Anyone hard up for a date?

[gmatov]

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm
http://www.nraila.org/articles.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=114

Sorry to copy so much to this rebuttal. The text below is from the 4th site above. I doubt many of you will browse hese sites, so had to give some rebuttal to the previous posters.
To our English/Australian friends, read the paragraph relating to England, and the total handgun ban there, and the Bobbies forming SWAT teams because, as the saying goes, " When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.".
To our Australian friends in particular, you guys ARE aware, aren't you, that ALL weapons have been outlawed in your countrie(s)? They have either decreed that you must be X years old to have a pocket knife, or are not allowed to have any knife whatsoever outside your home.
They have had your citizens turn in their firearms and destroyed them.

To our Canadian friends, the ban on firearms is just as Draconian. Most of your provinces are said to have gone on record to oppose the Dominion's laws outlawing firearms.

To our European friends, read the section below, stating that Europeans have always had a lower firearms death rate that the US, BUT, their suicide rate is higher than most of the rest of the world.

To O kewl, click on the links above till you get to the one titled Bowling for Columbine. That was a tragedy. You have to remember, though, the guns were not purchased legally. Laws were broken, left and right. Were the teachers, any teacher, permitted to carry, they could have been stopped.

To out Texan friends, who keep reminding us they have the highest rate of firearms ownership in the country, and the highest execution rate, ask the lady whose parents, and many others, were gunned down in Luby's cafeteria, because Texas law said, well, yes, you can carry a concealed weapon, but not where there are any people congregated. (I don't know if Luby's served liquor, and that was the rationale.) However, were she permitted to have her Legally Permitted Concealed Weapon on her person, she would have done her damnedest to kill him before he killed all those people, including her parents.

The first link leads to an erudite paper that explains that the first gun laws in this country were expressly passed to prevent Blacks ( read "Freed Slaves") and Bohunk immigrants from having the right to self defense. Do you think the KKK would have been so all powerful if the Blacks they were lynching had the means to shoot back? I'll bet you they would have had a much harder time recruiting white tresh into their "league", if the Blacks were armed.

You rarely need a gun where there are no people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

There is quite a lot of ill-informed comment in the posts above. I realize a lot of you are young, and I guess that, in fact, a lot of you are city dwellers. And, a bunch are college students, learning the Ultra-Liberal line from your profs.

You should educate yourselves on this issue, as, the 2nd aAmendment may, in fact, be even MORE important than the First.

As it was being drawn up, nearly all the members feared that without the right and the means to overthrow a despotic government, we would be nothing more than another monarchy, at the disposal of the tyrant of the day, as was all of Europe, under their various Kings, Australia, under the British Crown, and Canada, ditto.

Try the links above, see what the banners are doing, if you want more, ask, I'll point you to root sources, from which you can find many other articles and references.

I really am sorry this was so long, there's just so damn much....

AMA Head Calls For Research . . .

In his inaugural speech as president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Richard F. Corlin used that platform to launch an ill-informed, broadside attack on the private ownership of firearms in America. He called for "scientific research and objective discussion," but in his June 20 remarks, Dr. Corlin abandoned all pretense of science objectivity and instead regurgitated the distortions and lies spread by the anti-gun lobby. For example:

I. Dr. Corlin: "Today, it's very different. Guns are so available and violence so commonplace . . . it's as if guns have replaced fists as the playground weapon of choice."

Dose of Reality: The notion that violence occurs because today kids have easier access to guns than in the past is flawed in several ways. It is true that America has more guns overall, but the percentage of households having guns is about the same or even lower than it was decades ago. And the guns that years ago were once proudly displayed over the mantel are now far more likely to be locked up.
The "easy access" hypothesis also assumes that, in the absence of easily available guns, would-be violent youth wouldn't commit violent acts. The two Columbine High murderers disproved that by producing an arsenal of 99 bombs. And, most insultingly, the "easy access" explanation would have us assume that otherwise normal, good kids become dangerous only in the presence of guns.

II. Dr. Corlin: "In the 1990s, the CDC had a system in place for collecting data about the results of gun violence. But Congress took away its funding, thanks to heavy lobbying by the anti-gun control groups."

Dose of Reality: In the late 1990s, the House Appropriations Committee reprogrammed funds from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The amount reprogrammed equated to the amount being spent on firearms research that had been described as "biased" and "shameful" by independent experts from institutions such as the Columbia Medical School and Harvard Medical School.

III. Dr. Corlin: The AMA House of Delegates "recognized the irrefutable truth that ‘uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious threat to the public's health in as much as the weapons are one of the main causes of intentional and unintentional injuries and death.'"

Dose of Reality: Actually the AMA's version of truth is easily refutable since it is, at best, a half-truth. While it is true that firearms are associated with approximately 30,000 deaths—the majority of them suicides—in the U.S. annually, firearms are used far more often to save lives and protect property. Award-winning survey research demonstrates that guns are used as often as 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. for protection. This is three to five times as often as they are misused by criminals.

IV. Dr. Corlin: "This [gun violence] is a uniquely American epidemic."

Dose of Reality: Dr. Corlin continued on to make the usual comparison of U.S. firearms deaths to those in foreign countries so favored by anti-gun propagandists. He, of course, failed to note homicide rates in Europe have always been lower than the U.S.'s both before and after the adoption of anti-gun laws. Conversely, suicide is a much greater problem in most European countries than it is here, but since the difference can't be blamed on guns, it's not discussed. Nor do anti-gunners point out that Great Britain's total handgun ban has failed so miserably as a crime deterrent that London police recently announced they were forming SWAT teams to combat emboldened armed criminals.


VI. Dr. Corlin: "Gunfire kills 10 children a day in America."

Dose of Reality: As Dr. Corlin must know, the "10 children a day" figure is reached only if persons aged 15–19 are counted as children. Deaths in this group occur most often because older teenagers have abandoned childhood innocence to take up drug dealing and other street crime. When children are commonly defined—ages 14 or younger—Dr. Corlin's number drops almost 90%.


VIII. Dr. Corlin: "A gun kept in the home for self-defense is 22 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or a friend than an intruder."

Dose of Reality: The gross deficiencies of the study that produced this factoid are numerous and have been discussed exhaustively. For example, consider using dead criminals to measure the efficacy of handgun ownership. Is the competence of a police department measured by counting how many people they lawfully kill every year? The benefits to society of the police—and of home handgun ownership—are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Tallying corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection. But then again, treating law-abiding citizens according to standards that would be appropriate for criminals is the hallmark of the gun control movement.

[gmatov]

Doggiedaddy,

"God created all men, but Colonel Colt made them equal."

[rhegedus]

Yes, reminds me of Bowling For Columbine

You know it's a sham, don't you?

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

[pacmania_2001]

Firstly, this isnt an attack on anyone or America.

It amazes me how inbuilt the the gun ownership culture is in America. When I was travelling around America it suprised me that you would see people walking around with multiple guns in public yet no one cared.

Your legal drinking and gambling age is 21 yet you can walk into the local Walmart and freely buy a gun at age 18 (or 16 for a rifle if I remember correctly). Then you have things like school shootings and wonder why such things are possible. Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is misleading in some aspects but surely it must act as a wake up call.

Australia is far from perfect in terms of gun control and ownership laws but I feel 100 times safer walking down the street here than over in America (even if I was carrying a gun).

[gmatov]

pacmania,
Actually, it's 21 and 18, respectively, perhaps even 21 for long arms, now.
When that "juvenile" enters WalMart to buy his gun, no matter if it is a single shot .22, he must undergo a vetting by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, in the form of the National Instant Background Check. If there is nothing of a derogatory nature in his record, well, this is America, and the lawmakers here, with some persuasion from many millions of voters, have determined that a law abiding citizen has a right to purchase and own a firearm.
It is not the rest of the world, where only the rich and well connected have a "right" to have a firearm.
It is not England, nor Australia, where even the "rook rifle" have been outlawed, and, from what I have read, crime against persons is on the rise.
In the state of Florida, when their lawmakers passed the "Shall Issue" laws, which stated that persons of good repute were not to be denied a license to carry a concealed weapon, crime against the citizens of Florida plummeted, but crimes against visitors, who rented cars with the tell-tale "rental" license plates skyrocketed. "Well, visitors don't got guns, them homegrowns do, and we don't wanna get shot."

In my own state of Pennsylvania, the Mayor of Philadelphia fought tooth and nail to have his city exempted from "shall issue". Shortly after the law was enacted, crime in all the nearby counties plummeted, Philadelphia's gun crime rate skyrocketed. Same thing, all the crooks decided it was less of a job hazard to rob and mug in Philly than to go after all them crazies out there who would shoot you for trying to mug them or rape them.
That mayor is now our Governor, so God knows what his next move will be.
BTW, what is the murder rate in Australia where the weapon was a frozen leg-o-lamb, or iz that NZ only?
Cheers,
George

[pacmania_2001]

Gun related murders in Australia were 65. Seeing we are a nation of approx 20 million people and America is approx 250 million we need to multiply the Australian figure by 12.5, therefore:

Australian deaths: 65 x 12.5 = 812.5 deaths per 250 million people
American deaths: 11,127 deaths per 250 million people

The problem with guns is that even if the are bought by legal aged, law abiding citizens what is to stop their children from accidently killing themselves with it. Or their children going to school and shooting up the place.

In Australia you can still guns, just not semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. I have no problem with not being able to own a weapon of that power. If I wanted to protect myself from a burglar one or two bullets is going to have the same effect as 30-40. In fact if I had the option of owning a semi/fully automatic weapon I still wouldn't have one.

[gmatov]

Pacmania,
I just lost a whole letter because of hitting the wrong damned key. I hope I can recap it.

If you were unaware, school shootings, and the like have gone on for a long time. It does not make it OK, just, with the number of media outlets we have today, we need news.

Someone uses a gun to thwart a murder or rape, it does not make the 6 o'clock news. This happens an estimated 2 and a half million times in these United States, every year.

In these same United States, the posession of fully automatic weapons, machine guns, has been regulated since 1934. To own one, one must undergo a most stringent background check, and pay an, I think, 3500 dollar registration fee.

And, if you were ever able to peruse some of out trade mags, you would find that a fully automatic weapon goes for 5000 bucks, and up. And, they have been implicated in sopmething like 1 tenth of 1 percent of crimes in this country.

The Governor of New Jersey once held a press conference to condemn "assault rifles", and to demonstrate their demonic qualities, directed her State Police to bring her one from the confiscated weapons/crime weapons, and was politely told that no such weapon was ever used in a crime in the state of New Jersey. There were none, period.

I don't know if you erred in the 30-40 reference. Did you mean 30-30, as in the most famous caliber, along with .45 and .38, or did you actually refer to the Krag-Jorgensen? If so, you have gone up a notch in my respect. Regardless, I still prefer a 9mm on my nightstand. Racking the slide on a pump action shotgun does have a deleterious effect on a burglar's nerves, however.

Once upon a time, in 1939, I believe, the Prime Minister of the British Empire begged the citizens of these United States to send him any weapons we could. Millions of rifles were sent to Britain. After 6 years, a surrender was accepted from the belligerents. And shortly thereafter, all those weapons, which you would think would have been sent to their donors, along with a polite "Thank you", were dumped into the sea. Thank you, Britain.

I guess at that time the mentality of King George was still prevalent, and the US was still regarded as "ungrateful children".

Ah, well, the young will have to live a while to see that the world is not all love and peace. There are vermin and predators out there. Hope none of you ever meet them.

[Will Hay]

Hi George,

To our English/Australian friends, read the paragraph relating to England, and the total handgun ban there, and the Bobbies forming SWAT teams because, as the saying goes, " When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.".

Unless I'm very much mistaken this sounds like a negative comment, no?
How come?
I think a dedicated force of armed response teams work wonderfully and no amount of lobbying will ever convince me that giving regular police guns will cut gun crime.

To our European friends, read the section below, stating that Europeans have always had a lower firearms death rate that the US, BUT, their suicide rate is higher than most of the rest of the world.

What possible bearing does this have on this debate?
Are you somehow suggesting that suicide is somehow dictated by gun ownership?
There are far, far too many factor's in determining cause for suicide rates and a gun-toting society is not one of them.

It is not England, nor Australia, where even the "rook rifle" have been outlawed, and, from what I have read, crime against persons is on the rise.

Again, what possible relevance does this have with the topic at hand?

BTW, what is the murder rate in Australia where the weapon was a frozen leg-o-lamb, or iz that NZ only?

Will Hay

[pacmania_2001]

I just lost a whole letter because of hitting the wrong damned key. I hope I can recap it.

I believe it is a forum bug, if you take too long to type in the message it screws up. The same thing happened to me.

Someone uses a gun to thwart a murder or rape, it does not make the 6 o'clock news. This happens an estimated 2 and a half million times in these United States, every year.

The same could be done with a baseball bat without the harmful side effects that a deadly weapon like a gun has.

Racking the slide on a pump action shotgun does have a deleterious effect on a burglar's nerves, however.

But then again, so does the sight of someone with a baseball bat in their hand and that look in their eye

I guess it really comes down to what you believe in and what you are willing to take. I (and Australian law) believe in mild gun control and because of that I give up the right to own a semi/fully automatic rifle. In my opinion it doesnt really affect me that much, I have the police and the defence force to protect me against enemies of society.

The downside (that some see anyway) is that I don't have as much power in defending myself as someone who does own a gun. The upside is that I don't have to worry about accidents.

[Craig Tucker]

I find that figure absolutely staggering, I had no idea it would be so high. Just 1 tragedy like that over here would be headline news. Faced with these sort of statistics I am amazed there is not a greater opposition to gun ownership. We had a couple of incidents over here where people went bezerk shooting innocent people and there was such a public outcry that handgun ownership was outlawed.

what's the murder rate in england? not trying to be offensive, just asking. chicago alone last year had 646 murders.

Just did a quick search and could not find a national figure, I found a table of major cities though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153799.stm

OK just found this site

http://www.murderuk.com/misc/stats.htm

March 2000 - March 2001 = 792 murders

[Gees]

Hi,

Just had to jump in here - for the first time on a serious (non-video-related subject). Just want to make sure Will and anyone else knows that: no, killing a child, like the Susan Smith case, is not common in the U.S. and it's not taken lightly.

I lived there during that. I've since moved to the UK (married an Englishman) :c)

But I cried, and everyone I knew cried over that and any other disappearances and deaths.

I now have loyalties to both countries and although I do not agree with most of the gun laws in the States, I do recognise that more things happen there partly because there's a lot more people for things to happen to.

Statistics are statistics and people can analyse/analyze the heck out of them, but the volume of people and all their varying beliefs has got to be a factor.

When I first moved here, I couldn't believe how many (sensible) people just assumed I'd owned a gun! They thought every American did. The fact that the Constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we all want to. I for one have never even seen a gun, except on TV and video games. :c)

Anyway, having lived both places, I now see other aspects. Like we only see the worst of the worst on TV here about what goes on in the States. And the same goes for there. I think the big story I watched when I last lived in the U.S. was when those 2 young boys walked off with the toddler and then killed him. (So sorry, I do not remember his name. I feel I should.) :c( I'm sure most Americans that saw that thought there was something very wrong going on here, in the UK, for such young boys to be capable of such a thing.

So, in my mind, it's people, not the place. Evil, sadly, can live anywhere. It's not partial to any particular climate or terrain.

You MIGHT find this interesting, Will, but the drinking age of 21 closely relates to the fact you couldn't find many "pubs" in the U.S.

It use to be 18, but, because you need to travel (drive) between one bar and another (with the exception of big cities) there were many drunk driving fatalities. The combination of new driver/new drinker was a very dangerous cocktail - if you'll forgive the pun.

So, they upped the age to try to and lessen those statistics.

OK, I've said my little piece. :c)

Just one more:

Contrary to what some believe, all Americans are not fat, loud, and obnoxious. :c)

[Will Hay]

I think the big story I watched when I last lived in the U.S. was when those 2 young boys walked off with the toddler and then killed him. (So sorry, I do not remember his name. I feel I should.)

Thanks for your worthwhile contribution Gees
The little boy you are referring to was James Bulger and unfortunately for me, following a link in this very thread, this morning (Tues) I made the mistake of reading the detailed facts of the case leading up to the trial.
I read things I never knew at the time of the case, I was extremely upset, I couldn't concentrate for a couple of hours after (I should be working).
Having a son the same age now as James Bulger was at the time makes it all the more harrowing.
I don't doubt your assertion that many different things are a contributing factor to major/serious crime, but I think the thread has developed to a point whereupon we're questioning the validity of allowing wholesale guns in the US, and how this affects violent crime.
At least I am.
I think we're effectively agreeing with one another insofar as I'm positive in the belief of if you give some people the freedon to own guns then you might as well give them permission to kill.
Clearly there are people responsible to own a weapon, I'm not concerned with those people, my fear is those who are the scum of our society and my fear is that by giving those people a deadly weapon and ultimately giving the police the same equipment will lead to chaos.
Don't forget, the UK is a widely populated multi-cultural society as much as the US is.
I don't doubt there aren't many countries which have cultural problems but no matter how you pecieve them statistics will show that there is a higher number of serious crimes per person in a state where gun ownership is common.

I think the big story I watched when I last lived in the U.S. was when those 2 young boys walked off with the toddler and then killed him....I'm sure most Americans that saw that thought there was something very wrong going on here, in the UK, for such young boys to be capable of such a thing.

I'm suprised by this, are you suggesting the majority of the US citizen's felt there was an inherrent problem with the UK insomuch as this crime couldn't and more so hasn't happened anywhere else?
This crime, IMO, was a combination of many factor's; bad environment, bad parenting, low social and economic developement and most likely a significant mental disorder in at least one (the elder) of the two boys.
I'm rather shocked at your comment in as far as on one hand you mention, many times, that violent crime is a result of social issues rather than just simply location (I agree completely with you on this), yet you appear to insinuate this wicked crime was a result of a devilish problem within the UK itself.
I'm guessing you use make this assumption on the basis that it's the nation that shared this belief, rather than yourself, yes?

You MIGHT find this interesting, Will, but the drinking age of 21 closely relates to the fact you couldn't find many "pubs" in the U.S.
It use to be 18, but, because you need to travel (drive) between one bar and another (with the exception of big cities) there were many drunk driving fatalities. The combination of new driver/new drinker was a very dangerous cocktail - if you'll forgive the pun.

Is that why the age was raised to 21?
If so, wonderful.
The UK has a big problem with alcolhol and anti-social behaviour.
It accounts for a massive percentage of UK crime and is a scary drain on health service resources.
The culture in the UK is one of drink, drink, drink and it's getting worse (although pubs are making a significant effort in attracting the families to these places; food, child attractions etc.). The pub culture is the main event in the socail calendar of many young people and as I said it creates many, many problems.

Contrary to what some believe, all Americans are not fat, loud, and obnoxious

No, the ones I met in my time there were wonderful
My apologies if my reply is a little convoluted, I should be working and am constantly looking over my shoulder
Will

[Craig Tucker]

I think the big story I watched when I last lived in the U.S. was when those 2 young boys walked off with the toddler and then killed him. (So sorry, I do not remember his name. I feel I should.)

The boys name was James Bulger

[Gees]

Thank you, Craig.

[Will Hay]

Thank you, Craig.

Now I'm offended
If people can't be bothered to read my replies maybe I'll stop posting
W.

[Gees]

Will - thank you too! I didn't see your reply there when Craig posted his :cO and I thanked him. (Could it be you were editing it?! I don't know.) Or perhaps I didn't scroll because I accessed through the latest reply link? Not sure, but thanks, and sorry.

Anyway, I tried to skip over the gun-ownership issue and was mostly thinking of Susan Smith and similar cases when I wrote. I can not relate at all to owning a gun. I don't condone hunting animals, but I realise that is part of some people upbringing and they feel differently due to that. I guess. And those people own guns for that reason. But no one in my family or circle of friends ever hunted or owned a gun. :c*

But I couldn't really keep up with all the quotes and statistics and just wanted to be sure everyone realised any American would have found the case shocking and heart-wrenching.

What I meant when I mentioned the James Bulger case, was it was reported and they replayed the video showing him being led away over and over again, but it did not go into either of his killer's upbringing or any depth like that.

I didn't assume all British parents were bad. I wished there was more information... some explanation. It's just you can't take something like that in without thinking, "How in the world could that happen?" Just like with Susan Smith.

My point was that often, when people are uninformed, they tend to make assumptions. Just as a partly reported story of an event in the US will leave people elsewhere to assume and jump to conclusions. Like assuming every American owns a gun. Things like that. (I've even had people assume I had an eating disorder because I'm American, yet slim.) Bizarre!

We all believed Susan Smith's original claims. No one could have ever imagined the truth. No one could grasp the thought of any mother intentionally harming her own children. It was a he11 of a lot easier to believe some truely evil monsters took them.

My main giste was trying to say (but I do tend to ramble a bit) it's really impossible to get a full picture of anything relying only on the media. And statistics can't say it all either. There's no definitve answer. I do think guns in the home are dangerous. And guns in the wrong hands are lethal. But there are those that hold that right so closely they will take extreme measures to protect it. I just, personally, can't relate to that.

Again, sorry I did not see your post earlier.

[Will Hay]

.....Could it be you were editing it?! I don't know.

How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it's one thing I have, it's good manner's (no I didn't edit the part to which you refer, only the spelling and an amendment contained within my gun comments)

Again, sorry I did not see your post earlier.

I wasn't serious, although it did cross my mind I might have offended you somehow (although I couldn't see where!) and you were ignoring my post
I'm just far too sensitive (typical Brit, eh?)
As far as your comments go, yes, I understand you fully now.
We tend to get caught up in the media circus and begin to draw conclusions far too early with regards guilt and inncocence.
For instance, whilst it's very, very, very likely this caretaker chap killed the Soham girls, he hasn't been tried yet.
Similaly, how many of us suspect a parent of a horrific crime?
Take care
Will

[Doggiedaddy]

Thanks housepig, ordered mine today. LOL I think I remember the one on the far right from a long time past. Dd
http://www.cafeshops.com/ndnpress.5358989?zoom=yes

[Conquest10]

We couldn't find any pubs though, and when I say pubs I mean places to drink, rather eat and drink.
Are they not too common in the US?
We have them every fifty yeards over here
Will

depends on where you go. in chicago, bars are pretty common. so are liquor stores. like the saying goes: "what are two main things found in poor neighborhoods? liquor stores and churches." theres about five bars (or more) within a mile of my house. pubs are more common in the irish and downtown neighborhoods.
the legal age is 21 but that doesn't stop someone from drinking that is only 12.

[rhegedus]

I think the main factor in the crime and murder rates between the US and Europe and Australia comes down to population density and gangs - if many criminals are competing for limited 'turf' then they'll begin to use more and more violent methods to either gain or keep a foothold. What we in the UK have seen happen over the last few years in London, Birmingham and the like is our own version of what's going on in the US - the difference in numbers partly attributable to the UK having smaller cities.

However, the UK now has a steady and unchecked influx of Yardies, Turks, Albanians and other East Europeans, each group with their own gangs and weapons. This will not make the UK a safer place.

I too like the idea of a 'rapid response firearms unit' - but, I'd be happier to see an awful lot more of them. However, if you’re asking someone to protect you, your family and your possessions, then I think that they should have the right to chose whether they can carry firearms to achieve this. I don't think the British police have been asked if they would like to carry weapons en mass, but I could be wrong.

[rhegedus]

We couldn't find any pubs though, and when I say pubs I mean places to drink, rather eat and drink.
Are they not too common in the US?
We have them every fifty yeards over here
Will

I've been to a few places in the US over the past couple of years and didn't have much difficulty finding somewhere to quench my 'air-con' thirst, but there certainly aren't as many as in the UK - but then I've never seen a pool of vomit outside a bar in the US either . Best places were in Rangeley, Maine and a bar in Quincy market in Boston. If you want somewhere to eat and drink, try the Wildfire in Chicago - best steak I've had in a long time.

[MOVIEGEEK]

but then I've never seen a pool of vomit outside a bar in the US either

I have and I nearly surrendered my precious juices.There are British style pubs here in California and I used to visit them in my day but now I prefer restaurants that serve alchohol.

[flaninacupboard]

It's difficult to tackle the issue of gun control in another country. regardless of whether guns have anything to do with it, america has some very violent elements. not wishing to be dis-tasteful or offend anyone, but after the destruction of the world trade centre the entire american nation went into mourning, for quite a time. even this country experienced some kind of greivance period (and no end of cancelled TV scheduling to show highlights from that musical tribute - again). Despite this, more americans die at at the hands of other americans -every year- than perished in those attacks.

I would not suggest a complete ban on guns in america, your society is so paranoid that no one would accept it. It speaks volumes when the comedy program "malcolm in the middle" has the line
"just pull over, let him past hal!"
"no way, this guy can flash all he wants, he's not getting past!"
"Hal, he may have a gun!!"

i could never live in a society where that was an everyday concern.
Stricter control, and a -real- reason for owning a gun would be a good start. banning all citizens from owning one, and making it illegal to do so, but increasing the number of armed patrol officers would be a great stop gap, to a future where only specialised units carry lethal weapons. just my opinion of course.

[gmatov]

Will,

The SWAT teams are a response to the "bad guys" having guns, illegally, while the "good guys" are prohibited. An armed response team is fine if you have a situation where terrorists are holding hosteges or something.
They are not much good at stopping a rapist or mugger, who are usually mobile, and long gone before the cops get there.
There is a rather new book out over here entitled "Dial 911 And Die". Its main thrust is that the police cannot respond in time to stop crimes from being committed, only to pick up the pieces

Many studies done in the states where "Shall Issue" laws have been passed (and where the antis predicted there would be a bloodbath), saw not only, the crime rate drop, but that only a minute percentage of the permit holders committed any type of firearm crimes. In Florida I think it may have been something like 6 in 500 thousand, and some of those could be called technical violations, not murders, or even actual use of the weapon.

After all, these laws did not give murderers and muggers and rapist the right to carry a concealed weapon, they gave that right to the upstanding citizens who passed a background check by the FBI's NIC.

The number of weapons did not multiply after passage of these laws, although your press, and ours, would lead you to think so, with camera crews outside gun stores, and talking heads leading gun vendors to say things like "Oh, yes, we've been selling out in all categories of pistols."
In most cases, the guns were there all the time, just, now, the upstanding citizen was not made to feel a criminal for owning one, and was allowed to carry it for protection of self and family.

Criminals do not buy guns in gun stores. They are not permitted to even touch a gun, by Federal law. To buy one, a felon would break so many laws that the MANDATORY sentences alone would put them in prison for most of their lives.

In reference to suicide, and European rates, I believe the material is saying that the gun death toll includes suicides, here, but in Europe, with a lack of guns, other means are found, so you seem a much more civilized people. "Well, look, they don't even shoot THEMSELVES, over there!".

As to the topic at hand, are we still talking Susan Smith, or violence in general? If violence in general, then, confiscating all firearms in a nation such as Australia, as large as the US, with people strewn about it, rather than congregated in large metropolitan ares, as in most of Europe, self defence is vital. The nearest Bobby, is not on the walk in front of your flat. He might be a hundred miles away.

As an aside, I read recently that Scotland Yard, or the Home Minister, or some such has dictated that the police are not to waste time trying to solve unsolvable crimes. They are to concentrate on crimes where they can get a conviction. One way to up the Case Closed rate."Boy, that's a toughie, let's close this case".

Pacmania,
Unless you're Mark McGwire, your baseball bat won't be much help if thugs with guns smash and enter your house with evil on their mind. And as to the harmful side effects, do you mean ringing in one's ears, and blood on your new carpet?

There are terrible things that can happen in such cases. In an apartment building, for instance, a miss could injure a neighbor, one of the reasons for selecting a defence weapon carefully. You want to put a malefactor down, but you dont want to shoot through 3 walls if you miss.

The US is the leading film makers in the world, no? It is a crying shame that they make such films that show the bad guys, and the good ones, also, emptying their 15 shot semis, as though only the ones hitting a bad guy are dangerous projectiles, all those others will hit lamp posts and car trunks, or something safe. I think this has led our "Lethal Weapon" ( 1,2,3 and 4) to just blast away when there IS a deadly situation, as well as when there is not.
Did you see, on the telly, where, in New York, the police shot down a Jamaican immigrant student, in the foyer of his rooming house? They fired 41 times!!! They hit him, I think, 14 times, at a range of about 5 yards. He had done nothing. It was a tragic mistake, and his family got an "Oops, sorry.".
Another, recently, 2 State Police were chasing an 11 year old, I think, across a field, he jumped a fence, the lead cop jumped the fence, the second cop stumbled and fell and his gun went off, accidentaly. The first cop saw his partner go down, the gunshot behind him, mind you, yelled "He shot my partner!", and emptied his weapon at the boy's back, hitting him 2 or 3 times and killing him. Ruled justifiable.

Most firearms accident occur because the person was careless/clueless/stupid, or all 3. When children, in particular, are taught about firearms, they lose that mystique, the forbidden object we oh so much want to touch. People will buy a pistol, then never even shoot it for familiarization, to learn anything about it. If they have never shot a gun, they're a danger to themselves, their families, and to society, but not in the sense they are going to all of a sudden want to go out and hold up liquor stores. In the sense that they do not know that they can easily be touched off, that the muzzle should be pointed in a safe direction, that, in the final analysis, you do not produce a weapon unless you must and are ready to use it, and that death is going to be the result. The objective is to ensure that YOURS is not the death.

Back at you, Will,
The gunrights orgs in the US do NOT hold that everyone has a right to bear arms. The NRA, the largest org has long been condemning the lawmakers for passing yet another law, when there are more than 20,000 on the books. The NRA says "Catch them, lock them up, throw away the key."
Felons are not, absolutely NOT permitted to so much as touch a gun. It is, prima facie, if that's the term, a federal violation, parole would be revoked and mandatory sentences would be added to any time they had left to serve.
Again, the background checks are devised to prevent felons from obtaining a gun, period.
Unfortunately, our lawmakers ,make more and more things felonies, today. If convicted of DUI {drunken driving ) 3 times in a 5 year period, you lose your right to own a firearm.
The James Bulger case was the equivalent of what you see in our news. Sensationalism. Wow, those Limeys must be horrid people, even their little kids murder little kids.
You see the worst of our country on TV, "Another shooting death is our lead story..." Or, someone was bludgeoned with a "leg-o-lamb", but behind the talking head, a large picture of a handgun is displayed, as though death=gun, gun=death. Never a story of an armed citizen stopping a crime by a permitted carrier.
Prof. Gary Kleck, who was anti-gun when he began his studiy, became pro-gun, when he estimated guns were used as many as 2.5 million times per year to prevent a crime from being committed, in most cases, no shots were fired, simply allowing the mugger, burglar, rapist know you had one and would use it scared them off.
Other studies, of the press, showed papers by name who had 7000 "bad" stories about gun use, but, maybe, 7 reports of beneficial use. Good news doesn't sell papers.

What's a "Yardy"?

We have few of what you would call a "pub" over here. We have drinking establisments, chips and the like ( I don't mean fried potatoes on a plate, or a newspaper, I mean in a 1 ounce bag ) and we have eating establishments that have a bar, the primary focus is on food, with booze being served to up revenue. In these, you eat and leave, in the "tavern", the hope is that you sit all night drinking.
And, we don't have breweries owning the pubs, and hiring managers to run them, as you do. Isn't Guiness the largest owner of pubs?

And, with the vast land area here, the bars are spread out, so you almost have to drive to them, which causes DUIs, and has cost the bars revenue, because when I was your age, bars were all open till 2 AM, and social clubs till 3 AM.

So, now, most people have a few and get their butts home, well before they reach legally drunk. Or they have a "designated driver", who stays sober, to drive his friends home.

Sorry, this is much too long. Have to see what else has been posted, may write more later.

Cheers,
George

[flaninacupboard]

Yes, that's a good point. guns are a huge risk. giving them to standard policemen (who do everything from help rescue cats from trees, to telling the neighbours to keep it down please) shouldn't be armed. accidents happen, they're not well trained enough, and the lack of organisation costs many lives. in the example of the jamaican youth, if he were to be "taken down" by an armed team in this country, there would be a designated shooter, who would aim to wound only. once it was ascertained the target had no weapon (or was the wrong target) a medical team would pick him up right away, they'd have got there the same time as the armed unit. in your case a whole group of cops lay 14 rounds into someone and 27 rounds into the surroundings. they then have to inspect the target to see if they have a credit card, and -then- get him treated.

[rhegedus]

there would be a designated shooter, who would aim to wound only. once it was ascertained the target had no weapon

I'm not so sure. It's more difficult to aim to wound than it is to aim to kill. Aiming for the arm or leg is John Wayne stuff - all marksmen are taught to aim for the torso, where you'll find all the vital organs (heart, lungs etc) ensuring maximum effect. Hence, all carboard targets have a head and torso.

[gmatov]

Flanina,
In your country, in this instance, nothing at all would have happened. This boy just looked as though he didn't belong there. There was no "situation" that would have called for a SWAT team.
Domestic disturbances are very disturbing and dangerous also. A wife calls the cops, a couple arrive, they try to haul the guy off, and the wife/girlfriend attacks them. She didn't want him arrested, she just wants them to talk to him, so a cop is wounded, killed, whatever.

I saw a cartoon once of 2 burly firemen, with shotguns, at the door of a house, talking to a little old lady. Caption was, " You the lady with the cat in the tree?"

Wounding is difficult. John Wayne could shoot the gun out of your hand without drawing blood. Real people can't.

A shoulder wound, from a high velocity jacketed or hollow point bullet will turn the joint into a bag of bone fragments, and, as is quite possible with a leg wound, can cause one to bleed to death in a matter of minutes.

And, there have been cops killed by "dead men" who were shot through the torso numerous times yet were able to shoot back enough to kill a cop.
You cannot shoot to incapacitate. A little Bambi type deer will often run a hundred yards or more after a high velocity bullet has blown apart its heart and lungs.

Rhegedus,
Only in combat style shooting do shooters use torso targets. Otherwise we use regular concentric circles. The purpose is to see how small a group we can make, not how many we can put in the "kill zone".

And, in the Soviet State of Massachusetts, it is illegal to use a man shaped target, period. They one-up California at every turn. "Well, we can beat that."

Paintball might be illegal up there, by now.

Cheers

[pacmania_2001]

I have no problem with ordinary police carrying semi-automatic pistols as long as they have the right training. However things such as machine guns, assault rifles and so on should only be carried by special response teams like SWAT and SERT.

The problem with the 'shall issue' rule is that even though it stops felons from owning the gun the fact you overlook is that a significant portion of major crimes (i.e rape, kidnapping, murder) are performed by first time offender's.

The other offenders, organised criminals usually don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get them off the street so the 'shall issue' law is pointless in such a case.

Also most house break-in's etc are performed by teenagers or amatuers, if you restrict them from being able to buy a gun (like is the case in Australia) then it significantly reduces the risk that they will have a gun (yes, they could still get one from the blackmarket).

The problem with having a gun to deter criminals is that it doesn't solve the problem it simply defers it to someone else. You have to look at the big picture.

You said yourself that tourists have now become a target for criminals because they are easy targets. What pass-on effect does that have when tourists are advised not to go to your city/state/country because it isn't safe. The economy is drained of crucial funds from the tourist industry and therefore unemployment goes up because business is in a slump. Unemployment is directly linked to crime so crime goes up and so on.

[rhegedus]

Rhegedus,
Only in combat style shooting do shooters use torso targets. Otherwise we use regular concentric circles. The purpose is to see how small a group we can make, not how many we can put in the "kill zone".

Yeah, I know - I've used both. I seem to recall that the torso targets also had a concentric pattern over the heart area (but over a wider area than the circular targets). I suppose the difference between the two is one of effectiveness vs accuracy - in the real world it amounts to the same.

[gmatov]

Pacman,
Actually, I do have a problem with the police carrying semi-auto pistols. The let-off is too light, ordinarily, and some cops get a trigger job done so as to lighten the trigger pull even more. A light trigger pull, the so called "hair trigger" can be touched off with the slightest twitch, and to have a bunch of nervous cops, or anyone else, for that matter, holding cocked weapons, a catastrophy is in the making. There have been reports of accidental discharges that , not knowing who shot, got all the cops shooting.
A revolver, on the other hand, requires 5 to 10 pounds of effort to fire in double-action mode, much less in single-action, ie, the hammer drawn back.
That is neither here nor there.

Machine guns, etc., are not carried by the cop in a patrol car, nor should they be. The US military establisments have come to the same conclusion. Spraying bullets in the general direction of a malefactor is not conducive to good marksmanship. I'm sure you've seen the blurbs on CNN, BBC, etc, in rhe Middle East, where, for the cameras, a Palestinian, or a Syrian, or an Israeli, whatever, will step out from his shelter, hold the gun parallel to the ground, and let go a magazine full. Strictly for the cameras. And, in the case of some, if a few civilians die, well, they're only....fill in the blank.

Actually, most crimes are committed by recidivists, crimes of violence, particularly. Robbers rob, because they are supremely arrogant, and they are the toughest SOB on the block. Rapists rape because they have a disorder that prevents them from an ordinary sex life. Sex is not their concern. Brutalizing and dominating is. And they have chemically and surgically neutered convicted rapists and released them back into society, only to have them do the same crimes, except with no erection, they can only brutalize and dominate, and in some instances, kill.

The "shall issue" laws are not to deter felons from getting guns. It is to give law abiding citizens their constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm sure that you will agree that to have a loved one killed in front of your eyes, because you were not permitted to have the means to protect yourself, and your loved ones, would be the greatest travesty of justice imaginable.

The most primal urge of any organism is self defense. Whether it be " fight or flight " depends on the circumstance. If you allow the "bully-boys" to do as they wish, you have chaos. If there is a sign in your front yard, not saying "These Premisises Protected by ADT", but, " These Premises Protected by Smith & Wesson", the bully-boys go to the neighbor's house, instead. Or, if, at the town line, is posted "This town is a Shall Issue Town", they go to the next town, because being shot intheir line of work is not their preference.

I'll post a few more links at the end of this too damn long post, one of which makes the remark that when surveyed, 34% of prison inmates admit that they have been shot/shot at in their chosen line of work, while actively at work, meaning breaking and entering, mugging, holding up a liquor store, whatever. AND that a female is TEN times less often successfully raped if she has a pistol in her purse or on her person.

Of course the media tell you that the rapist will take the gun away from you and hurt you if you resist. But in the real world, they rarely do so if they have a cylinder full in the breadbasket.

If, "as in Australia", the homeowner is not allowed to have a weapon, then the teens, or whatever age do the breakin, come in with tire irons, or baseball bats, or birch rods, for that matter, and the homeowner doesnt have at least as much, then it was a successful robbery, or whatever you want to call it. The fact is, the law abiding citizen was prevented from defending himself and his family by the actions of those you chose to make your rules. Does it ever occur to you that the people making your "no defense" rules are protected by your version of the Capitol Police, and that they have pistol, and maybe even sub-machine, toting body guards?

Over here, we have the Rosie O'Donnels, who go on TV and scour Tom Selleck, because he told her that it is the right of every American to possess a firearm for self defense.
Shortly thereafter, it became public knowledge that her children were escorted to and from school by pistol packing bodyguards. Her response was more or less " Well, I'm Important".

We had a mayor of Chicago who went into the roughtest district of Chicago, with an armed entourage, who said " I don't see any problems here".

I could go on and on, but you're not going to want to read endless posts.

I will link to one easy to navigate site, from which you can see for yourselves what the controversy is. If you have time to peruse it, you will be amazed at the information available.

http://www.gurusinc.com/aa/xguns1.html

Don't take this as Gospel. It is a biased site. But, if you try this, it will lead you to others, both pro and anti. Make up your own mind. I know the English had no rights till the Magna Carta. I know the Australian continent was settled by convicts from English prisons, with English troops to try to control them for the next 100 years or so. (They weren't very good at it, were they? The Aussies developed their own culture which was more or less "Screw the Brits".) And, damn fine soldiers they were in the Wars.

Sorry to have to extend this. The tourists were targeted because they were not Floridians, and because their rental vehicles had "Rental" plates. It took no time for the Floridia lawmakers to deauthorize "Rental" plates, so now the problem is less. besides which, there is reciprocity among many states, you have been permitted in your home state, you are valid in various states. Just because you are a visitor does not mean you are fair game. You may have come from the proper state, and if you stop me with a minor fender bender, and pull a gun, I just may draw my own..

Besides, we have a saying, " I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Cheers,
George