Printable View
Everyone PLEASE write to your media rep and tell them to shut the *@!$ up about Dick Cheney and the bird shot!.
I'm so sick of this. I can't stand the man personally but hey, If any of us accidentally shot a guy the media wouldn't be hounding us for not reporting it personally. I'm surprised the media isn't upset at dick and george for not calling in what brand of TP they use to wipe with every time they dump!
Whew! I feel better now. Thanks :D
No, they would be reporting on our attempted murder trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
RT
Don't forget about reassesing the states gun laws, taxes on ammo, and investigating why you felt the need to own a gun at all. Of course, that would be after you were sued by the family of the vitcim and convicted by the state on several charges...Quote:
Originally Posted by rtaylor61
Yes enough about Dick!!! No one cares other than the pheasants who escaped thanks to Dicks poor shot.
aerosmith classic remixed-
Dum, dum, dum, honey what have you done?
Dum, dum, dum it's the sound of my gun.
Dum, dum, dum, honey what have you done?
Dum, dum, dum it's the sound
cheney's got a gun
cheney's got a gun....
you know, I've heard hitler successfully removed (most) all guns from homes, making it illegal for citizens to use a gun prior to starting his campaign against Jews. Then he armed the troops to the hilt and went to town.
I've also heard that one of the countries in the EU (switzerland or sweden I think) REQUIRES every male old enough to shoot a gun and young enough to fire it straight (I think the cut of was something in the 60's or late 50's) to have a fully functioning military rifle in their home ready for use. The same article also noted that this country had the lowest crime rate in the world ;)
Yes, it is Switzerland and they carry a semi automatic. I saw a program on it and loved it. The guy was riding his bike with a semi-automatic strapped accross his back. They have no standing army and it is every citizen's duty to be ready to defend his country. They actually take turns at "active duty" and have to carry the gun with them when it is their turn.
I live in Canada and find the attitude towards gun control a placibo. The only thing this achieves is the good guys are unarmed while the criminals are. They don't pay attention to law, duh!
Just today I found out that an ex-work colleage lost his 19 year old brother who was shot in Edmonton a few days ago. So gun control does not really work.
Switzerland's attitude that every able bodied man has to know how to shoot and be ready to do so is healthy. No one is going to protect your sorry ass better than yourself. Any criminal there knows that you won't have to wait for the cops to get there. Farming out protection to someone else is unreliable for that reason and creates either a false sense of security or a police state.
That said, I don't think 12 year olds should carry guns "cause they want respect" either.
I like the Swiss education and training balance of this issue better than the Canadian or the US attitudes.
As far as Dick is concerned, I knew as soon as I heard the story that the media would milk it for all it's got.
Reminds me of the SNL episode "Buckwheat is dead" after the shooting of President Raygun.
im at a lack of words when imagining every "able bodied" male in the US having a gun and that being a good thing. sure armed robbery of your house might decline (as if it exists, find me a robber who enters while you're there) but practically every other crime involving a gun would rise. Would people be expected to carry guns on them 24/7 and to work and dinner etc... who could monitor that and make sure everyone tying one on at the bar or a party has their gun.
sounds like molding a pseudo friendly society based on an underlying fear of each other. too much paranoia and pessimism for me
ps i walked into my house as a teenager and found a guy robbing it, i am happy this guy, who just ran away when he heard me, didnt think i was armed when i came in and started thinking to act "before i did". whether a gun is in a house or not a desperate person will still rob it when youre not there. reminds me of frost's "good fences make good neighbors"
if the swiss crime rate is truly the lowest in the world or among them, i would attribute it to the culture and education of the people in combination with other strong government programs way before concluding every one having a gun as even a strong factor, let alone a main one.
Every single state in the US which has instated a concealed carry permit program has had their crime rate drop. conversly, the states with the most gun control also have the worst crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
Doesn't really matter to me either way, they will have to kill me to get my guns, but not before I take a few of em with me ;)
Someone stated that an armed society is a polite society. I just want everyone to be nice to each other. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
BTW, I think ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
OK. Enough one-liners for the day. :)
I'd have to disagree with ya lad. There would be 2 major deterrents. 1) the person(s) being violated might shoot back and 2) with the increased survival of the victims, more witnesses would be there to jail the criminals for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
If it takes a healthy fear to be the proper deterrent then so be it. The problem today is no one has a healthy fear of anything, it's either a phobia treatable by drugs or it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
Most break ins are by desparate people who don't prepare enough, many more are by those who make mistakes. Most homes are occupied when vandalized. Even if the break-ins drop by only 50% that's still 50% that wouldn't have been curbed had the criminals not been aware that they would most likely be shot and killed if they broke the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
I'm sure the swiss appreciate your respectable opinion of their society;). However it's hard to argue against the evidence of an entire country. more guns= less violent crimes=less non violent crimes. Every time a society has banned personal weapons/guns that I've read about in history, the government then starts a major oppression of the people and eventually most of the population has to die in a coup or revolution and then some other oppresive force takes advantage. I know I don't want that to happen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
Hope this doesn't sound too much like preaching or arguing. I'm not. just stating my dissents on points made :)
didnt sound like preaching or arguing, we just have widely different opinions on "healthy fear" and that "it's hard to argue against the evidence of an entire country. more guns= less violent crimes=less non violent crimes."
until you did a much deeper study of swiss society, the high gun ownership and low crime correlation remains Very Very weak to me.
similarly i cant buy into "Every single state in the US which has instated a concealed carry permit program has had their crime rate drop. conversly, the states with the most gun control also have the worst crime." drawing the conclusion that the minority of a states population that takes advantage of a concealed carry permit is responsible for dropping crime rate just isnt believable to me, show me the crime rates before and after the implement of a concealed carry permit and then show me highschool drop out rates and a slew of economic indicators for the same time span and id be willing bet the concealed carry permit would be at the bottom of my list of why crime dropped or increased.
like any semi political debate i dont think we're going to be changing each others minds lol
Glad you feel better. I really don't know if I like the guy or not. Never met him, but a hunting accident just ain't no big deal. I too am tired of the media coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by rtaylor61
Just simply read what each state lists as their crime rates, in correlation to the dates that CCW's became legalized. Also, cross reference the dates of each new gun ban per state in relation to their publicly released violent crime rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
I am not a rocket scientist, but it makes sense to me. I would much rather rob someone in a state where there is less of a chance that they would be able to shoot back. Even a street thug can figure that one out.
Anyway, like I said, not everyone has to like guns or own them; I just wish people would stop trying to take mine away...
First things first:
1. We're all sick of hearing about Cheney's stupidity, whether it includes a gun or not. For that matter, we're sick of not hearing alternate views on many issues or even MORE about some other places, people and issues.
2. I agree that "gun controll" is not a recipe for safer communities, but simply an unarmed population with an armed government.
That said, all this talk of whether the communities that are more liberal :eek: with their gun laws are safer is irrespective of the cultural approach to guns. The US has an obsession with gun culture and that exacerbates al the problems around it. For that reason it's almost useless to compare US gun culture to other countries.
Now I am a conservative, but even I am sick and tired of Bush's BS. And what upsets me most about this damn Chenney crap, is that I know Bush is thrilled that the media is leaving him alone and paying attention to Dick. Especially right now, that we have brilliantly agreed to sell six of our largest ports to a country that harbors terrorists. We need to be all over Bush like lint on velcro over these issues, not paying attention to Chenneys personal hobbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
to me that's just drawing too broad of a conclusion on very limited information, like i said show me highschool drop out rates and a slew of economic indicators for the same time span and id be willing bet the concealed carry permit would be at the bottom of my list of why crime dropped or increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
i actually own a .22 and a 12 gauge (no hand guns), both are collecting dust in cases in a closet in my house, neither add any sense of security for me.
Here's a tip, James. Do your own research. Look into the crime rates in the British Isles and Australia before/after they passed their respective gun laws. Yup, they worked so well we should copy them (or not). If you feel so strongly about guns, sell yours and put up a sign on your lawn stating that you're "Unarmed and proud of it." Wait and see how long it would be before you're burglarized.
Wayne
i think you've missed the boat on my opinion entirely, ill look into the sign idea though...Quote:
Originally Posted by bbqncigars
My experience is that religion, politics and guns are about the three most explosive topics you can introduce into a conversation. Let's be sure to remember that this is opinion, and we can agree or agree to disagree. And I'm a gun owner. I've had a 410 shotgun since I was 13. Still on my first box of shells! However, I have used a beautiful ash Adirondack #38 a couple of times for protection. It warded off the demons.
RT
I like the "unarmed" sign idea! Don't tell the crooks that I'm a liar! I am sick and tired of hearing about this bullshit Cheney thing too. The little guy was just shooting at some little birds and it went wrong. I love the press calling it Buckshot! Oh, did I mention that I am a liberal. True. I am a gun toting liberal whateveryoucallit. CCW's...Yep, bring em on, but even if you don't, I'm still packing mine. But I don't believe in the death penalty..go figure....Time for my meds now...Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
We all make mistakes, I guess. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
Here, here. And that's just the stuff we know about. Sometimes I'm stunned by how little our "independant" media actually informs us of. I'm also aften offended by hearing them tell me what to think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
Don't even get me started... :rant: :rant: :rant:Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
I don't claim to be liberal OR conservative. I laugh to see that republicans and democrats have gone to the flipside of the coin on MANY issues since hullabalu around the (un)civil war died off. Republicans were the original champion of civil rights, now they want to remove civil rights. Democrats were the money monger party now they're the "take it all in taxes" party.
I'm just a disillusioned individual who thinks we should use the laws we have in place instead of passing more, quit borrowing money and pay of the national debt even if it means raising taxes to do it, quit buying foreign products, quit making it profitable for companies to outsource overseas, tarrif the foreign product, quit producing oil and start using alternative renewable resources, abolish the death penalty, legalize heterosexual marriage definitions, ban disposable razors, legalize marijauana (so we can tax it like cigarettes and booze), legalize prayer in school, ban union practices that make it possible for an uneducated worker to make $25.00 hourly plus just for sitting on his sphincters, cap executive salaries, and make it a capital offense for an exec to leave a company during bankruptsy, and we should definitely exile bill gates, michael jackson, the bushes, and the clintons ;).
There's a fistfull of oxymorons for you.
That's descrimination and fuels hate toward homosexuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
:hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
:nono: Separation of church and state, remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
That's why we don't get lost in fundamentalism like some Muslim places.
Hey FUD, do people ever call you opininated? ;)
X
FUD,
Wow that is all I can say. You do have some opinions. I don't disagree with all of them. I do believe we should have prayer back in schools no matter who you pray to. Just a 3 min general silent prayer. The athesist can use this time to remember why there isn't a God. While the rest are thankful there is.:D I also think executive bonuses and salaries should be tied to the companies performance. I see red when I hear a company lost millions of dollars but the CEO still gets 30 million bonus.:nono:
I'll drink to that!!! :p :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FUD
I've been accused of being too docile and pliable, but never opinionated ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Bay rum! The better way to start the day! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
I just woke up and realized that I posted here last night. I forgot to lock up the computers before drinking again. oops.
Become a Liberterian. Get the liberals out of your
wallet and the conservatives out of your bedroom
Neither the conservatives or liberals are worth a
damn. Each wants to force their beliefs on other
people.
Liberals and conservatives are at different points
on a sphere. They only support the rights of those they
agree with and only while they need them. When no longer
needed they will throw them to the wolves.
Terry
I just had a bit more to add about the swiss before this thread goes bare . . . Some of the details I read differed from my understanding of their system. All males are given mandatory military training and are issued the current swiss military rifle. (You can basically tell a man's age by the weapon he was issued! If a man has an old bolt rifle, it's not his dad's rifle, he's really that old!) They are required to maintain proficiency with the weapons (there are many available ranges throughout Switzerland where they can practice) and prove it or must pay a higher tax for the PRIVILEGE of not being required to keep up their skill. :hmmm: The men don't take their weapons wherever they go. Generally the weapon is kept at home unless need arises, so it's not like the old west where everyone is packin'.
Their culture teaches a healthy respect for firearms and what they are capable of doing -- killing things whether intentionally to protect their homes, or accidentally :nono: through ignorance which they actively avoid being widespread through their approach to mandatory training. Messing with the swiss just isn't worth it for the European's. No one want to fight every single person in a country the're invading, even Iraq has a majority of their citizens supporting the US and look how much of a pain that country is to occupy!
It's been a while since I read about it and I can't remember where I read it but it stated that the swiss had laws in place that provide for the protection of their own home. The gyst of that part of the article was if someone broke into a swiss home they did so at their own risk and the home owner was free to blast away if necessary. (crudely paraphrased but still :p ).
I didn't get the impression it was like the old west days of the u.s. from the article. I got the impression that every male was armed and knew how to use a gun. This in itself is a heavy deterrent even for armed robberies outside. what happens if the perpetrator gets a lively one who wrestles the gun away, or someone else happens by and manages to get it away? not good for the criminal. The article didn't insinuate that there was zero crime there. It merely pointed out how low crime was compared to other countries and how the gun laws are the exact opposite of countries who's crime rates are so high.
We technically have the same type of "law", its called Castle Doctrine. The last few decades however have been slowly ignoring it more and more, its very sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by FUD
Some states go out of their way to prevent that type of law. Michigan prosecutes people who defend their home. if the criminal dies while breaking in the homeowner gets charged with 2nd degree murder and often convicted of manslaughter. In ohio, even though there's supposed to be self defense laws on the board, they've prosecuted people who've shot intruders, one notable case where a group of teenagers kept breaking in and threatening to harm the man, he finally got a gun, kept it at his bedsite and shot one kid after the kid broke in, disregarding repeated warnings by the man that if "whoever's out there doesn't quit trying to get the door open (he'll) shoot!". When the kid broke the door in and stepped in, the man shot and the prosecutor tried to get him on 1st degree murder because he had the gun loaded and ready after repeated break ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
One southern state ( I can't remember which now) found a man criminally and civilly liable after shooting an armed intruder but only maiming him. the man was sentenced to jail time and everything he owned was confiscated and turned over to the armed robber.
Criminalizing the innocent has become a common practice in the United states.
Whether you believe it or not, it happens to be provably true. Reducing guns feels good intuitively, but it doesn't reduce crime practically. Real world translation: More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens absolutely reduces crime. Like it or not. The truth is the truth, whether you choose to believe it or not. While economic indicators and education levels certainly do help or hurt, the ability to defend one's self in a meaningful way gives the criminal element a moment of pause, and often they'll move on to easier prey.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMach3
Basically, the law is generally that you cannot use deadly force to protect property.Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
So, if someone breaks into your house to steal your stereo, and you know they only plan to steal your stereo, you can't shoot them dead because they broke into your house.
Now, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you are afraid for your life and the lives of your family, then that is a situation where you could justifiably use deadly force in self defense.
The distinction is between using deadly force to protect your /house/ and using force to protect yourself and your family.
Some states are different, though. Florida, for one. But what I've explained is the general common law. If you own a gun, you might want to find this out from a lawyer in your area who knows about these things. :)
Unfortunately, that was not the initial intent of the castle doctrine. Initially as it was taken from Roman law, to English law, and then to America it initially stated something to the effect of "a man`s home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack."
However over the years it has been stepped on and torn a part. Luckily, many states still recognize castle doctrine for the most part, Florida being the best of the best.
But beyond all laws and backward values is this... "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" and if someone breaks into my house, unless I develop ESP and instantly know that they only want my stereo, he/she is going to walk, crawl, or be carried out with quite alot more lead and shrapnel in their blood stream then they came in with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer
Note to self...skip JL's house on next klepto binge... :nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
RT
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtaylor61
Its ok RT, I dont think I have anything actually worth breaking in for...at least nothing that isnt kept in my 700lbs gun safe. Of course, I have always said that if someone can somehow steal my gun safe, they can have what is in it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
Amen Brother Man! Preach it again!
Bottom line is, if the person breaks in and the homeowner isn't a certified mind reader, there should be no charges. Additionally, if there have been repeated break-ins and the police haven't caught the perpetrators then the homeowner is at risk because getting away with something repeatedly emboldens criminals to go further.
Here's a cool "magazine clip" from the internet. I've only seen this on the net. don't know which magazine, etc..
"Expedite your police response times"
"I woke up one evening to some noises in my back yard that sounded like intruders. Using my night vision scope I verified that three young men, possibly teenagers, were breaking into my shed. I immediately called 911, who transferred me to the local police station. 'We're sorry sir, we have no available units to send to your area at this time. We'll send a patrol car around as soon as one is available.' Then they hung up.
I waited 2 minutes and called back and was transferred to the local police station again. 'You don't need to worry about the police' I stated cheerfully 'Just send a coroner. I've shot the bastards dead. Take your time getting here, they won't spoil in this cold weather' I thanked the speechless dispatcher and hung up.
Within minutes my house was surrounded by police with a search & rescue helicopter hovering over. All 3 burglars were caught.
'I thought you called and reported you had shot the burglars' the leading officer half accused me. 'I thought your dispatcher said there were no units available in my area' I politely replied."
FUD,
I love it!!! That sounds like something that may have been published in Concealed Carry Magazine, but I cant be sure. I read a lot of articles somewhat similar to this in which homeowners do have to take matters into their own hands because the police have no duty to protect most citizens.
Besides 911, is BS, not so much in the above situation, since there was no immediate threat of loss of life or limb, but had they gotten close to the house that would have changed quickly. However, I believe that we should be able to protect our property with all and any force necessary.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, 911 is just like calling the cleaning crew to clean up the mess, its up to the individual to protect themselves from becoming a victim. In fact there have been many court decisions have stated repeatedly that police have no duty to protect the people. Here are a few things to read that took about 10 seconds to find on the internet, you could literally spend days reading all similar types of court decisions.
It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that
individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of
their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is:
only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals,
judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other
words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police
protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special
cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts,
however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to
protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are
emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with
such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this
type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate,
a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police
several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30
minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police
had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact
the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren
court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the
women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts
upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their
attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect
them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying
that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any individual citizen." (4) There are many similar cases with
results to the same effect.(5)
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia
under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are
brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of
state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more
onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil
rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials
for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or
Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no
duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Department of Social Services.(6) Frequently these cases are based on an
alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In
DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured
by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local
officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed
by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,"(7)
but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special
relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection
only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners,
involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their
will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to
protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament
or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which
it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."(8)