Florida law to let people meet force with force

April 6, 2005

BY DAVID ROYSE Advertisement



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to ''meet force with force'' and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.

Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it ''a good, common sense, anti-crime issue.''

The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.

''I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat,'' said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. ''That's a good way to get shot in the back.''

Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow. AP <end>




Heres the link: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-force06.html

The bill's sponsor and a description later in the article talk about people who are "attacked". The first paragraph says if people are "threatened". One short article, and there's already misinformation about this bill.

Originally posted by Brooks
The bill's sponsor and a description later in the article talk about people who are "attacked".

Either way, the law is a bit of macho insanity.

I cannot believe it was proposed in the 21st century in a developed nation, or that there are lawmakers --or governors-- juvenile enough to sign it.

Would this kind of law make it really hard to convict gun related gang crime?

I FEEL THREATENED! ::beats the crap out of Blib::

He attacked me! *Yanks out two Desert Eagles* You've got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Either way, the law is a bit of macho insanity.

I cannot believe it was proposed in the 21st century in a developed nation, or that there are lawmakers --or governors-- juvenile enough to sign it.

you have a real problem with anything "macho" dont you? your probably one of the people who wnat to outlaw dodgeball because its to "macho"

Originally posted by Travh20
you have a real problem with anything "macho" dont you? your probably one of the people who wnat to outlaw dodgeball because its to "macho"
I FEEL THREATENED! ::beats Trav with a baseball bat::

Baseball bat? borg borg borg, when are you going to learn you dont bring a bat to a gun fight?

SB 436 (http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?File=sb0436.html&Directory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1)
That's the bill. The areas with the most problems would be:
"17 (2) A person who unlawfully enters or attempts to
18 enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is
19 presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful
20 act involving force or violence."
Now residence is defined very very vaguely.
"28 (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person
29 resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an
30 invited guest."
That could mean anywhere. Also, if you're on your bicycle and somebody steps in front of you...
"1 (c) "Vehicle" means any conveyance of any kind,
2 whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport
3 people or property."

Underlined added, small is removed:
"6 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person
7 is justified in using the use of force that is intended or
8 likely to cause death or bodily injury, except deadly force,
9 against another when and to the extent that the person
10 reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
11 himself or herself or another against the such other's
12 imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is
13 justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she
14 reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
15 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
16 another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible
17 felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person
18 is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

I guess if someone breaks into our home or a hotel room we are in we are supposed to assume they are deliverig flowers right?

Originally posted by Travh20
your probably one of the people who wnat to outlaw dodgeball because its to "macho"

Dodgeball "too macho"...?

No.

Buuuuut.....getting into an argument at a restaurant, having someone shove another person, the shovee pulling out a concealed pistol and shooting the shover......?????......uhh, yeah.

A bit "too macho" for me.

yes, because that happens all the time in every ohter state with laws like this. Colorado has a law like this, there arent hundreds ofresteraunt shooting every week. In reality, crime goes down when laws like this are on the books.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, because that happens all the time in every ohter state with laws like this.

I would not be surprsed if that were the case.

Originally posted by Travh20
Colorado has a law like this, there arent hundreds ofresteraunt shooting every week. In reality, crime goes down when laws like this are on the books.

Got any cites proving that?

No doubt any state relaxing the laws on what it deems *murder* will see some reduction in the number of murder cases.

Policeman; Did you see the shooting sir?

Bystander; Yes.

Policeman; Did suspect A shoot 5 times and kill victim B?

Bystander; Yes, but the victim had previously slapped the person who shot him.

Policeman; Case dismissed. Go on about your business. (turning to address the shooter) "Good night, sir. Might want to clean that gun when you get home. And reload it, of course."

The only things new here are the presumption of physical violence based on a trespass, and removing the duty to retreat from outdoor situations. Those make it a little too free-wheeling.

I didn't see anything in the law about making it any easier to obtain guns or gun licenses, so I don't get all the talk about guns all of a sudden. DPF doesn't necessarily mean the use of a firearm.

The example of justification of the use of deadly physical force being based on a slap in the face is just dumb.

Originally posted by Brooks

The example of justification of the use of deadly physical force being based on a slap in the face is just dumb.

Maybe.....but then, perhaps not quite as "dumb" as the law itself.

BTW....what percentage of the populace do you think can bring **deadly physical force** to bear upon an assailant absent the use of a firearm?

With fear, adrenalin and your kids in the next room, everybody.

I would say the about 1/2 the population could easily use deadly physical force against others. Men against women, men against men, men against children, women against children. Probubly higher than 1/2.

You guys are forgetting what state this law is being passed in. what do you expect from the likes of Florida. Those asswipes can't even hold an election, let alone pass reasonable laws. And they have a regime brother for a govorner.

They are literally the armpit of America, Texas is the asshole.

You're right, "everybody" was over the top.

Originally posted by Echo2
I would say the about 1/2 the population could easily use deadly physical force against others.

I would say that you have very limited (to put it mildly) knowledge of how much force is required in order to kill a person with your bare hands.

I'd guess that, out in public, on the street, with two credit cards, .78 cents in change and a pair of nail clippers (if that) in their pocket, maybe 1% would be able to kill an assailant.

Add a concealed firearm to the mix however, and the percentage for the capability, although likely not the fortitude, to do so would rise dramatically.

Anyone that has military training has the knowledge to kill. I know when I was younger I could take a man out if I got him by surprise. I'm way past my prime now, I think my kitties could probubly take me out at this point in my life. Old age SUCKS!

Originally posted by Echo2
Anyone that has military training has the knowledge to kill.

a) having the *knowledge to kill* does not mean possessing the willingness to kill. You claimed that over 1/2 of the populace could ""easily"" do it.

b) the assailant is equally likely to have the ability to deflect an attack as the person being assailed is to have the ability to carry out a counter-attack

c) far less than 1/2 of the populace possess the sort of lethal arts training you refer to.

d)more than half the populace are women or children lacking the physical stature to deliver a lethal attack even if they were so inclined

d) your ***over 1/2 could easily kill another person*** assertion needs a bit of re-thinking

In the State of Missouri, both concealed and open carry of a firearm is legal. Of course, to carry concealed legally, you have to obtain a permit from the State. To get that permit, you have to take various training courses, which does include firearms safety and handling. Yet, we don't seem to have that many shootings. Hell, at the outset of this year, the first murder in the Springfield area was not a shooting, it was a strangulation. In fact, most of the murders one hears about, in the Ozarks, involve things other than guns. Knives, blunt objects, and chords mostly. Since it became legal to carry concealed, and before when it was just legal to carry openly, I didn't hear anything about people being engaged in western-style shootouts. That's not to say that it won't ever happen, nor is it to say that it can't happen. Stupid people will always find ways to make use of their stupidity, but I think that punishing law abiding citizens, in advance, for something that may or may not be their fault isn't a good thing.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I think that punishing law abiding citizens, in advance, for something that may or may not be their fault isn't a good thing.

Ok.

In light of the following statement of yours, how are Missourians being "punished"........??

""In the State of Missouri, both concealed and open carry of a firearm is legal. ""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's say that I am a citizen of the state of Vermont.

I want to carry a bazooka around with me in public.

Sooo....if the state laws disallow it, I am in your estimation being "punished" by the state of Vermont............correct?

I don't see how you could argue otherwise, given your prior statements.

"No doubt any state relaxing the laws on what it deems *murder* will see some reduction in the number of murder cases.

Policeman; Did you see the shooting sir?

Bystander; Yes.

Policeman; Did suspect A shoot 5 times and kill victim B?

Bystander; Yes, but the victim had previously slapped the person who shot him.

Policeman; Case dismissed. Go on about your business. (turning to address the shooter) "Good night, sir. Might want to clean that gun when you get home. And reload it, of course." "

Ok, I know you couldn't have possibly been serious when writing this bit. I can only hope that it was written toungue-in-cheek. There's much more to it, and one would need more provocation than a simple "slap". First off, one would have to show undeniable proof that they, or another person in question, were truly in fear for their lives.

For example, I'm walking down the street, and I see three guys beating someone, who's on the ground. It would be reasonsable to assume that their actions would more than likely cause the victim's death, therefore one would have the right to step in, weapon in hand, and try to deffuse the situation. The weapon in question is to be a LAST resort only. Usually, the sight of the weapon is enough to make people act real polite.

I should know. I used to work as an Armed Security Officer. At one point, I worked in the Travis County Domestic Relations Office, in Austin, TX. This was the place where people came to pay child support and such. One day, some guy was badgering the receptionist, who happened to be this sweet little old lady. I watched as his part of the conversation began to get heated, and I saw the expression on her face. This guy towered over her, and outmassed her by more than two. Literally, this guy was more than two of her. When he walked in, I'd been sitting at my desk, so I know he didn't see that I was armed. As soon as he began shouting, I stood up, and started to move towards him. I didn't make it two steps before he realized that there was a pistol on my right hip. After that, he suddenly discovered that he can and will be very polite and reasonable. My hand never went anywhere near my weapon, and aside from moving in his direction rather slowly, I made not a single threatening move.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Ok.

In light of the following statement of yours, how are Missourians being "punished"........??

""In the State of Missouri, both concealed and open carry of a firearm is legal. ""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's say that I am a citizen of the state of Vermont.

I want to carry a bazooka around with me in public.

Sooo....if the state laws disallow it, I am in your estimation being "punished" by the state of Vermont............correct?

I don't see how you could argue otherwise, given your prior statements.

Freethinker,

Interesting name considering that you've blown my last statement way out of proportion. I didn't say that the citizens of Missouri are being punished. My comment was directed at the people who's objections included painting the picture of "wild west-style gun battles in the streets" as the only possible outcome for a law like the one Florida is passing. it was also directed to anyone who might think that banning guns will somehow bring down crime.

Incidentally, according to the chief justice's ruling, in US v. Miller (US Suppreme Court, 1939) all able bodied males(though most states have amended the wording to include females) between the ages of 16 and 55 can be called into service, to defend the nation. Upon being called up, they're to report furnishing their own weapons, and the weapons have to be the type currently in use. If they do not furnish their own weapons, but can afford to do so, they will be fined. The money from those fines will buy weapons for those who can't afford them. The average able-bodied citizen is basically known as "Reserve Militia". So, in theory, since a bazooka is a weapon who's applications are relevant in warfare, and therefore included under said ruling, your ownership of one may well be legal. However, carrying one down the street would have severalproblems with regards to practicality, and such.

Originally posted by Echo2
They are literally the armpit of America, Texas is the asshole.

Echo, as a Native Texan who's done nothing against you, I must say that I find the above statement very hurtful.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Ok. I know you couldn't have possibly been serious when writing this bit.

After it happens the first time after the bill goes into effect in Florida, we'll revisit this subject and see how serious I was.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
There's much more to it, and one would need more provocation than a simple "slap".

A year or two ago, a person in a town 8 miles from where i am sitting went home, got his gun, returned and killed 6 people sitting at the same table.

One of them had called him a "son of a bitch".

And you try to tell me that people will not shoot someone else if they are slapped, punched or otherwise physically accosted?!?!?!?....especially in light of the fact that the State itself is NOW giving its imprimatur to such an action........?!?!?

Get real.



Originally posted by Txn8ive
First off, one would have to show undeniable proof that they, or another person in question, were truly in fear for their lives.

First off, the people of a State being ---for all intents and purposes-- informed by their State government --"hey, if someone accosts you physically, it is ok to use deadly force against them"--- just MIGHT decide to shoot first and worry about the legal niceties later.



Originally posted by Txn8ive
One day, some guy was badgering the receptionist, .....My hand never went anywhere near my weapon..... I made not a single threatening move.....he suddenly discovered that he can and will be very polite and reasonable

Wonderful anecdote.

I'm sure it will work out just as beautifully in all situations in Florida involving people not in a uniform, people who are in bars, nightclubs, on the street, etc.

Before the liberals get all huffed over this law, let me tell you that this law is pretty typical. The main effect is to remove the "duty to retreat" when faced with force. There are a lot of states which already do not have such a duty.

Basically, they want people to have the right to stand their ground against an attacker. It's a good decision IMO. I don't think we should be able punish people for standing up to bullies.

In practical effect, I doubt it makes much difference because prosecutors don't like to prosecute under such circumstances anyways since juries will look for reasons to enter a "not guilty" verdict.

I'm offended that you are offended. LOL (I've been dieing to use that line).

I lived in Texas for many years. There are some very nice people living there. However the overall attitudes of the majority of people in Texas are reflected in their laws and in their voting record.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Echo, as a Native Texan who's done nothing against you, I must say that I find the above statement very hurtful.
She's a liberal - of course she hates Texas. In Texas you have to walk the straight and narrow, or your ass gets cooked. I love Texas. Some states are busy letting violent criminals siphon the systems money and resources while trying to abolish the death penalty, and meanwhile, in Texas - they're busy putting in an express lane. Half of my family resides there. They're doctors and engineers, have nice homes, drive pick-ups, and hunt, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by Freethinker
a) having the *knowledge to kill* does not mean possessing the willingness to kill. You claimed that over 1/2 of the populace could ""easily"" do it.

b) the assailant is equally likely to have the ability to deflect an attack as the person being assailed is to have the ability to carry out a counter-attack

c) far less than 1/2 of the populace possess the sort of lethal arts training you refer to.

d)more than half the populace are women or children lacking the physical stature to deliver a lethal attack even if they were so inclined

d) your ***over 1/2 could easily kill another person*** assertion needs a bit of re-thinking


lol, for some reason this post reminded me of an exchange between an anti war journalist and a long serving military man, it went something like this:

journalist: Dont you think military training gives people the skills needed to become killers?

Military man: yes, it does.

journalist; are you not afraid you are creating a whole genration of killers?

military man: no, I am not.

journalist: but you are giving these men all the things they will need to become killers.

military man: you have all the things you need to be a prostitute, are you?


LMAO< thats not exact but it was something like that. I just thought it was funny.

That was very funny, Trav. :)

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I didn't say that the citizens of Missouri are being punished.

Ahh. I see. My apologies.

Well, let's cut to the chase then.

WHO are you saying is being "punished"...??

Originally posted by Txn8ive
So, in theory, since a bazooka is a weapon who's applications are relevant in warfare, and therefore included under said ruling, your ownership of one may well be legal. However, carrying one down the street would have several problems with regards to practicality, and such.

Yeah, but who gives a fuck about "practicality"...?

We must be ever vigilant for the dreaded "infringment".

Nuclear "suitcase" style weaponry is ALSO one whose applications are relevant in warfare.

Suitcase nukes for all able bodied males, I say!!!!!!!!!!!........you know, so that we can maintain our wunnerful "free and peaceloving" society.

Originally posted by Freethinker
First off, the people of a State being ---for all intents and purposes-- informed by their State government --"hey, if someone accosts you physically, it is ok to use deadly force against them"--- just MIGHT decide to shoot first and worry about the legal niceties later.

All I can say is A++ for writing "intents and purposes" instead of "intensive purposes"

You're arguing absolute extremes, FT, and that's not fair, nor does it help your case.

Originally posted by Freethinker
1. A year or two ago, a person in a town 8 miles from where i am sitting went home, got his gun, returned and killed 6 people sitting at the same table. One of them had called him a "son of a bitch".

2. And you try to tell me that people will not shoot someone else if they are slapped, punched or otherwise physically accosted?!?!?!?....especially in light of the fact that the State itself is NOW giving its imprimatur to such an action........?!?!?



1. In other words, these incidents predate this particular bill.

2. If someone is shot for any of these reasons, the assailant will be arrested (much like the way it works today).

This bill didn't change the law very much outside of the home. These incidents you fear happen now, and they will happen again. Read the bill. A shooter still has to articulate why he felt threatened. (except in the home).

I think the problem with this bill is that it would eable murderers to get away much easier.

Assume that A and B dont like each other. A intentionally plants himself along Bs route. A confronts B and actively aggrevates the situation until B starts to get physical. A takes a punch so he gets a bruise or other mark then pulls out a gun and kills B. A has a good chance of getting away with it.

I think a better solution would be the ability to wound an assailant. Currently you will get sued if someone enters your house and you shoot them in the leg. If you shoot them in the head then you have no legal problems. Our system is set up to promote murder. House owners should be protected from lawsuits by intruders (failing of course actual torture).

I think this bill should require witnesses for it to be valid outside of the home. If you truely are in danger for your life then you would take the risk of going to jail for killing an assailant.

Those hicks in Florida are gonna live this bill ...

"but yer honor ... I saw these black guys walking down the street and I felt threatened .." and of course, the all-white hick jury will swallow it.

This is a bad bill ... sick mofo's ... I wonder if it's the same people that pushed that bill in TX to carry concealed in church or the one in AZ where you can now carry concealed in a bar.

Yeah that's what I want ... sitting next to a hot-head drunk that's packing in a bar and have him catch me taking a peek at his girlfriends 44-dd's out of the corner of my eye.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

1. Assume that A and B dont like each other. A intentionally plants himself along Bs route. A confronts B and actively aggrevates the situation until B starts to get physical. A takes a punch so he gets a bruise or other mark then pulls out a gun and kills B. A has a good chance of getting away with it.

2. I think a better solution would be the ability to wound an assailant. Currently you will get sued if someone enters your house and you shoot them in the leg. If you shoot them in the head then you have no legal problems. Our system is set up to promote murder. House owners should be protected from lawsuits by intruders (failing of course actual torture).

3. I think this bill should require witnesses for it to be valid outside of the home. If you truely are in danger for your life then you would take the risk of going to jail for killing an assailant.

1. Why couldn't someone set up this same scenario before this bill exists? This bill won't change anything.

2. You want to limit civil lawsuits? Welcome aboard.

3. If your life is threatened and you have 1 second to make a decision, are you going to look for witnesses before you react? With 1 second to react, you don't evaluate "the risk of going to jail for killing an assailant".

1. This bill makes this situation much more likely and attractive due to the probability of getting off.

3. Thats the point brooks. If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.

Nice post 500lb, I generally don't see eye to eye with you on issues, but you make a valid point related to "wounding". The only problem that I see, is that most people are not well trained enough (or calm enough) to only wound an intruder. Food for thought though......... Thanks

Boy Dop, For a liberal you sure are bigoted towards southerners........ I guess everyones life style is OK, as long as you approve of it. Maybe we southerners should be rounded up and put in a chamber and gassed.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Thats the point brooks. If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.

That's a very good point

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Thats the point brooks. If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.
Excellent point.

yes, you wont think about it, but that doesnt mean you wont get in trouble for defending yourself in some places and cases, and I think thats what this case is trying to do away with

dop
Those hicks in Florida are gonna live this bill ...
Hicks in Florida died a long time ago. Florida is the Southern North in all ways except for our current governor. The only place you'll see hicks is on the Georgia border.


500lbgorilla
Thats the point brooks. If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.
I concur that it is an excelent point.


Trav, you already got off for self-defense and even defense of another. However it required that you be under very extreme danger and incapable of getting away. If somebody hits you, it doesn't make it morally right to hit back. If you're a decent human being you'd try and leave. Now, those indecent human beings have a defense. Beating somebody to a pulp because he hit you first could easily be covered under this.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Assume that A and B dont like each other. A intentionally plants himself along Bs route. A confronts B and actively aggrevates the situation until B starts to get physical. A takes a punch so he gets a bruise or other mark then pulls out a gun and kills B. A has a good chance of getting away with it.

6 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person
7 is justified in using the use of force that is intended or
8 likely to cause death or bodily injury, except deadly force,
9 against another when and to the extent that the person
10 reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
11 himself or herself or another against the such other's
12 imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is
13 justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she
14 reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
15 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
16 another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible
17 felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person
18 is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

Under your scenario A is going to jail for a long, long time. There are certainly no provisions in this bill that require the police to suddenly become complete idiots.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.

Exactly!

It gives people who are hot headed and prone to solving arguments with a gun [and I am aquainted with more than a few of that type] a GREAT DEAL MORE wiggle room than they had before.

The success rate of Florida's state prosecutors --in murder cases-- just went down by MANY percentage points.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If your life really is in danger you wont stop to consider the legal ramifications. However if your life isnt really in danger but you know the chances of you getting in trouble for it are insignificant murder becomes an attractive option.


kind of like murderous minors who know their life really isnt in danger if they murder someone ever since the supremee court gave them a pass, it makes murder more attractive to them

Originally posted by Freethinker
Ahh. I see. My apologies.

Well, let's cut to the chase then.

WHO are you saying is being "punished"...??



Yeah, but who gives a fuck about "practicality"...?

We must be ever vigilant for the dreaded "infringment".

Nuclear "suitcase" style weaponry is ALSO one whose applications are relevant in warfare.

Suitcase nukes for all able bodied males, I say!!!!!!!!!!!........you know, so that we can maintain our wunnerful "free and peaceloving" society.

Anytime a law is passed, that limits, or restricts, a person's right to bear arms, honest law-abiding citizens are being punished for crimes they've not commited, nor are likely to commit. I mean, would you send someone to prison for a crime that they didn't commit? The thing is, what right does anyone have to pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights is relevant? If you restrict one, who's to say you can't restrict another.

As for practicality, being that people generally carry firearms as a form of self-defense, a bazooka, though daunting, wouldn't make a good defensive weapon outside of warfare. The reasons are simple: 1) Ever heard of "overkill"? If your objective is to stop someone who's become a threat, it is not necessary to stop them, and half a neighborhood, in a single blast. You'd be a bigger threat then the guy you're stopping. 2) I'd imagine that those thing's would get to be a bit heavy after awhile. Whereas a pistol, which is considerably smaller, has far less destructive power, weighs considerably less, and can be worn on one's belt. That's why I said that I supposed you could carry one, if you wished, but that it would serve very little practical use.

As to the Nuclear Suitcase type weaponry, I think that the ruling is referring to the types of weapons issued to the average ground pounding grunt in the armed services. Last time I checked, nukes aren't standard issue with your average grunt. In short, your comparison isn't a very sound one. In case you're wondering, the usual standard-issue type weapons are a rifle, a pistol, and a blade. Sometimes a shotgun too. So your argument, in short demonstrates that you're not taking this seriously.

Under your scenario A is going to jail for a long, long time. There are certainly no provisions in this bill that require the police to suddenly become complete idiots. Thats because you don't need provisions for whats already in place.

The point lionel is that the cops might never even know that A had set the whole situation up.

Under your assumptions, the cops are god, all seeing and all knowing. The law is a worthless piece of crap when it comes to the real world.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The point lionel is that the cops might never even know that A had set the whole situation up.

You could make that argument with any situation.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Anytime a law is passed, that limits, or restricts, a person's right to bear arms, honest law-abiding citizens are being punished for crimes they've not commited, nor are likely to commit.

You go right back to the absurdity of talking about people being "punished"......which you did once before, then when called on it claimed you didn't mean to say anyone was being punished.

I guess once agin youll deny you are making a reference to people being **punished**.

At any rate, I do not deem it "punishment" that someone is not allowed to purchase, for instance, teflon-coated armour-piercing bullets.

I do not deem it "punishment" that someone should be required to register a firearm.

I would not deem it "punishment" if people were disallowed from buying, say, 50 automatic rifles in one week.


Originally posted by Txn8ive
I mean, would you send someone to prison for a crime that they didn't commit?

To compare disallowing a citizen from buying teflon coated bullets to being sent to prison is absurd.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I think that the ruling is referring to the types of weapons issued to the average ground pounding grunt in the armed services.

I was specifically answering a reference to the following statement;

"" a bazooka is a weapon who's applications are relevant in warfare, and therefore included under said ruling, your ownership of one may well be legal. ""


Originally posted by Txn8ive
So your argument, in short demonstrates that you're not taking this seriously.

I being a bit facetious, in order to illustrate how you --and other pro-gun people--- are not approaching it in an intellectually honest and consistent manner.

"I was summoned to answer a 911 call about a shooting -- either of y'all know anything about it?"

"Hey Bill Ray -- where the hell were ya saturday night? The bowling team fell apart without ya."

"The old lady was going into labor and I had to drop her fat ass off at the hospital .... man, you'd think she'd have it down by now ... like 6 kids isn't enough practice? "

"ALRIGHT Bill Ray ... I hope this one came out head first -- we need all the help we can get get down at club -- what was that about a shooting?"

"My report says a couple of white guys shot a muslim-looking guy for no reason at all. Then they dragged him around with his own pickup. Hard to believe."

"Hell yeah that's hard to believe. What I heard was the guy was eye-balling Joe-bob's old lady and JB got all pissed off and put a couple of 9 MM's in the rags head, Shit ... the guy outta feel lucky -- if that was my old lady I'd put a dozen in his head"

"OK -- sounds fair to me but I'm gonna need to see the body for my report."

"No can do BR -- we already buried him."

"Was he dead?"

"Well, he said he wasn't but you know how they lie."

Case Closed

I do not deem it "punishment" that someone should be required to register a firearm. Help help Im being punished by the DMV. They make me put this label on my car everywhere I go. Don't they know that a car is just a tool?

Originally posted by Freethinker
You go right back to the absurdity of talking about people being "punished"......which you did once before, then when called on it claimed you didn't mean to say anyone was being punished.

I guess once agin youll deny you are making a reference to people being **punished**.

At any rate, I do not deem it "punishment" that someone is not allowed to purchase, for instance, teflon-coated armour-piercing bullets.

I do not deem it "punishment" that someone should be required to register a firearm.

I would not deem it "punishment" if people were disallowed from buying, say, 50 automatic rifles in one week.




To compare disallowing a citizen from buying teflon coated bullets to being sent to prison is absurd.



I was specifically answering a reference to the following statement;

"" a bazooka is a weapon who's applications are relevant in warfare, and therefore included under said ruling, your ownership of one may well be legal. ""

I being a bit facetious, in order to illustrate how you --and other pro-gun people--- are not approaching it in an intellectually honest and consistent manner.


Ok. I see I'll have to use a bit plainer language. So, dealing with your post, from the beginning.

1) When I made the ORIGINAL reference to people being punished, I was referring to laws that restrict the rights of people who've commited no crimes. If you'd like an example, how about the Brady Bill. That restricted the rights of a lot of law-abiding citizens, who'd done nothing wrong.

In my second reference to people being punished, I was reiterating the point because your obvious misinterpretation of the original post left me little other choice. I never said that I didn't mean to make the reference. I said what I meant to say, and I would appreciate not having words put in my mouth. Failing that, perhaps you ought to go back to school, and set about relearning the English language.

2)When last I checked, even when it was legal to buy armor-piercing ammunition, there wasn't much of a market for it, within the US borders, therefore that point is all but moot.

As for firearms registration, I've no real oppinion in that regard. It's a practice that I'd call "iffy". Also, to be perfectly honest, I don't much care whether I have to register my firearms or not, so long as it doesn't lead to confiscation.

3) Who the hell is going to buy 50 rifles in one week??? The only people with that kind of money are either extremely rich, in law enforcement, in the military, or in some extreme group.

4) My comparison might not have been a good one, however it was the best I could come up with considering I had my wife over my shoulder demanding that we "get going". I don't have a computer at home, so I use one while she's in class. Sometimes I'm still on it when she gets finished, and she's not a patient person.

At the moment, I've all the time in the world. How's this for a better comparison. You would not restrict anyone's rights, if they've not commited a crime. Yet, when you restrict the rights of a gun owner because some other idiot somewhere else did something incredibly stupid, that's EXACTLY what you're doing, and to my thinking, there's absolutely NO justice in such a practice.

In conclusion, it's become clear that you didn't bother looking up the case I mentioned. Perhaps you forgot or something. The case is: US v. Miller (US Supreme Court, 1939).

As for your sarcasm, that much has been apparent in every exchange I've had with you since I first posted on this thread. It's clear that, while I've gone out of my way to respect you and your oppinions, despite the fact that I appear to be diametrically opposed to them, you've not made even the slightest attempt to return the favor. Thus far, I've been nothing but open and honest with you. I own a firearm. It's primary function is hunting. It is a bolt-action 20ga. To me, a firearm is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Lay it on a table, and it'll do nothing because it is an inanimate object. It is the person behind it that determines what's done with it. I'd also like to point out that you were the first to mention ownership of a bazooka, giving me the first hint that you're not taking this seriously, and that you appear to view anyone who disagrees with you with nothing but contempt.

My argument against restricting, or even banning, firearms ownership is based on constitutional law. Not only that, it's also based on a Supreme Court ruling, one that uses both American and British Common Law by the way.

I'd also like to point something out. Every year, people are stabbed to death. Yet, there's no national movements to ban knives. The only restriction is, you can't buy a knife if you're under 18. Otherwise, you're free to own as many as you like.

Every year, people run over other people with their cars. Whether intentional or not, it happens. Yet, there's been no national movement demanding that restrictions be placed on vehicular ownership. Of course, there's the obvious ones. You have to be 16, possess a valid driver's license, and have insurance, however none of these things change the fact that a car 1/4 ton of potential death.

Every year, people are bludgeoned to death. Yet, I don't see any bans on baseball bats, lead pipes, or any other blunt objects that can be used as a weapon.

There are numerous different ways for people to kill eachother, and if you remove one means, the truly determined will find another way. Shooting isn't the only one. A person can be stabbed, beaten, strangled, drowned, burned, etc.

The point is, why guns? Why is it that, with all of the other equally effective methods of killing a person out there, all of the attention has to be focused on guns?

Originally posted by Txn8ive
a car 1/4 ton of potential death.
That's one incredibly light car...

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

must be one of those electric cars

Florida is a nice State. The bill that would allow a person to defend himself from attack sounds good. But, you have to read the law to see if it covers abuses.
It all depends on how the law is written. It could be a good thing, but, manytimes if language is not written well, it can be a horrible bill.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I'd also like to point something out. Every year, people are stabbed to death. Yet, there's no national movements to ban knives.

But if 38,000 Americans per year begin to be killed with knives, as is the case with guns, people will become concerned about it.

BTW; there is no national movement to ban all guns.....if that's what you're implying.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Every year, people run over other people with their cars. Whether intentional or not, it happens. Yet, there's been no national movement demanding that restrictions be placed on vehicular ownership.

Gosh, Tex.

I guess you haven't heard.

There ARE myriad restrictions on vehicular ownership. AND on operating a vehicle. AND on upkeep of a vehicle. AND on eyesight with regards to operating a vehicle. With good reason. Yet when it comes to doing it with guns, we are treated to this nonsense.


Originally posted by Txn8ive
There are numerous different ways for people to kill each other, and if you remove one means, the truly determined will find another way. Shooting isn't the only one. A person can be stabbed, beaten, strangled, drowned, burned, etc. The point is, why guns?

:@@: :@@:

Tell you what, pardner.

You name ONE instance where a kid with a baseball bat ---OR a rope----OR a torch---- OR a knife--- OR a club....has strolled into a public school or playground and killed 10 people in the space of a few minutes and I will cede the argument and send 100 dollars to the NRA.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Why is it that, with all of the other equally effective methods of killing a person out there, all of the attention has to be focused on guns?

Puuuuuuuhhhleeeeze.

Originally posted by Freethinker
But if 38,000 Americans per year begin to be killed with knives, as is the case with guns, people will become concerned about it.

BTW; there is no national movement to ban all guns.....if that's what you're implying.



Gosh, Tex.

I guess you haven't heard.

There ARE myriad restrictions on vehicular ownership. AND on operating a vehicle. AND on upkeep of a vehicle. AND on eyesight with regards to operating a vehicle. With good reason. Yet when it comes to doing it with guns, we are treated to this nonsense.




:@@: :@@:

Tell you what, pardner.

You name ONE instance where a kid with a baseball bat ---OR a rope----OR a torch---- OR a knife--- OR a club....has strolled into a public school or playground and killed 10 people in the space of a few minutes and I will cede the argument and send 100 dollars to the NRA.



Puuuuuuuhhhleeeeze.

Really? 38,000 per year die from gunshot wounds? Wow. That's an awful lot of people. Of course, you know, if your going to cite numbers, why don't you also include your source? I'd never heard that 38,000 people per year were killed with guns. Most interesting statistic. Again, please name your source, otherwise I'll have to assume that you made it up.

There have, in the past, been efforts to ban firearms altogether. Just ask the lovely folks at Handgun Control Inc.

I like your tactics. Dirty, and underhanded. Rather than ask me to cite examples, in general, of people being stabbed, bludgeoned, burned, etc., you go for one specific, and I might add, very infrequent, set of circumstances. Just out of curiousity, does a locker door count? How about a lunch tray? I've seen some very nasty fights, where such things were used. I watched once, when I was a kid, one guy repeatedly slamming his locker door closed on another guy's head. I've also seen fights where one guy was repeatedly slamming another guy's head into the ground. Lemme see, there was a fight in which a guy got stabbed in the arm with a pair of scissors. Oh, and at the tail end of my first day in the 6th grade, there was a massive gang fight right across the street. Austin Police had their hands full. No less than 40 people involved. There were knives, chains, bats, but no guns.

As to your request for one instance, I can't think of one at this time. However, were I you, I'd count this as a minor victory. You see, off the top of my head, I can think of only about 5 school shootings within the last 10 years. While that's 5 too many, that's still a relatively small number of incidents. In other words, almost too infrequent to measure. Try comparing that to the number of people in the general population who're murdered using the many methods I'd mentioned. Also, consider this. Looking at some of the worst mass murderers in history, what were their preferred methods? Jack the Ripper used blades. The unabomber used explosives. Ted Bundy used strangulation, as did B.T.K.

Listen, I find any form of violence to be a sad testament to human nature. However, we are a violent and contentious species. We're naught but vicious barbarians who've managed to trick ourselves into thinking that we're "civilized". Does this excuse those kids who've walked into schools with firearms and ended the lives of their classmates? Hell no. Does it excuse the guy lurking in a dark alley, blade in hand, waiting to rob someone? Hell no. Nothing does. There are times when violence, though regretable, is necessary. The school shootings are NOT examples of such times. Then again, I see violence as the same, regardless of method. To me, there's no difference between the guys on a rampage in Columbine, and the guy on the streets robbing people to support a drug habit. It dloesn't even matter to me if they are using knives or guns.z

I'd also like to point something out. Given that it is illegal to transport weapons onto school property, the school shooters were already acting in an illegal fashion before they'd even begun to shoot. There again, I don't recall a single one of them actually owning any of the firearms they were using. The firearms were taken without permission from their rightful owners; in other words: stolen. Not to mention the fact that plotting to kill a person is illegal in itself. The point is, from the minute these kids began to PLAN their actions, they were operating in violation of currently existing law. So, rather than pushing for the passage of news laws, perhaps we ought to push for better enforcement of current ones? Only makes sense.

Well put, Tex. :)

As for firearms registration, I've no real oppinion in that regard. It's a practice that I'd call "iffy". Also, to be perfectly honest, I don't much care whether I have to register my firearms or not, so long as it doesn't lead to confiscation. And please do tell how would the government start to confiscate guns from people. Sure they would get a few at first but as soon as one person starts shooting they wouldn't be able to get any more.

The firearms were taken without permission from their rightful owners; in other words: stolen That is to say stolen from the very person who is suppossed to be responsible for them, the kid and the gun, and therefore demostrates that they were not responsible enough to own a gun in the first place.
Given that it is illegal to transport weapons onto school property, the school shooters were already acting in an illegal fashion before they'd even begun to shoot. there are also plenty of kids who steal a gun and take it to school without shooting anyone as well.

On kids and guns...Im sure everyone has seen the doctor/gun comparison which is completely stupid. A much better one is guns and swimming pools. Kids are 100 times more likely to die from drowning in the parents pool than being shot by the parents gun. However this does not mean that guns getting into kids hands is not a problem. I heard this from some cool statician guy on NPR. He argued that the surge in crime in the early 90's was due to the terrorism against abortion providers. Less peole getting abortion means more unwanted children and more financial woes leading to shittier home conditions which lead to increases in crimes by juviniles. crazy stuff.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
And please do tell how would the government start to confiscate guns from people. Sure they would get a few at first but as soon as one person starts shooting they wouldn't be able to get any more.

That is to say stolen from the very person who is suppossed to be responsible for them, the kid and the gun, and therefore demostrates that they were not responsible enough to own a gun in the first place.
there are also plenty of kids who steal a gun and take it to school without shooting anyone as well.

In other countries, like Canada, Britain, and Australia, firearms registration was the first step. It eventually led to bans and confiscations. My worry is that, despite the Second Amendment, such a thing could happen here. There've already been bans. Confiscation is the next logical step, if that course is persued uninterupted. I fervently hope that my fears and worries are unfounded, but I've learned to put nothing past our dearly elected leaders.

As to the point about as soon as one person begins shooting, the results would be mixed. On one hand, those gun owners, who're law-abiding citizens, might comply. On the other, I believe that Thomas Jefferson made a comment about freedom occasionaly needing to be soaked with the blood of patriots every once in awhile. No telling. I'm not a clairvoyant, so I've no idea.

As to your comment that the kids getting their hands on the guns demonstrates a lack of responsibility on the part of their guardians, I don't know. I mean, neither you nor I were there. For all we know, they might have taken every possible precaution. Consider this, when you were a teenager, did you let anything deter you from your chosen path? I know I didn't. Remember, when you build a better mousetrap, someone builds a better mouse.

I will never register my firearms. The government has no business keeping track of my posessions. Also, though the posibility is miniscule, if this country is ever overrun I would not want the invaders getting their hands on a list of who has guns and who doesn't.

Originally posted by Echo2
I will never register my firearms. The government has no business keeping track of my posessions. Also, though the posibility is miniscule, if this country is ever overrun I would not want the invaders getting their hands on a list of who has guns and who doesn't.

Echo,

If someone were to invade this country, getting their hands on a list of gun owners wouldn't do them much good. If people are smart, they'll head for the hills, and start making life a living hell for the invaders. :hitout: I know my red a$$ would be headed for the hills with my family right along with me. Don't get me wrong, the idea of a list of gun owners does bother me. However, I doubt that this is going to be like "Red Dawn". Awesome movie, though I think it plays too much on nationalist fear. It is a little funny watching Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen handle AK47's. :D

Originally posted by Txn8ive
However, I doubt that this is going to be like "Red Dawn". Awesome movie, though I think it plays too much on nationalist fear. It is a little funny watching Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen handle AK47's. :D
Sorry, Tex, but that was quite possibly the worst movie ever made. I remember thinking it was a shade worse than Stallone Cobra, and in the scale of things good & bad...that's bad.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Sorry, Tex, but that was quite possibly the worst movie ever made. I remember thinking it was a shade worse than Stallone Cobra, and in the scale of things good & bad...that's bad.

Well, yeah the plot sucked, and the acting stank. There's no doubting that. However, it's redeeming quality was the action. That's what made the movie awesome, to me. Although I did get a kick out of some of the lines.

"You know, all that hate's gonna burn you up inside."
"It keeps me warm at night."

Just a little bit amusing, in a saddening way.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Sorry, Tex, but that was quite possibly the worst movie ever made. I remember thinking it was a shade worse than Stallone Cobra, and in the scale of things good & bad...that's bad.

How can you say that? Red Dawn rules!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
How can you say that? Red Dawn rules!
:) Okay, Lionel...I remember thinking the same thing when I was 9, however - I recently (+/- 10 yrs. ago) saw it again, and it hit me like MacGyver did. I thought that show was awesome when I was a kid, but when I saw a re-run 3 years ago - I was forced to question what they were thinking.

I think maybe I was overly impressed that the Soviet helicopters actually looked like Hind gunships instead of Hueys with red stars painted on them. :)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I think maybe I was overly impressed that the Soviet helicopters actually looked like Hind gunships instead of Hueys with red stars painted on them. :)

I remember noting the same thing. Nothing ruins a war movie like bad equipment.

Originally posted by Echo2
I will never register my firearms. The government has no business keeping track of my posessions.

By all means then, burn your automobile registration, remove the license plates and cut your driver's license into small pieces.

Although the possibility may be miniscule, if this country is ever overrun the invaders will know who has a car and who doesn't.

:eek: :@@: :eek:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I remember noting the same thing. Nothing ruins a war movie like bad equipment.

See, how could anyone be against gay marriage? What guy wouldn't want to be married to someone like this? :D

Originally posted by LionelHutz
See, how could anyone be against gay marriage? What guy wouldn't want to be married to someone like this? :D

Awww, thanks Lionel. :flowers:

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What guy wouldn't want to be married to someone like this? :D
Although your comment was "sweet", try a straight one. :D

Vile, you're kind of an anomaly, aren't you? You like military shit, but if you tell me you're into cars, stereos, home theater, and guns - I'm going to have a fucking heart attack.

Red Dawn was perhaps the silliest movie out of a sad propaganda machine trying to spin the need for a war in Central America. It had a huge hole in the plot, in that no one noticed hundreds of divisions preparing to invade the U.S. With sattelite technology being what it is, the analyst who missed that must have been real competent.
As to really resisting a military invasion and fighting a guerrilla war, a city is a much better environment to do so than the mountains ever were. Far more places to hide in a city. The first thing to do is to change all the street signs around, confusing all the non-natives. Also take all the nice address numbers off the houses and the names off the signs in front. You know your own neighborhood better than any invader ever will.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Although your comment was "sweet", try a straight one. :D

Vile, you're kind of an anomaly, aren't you? You like military shit, but if you tell me you're into cars, stereos, home theater, and guns - I'm going to have a fucking heart attack.

Guns yes, but I'm not really into cars, stereos or home theater...I do have a Sony home theater system though. Just out of curiosity, why do you consider me anomalous?

My guess would be because you don't fit the sterio type he has of gay men.

Originally posted by Echo2
My guess would be because you don't fit the sterio type he has of gay men.

not to be confused with the stereotype echo holds for all republicans......

Originally posted by Decka
not to be confused with the stereotype echo holds for all republicans......

Not ALL republicans, just the ones I don't like......<sarcasm off>

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Just out of curiosity, why do you consider me anomalous?
Echo's pretty much right on. I've never met a gay male who was into guns and military equipment. I certainly meant no disrespect when I made my comment, but I am quite surprised, to say the least.

Originally posted by Echo2
My guess would be because you don't fit the sterio type he has of gay men.
You say that with a type flippancy that only you can pull off, Echo. It's almost as if you expect us to believe that you don't hold any stereotypes...

Btw, I've never dated or met a woman who spells as poorly as you do.

I am the worst speller in the world. Have been all my life. As a kid is Catholic school I used to get my knuckles wacked almost daily for my poor spelling. I still have a few scars. Never helped me spell better but gave me a great insight into how loving the nuns were. Add to that the fact that I don't type very well and I am sometimes surprised that peit's even readable.

Lately I have been reversing letters alot. Probubly some sort of dementia setting in or maybe that hex that trav put on me is working. LOL

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Echo's pretty much right on. I've never met a gay male who was into guns and military equipment. I certainly meant no disrespect when I made my comment, but I am quite surprised, to say the least.

Worry not Prae, I took no offense at your comment, I was just curious as to its origins.

I've been interested in military equipment since I was very young. My father was a CPO in the Navy, and my brother and I built many a plastic model of airplanes, tanks, and ships when we were little. Then we'd blow them up with firecrackers. :D

I'd say there are many gay men that would surprise you. I have friends who were in the military, both recently, and as early as WWII. Gay men hunt, fish, and I go to the shooting range occasionally with a few of them. They don't all style hair or decorate interiors. Some drive trucks, police the streets, install pipes in your houses, and even build your houses. For every gay man you recognize as gay, there are dozens who pass right by unrecognized. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but really Prae, you need to lose that stereotypical image you have of gay men. It hinders you from making sound judgements about them.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Really? 38,000 per year die from gunshot wounds? Wow. That's an awful lot of people. Of course, you know, if your going to cite numbers, why don't you also include your source?

Ok.

Here are a couple of stats .....

General Gun Violence Statistics----FACT:In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S: --- (Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.)

From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm deaths in the U.S. declined from approximately 39,595 to 28,663, mainly due to a decrease in homicides.-------Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 44.


Originally posted by Txn8ive
I'd never heard that 38,000 people per year were killed with guns. Most interesting statistic. Again, please name your source, otherwise I'll have to assume that you made it up.

While I will asume you're an ignorant person to have never encountered that statistic, given your passion for firearms.



Originally posted by Txn8ive
There have, in the past, been efforts to ban firearms altogether. Just ask the lovely folks at Handgun Control Inc.

I searched their site, and cannot find one iota of evidence to corroborate such a claim.

I would be anxious to read any cite or link you or anyone else could provide that HCI has made such an attempt. Thanks.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I like your tactics. Dirty, and underhanded.

I'm glad you like mine.

I cannot say the same for yours.

BTW....please elucidate as to how anything I have posted here is **dirty** or **underhanded**. Thanks.

Speaking of "underhanded", please don't forget to get back to me on that data from HCI where they attempted to ban firearms altogether.


Originally posted by Txn8ive
Just out of curiousity, does a locker door count?

YES. Very much so!!

Please provide an example where ten people at a school were killed with a locker door, and the 100 dollar check will be on the way to the NRA.

Originally posted by Txn8ive

How about a lunch tray?

Please provide an example where ten people were killed with a lunch tray, and the 100 dollar donation will be on the way to the NRA.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
JI've also seen fights where one guy was repeatedly slamming another guy's head into the ground.

Please provide an example where ten people were killed at school by having their heads slammed into the ground, and the 100 dollar donation will be on the way to the NRA.

Originally posted by Txn8ive

Lemme see, there was a fight in which a guy got stabbed in the arm with a pair of scissors.

Please provide an example where ten people at a school were killed with scissors in a few minutes, and the 100 dollar check will be on the way to the NRA.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
Oh, and at the tail end of my first day in the 6th grade, there was a massive gang fight right across the street. Austin Police had their hands full. No less than 40 people involved. There were knives, chains, bats, but no guns.

Please provide an example where ten people at a school were killed in the gang fight you witnessed, and the 100 dollar check will be on the way to the NRA.


Originally posted by Txn8ive
I'd also like to point something out. Given that it is illegal to transport weapons onto school property, the school shooters were already acting in an illegal fashion before they'd even begun to shoot.........The point is, from the minute these kids began to PLAN their actions, they were operating in violation of currently existing law. So, rather than pushing for the passage of news laws, perhaps we ought to push for better enforcement of current ones?

Sounds good to me.

you know what also kills alot of people?

cars

why don't we just get rid of those....

Regardless of proof, the only thing I see FT sending the NRA is a homemade bomb, which he most likely would assemble in a small cabin outside of Lincoln, Montana.

That would be Brush Prarie, Idaho. Wachkjob center for the Northwest. Militaristic, religious zealots with bunkers full of guns and basements full of hate magazines.

I have a distant cousin invoved with some group out there that wants to overthrow the government, abolish taxes, kill monorities and keep women barefoot and pregnant. A real nut job.

I don't think FT is quite that far gone.

Originally posted by Echo2
I don't think FT is quite that far gone.
My reference was clearly to Ted Kaczynski, and while I made it in jest - I wouldn't put it past someone whose unabated hatred of guns shines through in at least three of every five threads discussed.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
My reference was clearly to Ted Kaczynski, and while I made it in jest - I wouldn't put it past someone whose unabated hatred of guns shines through in at least three of every five threads discussed.

?!?!?!?!?

In the event that your **whose unabated hatred of guns shines through in at least three of every five threads** comment was concerning me........you are seriously deranged, given the fact that I am ---as I have stated several times previously-- a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

I own guns. I shoot them often. I no longer hunt, as my views on the senseless killing of animals for enjoyment have changed. If someone shoots an animal to eat it, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

My argument with certain people on these boards on the subject of gun control centers on their absurd claims ---that I have invited them to substantiate countless times, but they have yet to do so-- that there is a concerted movement afoot in the US to ban all firearms, and/or to disarm the American Public.

There MIGHT be 0.0001% of the populace who have stated they'd like to get rid of all guns.

But is there a serious, substantive, organized effort to convince the government to ban all firearms in the US????.........No.

Fair enough, FT...

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you, but I didn't, given your countless "gawd, guns, and guts" quip, think you to be the type person who would own, or approve of owning, guns, period. Remember when I said I was going to purchase a gun, and you very pointedly, and sarcastically, told me to go out and buy 10? Why would a supporter of the second amendment say such a thing?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freethinker
[B]Ok.

Here are a couple of stats .....

General Gun Violence Statistics----FACT:In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S: --- (Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.)

From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm deaths in the U.S. declined from approximately 39,595 to 28,663, mainly due to a decrease in homicides.-------Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 44. [QUOTE][i]

Though I searched through their website, I was unable to locate a single report mirroring the stats you've presented. However, I was able to find the following, on this site adress:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"Summary


During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 --- an average of 79 per day---16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.

An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4)." (cont. on other post)


[QUOTE][i]While I will asume you're an ignorant person to have never encountered that statistic, given your passion for firearms.[QUOTE][i]

Now, we must at least pretend to be adults, don't ya think?



[QUOTE][i]I searched their site, and cannot find one iota of evidence to corroborate such a claim.

I would be anxious to read any cite or link you or anyone else could provide that HCI has made such an attempt. Thanks. [QUOTE][i]

I concede the point. I was mistaken.


[QUOTE][i]BTW....please elucidate as to how anything I have posted here is **dirty** or **underhanded**. Thanks. [QUOTE][i]

You were being dirty and underhanded when you asked me to refute a point in such a manner as to ensure your odds of being proved wrong, minimal. You targeted one very infrequent, though no less tragic, set of circumstances. If you'd have asked for a broader set of circumstances, something a little more frequent in occurance, you'd have been at this moment sending out a check. Of course, being as I don't waste my money on the NRA, I'd not ask you to do the same.

(cont. from previous post) from same report, at same address:

"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases. Several studies found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted, but these studies did not assess violent consequences (16,17). Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results (18--20). Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing ownership of an item if it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. Finally, evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g., the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994) (21).
Restrictions on firearm acquisition. The federal government and individual states restrict the acquisition and use of firearms by individuals on the basis of their personal history. Reasons for restriction can include prior felony conviction, conviction of misdemeanor intimate partner violence, drug abuse, adjudication as "mentally defective,"†† and other characteristics (e.g., specified young age). The Brady Law (22) established national restrictions on acquisition of firearms and ammunition from federal firearms licensees. The interim Brady Law (1994--1998) mandated a 5-day waiting period to allow background checks. The permanent Brady Law, enacted in 1998, eliminated the required waiting period. It normally allows 3 days for a background check, after which, if no evidence of a prohibited characteristic is found, the purchase may proceed (23). Certain states have established additional restrictions, and some require background checks of all firearms transactions, not only those conducted by federal firearms licensees.
The permanent Brady Law depends on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). However, NICS lacks much of the required background information, particularly on certain restriction categories (23). Efforts to improve the availability of background information have been supported by the National Criminal History Improvement Program (24). Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm (2.3% of 30 million applications) were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000 (25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.
Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged >55 years; however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant. Furthermore, this benefit appears to have been a consequence of the waiting period imposed by the interim Brady Law (which has since been dropped in the permanent law) rather than of the law's restrictions on the basis of the purchaser's characteristics (26).
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Waiting periods for firearm acquisition require a specified delay between application for and acquisition of a firearm. Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged >55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial "substitution effect" for suicide (i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means) (26).
Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Registration requires that a record of the owner of specified firearms be created and retained (27). At the national level, the Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986 specifically precludes the federal government from establishing and maintaining a registry of firearms and their owners. Licensing requires an individual to obtain a license or other form of authorization or certification to purchase or possess a firearm (27). Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.
"Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws. Shall issue concealed weapon carry laws (shall issue laws) require the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit to all applicants not disqualified by specified criteria. Shall issue laws are usually implemented in place of "may issue" laws, in which the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit is discretionary (based on criteria such as the perceived need or moral character of the applicant). A third alternative, total prohibition of the carrying of concealed weapons, was in effect in six states in 2001.
The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data (29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.
Child access prevention laws. Child access prevention (CAP) laws are designed to limit children's access to and use of firearms in homes. The laws require firearms owners to store their firearms locked, unloaded, or both, and make the firearm owners liable when children use a household firearm to threaten or harm themselves or others. In three states with CAP laws (Florida, Connecticut, California), this crime is a felony; in several others it is a misdemeanor.
Only three studies examined the effects of CAP laws on violent outcomes, and only one outcome, unintentional firearms deaths, was assessed by all three. Of these, two studies assessed the same states over the same time periods and were therefore nonindependent. The most recent study, which included the most recent states to pass CAP laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut (30). Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. In addition, although CAP laws address juveniles as perpetrators of firearms violence, available studies assessed only juvenile victims of firearms violence.
Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools. The Gun-Free Schools Act (31) stipulates that each state receiving federal funds must have a state law requiring local educational agencies to expel a student from school for at least 1 year if a firearm is found in the student's possession at school. Expulsion may lead to alternative school placement or to "street" placement (full expulsion, with no linkage to formal education). In contrast to the 3,523 firearms reported confiscated under the Gun-Free Schools Act in the 1998--99 school year, school surveys (32) indicate that an estimated 3% of the 12th grade student population in 1996 (i.e., 85,350 students) reported carrying firearms on school property one or more times in the previous 30 days. Thus, even if only 12th grade students carry firearms, fewer than 4.3% of firearms are being detected in association with the Gun-Free Schools Act.
No study reviewed attempted to evaluate the effects of zero tolerance laws on violence in schools, nor did any measure the effect of the Gun-Free Schools Act on carrying of firearms in schools. One cross-sectional study, however, assessed the effectiveness of metal detector programs in reducing the carrying of firearms in schools (33). Although firearms detection is not explicitly required in the Gun-Free Schools Act, the effectiveness of the law may depend on the ability to detect firearms by various means. The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school, but the rate of carrying firearms to, from, or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such programs. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students.
Combinations of firearms laws. Governmental jurisdictions (e.g., states or nations) can be characterized by the degree to which they regulate firearm possession and use. Whether a greater degree of firearms regulation in a jurisdiction results in a reduction of the amount of violence in that jurisdiction still needs to be determined. Three kinds of evidence were reviewed for this study: 1) studies of the effects of comprehensive national laws within nations; 2) international comparisons of comprehensive laws; and 3) studies in which law types within jurisdictions (i.e., regulation of specific, defined aspects of firearm acquisition and use) were categorized and counted, and counts compared with rates of specific forms of violence within the same jurisdictions. The latter type are referred to here as index studies because they developed indices of the degree of regulation. In drawing conclusions about law combinations, findings from the three approaches were considered.
On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed."