Thread: Firearms: The Common Person & the Criminal

Interesting responses. Bigspendur, we share a common career in law enforcement, I'm at 32 years service right now and yes, it is an individual choice and anyone making the choice to own or use firearms should become informed on the laws, use and care, giving careful consideration to all aspects before deciding to own/use or not.

I bold the word choice because that is the purpose of the thread, to point out some facts that surround the common person's reason for choosing to own firearms, and histroical references to what can happen when a government, ruler or ruling class eliminates that right of choice from a country or culture.

As well, the other poster from the U.K. mentions the Gun Culture which, I would say is an intended projection rather than an accurate profile of the average person, and in this case American who owns or uses firearms. In short, intentional mis-information.

The important thing about this issue and so many other issues is the right of choice. I find it concerning that when the existing laws are ignored, or senteces diluted, our legislators seem inclined to decide to create additional laws, the result of which restrict only those who obey the laws in the first place...and not the criminally intended.

Finally, the last homicide I worked on involved an individual who delievered furniture for a living, made a delivery to the residence of a couple and there fixed on the wife. Some weeks later, he knocked on the door of that residence one evening and the wife answered. The husband, (a school teacher without home protection was in another room), the intruder shot her in the leg when she tried to escape and when the husband entered the front room, the intruder pointed him down with the handgun, tied him up, took the wife into the bedroom and stabbed her in the heart with a kitchen knife. Then he returned to the living room, stabbed the bound husband in the same manner, and set the house on fire with three children sleeping. Fortunately, and a miracle, the fire when out and smoldered, creating smoke that the neighbors saw, who called the fire department.

About one year later, the same individual tried the exact same thing in a home about 50 miles away. Entering the home, using the wife to subdue the husband, and then binding the husband and taking the wife to another room. The husband managed to loosen himself, retrieved his home defense and shot the intruder to death. Facts, not culture or hype!

So the second guy was better at getting out of restraints?

I am all for gun ownership, but that story doesnt help the argument to me

Originally Posted by hardblues

Interesting responses. Bigspendur, we share a common career in law enforcement, I'm at 32 years service right now and yes, it is an individual choice and anyone making the choice to own or use firearms should become informed on the laws, use and care, giving careful consideration to all aspects before deciding to own/use or not.

I bold the word choice because that is the purpose of the thread, to point out some facts that surround the common person's reason for choosing to own firearms, and histroical references to what can happen when a government, ruler or ruling class eliminates that right of choice from a country or culture.

As well, the other poster from the U.K. mentions the Gun Culture which, I would say is an intended projection rather than an accurate profile of the average person, and in this case American who owns or uses firearms. In short, intentional mis-information.

The important thing about this issue and so many other issues is the right of choice. I find it concerning that when the existing laws are ignored, or senteces diluted, our legislators seem inclined to decide to create additional laws, the result of which restrict only those who obey the laws in the first place...and not the criminally intended.

Finally, the last homicide I worked on involved an individual who delievered furniture for a living, made a delivery to the residence of a couple and there fixed on the wife. Some weeks later, he knocked on the door of that residence one evening and the wife answered. The husband, (a school teacher without home protection was in another room), the intruder shot her in the leg when she tried to escape and when the husband entered the front room, the intruder pointed him down with the handgun, tied him up, took the wife into the bedroom and stabbed her in the heart with a kitchen knife. Then he returned to the living room, stabbed the bound husband in the same manner, and set the house on fire with three children sleeping. Fortunately, and a miracle, the fire when out and smoldered, creating smoke that the neighbors saw, who called the fire department.

About one year later, the same individual tried the exact same thing in a home about 50 miles away. Entering the home, using the wife to subdue the husband, and then binding the husband and taking the wife to another room. The husband managed to loosen himself, retrieved his home defense and shot the intruder to death. Facts, not culture or hype!

IIRC the UK did away with private ownership of firearms under Tony Blair when a wacko went to a school with a long gun and shot up a bunch of kids ? One way or the other, did they succeed in getting all of the guns ..... or just those in the possession of law abiding citizens ?

We in the USA have seen the results of stringent gun laws. The Sullivan Law, circa 1911, in NYC was the most stringent in the USA for decades and the criminals, for whom law is the least of their concerns, were not deterred by it as crime stats show.

In 1934 an episode known as "The Kansas City Massacre" led to the federal regulation of private ownership of fully automatic weapons such as the Thompson Sub Machine Gun. A favorite of gangsters and desperados of the time.

Fully automatic weapons were the firearm of choice of the 'Cocaine Cowboys' in the 1980s and are still quite popular with the gang culture here in the US. The Thompson has been replaced by modern technology but the full auto is quite common among the criminal class. Less common among the law abiding.

I have been a member of the NRA since 1973 and a life member since 1976. I was against ''cop killer" bullets and see no need for private ownership of high cap magazines or assault rifles. Matter of fact I would gladly give up my guns if I thought that the gun laws could be enforced and the criminals would not have access to firearms either. Unfortunately some cliches are too true such as,"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

IIRC the UK did away with private ownership of firearms under Tony Blair when a wacko went to a school with a long gun and shot up a bunch of kids ? One way or the other, did they succeed in getting all of the guns ..... or just those in the possession of law abiding citizens ?

Not strictly accurate. The Dunblane school massacre was carried out with high capacity handguns. UK citizens can still be licensed to own rifles,shotguns and long barrel pistols for target and game shooting.
We did have another massacre, 10 yrs earlier where another nutcase shot up the town of Hungerford with an AK47.
Both the perpetrators were licensed gun owners, hence the public outcry for stricter firearms legislation.
I was against the ban on legally held handguns.
Interestingly the BBC ran a '15 yrs on' programme last week, interviewing one of the teachers that was shot ,some of the parents who lost kids that day. It was enough to make me think seriously of hanging up my firearms.
A shooter all my life, the attitude and mental stability of some firearms owners does give me serious cause for concern.
You could write a book on the for and against arguments.The UK has never had the same level of firearms ownership as the USA or even Europe.
Many of our firearms and drugs problems stem from the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and relaxing of our border restrictions.

In 1995 Canada implemented long rifle gun control on top of the already restricted firearms such as hand guns and automatic weapons. Recently I applied to have my License renewed for my long rifle guns and it cost me nothing. But from 1995 to present, the Canadian government has spent $2 billion dollars on the program.

The laughable part is that there is currently an amnesty in place for all Canadians who have not yet registered there guns to protect them from criminal prosecution. It originally expired at the end of May 2010 and now they have extended it to 2011. Basically, they can not enforce the gun law, it costs too much money.

To me, the right to own a firearm is similar if not the same right to be bale to start a fire to stay warm.

Anyway, I like your article. Thanks.

Slartibartfast...there is no argument, position or suggestion on my part...as stated...just facts, what you get or don't get from it is all good for you and me...I do need to comment on one thing...your comment about one guy being good about getting out of restraints and the other guy not...all sorts of things can or could have figured into that...not quite that simple and we'll leave it at that...but I think I included the fact he didn't own a firearm, so, it probably wouldn't have done him too much good even if he was a little quicker cause the bad guy brought his you see...make sense?