felons RKBA rights might be a good thing. A few posters argued against that. What exactly do you think the alternative is?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

MechAg94

I agree. If we had no gun laws things might be worse then they are so you cannot say they "do nothing". That is a complete unverified statement. In fact most data shows gun violence declining. I know that is not necessarily a causation link there but it is likely.

I do not believe in outlawing guns obviously. That is just asking for trouble. We would all be overrun by mutated, tentecled Stewie hatchlings if we did that. <--Family Guy reference But I do believe that some measures are good for RKBA. Who wants every violent felon to be able to run out and buy a weapon the first time someone pi$$es them off? That would just be asking for bad press and a turn towards outlawing weapons period.

Therefore, I do believe that the limits should be simple, non-arbitrary and nationwide. No violent felons (and only specific violent acts should qualify...nothing like trespassing or child support issues), no underage, and no mentally incompetent. That is what we should be working for...not just trying to toss out the whole system. A fair and easy to use set of rules that are well established and nationwide.

 

[Sgt.Slappy]

Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think. In fact a local news station (where a friend of mine is an Emmy award winning cameraman) did just such a thing not to long ago to try and show that the "shall issue" and no wait period policies in Oregon would flood the market with illegal guns. They were unable to secure a purchase of an illegal firearm after trying for weeks. So in reality it is nowhere near as easy to get an illegal gun as it would be to walk into a gun shop and buy one if there were no restrictions.

This is your evidence that illegal firearms are difficult to obtain? Those slick newsboy infiltrators probably set off the "law detectors" of every criminal within a city block... that's a poor example to cite as a standard, PP.

Furthermore, I do believe that statistics have shown that most offenders obtain their guns through theft not buying them illegally. Therefore if they could not buy them and gun owners did more to make the ones they have secure then criminals would have a very hard time getting them

Criminals will do whatever it takes to obtain those firearms. Including fake I.D.s to complete falsely-"legal" transactions. Make a firearm "more secure" and you just may negate any defensive value it has... for example in a home-invasion scenario.

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

You are using precisely the same premise... and claiming an outrageous conclusion. No one here made any kind of argument to "just let criminals buy guns legally". To paraphrase more correctly, "No matter the severity of the laws, the implementations of these draconian codes by implacable enforcers, and cruel punishments promised to the "guilty", criminals will obtain the tools of their trade, and lawful men will be penalized. This is not justice. Where will it end?

 

[Fire4Effect]

Where do criminals get illegal guns? By illegal means... theft, falsified documents, or dare I say it, smuggled across a certain unsecured border in the Southwest...

 

[Maxwell]

You will never win me or most any thinking person over with a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" argument like "since some criminals still get guns we might as well just let them buy them legally".

When the babys name is "Batfe" I say "Heave-ho!"
That agency has had nothing but mission creep since the day it was born.

The problem is that in preventing some criminals, you prevent many more legal purchases. Many people who could have effectively used cheap guns for self defense in places where us high class folks dont live.

At that the felons denied access to the gun store were not always denied the arms. They go to your local robber, straw purchaser, smuggler, or corrupt official and reward them for also breaking the law.

If you cant trust someone with a gun, letting them out of jail is a bad idea, their going to get one. If youve got a problem keeping criminals locked up you dont make it my problem with more gun control or constant background checks for me. You take the millions wasted on the atf and give it to local departments so they can enforce existing laws.

I think that bothering to settle with the anti-gun crowd on "reasonable gun control" is what got us to this point. Its turned out that they arnt too reasonable. The latest list of stuff they want to ban (evil black assault rifles, .50 bmg, "cop killer" bullets) has rarely been used in crimes to begin with.

Maybe Im far right of right here, but I feel as much as theyve pulled to ban all guns with a series of "Acceptable laws", we should be pulling just as hard for a 2a with absolutly no infringements.
In tug of war you have no chance of holding things in the middle by giving in to the opposition.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Quote:

>Go buy a gun tomorrow illegally. I can tell you it is not as easy a task as some on here would have you think.<
****************************

You really don't get out much...do ya?

 

[Raph84]

The issue is not what a determined criminal will do. The issue is what will any person with a fleeting thought of commiting a gun crime do.

There are plenty of under age individuals who might not be adult enough to realize that they could ruin thier lives with the pull of a trigger. Also there are many unstable individuals who if they could readily buy a gun would do bad things (either to themselves or others). These are the people that gun laws are meant to stop. People who will not go through the hassle or don't have the contacts to get an illegal firearm.

Also gun laws add a charge for a prosecutor to tack on (thus making more perpatrators plead guilty to a lesser charge, just robbery rather than robbery with 5 gun charges. If every person in the legal system went to trail the system would literally screech to a grinding halt so don't be to quick to scoff at the utility of this).

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Howdy Ralph.

Sorry...You seem to be missing the point, too.

The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.

I have a few ideas on this, but it may be too much for some of the more
warm fuzzy types here to entertain, so proceed at your own risk.

Commit a crime with a gun...Add 10 years onto the sentence. No exceptions.

Be caught in possession of a gun AFTER your first conviction of a crime of violence...Go finish your original sentence with another 5 years tacked on, just to make sure you get it this time.

Hurt somebody with the gun during the commission of a crime...Life without parole.

Kill somebody with a gun during the commission of a crime...Adios, muchacho. It's been real. Grin and take the needle, or take a deep breath. It'll all be over in about 10 seconds, and you can have the answer to the great mystery. You've got one appeal for your life. Twice convicted...execution of sentence to be carried out 90 days from the date.

Note that I'm open for exemptions under certain circumstances for some felony convictions...such as no violence being involved in the crime and after a reasonable period of time has lapsed without any repeat offenses to offer evidence that the subject has learned the error of his ways and hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow. File an appeal to have your RKBA reinstated, and present your case. This is a one-crime deal. Repeat offenders need not apply.

Sound reasonable?

 

[Maxwell]

Sound reasonable?

Sounds good to me

A person with a fleeting thought of commiting a crime is most likely to use whatevers at hand. Which includes knives, baseball bats, and common chemicals like gasoline. If potential targets were more likely to be carrying guns, the advantage gained when a madman gets a weapon and works his way into a "gun free zone" would not exist.

As far as using gun laws to add on flexable charges, do you want:
A) To find yourself facing hyped up charges just because you own a gun, wheather or not your involved in a real crime?
I somehow doubt there will be any shortage of cops and judges when its time to run us through the wringer over nonsense like forgetting an empty magazine in your check baggage.

or

B) To have suspects who carried out serious crimes with firearms pleading to the lesser charges and doing less time, just to save money.
If you rob a store with a firearm and we can make you do 10 years, what does it solve to cut a bargain and let them out in 5?

Right now we pay somewhere between 500 and 800 million to run the batfe.
Do you consider the service they've deliverd to be worth that price tag?

If you need money to put criminals behind bars where they belong, I've identified a source.

 

[MechAg94]

Howdy Ralph.

Sorry...You seem to be missing the point, too.

The laws are already there. The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to let the penalties be swift and harsh for he who commits unprovoked
acts of mayhem against his fellow man.

I have a few ideas on this, but it may be too much for some of the more
warm fuzzy types here to entertain, so proceed at your own risk.

Commit a crime with a gun...Add 10 years onto the sentence. No exceptions.

Be caught in possession of a gun AFTER your first conviction of a crime of violence...Go finish your original sentence with another 5 years tacked on, just to make sure you get it this time.

Hurt somebody with the gun during the commission of a crime...Life without parole.

Kill somebody with a gun during the commission of a crime...Adios, muchacho. It's been real. Grin and take the needle, or take a deep breath. It'll all be over in about 10 seconds, and you can have the answer to one of the great mysteries of life. You've got one appeal for your life. Twice convicted...execution of sentence to be carried out 90 days from the date.

Note that I'm open for exemptions under certain circumstances for some felony convictions...such as no violence being involved in the crime and after a reasonable period of time has lapsed without any repeat offenses to offer evidence that the subject has learned the error of his ways and hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow. File an appeal to have your RKBA reinstated, and present your case. This is a one-crime deal. Repeat offenders need not apply.

Sound reasonable?

I can agree with that. Laws against things are always an after-the-fact issue and should be treated that way. Prevention is possible, but can get out of hand fast if you are not careful.

As far as restricting gun purchase, there are different levels that apply I think:
1. No restrictions at all.
2. Show state ID, prove age, etc. Like buying alcohol or a little more. Prove you are who you say you are and your age. Not sure how violent felons can be restricted with that method maybe with notation on the license or ID. Maybe a prominent tatoo or brand would be appropriate.
3. Background check either before transaction or after (reporting purchase).
4. a purchasing license like some states do.

I'm sure it can get worse from there. Personally, I like #2. I can live with #3 if it is not too much BS. There is also no reason why those can't be done using mail order either. The CMP manages to do it that way okay. Why not everyone?
#1 above would be nice, but I am not sure that would work in this country right now. Most places it probably would, many places it wouldn't. If we enforce laws similar to what 1911 mentioned above, it is possible it could work. Got to do that first though.