Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

Surely once he had put his gun down he had ceased to commit the crime, he had surrendered, given up, call it what you will, then the civilian shot the other guy, how can he be guilty?

If two guys are committing a crime and one kills somebody sure both should be charged, although again if in the above situation if one had demonstrated his willingness to stop I doubt that a sane jury, say one not in the US, would find him guilty.

Brian

It still would have been prevented had he not been committing a crime to begin with. Clearly he didn't give up, with the fact that he fled the scene.

Difference of opinion I suppose. I guess I must be insane.

 

[Dick7Access]

This is the part that is so worrying. They have no idea that they are trading in all their 'Christian principles' for 'If you can't beat them, join them'.

It's like a grotesque version of Anakin Skywalker being seduced by the dark side.

Dat-Cat,
With all due respect, you don’t have any idea what my Christian values are. I don’t get into discussion here about Christianity because those that would want to discuss it want to discuss it on logic basis. My belief in God cannot stand up to logic. In fact it was never meant to. If someone wants to call me irrational, a right winger, a dumb ass conservative, a gun nut, a user of a crutch, it doesn’t bother me at all, as it doesn’t change who I am. I know who I am with all my many faults. As far as Christian values or other values, there are probable as many strains as there are people that call themselves, Christians, Muslim, Catholics, protestants, atheist, agnostic, and the list goes on. You are looking at my comments through what you think Christian values should be, as most of us would. Some place along the line you have probable be inclined to think that “ALL” who have Christian values can’t killer someone. In reality my Christian values tell me I can’t murder someone. That is not the same as kill.

 

[Dick7Access]

Surely once he had put his gun down he had ceased to commit the crime, he had surrendered, given up, call it what you will, then the civilian shot the other guy, how can he be guilty?

If two guys are committing a crime and one kills somebody sure both should be charged, although again if in the above situation if one had demonstrated his willingness to stop I doubt that a sane jury, say one not in the US, would find him guilty.

Brian

sane jury, have to agree with you there, hard to find.

 

[Rabbie]

Surely once he had put his gun down he had ceased to commit the crime, he had surrendered, given up, call it what you will, then the civilian shot the other guy, how can he be guilty?

If two guys are committing a crime and one kills somebody sure both should be charged, although again if in the above situation if one had demonstrated his willingness to stop I doubt that a sane jury, say one not in the US, would find him guilty.

Brian

THere was a celebrated case in England about 60 years ago when a policeman was sot during an attempted robbery. The actual killer who was 17 escaped the death penalty because of his age. His companion who was under arrest at the the time of the shooting was sentenced to death and hanged. This case was one which lead to the abolition of the death penalty here. The executed man was given a postumous pardon a few years ago.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Anybody interested in reading about this case can google Derek Bentley.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

My belief in God cannot stand up to logic. In fact it was never meant to.

I don't actually care if you want to cut off the 'logical' sounds around you to shield your beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their sanctuary regardless of whether those principles defy logic.

But I don't extend the same courtesy when such people are walking around my local store, where I shop with my family, with a loaded firearm. Get the point?

 

[Fifty2One]

Dont know what makes least sense in that story: letting the killer go free because they are under age, or pardoning someone after they were put to death.
With that sort of justice system it is all the better that they restrict private civizens from owning firearms.

THere was a celebrated case in England about 60 years ago when a policeman was sot during an attempted robbery. The actual killer who was 17 escaped the death penalty because of his age. His companion who was under arrest at the the time of the shooting was sentenced to death and hanged. This case was one which lead to the abolition of the death penalty here. The executed man was given a postumous pardon a few years ago.

 

[Fifty2One]

No such thing as 'friendly fire' unless you are reporting for the FOX network.
Playing what if could also extend to the law enforcement officers having batons and the shooter having a lot more ammunition.

I still believe that the officers need better training and more recurrent practice so they can better assess the risks and do not endanger innocent bystanders in the first place.
I also feel that people who chose to become gun owners owe it to their selves, their families and the community in general to obtain proper education and recurrent practice.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. If the cops at the Empire state building were armed with batons, how many people would have been hit with 'friendly fire'.

There will always be criminals. It is the continuing escalation of the technology that both criminals and civilians feel is required that is causing the increased casualties.

Once these become affordable I'm sure Dick will be hankering for one. The increased casualty count:trigger pull ratio will be too hard to resist.

 

[Rabbie]

Dont know what makes least sense in that story: letting the killer go free because they are under age, or pardoning someone after they were put to death.
With that sort of justice system it is all the better that they restrict private civizens from owning firearms.

I was trying to illustrate some of the problems with the death penalty. I agree with you that the fewer guns out there the better.

there are too many accidents with privately owned hand guns so I can see no justification for having one.

 

[alexlds]

I know the US has a much larger population than the UK - but I was horrified by the year on year numbers that I saw in the Wikipedia section on US school shootings. The protection / personal security and the criminals will get them anyway arguments dont carry much very weight with me - for the good reasons posted elsewhere here. You only have to look at the extremely low rates of gun crime in countries outside the US where it is extremely difficult for the general population to get hold of a gun. What I think is very sad is the gun nut types - its our constitutional right to bear arms and we need them to protect ourselves against the government. The gun control genie is well and truly out of the bottle in the US and I dont think that any amount of new legislation will ever succeed in putting it back in again - or either rolling things back to a better situation. Although Im glad to live in the UK where guns arnt easily easily available to the public, I am not at all happy with many things that are done in and in the name of my country. We need to get past the "my country right or wrong" attitude. Well . . . thats my rant for today I suppose

 

[Vassago]

We need to get past the "my country right or wrong" attitude. Well . . . thats my rant for today I suppose

I am definitely sick of this attitude as well. Our forum is very diverse. We don't need people arguing over whose country is better.

As far as gun control in the US, I think you hit the nail on the head. It would take much more than a ban on guns to stop criminals who already possess them. It's a little late for legislation like this. We constantly bust guns coming in from Cuba and Mexico illegally. That's not going to stop just because we ban the legal ownership of guns.

It also worries me the number of random crimes per capita that happen in countries where gun control exists. It seems random muggings, car-jackings, and robberies are more common in the UK per capita than in the US. Whereas most gun crimes are personal and not so random.

 

[Dick7Access]

I am definitely sick of this attitude as well. Our forum is very diverse. We don't need people arguing over whose country is better.

As far as gun control in the US, I think you hit the nail on the head. It would take much more than a ban on guns to stop criminals who already possess them. It's a little late for legislation like this. We constantly bust guns coming in from Cuba and Mexico illegally. That's not going to stop just because we ban the legal ownership of guns.

It also worries me the number of random crimes per capita that happen in countries where gun control exists. It seems random muggings, car-jackings, and robberies are more common in the UK per capita than in the US. Whereas most gun crimes are personal and not so random.

Well Said!

 

[mpicco-RCS]

When I was in the Navy, I felt 'gun control' was just "using two hands". I realize now, that there's more to it than being able to point the barrel of a weapon. It seems there are plenty of laws on the books that could be enforced better, but for what ever reason, aren't. Perhaps it should be required that those that wish to carry a 'legal' weapon, should have to pass a test, just as we have to do in order to drive a vehicle. Not really sure what the 'final' answer is, but the current approach here in the US, is not working very well. There are too many idiots that find it all too easy to arm themselves with a firearm.

 

[kipcliff]

What was the quote? "When it is illegal to own a gun, only criminals will have guns."

 

[Earl C Phillips]

Look at Australia. They took away the guns and crime went up because the criminals knew that the citizens were unarmed.

 

[spikepl]

Look at Australia. They took away the guns and crime went up because the criminals knew that the citizens were unarmed.

No. The statistics were abused as per usual. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

[Dick7Access]

No. The statistics were abused as per usual. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Did I miss something? That link seems to back up that gun control is not working in Australia. Where did it say otherwise?

 

[Galaxiom]

Did I miss something? That link seems to back up that gun control is not working in Australia. Where did it say otherwise?

Obviously you only read it to reflect what you wanted to see.

It specifically said that the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms fell and the number of homicides involving firearms decreased after the buyback.

 

[Dick7Access]

Obviously you only read it to reflect what you wanted to see.

It specifically said that the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms fell and the number of homicides involving firearms decreased after the buyback.

Not so. I epically wanted to see the improvement. While it is not a secret that I am pro-gun, but I am opened minded. If there is some bona fide statistic I want to see it. Sincerely, highlight the statistic that says Australia’s gun crime went down and please post it, I truly want to see it.

 

[kipcliff]

I have to agree with Dick. That is effectively an article on how statistics can be misused to present inaccurate information. While it does indicate that the opening example is inaccurate, it also says that it will take more time, and more complex analysis of the figures in that time, to determine the true effects of the buyback.

In short, it neither confirms nor denies whether the buyback was good, bad, or inconsequential.