Gun control

Gun control

Nothing is more precious than life. The invention of guns makes it easier to take ones life. A single pull of a trigger can decide between life and death. Such lethal weapons are easily available in our society. They can be bought legally at federally owned or private gun stores, and at gun shows. There are far too many guns floating around the United States. With more than 200 million handguns produced in the United States, there is a chance that some of them may fall in the wrong hands. From time to time, sensational shootings provoke public outrage, resulting in the ratification of strict gun control laws. However, due to reactions by gun right proponents, the effectiveness of the governmental action to enforce these gun control laws is deterred. Americans have a long affection for guns based upon their heritage of hunting, sporting, and self-protection during colonial times. In addition, the United States won independence from Great Britain using the guns they possessed. Currently, according to the National Rifles Association (NRA) poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have a constitutional right to hold guns. Gun control opponents also use to argue that gun ownership is a right granted and protected by the United States Constitution, and that tough gun control laws encroach on those rights. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Despite claims from people in favor of guns that it is the citizens’ right to own and carry a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is not protected by the constitution. The Second Amendment states that it is the right for a militia to have weapons, not everyone. The constitution clearly talks about a “well-regulated Militia”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a militia is a trained military force whose members do not belong to a regular army but operate like one, especially to defend their country in an emergency. Today’s version of the “well-regulated Militia” is the National Guard. The constitution means it is the right for the National Guard, the arms forces, and law enforcers to hold guns, not the civil population. Widespread gun ownership lead to an increase of gun related deaths. Even with previous gun control laws in effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law), as indicated by the CDC’s WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, there are 29,569 gun deaths in the United States in the year 2004 alone. It is the second leading cause of deaths after motor crash and, in several states (Firearm Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “Gun Violence Is a Serious Economic and Public Health Problem”, Current Controversies: Guns and Violence, 2005 p. 21). Stricter gun control laws should be put into place since guns lead to deaths of young people due to unintentional gunfire, economic costs on society, and unsafe societies.

From my essay I wrote for class.

Re fuzziness - that is precisely the issue.

The gun-ho approach is to blast away; but in real life things are not so clear-cut and using deadly force is an extreme reaction yet.

Sure it's possible to scare an omnipresent intruder away by macine gunning him but an array of flashing lights and alarm bells would work just as well and not be lethal.

Originally posted by string:

The gun-ho approach is to blast away; but in real life things are not so clear-cut and using deadly force is an extreme reaction yet.

But who actually just blasts away?

For the more complex cases in the real world Google "intruder kills", and you'll get an eyefull what can happen and why.

Since you and I don't own guns, we'd be much more likely to be on the receiving end. Not that I lose sleep over that underwhelming unlikelihood. In 75 years I've been assaulted once, and that was by somebody I knew who was drunk at the time. Damned sailors!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Smiley, I have to ask: Who is this "we" that you keep referring to? You and your NRA friends? You and the mouse in your little cage? The royal "we"?

Even in the Rahmulan Empire's worst neighborhoods, they don't have guns bristling out of every window the way your posts would have folk believe. Even Detroit isn't that crazy with guns, for that matter (I've been to Detroit, I speak from having been there and seen that).

Ok, I'd be glad to answer who the "we" might be, if you don't mind giving me the quotes you refer to, because depending how I used the term "we" may mean different groups I may be referring to.

I ask this of you simply because I respect your question, & I want to answer it as honestly & exactly as I possibly can.

One sample can be seen in the following link. I realize (blasted spell-check won't let me spell "realise" without raising a fuss) that this one may mean you and every other gun owner in these United States, and that RJH's post deserves the response you gave it. Sometimes, though, I get the feeling that "we" means all Americans in your posts, and that any visitor to our shores should expect to be greeted with excessive amounts of hardware. I wonder how all-encompassing your "we" really is.

http://my.opera.com/lounge/forums/findpost.pl?id=12246242

Well, in rj's Anti-American rants he continually besmirches our (us Americans) existance. This is born in fact in virtually any thread he comments in, or he himself creates, that has Americans responding in, or subject matter that may incline Americans to in any way defend the act of simply being American.

Right, wrong, or indifferent that's my take on his postings & personal attitude.

His posts are his right---his freedom to speech---& I would today, just as I voluntarily did when I answered my Country's call way back, defend to the death his right to say what he does.

Just for general information---I don't choose those words carelessly or use them in jest---I sincerely mean what I say when I ever say "...defend to the death..." when it comes to the right of free speech, irregardless if I despise what is said or not.

That said, his statements (when I actually read them, because sometimes when I see where he is going, I gloss past them) sometime require response, & when I use the term "we" in this particular case you cited I was speaking of Americans in general, even though I know there will be some that shamefully might agree with him. When I spoke of ignoring what he wrote, in retrospect I shouldn't have used the "we"....I should have used the word "I" in my response, simply because I'm more than likely alone in ignoring quite a bit of his juvenile balderdash, & insidious Anti-American rhetoric.

To say it mildly rj needs a

Well, I've done the best as I think I can....& I hope I have answered your question --agree or disagree-- to your satisfaction. If nothing else, know that I have answered it honestly.

BTW....I am almost never, ever politically correct, so if it appears that I might be, I either misspoke, or I had an ever so exceedingly rare split second of political sanity, that I pray will hopefully never reoccur.

RJ:

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liNVaGWYHYc


Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4Ps55Rx40


Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQoGz4jkxTo

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by string:

If someone is threatening one's life then probably all of us would agree with the right to defend oneself and, if one is armed, shoot back (subject to a caveat or two). But not all crimes are life theatening and in those (majority of?) cases killing an intruder would be disproportionate and thus, in my book, murder.

I don't own a gun, so this is hypothetical.

In the case that you put, do I ask the intruder if he's armed? And if he might be violent with me or my beloved? Then ask leave to get a weapon?

Since nobody (but Smiley, of course) walks around the house with a loaded gun, the fuzziness of the put case is obvious.

There, I think that fixes the misquoting from Jaybro's post ...

I do know people who walk around armed most of the time because they can. Personally, I see little reason for it living where I do now. We don't even lock the doors, to be honest.

I spent a short time living in Windsor, Ontario (back in the 1980s) and took some classes at a university in Detroit during some of that time. I must say, riding the Cass Street bus to catch the cross-border tunnel bus could be quite an experience at times. (And yes, I wasn't armed at the time - while it wouldn't have been hard to get a gun across the border back then if I'd ever had to use it I would have been in big trouble.)

The law specifies when deadly force is appropriate, no one has suggested violating the law (not even Smileyfaze). In most states if you use a gun outside the home in self-defense you are expected to be able to prove that any reasonable person would have felt threatened in those circumstances. In most cases it's so clear-cut that it doesn't even get to court, but if it does then you'd better be able to explain it to the jury.

(As I'm sure you're asking ... Florida is an exception to that. I'm not a lawyer nor do I have enough background to go into the specific case. If it had happened here, he'd be facing some sort of murder charge and have to prove that the use of force was appropriate, not facing some sort of "civil rights" charge.)

I did specify "outside the home" though, in many states unless there is strong evidence to the contrary it is presumed that any use of force inside your own home is "reasonable". Especially at night, when the house is dark, it may be difficult for you to see whether that's a gun or knife in his belt or just a cell phone. Of course if you accidentally shoot one of your own kids sneaking in from a late night - or your daughter's boyfriend sneaking out (perhaps not even accidentally in that case) - that's not as likely to be considered "reasonable".

does anyone really know why we buy guns? does it even matter? Gun are tools. however, sgunhouse, you say life threatening. It gets a little more complicated than such. if an abusive parent comes home, the child's life is never in danger, but if the child kill him, he's hated and branded a murderer. when in reality, i'd give a fucking medal in a new york minute. the laws, sadly, dictate our gun control. Not by what we can do, but what we can't fire at.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

if an abusive parent comes home, the child's life is never in danger, but if the child kill him, he's hated and branded a murderer. when in reality, i'd give a fucking medal in a new york minute.

You might want to read up on that a little. Many, many more children are killed by abusive parents (or step-parents, or other guardians). Using guns and without guns. And they are most definitely branded murderers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=parent+kills+child+with+gun

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You might want to read up on that a little. Many, many more children are killed by abusive parents (or step-parents, or other guardians). Using guns and without guns. And they are most definitely branded murderers.

i might have presented that wrong, then. Abused children who kill the parents are still branded criminals.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You might want to read up on that a little. Many, many more children are killed by abusive parents (or step-parents, or other guardians). Using guns and without guns. And they are most definitely branded murderers.

i might have presented that wrong, then. Abused children who kill the parents are still branded criminals.

And they aren't? Unless they killed out of self defense, killing out of hatred is cold blood murder.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

......Unless they killed out of self defense, killing out of hatred is cold blood murder.

True, unless the child claims that they believed that his life was in serious jeopardy, & then somehow provides enough evidence to corroborate that claim.

That said, I read of an incident years ago identical to the one I wrote of, & the child came within a whisker of getting away with murder except the child stupidly bragged about how he did it to a friend, who turned his ass in, & provided convincing evidence against him at his trial. I believe the then 14 year old child spent 4 years in a youth facility, & at the age of 18 he then, as an adult, was sentenced to 15 years for 1^st degree murder.

BTW...the murder was committed using a knife, which he originally said, which was later disregarded, he wrestled from his drunken father.

There have been cases where an abused spouse was able to get out of a murder charge, therefore I would not say it is out of the question for an abused child to do so as well. Though I get the feeling you were probably talking about sexual abuse rather than physical abuse and simply forgot to say so ...

The standards for a claim of self-defense are generally imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, though there are certain gray areas there. I mean, rape may not medically be considered "grievous bodily harm", yet I know very few people who would deny self-defense in the case of rape. And of course, sex abuse would count as statutory rape, which includes any sex where one party is an adult and the other is below the age of consent. Even so, it's the "imminent" part which is likely to be a problem. Unless the abuser is in the victim's bedroom with his pants down, it may be hard to prove.

But then again, I'm not a lawyer, though I doubt if a practicing attorney would be willing to engage in too many "what if ..." games anyway. They might quote real cases, but trying to say how that compares to another case - real or hypothetical - is something a good lawyer would try to avoid.

In the end, regardless of evidence, the 12 jurors can define the law as they pretty much see fit.

If they want to find you innocent or guilty they can pretty much disregard any evidence produced by either side, so if the sobbing woman, child, man hits a sweet spot with the jury they can find innocence or guilt where the evidence might seem to show otherwise.

You are probably right there tt92 as we are tending to go round in circles with this one. It drags on like others that go nowhere - eg the Tea Party thread and other monotonous threads.

The rent-a-muggers must be heavier than we thought.

Just as I said a while back. Like kids playing with guns.........

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

The rent-a-muggers must be heavier than we thought.

Funny, but here's an old quote that still rings true:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

– Richard Henry Lee 1788

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

There are a lot of quotes that are well past their drivel-by date.

A man of peace knew an armed citizenry is required in keeping peace, for without liberty ensured by an armed public willing to protect it, their peace would only be fleeting.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

– Mahatma Gandhi

I would point out that there is no ammo in the picture, the machine gun is empty. Not that such a baby could operate it anyway (we all know how little strength babies have in their fingers and arms).

I'm all in favor of teaching the young proper respect for arms, and have heard cases of those as young as 6 using arms to defend their family (successfully), that particular image has as much to do with this thread as ... well, as drag racing has to do with commuting to work.

I know when something I post is silly. Arming a baby with a machine gun is silly on the face of it.

I'm not so sure some of you have any idea that what you post is silly. Smileyfaze's response to my last posting is an unintentional howl. Here's a clue. If you're going to train a child to handle a gun, at least make sure the child can actually handle the gun. The baby in the photo above is a trifle young, I think--- and that makes SF's response laughable.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

....The baby in the photo above is a trifle young, I think--- and that makes SF's response laughable.

And that was why you posted it, for it's sarcastic humor value--which was what it was-----simply silly--knowing that's what it was, I remarked that I thought it was "funny".

Because it was.

Now coming down from that lil chuckle, I thought a legitimate quote, with a legitimate message, was appropriately timed.

Funny, but here's an old quote that still rings true:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

– Richard Henry Lee 1788

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Funny, but here's an old quote that still rings true:

No, it completely rings false. You just want to believe that it's true.

Interesting that you would choose a quote from Ghandi, the history's foremost proponent of unarmed social resistance to government, in the same thread that you claim to need firearms in order to resist the government.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Interesting that you would choose a quote from Ghandi, the history's foremost proponent of unarmed social resistance to government, in the same thread that you claim to need firearms in order to resist the government.

Gandhi knew that India was deprived of the right to protect herself, & resist tyrannical oppression---which he knew wouldn't be possible without the threat that possessing firearms could offer.

I've read quite a bit about Gandhi, & nowhere did I ever see anything he wrote which said he believed only in "unarmed" social resistance, all I saw were his repeated calls for non-violent civil disobedience. Matter in fact I seem to recall references where one might see direct contradiction with the "unarmed" requirement you seem to allude to.

As you fail to understand, firearms do not mean violence merely due to their existence, only if they are --- as Gandhi knew --- only if they are used prematurely, or inappropriately. Gandhi believed violence could only be used as a very last resort if at all, & his teaching proved this, but Gandhi seemed to note that the threat of violence could prove to be a valuable asset.

An ornery pack of oppressors ----- & the British amply proved they were ----- could possibly be coaxed to back off when the possibility of prosecuting violence might be a distinct possibility.

I believe Gandhi knew this.

That's why, even though you might desire to wish it away, Gandhi was responsible for the following crystal clear quote relating to firearms, & from his own pen he wrote:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Gandhi knew that India was deprived of the right to protect herself, & resist tyrannical oppression---which he knew wouldn't be possible without the threat that possessing firearms could offer.

Your interpretation is incorrect, inconsistent with Ghandi's teaching, and wishful thinking at best.

The Indian natives vastly outnumbered the British. The key thing here is not that Indians didn't have guns, but that the British did. Ghandi was making the point that the only thing the British could do to keep the Indians subjugated was to threaten them with firearms.

Still, it's too easy to try and fit everything to the same template. As an example, here's a quote from 1940 that both contradicts your opinion of him, and would still be hard to swallow today:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

In a post-war interview in 1946, he said, "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Your interpretation is incorrect, inconsistent with Ghandi's teaching, and wishful thinking at best.

The quote I used did not mean he thought ever man should have firearms, but being refused the right to have an armed military component of any sort, the British gun control laws that removed guns from the hands of Indians were laws he felt were inherently immoral.

In Gandhi's autobiography, "The Story of My Experiments with Truth", in Chapter 27 he says:

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.

He was clearly referencing firearms, & an opportunity for Indians to learn the use of firearms.

"I do not believe <fire>arms are inherently violent..." he often stated as he realized human violence , but he considered firearms as inanimate objects, while it was humans who were failing to practice non-violence.

Gandhi also did not necessarily believe that defense, even when violent, was unacceptable --- this is especially true when Gandhi talked of the Muslims in India. However, Gandhi definitely believed non-violence was the "ultimate path".

Gandhi's essay "The Gospel of Nonviolence":

My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.

So, do you somehow pretend that further pissing contests on who can quote more about Gandhi will amount to something relating to gun control?

I think not, so I won't be discussing Gandhi any longer.

I'm satisfied that I've made my point.

Unfortunately for you, you can't disprove everything you don't like or agree with.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Unfortunately for you, you can't disprove everything you don't like or agree with.

And fortunately for me, you can't prove anything you'd like to be able to.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Unfortunately for you, you can't disprove everything you don't like or agree with.

And fortunately for me, you can't prove anything you'd like to be able to.

I think SF's concept of proof is to use a larger font.

A report from the "you might want to think about that!" department:

A few posters here are of the opinion that we should give up our guns and let the police protect us. That might be an idea except for (a) police only show up after the fact, and (b) sometimes you need someone to protect you from the police. Chicago police have a rather checkered career, many in the city will tell you that the cops can be as bad as the gang-bangers. Now we have the following news clip from Mississippi, someone posing as a cop is pulling motorists over to the side of the road and then shooting them. At least the official police line is that they believe it's a phony cop doing the dirty deed, it is possible it's an actual rogue cop. At night, on rural Interstate highways, when you're the only car for a mile or more and the flashing lights show up behind you, what do you do? Pull over, right? Could be a bad mistake.

Bad cop, no donut!

It is a pity mjsmsprt40 that there are shortcomings in the area of policing as it takes away the opportunity of gun control.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

A few posters here are of the opinion that we should give up our guns and let the police protect us. That might be an idea except for (a) police only show up after the fact, and (b) sometimes you need someone to protect you from the police.

Extremely valid points.

johnnysoupspoon & balloftwine won't see the validity, as if that means a hill of navy beans to reality.

Originally posted by johnnysoupspoon:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Unfortunately for you, you can't disprove everything you don't like or agree with.

And fortunately for me, you can't prove anything you'd like to be able to.

Already have.......whether you, or your brother by a different mother string, concur or not is simply immaterial, & causes not one split second of lost sleep on my part.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I've read quite a bit about Gandhi, & nowhere did I ever see anything he wrote which said he believed only in "unarmed" social resistance, all I saw were his repeated calls for non-violent civil disobedience. Matter in fact I seem to recall references where one might see direct contradiction with the "unarmed" requirement you seem to allude to.

That is because he was a true pacifist, he believed that physical fighting was uncivilized and that he could change India without harm to others. Turns out he was right.

Changing India obviously doesn't mean leaving her defenseless, though. What is appropriate for dealing with British oppressors would not work with her Pakistani neighbors, for example. Is it crazy to think Gandhi didn't know this?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

johnnysoupspoon & balloftwine won't see the validity, as if that means a hill of navy beans to reality.

Now now, we don't really want to resort to names do we? Namecalling is an admission that you've given up.

If you live in the city, about 15 minutes seems to be a typical response time for the cops - that's 15 minutes from whenever someone finally calls them, of course. Mind you, if there's something else going on that delay can get much longer. Or if budget cuts have forced the police to cut back on patrols. There have been a few very well documented cases where it took cops several hours to get to the scene despite multiple callers ...

And that's in the city. If you're outside city limits, it is not uncommon for us to have only two sheriff's deputies on patrol at any one time, covering a county which measures about 25 miles in each direction. If you're lucky and they're in your part of the county when you call, that's not bad. But if they're both busy at the far end of the county, you're talking at least an hour.

We don't have enough police for them to respond to most crimes in time for them to possibly stop the crime, nor could our cities support the budget demands of that many officers. We all have to deal with that reality.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

A report from the "you might want to think about that!" department:

A few posters here are of the opinion that we should give up our guns and let the police protect us. That might be an idea except for (a) police only show up after the fact, and (b) sometimes you need someone to protect you from the police.

I think people are more concerned with regulation (as, actually, your constitution) than banning, but that quibble aside I do think that the cat is out of the bag in the US and things are really getting out of hand. Your story about the “police impersonator” is worrying, not just because of the event itself, not just because of the possibility that it may be a rogue police officer, but also for the perception that the latter might indeed be the case. When people loose trust in the police then the bedrock of a peaceful society has well and truly become a slippery slope. A trouble with this type of thing is that once done they can give rise to copycats.

The answer to this should not be, however, a knee-jerk reaction alone (such as one I've seen recently) well let’s go and arm everyone so we can protect one another from each other. It should be more asking how police can become more trusted; what is wrong in their behaviour, the public’s perception or their operational methods and how can it be put right. That is also true for the criminal. But all that takes time and I can see it’s not easy. It's also not the only question of course.

The problem, String, is that the police are human the same as everyone else. That's why we have rogue cops and the perception that some cops are rogue. It doesn't help that some officers appear to let the power go to their heads either.

In the case above, it may be a rogue, or it may be an ordinary criminal who got some police stuff so he could appear to be a cop. It's easy enough, a Halloween costume, a fake badge, some flashing lights for your car and you're set. There's no way to know for sure until the perp is caught. In a later story, the police say they're looking for a gold-colored Crown Vic, which except for the color is a standard large police car. So many police departments use the Crown Vic that you really have to pay attention when one shows up on your rear bumber. At night, of course you can't clearly see the color, but the Crown Vic is distinctive enough that you recognise it at once. The only people who drive them are police, taxi companies and little old ladies.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

A few posters here are of the opinion that we should give up our guns and let the police protect us. That might be an idea except for (a) police only show up after the fact, and (b) sometimes you need someone to protect you from the police.

The problem with (b) is that even with rogue cops - and let us not try and pretend that any system is going to be faultless - there are a lot fewer cops that are going to threaten innocent civilians with guns than there are criminals. Much, much fewer. To have a gun on you just in case you happen to encounter a cop that wants to shoot you for no reason is like carrying a fire extinguisher everywhere you go in case you spontaneously combust. Except the fire extinguisher is less dangerous to you and others.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

johnnysoupspoon & balloftwine won't see the validity, as if that means a hill of navy beans to reality.

Validity is conferred by evidence. Reality is composed of evidence. And it's up to you to join the dots.

Uh, Johnny, I have to ask: How many rogue cops who want to shoot you does it take to make you dead? Seems to me the numbers don't make a lot of difference. So there's more criminals than there are rogue cops-- so what? It only takes one.

Now, personally, I don't think the perp in the story above is a rogue. I think he's a criminal who got some stuff to trick out his Crown Vic with the flashing headlights and maybe he got a mars light, of course the fake badge and possibly a uniform. Maybe not the last two items even, there's an ABC news story that one person saw him in jeans and a plaid shirt-- not standard police issue at all.

This is one time when I hope the perp is stupid enough to try to have an armed go-around with the real police. I don't want the police to get hurt, but this guy has got it coming.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Uh, Johnny, I have to ask: How many rogue cops who want to shoot you does it take to make you dead? Seems to me the numbers don't make a lot of difference. So there's more criminals than there are rogue cops-- so what? It only takes one.

So, you're going to arm yourself every day with everything you might need to handle any possible fatal event that has ever occurred to someone?
You're going to head out every morning with a fire extinguisher, a mattress in case you fall over, hard hat in case something falls on you, lightning rod attached to it in case of bad weather, insulated gloves?
You're more likely to be struck by lightning or spontaneously burst into flames than to be threatened by a rogue cop, or even someone pretending to be one.

One isolated, unique, psychopath does not make a case for arming the population.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

So, you're going to arm yourself every day with everything you might need to handle any possible fatal event that has ever occurred to someone?

Well, I may or I may not.

In the end I'm free to decide aren't I?

It's freedom of choice is it not, or is that---in your interpretation---is that to be completely regulated by Big Government too?

Maybe today I'll only arm myself with whatever I need to protect myself against 10% of your non-descriptive, all encompassing, 'everything'. Tomorrow, 25%, & the day after because it's the second Friday of an even month, I might decide on 12.9956%

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

One isolated, unique, psychopath does not make a case for arming the population.

Sounds like a 'personal preference' issue to me.

Making a 'case' in the eyes of society is not even a consideration when deciding to arm or not to arm myself.

Who do I need to answer to if I decide to legally arm myself out of personal preference?

No one, that's who.

As long as I obey the law, my decision to carry or not is mine & mine alone.

I need not provide anyone a reason for exercising my right. You may exercise your right to ask me, & I will then be free to exercise my right to answer you. The word 'required' has no bearing in that verbal intercourse.

Nobody has the right to arm me with a firearm (force me to carry a firearm), or disarm me of my firearm providing I carry it legally & obey the law.

The decision I choose to exercise one way or another is my natural right, & I need not consult society, much less the government, prior to making my personal decision.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Changing India obviously doesn't mean leaving her defenseless, though. What is appropriate for dealing with British oppressors would not work with her Pakistani neighbors, for example. Is it crazy to think Gandhi didn't know this?

I think Gandhi was more worried about Britain, more so was he moved to remove the remainder of the mad queens crap from their land. He knew about the Pakistani threat, but apparently it wasn't enough to make him say fuck the Brits.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Changing India obviously doesn't mean leaving her defenseless, though. What is appropriate for dealing with British oppressors would not work with her Pakistani neighbors, for example. Is it crazy to think Gandhi didn't know this?

I think Gandhi was more worried about Britain, more so was he moved to remove the remainder of the mad queens crap from their land. He knew about the Pakistani threat, but apparently it wasn't enough to make him say fuck the Brits.

Gandhi had to use unarmed means against Britain. Once the Crown was run out of town, though, the sovereign nation of India was free to arm itself against its enemy to the North as it saw fit. I think that does make a difference.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

I think Gandhi was more worried about Britain, more so was he moved to remove the remainder of the mad queens crap from their land.

I know I said I was finished discussing Gandhi, but a small correction if I may......while we all saw the power of Gandhi relating to Indian history, he was only able to effectuate the eventual political change through his actions, but not having the actual power as a political leader, which he refused, he only suggested various changes of political policy to those who actually served in the interim government subsequent to British expulsion in 1947. Gandhi never saw the 'official' birth of what is known today as the Republic of India in 1950.

As far as it goes ... bad guys impersonating cops is not unusual, you hear about it every couple of years. And those are the ones you hear about (which is to say, I'm sure many don't make the news - that some crook claimed to be a cop in order to get into his victim's house wouldn't even be noteworthy).

As far as trusting the cops, few people do that ... especially since we all got to watch the Branch Davidian episode play out on live TV, or before that the Weaver family. Just picking the two everyone knows there ... there was a story in the news a couple of weeks ago speculating that most of the anti-terrorism cases in the last few years would never have happened if the FBI's informants hadn't instigated the plots to begin with.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Uh, Johnny, I have to ask: How many rogue cops who want to shoot you does it take to make you dead? Seems to me the numbers don't make a lot of difference. So there's more criminals than there are rogue cops-- so what? It only takes one.

So, you're going to arm yourself every day with everything you might need to handle any possible fatal event that has ever occurred to someone?
You're going to head out every morning with a fire extinguisher, a mattress in case you fall over, hard hat in case something falls on you, lightning rod attached to it in case of bad weather, insulated gloves?
You're more likely to be struck by lightning or spontaneously burst into flames than to be threatened by a rogue cop, or even someone pretending to be one.

One isolated, unique, psychopath does not make a case for arming the population.

Truth, I should get a fire extinguisher. I drive in commercial service, and a fire extinguisher is required by law for vehicles over a certain weight classification--- along with a set of reflective triangles and a set of flares. An air mattress-- already have one, have put it to use too. Not for falling over, but for catching some rest at the truck stops. You don't think it's possible to drive from Chicago, Illinois to Winston-Salem North Carolina and back non-stop, do you? Gotta sleep some time, and a mattress sure helps for that.

Hard hat: I've delivered to construction sites; Required equipment. So are safety glasses, and some places won't let you on-site without a hair net. Insulated gloves: Close, I do wear heavy gloves on occasion though. If I need to help on a job with high currents running loose, the guy I work with has insulated gloves that he'll supply me with for that job. No lightning rod, though.

No, this time I'm not being silly. The above is a list of actual requirements that I run into. And supplies I sometimes need and use.

I probably should invest in a lightning rod though. Johnny says I'm more likely to be hit by lightning than to be threatened by a rogue cop. I live near Chicago, which as everyone around here knows is over-run with rogue cops. Having to do business occasionally in the Rahmulan Empire has certain risks, rogue cops being one of them.

So still no thoughts about how to tackle the dangers of bad cops/criminals? All I see is stumbling attempts to justify a civilian arms race and crude insults about the UK.

In the US do you have codes of conduct, or equivalent, for the police?

If so how is it monitored and by whom? .. an internal police commitee or an independant body? What powers does it have to enforce its decision.

If someone is killed during a Police action is there an automatic review of the "incident" and if not why not?

Originally posted by string:

So still no thoughts about how to tackle the dangers of bad cops/criminals? All I see is stumbling attempts to justify a civilian arms race and crude insults about the UK.

In the US do you have codes of conduct, or equivalent, for the police?

Yes, all the major city forces have a code, with punishments for infractions of the code from verbal warning up to release from the force, with possible prosecution for criminal conduct.

Originally posted by string:

If so how is it monitored and by whom? .. an internal police commitee or an independant body? What powers does it have to enforce its decision.

In Chicago, there's an internal revue board. It's had its troubles and people don't trust it, I have heard talk of an independent body but I don't know if anything came of that. It can recommend disciplinary action. Most major departments have a board of some type.

Originally posted by string:

If someone is killed during a Police action is there an automatic review of the "incident" and if not why not?

Most every department I know of has an automatic review if the officer's gun is fired in the line of duty.

Quite often cops are jerks hiding behind a badge. I've had several actually lie about my speed just to try to get me a bigger fine. There is little you can do when it's your word against theirs. If they will lie over something so simple what happens when it's more serious? Just a thought. They are just people and to say authority can't go to their head would be kidding yourself.

It's not unreasonable to want to be able to protect yourself. There is no reason to assume someone is gonna do a better job of protecting me or my family than me. When it's my life in danger I have the right and am the most qualified to protect it. Why wouldn't you wanna be able to protect yourself?

I'm not really sure where the cop argument was going... But I've made attempts to point out a gun is a tool that has many uses other than murdering someone. Focusing on one (mis)use isn't addressing the issue at all.

@ mjm & ensbb3 - thanks for replies. From what you say, in principle the basics are there for investigation of incidents. It is very similar to the UK approach where the investigation is done by a police body which is independent of those being investigated. I think it is independent but there are sometimes mutterings; not that serious I think. Maybe another Brit would care to comment on that, perhaps fron the Scottish perspective sine they have a different legal setup than England/Wales.

We have bad cops as well of course; it is BIG news when they are discovered but there are few shootings, police not being armed except when Police are called to a crime being done by armed criminals. Tazers are becoming more common. I've noticed that Tazer use is creeping into criminal use and begin to wonder if that is cause & effect.

I suspect that Water pistols with indellible dye might have been a better choice!

Police corruption is generally very rare in the northern part of the Kingdom and the service is very well organised. Indeed one of our biggest Forces helped advise London on their nut job youths.The only unfortunate thing about the police in Scotland is that due to the SNP lot having a majority on the Edinburgh Parliament next year all the polce forces are to be merged into one big national one. Some might be bemused by the fact that Scots Law which is different from the rest of the UK's (thanks to the 1707 settlement) has 3 deicions at all court levels. Thes eare - guily, not guilty and not proven. Kind of distinctive, eh?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

......Some might be bemused by the fact that Scots Law which is different from the rest of the UK's (thanks to the 1707 settlement) has 3 deicions at all court levels. Thes eare - guily, not guilty and not proven. Kind of distinctive, eh?

In America justice is heavily weighted in favor of the defendant.

In America when the criminal case goes to trial, the defendant can pick to have a bench trial or a trial by jury.

With a bench trial, the defendant will be judged by a single (1) judge.

With a jury trial, the defendant will be judged by a group of peers (12).

Either way, it's always completely up to the defendant on which type of trial he will receive.

The way that a jury trial works is that 12 people are selected, subject to defense examination & approval, to decide the truth of the case.

A lot of times, depending of how adept the defense attorney is, it is quite a bit easier for a criminal defense attorney to receive a "Not Guilty" or "Hung Jury" verdict when they use a trial by jury. They need to convince just one (1) juror out of twelve (12) that his/her client might not have done the crime...that there is the slightest reasonable doubt.....put doubt in the mind of just one juror.

The prosecuting attorney has a more difficult time because they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person on trial is in fact guilty, & committed the crime he/she is accused of.

The burden of proof lies solely on the State--on the prosecuting attorney. The defense does not need to prove anything.

In other cultures, the burden of proof lies upon the defendant's attorney. And the defendant actually has to prove their innocence before the charges will be dropped.

Another advantage of a trial by jury is that people are a lot more scared of accidentally sending an innocent person to jail, than they are of not convicting a felon. This makes it harder to convict someone who is really guilty, but it also makes it harder to convict someone who is innocent.

In order to obtain a conviction, a prosecution must persuade each & every one of the twelve (12) jurors that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If just one juror holds out for 'not guilty', there can not be a conviction. If there isn't a unanimous decision to convict, & a unanimous decision is not possible, then it will be called a 'hung jury'. With a hung jury the prosecution must then decide whether to drop the charges, & set the defendant free or to re-prosecute, & subject the State to the high costs of a re-prosecution.

The overwhelming majority of Criminal Trials in the USA are Trials by Jury.