Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    [9th Cir. 2002])
    -tink
    That is all you really needed to say there Tink. Actually...in this state, the State Supreme Court has held that the second amendment actually IS an individual right, and further that carrying openly in public was also a given right.


    .....now for your statistics. I don't really doubt them...but you miss what we have been saying all along...(before the Tink show there... ) Where there are more guns...there will be more guns --to the exclusion of other weapons of availability-- used in crimes. This is simply a symptom of a free society. In Austrailia they banned swords and are looking into long kitchen knives the last I heard. Why? Because the bad guys started using them in crime instead of guns, but the CRIME RATE INCREASED.

    Tink ..man get off that horse...its starting to rot under you....

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    according to FNA209, there are very few cases in which a person who legally owns a fully automatic weapon has used it in a crime. While true, look at the restrictions, which are very stringent. Guns are guns, no matter who holds them. the only way to halt gun crimes is to limit their manufacture.

    -tink

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    Now I say, enough of the lower courts, here are cases relating to the second amendment:

    "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a militia." (Lewis v. United States, 445 US 55, 66 [198-]).

    "the Second Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F. 3d 1052, 1066 [9th Cir. 2002])

    "Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons" (United States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1019 [8th US Cir. 1992])

    -tink

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    "Guns are used against wome to intimidate and kill. More than six percent of women report being threatened by a gun, with 3 percent having reported one used against them. Most of these threats were by intimates (Tjaden and Thoennes 1998)." A national survey found that threats in the home using guns against women were far more common than home self defense gun uses by women against anyone (Azrael and Hemenway 2000).

    Note: I heavily borrowed parts from David Hemenway's book, Private Guns, Public Health for this post. Borrowed sentences can be found on page 123.

    -tink

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    I did, in fact, read Lott's book during my 2 plus months of research for counterarguments. I had my cosuin fact check it, and it was full of holes.

    -tink

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    Also, according to Kleck, 64% of people in his survey using a gun reported it to police. Even if this were true, it often exceeds the total number of crimes reported to police. (ludwig 2000).

    Respondents from the survey claimed to have SHOT more than two hundred thousand criminals (kleck 1997). Yet each year, only one hundred thousand gunshot victims, criminal or otherwise, are admitted to emergency rooms

    Nonwhites are the most likely to feel less safe when more people own guns, as 61% feel less safe (Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway 2000)

    -tink
    Last edited by Tinkertoys; 01-17-2006, 11:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    My cousin, a statistician, got these for me.

    developed nations murder rates: gun crimes included
    per 100,000

    US (95-97) 8.2

    Finland (96) 3.3

    Northern Ireland (96-97) 2.3

    Scotland (96-97) 2.2

    Belgium (93-94) 1.8

    Source: World Health Organization

    And Kleck's infamous study. For a moment, let us assume that Kleck was correct in his 2.5 million statistic:

    34% percent of these, according to Kleck, were burglaries.

    However, from the NCVS from that same year, it is revealed that there were 6 million burglaries. Only 1.3 million of those were "hot" (someone at home)
    Since only 41% of us households own a firearm, and since the victims in 2/3 of the occupied dwellings remained asleep, the 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that gun owners used their guns over 100% percent of the time (Hemenway 67)

    tink

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    *claps & whistles loudly*

    Leave a comment:


  • FNA209
    replied
    Wow- what a loooong thread on a subject that has all kinds of logical proof and statistics that show guns are not evil.

    Florida- eased laws on carry permits. Result to date- crime went down.

    Canada- banned guns. Result- [recent articles] cops are having problems with armed criminals. Gun violence/use of guns in crimes is UP. (They are trying to blame "America's Culture of Violence" for the problem)

    Great Britian- Gun Ban in effect. Gun violence is up. More and more armed LEOs are being used. The old "unarmed bobby" may just disappear in a few more years.

    The Land Down Under- gun ban in effect. Gun violence is up.

    Washington DC- Gun ban in effect. Yep, gun crimes are up.

    Vermont- guns are ok. Not much gun crime.

    It's been shown time and time again, that:

    - an armed society is a polite society.

    - criminals don't care about the law and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens makes them victims.

    - generally speaking law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns (while we can't dispute there are incidents of gun violence in domestic situations, there are many more incidents of knife, blunt instrument, personal weapons[ie. hands and feet] incidents than gun use) An example of this is that very little gun violence is committed by permit holders in CT. Typically, the people that obey the law and get a permit are people that obey the law- we shouldn't fear them.

    - there are almost NO examples of a person who legally owns a fully automatic weapon using it in a criminal incident. We shouldn't fear those people.

    We have this tendency to try to legislate the tools used rather than the people who use them. The fact is it's the people committing the crimes that are the problem. Once we educate the people that they are wrong to break any of the many laws on the books that pertain to the use of all of the tools, we'll stop a lot of the crime. Demonizing the implement they use is counter-productive.

    People kill. Knives, baseballs, cars, beer bottles, .....even guns- don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman
    Frank says that no-one is law-abiding, and in support of that cites a list of very minor offenses at least one of which almost everyone has at some time committed.

    In my opinion, that is a frivolous point. If the term "law-abiding" is not to be meaningless, one may call someone that if he does not commit any serious violations of the law.

    The distinction between "malum in se" (bad in themselves) offenses and "malum prohibitum" (bad only by virtue of non-compliance with lawful prohibition) offenses is applicable here.

    A person who does not commit felonies (literally, "badnesses" -- especially the common law felonies -- murder, arson, rape, grand larceny, robbery, mayhem, serious assault and battery, and a few other terrible crimes) or serious misdemeanors, may legitimately call himself "at least substantially" law-abiding.

    In reference to the gun law issue, "law-abiding" refers to persons who are apt to want to bear arms for defensive purposes, as opposed to "outlaws" who are apt to want guns to aid them in the perpetration of serious crimes.

    Like other persons who have posted in this thread, I think that "Tinkertoys" exhibits an astounding naivete and complacency in his assessment of the efficacy of non-armed self defense against armed opposition.

    Regarding the facile and dismissive attitude that "Tinkertoys" exhibited concerning use of a non-armed self-defense technique against an assailant armed with a screwdriver, I am nonplussed.

    I have never seen a departmental use-of-force model that restricts an officer to non-weapon-only options against an assailant who is using a potentially deadly weapon such as a screwdriver.

    In fact, not only police offers, but all persons are permitted to use whatever weapon may be at hand to defend against such an attack. While some states and municipalities have (in my opinon unconstitutionally) enacted blanket (with certain exceptions, such as for LEOs and PIs) restrictions against the people bearing firearms, using one against an armed assailant is not an additional offense.

    "Tinkertoys" is pinning his hope on landing an incapacitating unarmed strike to the throat of his screwdriver-armed assailant. To be immediately incapacitating, such a strike would have to be extremely forceful and accurate. Even with a crushed trachea, if the assailant still had an intact spinal cord, "Tinkertoy" would still be in mortal danger.

    While "Tinkertoys" is administering his throat strike, that assailant is close enough to "Tinkertoys" to stab him. If he stabs him in the neck, he can sever the exterior and/or interior carotid artery and/or jugular vein; if he stabs downward behind the clavicle (collarbone), he can sever the subclavian artery; if he ducks out the throat strike, and attacks the leg, he can sever the femoral artery; if he punctures a lung, he could cause immediate or post-pneumothorax respiratory failure; if he stabs at the center of the chest, he could puncture the heart; if he sidesteps to his left and stabs the lower right abdomen he could puncture the liver. Any of those injuries is likely enough to be fatal, as could for that matter the schock associated with being stabbed in any part of the body.

    "Tinkertoys" would be much better off using his .45 ACP to put 2 rounds through his assailant's nose from 25 feet, destroying the assailant's lower brain and instantly incapacitating him.

    But if we assume that "Tinkertoys" is right, that he can be just as lethal with a no-weapon throat strike as with a firearm, then what's the problem with letting law-abiding persons (not to exclude sidewalk spitters or overtime parkers, Frank) bear them?

    If "Tinkertoys" truly believes in the awesome efficacy of a throat strike, and truly believes that the populace should not possess significant capacity to infict lethal injury, shouldn't he advocate that that the populace should not be allowed walk around without wearing some kind of restraints that would prevent them from doing one of those terrible throat strikes?

    That point is of course a reductio ad absurdum argument form advanced against the position advocated by "Tinkertoy"; nevertheless, I recognize that the topic of deadly-force defense is extremely serious. I hope that "Tinkertoys" will think his position through again.

    I think "Tinkertoys" might benefit himself and others by carefully and conscientiously perusing Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

    Regards,

    Monty

    Simply well said.......

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    And just to prove Monty's point in a real-life situation, I give you Kennesaw, GA.

    "What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed."

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Frank says that no-one is law-abiding, and in support of that cites a list of very minor offenses at least one of which almost everyone has at some time committed.

    In my opinion, that is a frivolous point. If the term "law-abiding" is not to be meaningless, one may call someone that if he does not commit any serious violations of the law.

    The distinction between "malum in se" (bad in themselves) offenses and "malum prohibitum" (bad only by virtue of non-compliance with lawful prohibition) offenses is applicable here.

    A person who does not commit felonies (literally, "badnesses" -- especially the common law felonies -- murder, arson, rape, grand larceny, robbery, mayhem, serious assault and battery, and a few other terrible crimes) or serious misdemeanors, may legitimately call himself "at least substantially" law-abiding.

    In reference to the gun law issue, "law-abiding" refers to persons who are apt to want to bear arms for defensive purposes, as opposed to "outlaws" who are apt to want guns to aid them in the perpetration of serious crimes.

    Like other persons who have posted in this thread, I think that "Tinkertoys" exhibits an astounding naivete and complacency in his assessment of the efficacy of non-armed self defense against armed opposition.

    Regarding the facile and dismissive attitude that "Tinkertoys" exhibited concerning use of a non-armed self-defense technique against an assailant armed with a screwdriver, I am nonplussed.

    I have never seen a departmental use-of-force model that restricts an officer to non-weapon-only options against an assailant who is using a potentially deadly weapon such as a screwdriver.

    In fact, not only police offers, but all persons are permitted to use whatever weapon may be at hand to defend against such an attack. While some states and municipalities have (in my opinon unconstitutionally) enacted blanket (with certain exceptions, such as for LEOs and PIs) restrictions against the people bearing firearms, using one against an armed assailant is not an additional offense.

    "Tinkertoys" is pinning his hope on landing an incapacitating unarmed strike to the throat of his screwdriver-armed assailant. To be immediately incapacitating, such a strike would have to be extremely forceful and accurate. Even with a crushed trachea, if the assailant still had an intact spinal cord, "Tinkertoy" would still be in mortal danger.

    While "Tinkertoys" is administering his throat strike, that assailant is close enough to "Tinkertoys" to stab him. If he stabs him in the neck, he can sever the exterior and/or interior carotid artery and/or jugular vein; if he stabs downward behind the clavicle (collarbone), he can sever the subclavian artery; if he ducks out the throat strike, and attacks the leg, he can sever the femoral artery; if he punctures a lung, he could cause immediate or post-pneumothorax respiratory failure; if he stabs at the center of the chest, he could puncture the heart; if he sidesteps to his left and stabs the lower right abdomen he could puncture the liver. Any of those injuries is likely enough to be fatal, as could for that matter the schock associated with being stabbed in any part of the body.

    "Tinkertoys" would be much better off using his .45 ACP to put 2 rounds through his assailant's nose from 25 feet, destroying the assailant's lower brain and instantly incapacitating him.

    But if we assume that "Tinkertoys" is right, that he can be just as lethal with a no-weapon throat strike as with a firearm, then what's the problem with letting law-abiding persons (not to exclude sidewalk spitters or overtime parkers, Frank) bear them?

    If "Tinkertoys" truly believes in the awesome efficacy of a throat strike, and truly believes that the populace should not possess significant capacity to infict lethal injury, shouldn't he advocate that that the populace should not be allowed walk around without wearing some kind of restraints that would prevent them from doing one of those terrible throat strikes?

    That point is of course a reductio ad absurdum argument form advanced against the position advocated by "Tinkertoy"; nevertheless, I recognize that the topic of deadly-force defense is extremely serious. I hope that "Tinkertoys" will think his position through again.

    I think "Tinkertoys" might benefit himself and others by carefully and conscientiously perusing Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

    Regards,

    Monty
    Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 12-02-2005, 10:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AnGardaSiochana
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Ghostrider_RSA
    Yep, we take handguns into banks here. Wouldn't be without it. Period. Had a bank robbery here yesterday with 7-armed suspects.

    As for hitting someone in the throat who is moving rapidly and trying to stab you and inflict a lethal wound to KILL you, it is highly unlikely you will be able to strike this area in a hurry, under duress, increased adrenalin and having already been stabbed. Gross motor skills come into play here... fine motor skills take a back seat. I'd like to see Tink do this in a "controlled" TRAINING enviroment and get it right...
    I thought S Africa banks had security screens when entering and leaving banks? Arent you required to leave your gun at the door? (Apart from cops I presume)

    As for hitting in the throat, I have incapacitated armed people many times without a weapon. Never in the throat cause I wouldnt want to kill them and there is a risk by hitting the windpipe. Of course I wouldnt be as quick if it was a gun in my face.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1sgkelly
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    What does that have to do with gun control? IF you had no gun, you would have slugged him, same result. Apart from gang crimes, how many murders are committed with illegal weapons? Not that many.

    -tink

    One more time.

    Shut up you are removing all doubt about your ignorance on this subject.

    God how I hate amateurs and incompetents.


    Are you let out without adult supervision?

    Leave a comment:


  • jerrymaccauley
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    Or thousands of people do it in similar circumstances. Your windpipe doesn't work, well.....

    -tink
    Name one person who has done that successfully.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3896 users online. 245 members and 3651 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X