We are going to have to give up something

[otasan56]

I'll give up my right to shoot burglars in the forehead. I'll aim for the sternum, instead.

 

[481]

I'll give up my right to shoot burglars in the forehead. I'll aim for the sternum, instead.

There you go!

Me, too!

COM rocks!

 

[coloradokevin]

Is armed robbery really 'using' the gun if it's only brandished?

Of course it's used. It was used to coerce someone by the threat of deadly force into giving up something which the taker wasn't legally entitled to seize.

By your "logic", if that same robber tries to rob me, I pull my firearm and he flees, I HAVEN'T defended myself because I didn't SHOOT him.

Careful there. Next thing you know the left will be using "armed" robbery statistics against us (I'm sure they already are). While you're entirely correct in saying that brandishing a firearm is a means of using it to coerce a victim, I think it is also important to point out that cases where a firearm is simulated, and cases where a fake gun is used, are also categorized as an "armed robbery" in most crime stats.

Statistics are constantly being misused by our rivals. A prime example of this is how they often quote total "gun deaths" (inclusive of suicide and justified shootings) instead of just showing the "gun homicide" statistics.

 

[Deanimator]

While you're entirely correct in saying that brandishing a firearm is a means of using it to coerce a victim, I think it is also important to point out that cases where a firearm is simulated, and cases where a fake gun is used, are also categorized as an "armed robbery" in most crime stats.

For the purposes of the law, that is in many places indeed an "armed" robbery. You are using the threat of deadly force with a weapon (whether it's really a weapon, or even present) in order to forcibly seize something to which you have no legal claim. The victim only needs a reasonable belief that the alternative to submission is deadly force inflicted with a weapon.

I don't have the SLIGHTEST problem with that.

Of course the proper way to address that is to shoot the strongarm robber until he no longer presents an immediate threat to a reasonable person. If he had his finger poked into his pocket or was carrying a water pistol which a reasonable person might have perceived as an actual firearm, the responsibility for ANY harm is HIS.

Don't want to get shot or go to jail?

Don't try to rob people.

 

[coloradokevin]

Deanimator,

I agree with what you're saying, and was merely using my previous post to highlight the fact that the gun-grabbers use outlandish statistics to back their positions. In other words, if 1,000 robberies were committed using airsoft guns as simulated weapons, I have no problem with those criminals being tried/convicted on the basis of the fact that they tried to instill the fear of being shot in their victims; convict those scumbags just as you would a robber with a real gun. I do, however, have a problem with the anti-gun movement grabbing crime stats for 'use or simulated use of a deadly weapon' and then saying: "See... 1,000 armed robberies could have been prevented with stronger gun laws!", even when no gun was ever actually used.

Anyway, sorry if I started dragging this thread on a tangent. I've just been confronted with a lot of BS statistics from the anti-gun crowd lately, and I like to take any opportunity that I can to show how flawed their logic is.

 

[Deanimator]

Anyway, sorry if I started dragging this thread on a tangent. I've just been confronted with a lot of BS statistics from the anti-gun crowd lately, and I like to take any opportunity that I can to show how flawed their logic is.

By observation, the lion's share of anti-gun "statistics" are predicated on false or irrelevant premises.

Kellerman for instance, relies on the dubious premise that one has not actually defended oneself with a firearm unless somebody gets SHOT.

Strangely, they do not apply the same "principle" to chemical sprays and the martial arts. Hence, their demand that somebody get shot and DIE for a firearm to be used in self-defense, without a corresponding demand that someone be choked or beaten to death when the martial arts are used. Likewise, they don't demand that people use sarin nerve gas instead of pepper spray, even though pepper spray doesn't usually kill.

They don't compare apples and oranges. They compare apples and squid. But then that's what a pathological liar WOULD do, ISN'T it?

 

[beatledog7]

By observation, the lion's share of anti-gun "statistics" are predicated on false or irrelevant premises.

Kellerman for instance, relies on the dubious premise that one has not actually defended oneself with a firearm unless somebody gets SHOT.

Strangely, they do not apply the same "principle" to chemical sprays and the martial arts. Hence, their demand that somebody get shot and DIE for a firearm to be used in self-defense, without a corresponding demand that someone be choked or beaten to death when the martial arts are used. Likewise, they don't demand that people use sarin nerve gas instead of pepper spray, even though pepper spray doesn't usually kill.

They don't compare apples and oranges. They compare apples and squid. But then that's what a pathological liar WOULD do, ISN'T it?

This is what people do when they have no reasoned, rational argument that supports their emotion-based, knee-jerk position. They use it because they believe that most people whose position can be swayed are incapable of rational thought and will simply side with the argument that's the shrillest and is accompanied by the most tears.

 

[carbuncle]

I'm thinking we give up nothing, and we help the politicians who want make us "concede" something give up their jobs in the next elections cycles.

 

[otasan56]

The next election will be interesting.

 

[Warp]

I think the gun grabbers should have to give up something. That is, I think some gun control laws should be done away with. That's all.

Perhaps criminal empowerment zones would be a good place to start

 

[DammitBoy]

The next election will be interesting.

It'll be interesting if we have a choice that doesn't involve both sides supporting an AWB like this last election.

I don't have much hope of that though. As far as I'm concerned, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties anymore.

 

[45_auto]

The next election will be interesting.

The next election is 2 years away. The American public has a VERY short memory.

If any kind of gun control legislation gets passed next year, the voting public will do the same thing about it in the 2014 elections as they did in the 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 elections after the original AWB passed. In other words - nothing.

The only reason there was a ground swell reaction in 1994 was because the AWB was passed in September and the elections were just over a month away. No time for any other major issues to catch their attention.

 

[bobn]

The next election is 2 years away. The American public has a VERY short memory.

That's what the Dems thought in '94. As far as '96 goes, we learned lasrt November that a POS liberal can have long coat tails. that won't apply in 2014.

I may very well be all wet, but Obama's appointing a commission headed by Uncle Joe, and his unfocussed langauge, make me think that he doesn't really want this fight, at least not right now.

But I agree with those who say: surrender nothing. We especially need to let the RINOs know that they will be pmaried to a fare-thee-well if they don't grow some on this.

 

[David White]

This is the only mindset I have concerning gun control...



Get on board, I dick of treading water!

 

[Warp]

The next election is 2 years away. The American public has a VERY short memory.

If any kind of gun control legislation gets passed next year, the voting public will do the same thing about it in the 2014 elections as they did in the 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 elections after the original AWB passed. In other words - nothing.

The only reason there was a ground swell reaction in 1994 was because the AWB was passed in September and the elections were just over a month away. No time for any other major issues to catch their attention.

You might want to check up on that 1996 election again

 

[igousigloo]

I am for giving up gun free zones.