#social do-gooders
62 messages in this thread
The First Amendment is not absolute, as the Supreme Court has made
clear on several occasions, e.g., you can't yell fire in a crowded
theater.
Similarly, it's obvious (at least to me) that the Second Amendment isn't
absolute, either. One's freedom of speech ends where libel and slander set
in; one's right to throw a punch ends at my nose; and one's right to bear
arms should end where that right likewise begins to impose burdens on
fellow citizens.
Forget the government. **I** do not want the guy next door to me owning an
automatic rifle.
> **I** do not want the guy next door to me owning an automatic rifle.
Currently, unless the guy living next to you has a firearms dealer permit and
goes through a whole lot of hoops, and pays a whole lot of taxes, he cannot
legally own an automatic rifle now. Tell me why you want to dictate what other
firearms may be owned, and how it will further prevent your neighbour from
owning an automatic rifle.
-larry
Sorry, Larry, gui, but I just checked into obtaining an automatic rifle
(aka, machine gun).. .$200 and about 6 months paperwork.
Of course, that's in the US.
> Sorry, Larry, gui, but …
No need to apologize for confirming my statements, Eet!
> I just checked into obtaining an automatic rifle (aka, machine gun)..
> .$200 and about 6 months paperwork.
Yup… federal firearms dealer permit, lots of hoops (other paperwork), and so
on.
And of course it still doesn't tell me why, when there has only been a
smattering of crimes committed with automatic weapons in the past 50 year, the
control-freaks want to further restrict them, and tell us that banning weapons
that look like nasty military weapons, will keep the machine guns out of the
hands of their neighbours.
So, how ya been, lately? Steve tells me you are back in OKCity.
-larry
Larry,
The fact that there have only been few crimes committed with fully
automatic weapons…and that they are severely restricted…is exactly why
there is a desire to restrict 'assault type' weapons.
Don
Nonsense; the reason there have been only a few crimes committed with
fully automatic weapons is that full auto weapons are lousy for most
applications. BTW, Don, I want your gun(s). <smile>
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
The Uzzi is "useful" for just about any crime you'd want to commit.
Don
Not as useful as a small pocket auto, for robbery, for example. Nor as
useful as a scoped 30-06 for an asassination. It's just not real useful
for any precision work.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
Criminals don't give a rats *** about "precision work", they want quick
and dirty…and as scary as possible.
Don
Then why aren't more Uzi's used in crimes? It isn't as if they are any harder
to get that Saturday night specials?
-larry
Larry,
Saturday Night specials went out of vogue years ago…9mm automatics
are the weapon of choice now. The very fact that Uzi's are so hard to get and
so expensive is what is limiting their use (Mac 10's also). We have recovered
some of them from gang members. They get them when they can, but
luckly…that's not often.
Don
>Nonsense; the reason there have been only a few crimes committed with
>fully automatic weapons is that full auto weapons are lousy for most
>applications.
Most applications, except for killing people at somewhat close range.
Bob Comer
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
For sloppily wounding and perhaps killing numbers of people at close
range.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
>For sloppily wounding and perhaps killing numbers of people at close
>range.
Yep. So why allow them?
Bob Comer
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Um, doesn't anyone see a difference between what just got banned- a
SEMI-automatic version of the Uzi with a 16 inch barrel- and a fully
automatic machine gun? I'll clue you in if you don't: What just got
banned is a large, bulky, extraordinarily expensive handgun. And why?
Because it LOOKED nasty. No legally owned fully automatic weapon has been
used in a crime since they were registered in 1934. Not ONE. Every
single one EVER recovered was stolen from the police or military. But
what can you expect from a Congress which gets its information on the
subject from watching movies or, and I kid you not, from COMIC BOOKS.
Yes, a COMIC BOOK was entered into the record during the gun control
debates, by a pro-control type, of course.
-Karl
Eet,
curious as it may seem to most rational individuals, most people
engaged in criminal activities do not want to maximize the group of
intended victims. Instead, they want to ensure the death of the
particular individual who is the target of the 'hit'. True, there are
organizations that show no concern in this direction, but they are the
frequent targets of federal probes on crime. Those who engage in such a
behavior for a living would not like to draw the attention of the federal
eye in their direction. Read pieces about the history of the American
Mafia if you doubt this.
In such a case, semi-automatic or single-shot sniper weapons would be
preferable to automatic weapons any day of the week. A single-shot .50
caliber bullet is more than sufficient to kill any individual. If not
from the entry and exit wounds, the hydrostatic shock will do. Else, why
the Elephant gun?
A shotgun, modified with a hacksaw, is a far better weapon than a machine gun
for close range, crowded rooms.
-larry
Larry,
No matter how you saw off a shotgun…it still has a limited pdispersal
pattern. An automatic's dispersal pattern is only limited to how fast you can
swivel and how many rounds it holds.
Don
But the shotgun will very likely kill who it hits, and the odds are good
that the pistol caliber automatic weapon will only wound. None of the
mass murders I have read about involved someone spraying a room, they just
walked methodically around killing people one by one.
-Karl
Given that reasoning, those folks better start thinking about restricting
computers, cars, knives, boots, fists, and so on.
The message I was responding to said, basically, that we need to ban assault
weapons because the writer "doesn't want his neighbour to have automatic
weapons."
-larry
Larry,
There are very few things that can't cause harm if used improperly or
taken to the extreme. The original intent of the item, and its applicability
for legal activities that becomes the deciding factor.
Don
I agree, and so did the founding fathers.
-larry
Don,
the original intent of any knife is the slicing of some form of flesh,
be it animal or plant. The applicability of such for both licit and
illicit activities is exactly the same, they cleave said flesh.
Now to the fundamental question. How many people have been killed by
knives, i.e. the illicit application of the knife to other persons, in
relation to the illicit application of guns. I know for a fact that there
is a far higher rate of illicit use of knives in said appliction per unit
item than for guns, and especially in relation to assault or automatic
weapons. Indeed, there is a far higher rate for the illicit use of body
parts and other similiarly available weapons (such as household goods)
than for either of the two cited items (assault weapons and automatic
weapons).
Why have we not passed baseball-bat, cast-iron pan, and fist bans
first? I'm welcome to contrary statistical evidence, but I don't think
you will find it anywhere. Indeed, in societies that do exercise 'gun
control' tend to have higher rates of violence committed by other means.
It isn't a question of controlling the means of violence, but of
controlling violence by whatever means. That is the problem. Blaming the
mechanism of committing the violence is symptomatic of our blaming the
victim society. 'I' didn't commit the violence on my wife/girlfriend/
husband/wife/friend. The gun did it, or the knife, baseball bat, or even
chair. Not the person that committed the violence. He was incited by
some particular societal/work/personal injustice.
The gun/knife/etc. was convienent, so 'I' used it.
<looking for a barf bag>
If we could limit violence to knives, bats, the occasional anvil, it would
be far less catastrophic to society in general. Guns are so convenient,
that it is no problem to use them first, easier than a knife too. My AR15
could probably kill any intruder, and go through my neighbor's house,
inhabitants and all.
Agreed, as could my M1 (guaranteed, with certain ammunition) go through my
house, my neighbor's house, etc. That's why I have a.45 with hollowpoints,
shotshells and fmj ammunition in separate magazines handy. With that
weapon, I feel reasonably safe against most any intruder except BATFinks
and other kevlar-wielding invaders. If 'standard' firearms were
eliminated, there'd be a proliferation of 'zip-guns'. We're an inventive
breed, y'know.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Arnie,
excuse me?!!! You obviously don't read police reports or the collected
statistics on violence. I thought I made it clear in my post that several
times more violence is committed using weapons other than guns or assault
weapons. Yep, I went back, and such was the case.
Obviously you missed the point of my post, entirely. The cost to
society of having a right to bear arms is miniscule at best. Most crimes,
and they are usually domestic crimes, are committed with any other weapon
than a gun. Eliminating guns will reduce the murder rate by 1%, at best,
and that is only if citizens do not turn to other forms of weaponry, which
they are increasingly prevalent to do.
Guns may be convenient, but household knives, baseball bats, furniture,
and such are even more so, and the statistical evidence proves that such
is the case. I know it is a discredited canard, but the NRA is right in
at least one aspect. Guns don't kill people, People do. The evidence is
incontravertible, be it from Japan, Canada, the U.S., or Sweden. Three
out of four have gun elimination policies, and aside from the inner-city,
we have a lower rate of murder than any of the above. Does that suggest
anything to you? Me, I stick to the data, not some forsworn philosophy.
Must I rub your nose in it?
>Indeed, there is a far higher rate for the illicit use of body parts and
>other similiarly available weapons (such as household goods) than for
>either of the two cited items (assault weapons and automatic weapons).
When was the last time you heard of anyone with a knife, (or any other of
your "weapons") walk into a crowded store and blow away 20 or 30 people
and then blow himself away in the end?
> Why have we not passed baseball-bat, cast-iron pan, and fist bans
>first?
Intent of weapon.
Also, we have passed similar laws on other things that do kill people.
(DWI (and vehicular homicide) as an example.)
Bob Comer
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Since when do numbers matter in this society? Is not *each individual's*
life as important as any other's? I don't care if an idiot kills 30
people, or 1 person. I want the idiot stopped in case the 1, or one of the
30, is me. It's the idiocy, not the weapon. The baseball bat is derived
from the club, the *first* weapon, and it's intent was very much to kill.
Also, an idiot could kill 30 people with a cap and ball remington pistol,
provided he carred spare, charged cylinders (5 of them, to be exact). A
cap and ball pistol shoots only slightly slower than an semi-auto pistol.
If the 30 people in that crowded store are all armed themselves, the
chances of the idiot not being able to kill anyone, let alone all 30 go to
infinity, compared to the chances if no-one is armed.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
>If the 30 people in that crowded store are all armed themselves, the
>chances of the idiot not being able to kill anyone, let alone all 30 go
>to infinity, compared to the chances if no-one is armed.
I agree, I heard of some town in Georgia, I can't think of the name of
it, had passed law that all head of the household that live in that town
must carry gun when they leave the house. From what I'v heard, the crime
rate have droped by 90%.
>Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
I got AutoPilot, thankyou.
"AP fired up, leter rip!!"
>Since when do numbers matter in this society? Is not *each individual's*
>life as important as any other's? I don't care if an idiot kills 30
>people, or 1 person.
I care more if 30 get killed over one…
The chances of survivng a bad situation are MUCH higher if theere is only
a knife, baseball bat, or whatever, over a guy that has a fully auto AK47.
That's reason enough for me to want to limit the latter.
>I want the idiot stopped in case the 1, or one of the 30, is me.
True, same here. But in the case of the guy that kills 30 with a auto
gun, if we make it that much harder to get a gun like that, maybe they'll
have time to think about what they're doing.
> It's the idiocy, not the weapon. The baseball bat is derived from the
>club, the *first* weapon, and it's intent was very much to kill.
> Also, an idiot could kill 30 people with a cap and ball remington
>pistol, provided he carred spare, charged cylinders (5 of them, to be
>exact). A cap and ball pistol shoots only slightly slower than an
>semi-auto pistol.
Yep, but that doesn't really compare with an uzzi, does it.
>If the 30 people in that crowded store are all armed themselves, the
>chances of the idiot not being able to kill anyone, let alone all 30 go
>to infinity, compared to the chances if no-one is armed.
And how many innocent other people get killed in the gun battle?
If things comes come down to everyone having a gun, and shootouts are
commonplace, I don't even want to be around any more. I know, some places
are getting this bad, but not here.
Bob Comer
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Bob,
early 20th century, and the individual in question, a madman, was
stopped by a gun wielding individual, one of the 1% who were still armed.
THINK!!! If one individual had been armed on the Long Island Train, how
many people would have died? Not anywhere near the body count that
actually occurred, or at least, the same number if that individual was
untrained.
We shouldn't be restricting the ownership of guns, we should be
expanding it, several-fold. In every case where gun ownership has
increased, criminal activity has declined. In case you haven't noticed,
what individuals do the criminals target in Florida? It isn't the
residents. Many of them own guns and carry them in their vehicles of
choice. Instead, the criminals target tourists. They don't have any
defensive mechanisms. Perhaps we should issue tourists temporary gun
liscences.
Think about this as a rational economic activity. If there was a 1%
chance that any armed robbery would involve your death, would you engage
in such behavior? If you're rational, of course not. 35 Armed robberies
would almost ensure a .50 chance you would die in the committal of such an
act. Navy Pilots face that every day, but they are selected for such a
mission. You'd have to posit that either the criminals are too stupid, in
which case they are better off dead IMHO, or ignorant. I'd take care of
the latter by an introduction to probability.
It isn't the intent of weapon, but the intent of the individual.
Weapons exist in plenty in our society. It is the intent that counts, but
are you willing to arrest an individual prior to commissionn of the crime?
If so, let me know, I'll be on the next plane out.
>Also, we have passed similar laws on other things that do kill people.
>(DWI (and vehicular homicide) as an example.)
Not the same thing. Both are MISUSE of a vehicle, and both make only that
misuse illegal. To be similar to gun control you would have to BAN the
vehicles for everyone.
-Karl
Glad you brought up knives (ow, ooch; sorry, difficult typing with the
slice I have in my finger from a piece of brick (not a knife <cough>))…
A boy was suspended for 13 days (he was going to be suspended for a year),
because, one night he was working on a project, and stuck a box knife
(utility knife) in his notebook because it became too late and he intended
to finish in the morning (the project had something to *do* with the
notebook, in fact). He forgot about the box knife, took it to school, and
upon discovering it at home room, gave it to his home room teacher because
of his awareness of the rule prohibiting knives in school. A kid
*voluntarily* complies with a rule in a situation in which the rule
shouldn't even *apply*, and his reward? 13 day suspension. That was only a
few miles from here. I carried a knife with me since I was 12, and never
used it as a weapon, despite many assaults and death-threats by bullies in
my high-school years. During the summer, I needed it as a tool, and
carried it in winter out of habit. The fact is, I never thought of it as a
weapon, probably anymore than this kid did. Remember the good old "boy
scout knife"? I spose they're not allowed to carry those anymore, either.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
That explains the state of American education very well. If schools are
run by people with completely atrophied brains, they can't possibly do a
good job of educating anyone.
-Karl
Brian,
A higher rate of illegal use of knives per unit than guns? You've got
to be nuts. Most homes have a set of kitchen knives (carving type, not butter
knife type), a set of steak knives, a few pocket knives and so on. I'd guess
I've got 25 knives here, but only 3 handguns and 2 rifles.
We have next to no armed robberies commited with a knife, we probably
have an equal number of shootings as we have stabbings…but the fatal rate for
shootings is higher. We have relatively few fatal stabbings, quite a few fatal
shootings.
We have very few crimes committed with assault weapons (automatic or
otherwise)…but then again…we've had a ban on them for years and we enforce
it.
Don
Oh, I'm surviving, Larry gui… that's all I'm allowed, y'know 😉
A few months back they had a show at the mall here (well, we do have more
than one, but.. :), and there was a 42 Willy's Jeep with a 50 cal machine
gun mounted on it. A guy had restored it, and yes, the gun works! Now,
wouldn't that be just the thing to have in rush hour traffic? <grin>
I'm trying to find some books on metallurgy and stuff… of course I'm
going to eventually do some hand-loading of my ammunition, but I saw some
cap and ball pistols I like, and it occurred to me that if I could come up
with some way of casting steel shot in a dodecahedron type shape, it just
might penetrate kevlar. Wouldn't that be interesting? What got me to
thinking about it was when I saw an ad for a kevlar vest for under $300…
now I wonder why the gangs and other criminal types haven't already
started wearing them… but I'm sure they'll think of it soon.
('other criminal types' excludes federal agencies like the BATF, of course
🙂
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Interesting that Kevlar vests are so expensive. I used Kevlar to build a
cockpit coaming for an airplane, once, and though the cloth was a little more
expensive that the equivalent fiberglass cloth, it was not overly much more.
-larry
Multiple layers, from 7 to 11 or 12.
-Karl
> Multiple layers, from 7 to 11 or 12.
Ahh! Yup.. that would do it, alright. That's a lot of material.
-larry
Larry,
Product liability adds significantly to the cost.
Don
Ron,
a most curious choice of parameters. He can't. Unless you go through
a lot of legal hoops, installed in the '30's as I recall, you can not
legally own an automatic firearm of any type. You have to be a registered
collector complete with background checks that make my TS clearance look
mild, at the least.
I, for one, don't have many problems with that, although it should be
reconsidered for true members of the militia given that they have a
definite military purpose. What is your cutoff for militias? Where is
your cutoff for valid civilian use of firearms?
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
"I, for one, don't have many problems with that, although it should be
reconsidered for true members of the militia given that they have a
definite military purpose."
Not to be overly contentious (I generally save that for Ron <G>), but just
who would those people be? Before replying, you might wish to look up 10
USC 31. (USC being United States Code) It is a very old section, and
might be enlightening.
"I, for one, don't have many problems with that, although it should be
reconsidered for true members of the militia given that they have a
definite military purpose."
Not to be overly contentious (I generally save that for Ron <G>), but just
who would those people be? Before replying, you might wish to look up 10
USC 31. (USC being United States Code) It is a very old section, and
might be enlightening.
-Karl
Hmmm, I appear to have developed some kind of computer stutter. You only
have to read half of the preceeding message. <G>
-Karl
Ahh! I see now… yes, it makes much more sense now that I have gone back and
unread the last part. 🙂
-larry
>one's right to bear arms should end where that right likewise begins to
>impose burdens on fellow citizens.
>Forget the government. **I** do not want the guy next door to me owning
>an automatic rifle.
(I will assume that when you are referring to an "automatic" rifle you
mean semi-automatic or self-loading, but it really doesn't matter for the
purposes of my argument.)
"(I)mpose burdens"? The mere posession of a particular class of firearm
by your neighbors somehow burdens you, without any misuse of those
firearms? How so? Do you lie awake nights, worrying? But the fact that
your neighbor owns a bolt action rifle accurate to a quarter mile or more
is somehow less troubling. What about knives, baseball bats, or axes?
Just what do your neighbors have to give up in order that you don't feel
"burdened?"
The problem you and your fellow gun controllers have is that your vision
of what is proper for citizens to own is quite at variance with that of
the drafters of the Constitution. Few people these days have any idea
just how radical the Founding Fathers were, how profoundly they distrusted
government, and how much this distrust is reflected in the Constitution.
GOVERNMENT'S posession of "automatic" firearms would have filled them with
horrified alarm, but I doubt their posession by citizens would have caused
them to turn a hair. It was the professional military which was seen as
the primary source of danger, and therefore intended to be relatively
small and temporary, and to be used only in times of emergency. (Thus the
power granted to Congress to "raise armies") The right of the citizens to
be armed is quite old you know, going back some six hundred or more years
to the Rights of Englishmen. The great complier of the English Common
Law, Willian Blackstone, said it best:
"Free men have arms. Slaves do not."
Now, for the red herring that "Similarly, it's obvious (at least to me)
that the Second Amendment isn't absolute, either." Well, yeah, but so
what? What IS obviously protected is arms capable of being born, and
appropriate for use by a citizen militia. You can make arguments either
way that fully automatic weapons are not "appropriate", since their use
requires training that citizens are not likely to have. You cannot make
this argument (at least, not with any integrety) with regard to
semi-automatic versions of the issue military rifle. It is, clearly,
nearly the IDEAL militia weapon.
Of course, with your "growing" Constitution, I guess you don't HAVE to
make any argument. The Government just needs to cite "changing
conditions," or something, and can then interprete the provisions of the
Constitution as they wish. How convienent for them.
-Karl
Karl –
Hear, hear!
(or is it Here, here… I never knew for sure.)
– Rob..
on Amiga via AutoPilot <71212.712@compuserve.com>
Yeah, I'm pretty happy with that one- too bad I accidently sent my
original reply to the bit bucket and had to rewrite it very late at night-
and THEN posted the new reply without spell checking it. (sigh) But it's
the thoughts that count, right? <G>
-Karl
And *that* is the real danger of gun control legislation; if, as gun
control proponents complain, 75-80% of the citizenry want gun control
legislation, then why are they so afraid to amend the Constitution? All
amending it requires is… support of the people.
Ok, guys… Gun control may be a sensible subject for you in the US., but
this thread does not belong to AmigaUser, which should more or less Amiga
talkin'…
Please find a conf. where guns are the hot subject, I'm pretty sure this
can be found somewhere on CI$…
Otherwise I'll start a thread about '95 presidential elections in France,
and count on me to answer my own postings if there no-one's willing to
talk about it 🙂
TIA,
Moderating Fred 😉
Frederic Botton from Paris, France
fbotton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Actually, the '95 French elections might be rather interesting. <grin>
(I won't mention Lafayette and his 100,000 muskets, btw… promise 🙂
Federic,
please do! I'm very interested in the French Presidential elections
since they seem to indicate the direction of France for decades.
Remember, this is Ramblings.
No way! This is ramblings, but this is AmigaUser… Do they discuss Amiga
in, dunno, cats ramblings?
I just do not want CI$ to become Usenet…
Fred.
Frederic Botton from Paris, France
fbotton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Frederic,
The Amiga related pontificating section is now SoapBox (section 21). This
section (Ramblings) is where all non-Amiga related topics will be banished
to.
-sja
Ah, so THAT'S what Soapbox is. Thanks, I couldn't figure out the
difference.
-Karl
Frederic,
actually, I do some pontificating in other forums on the greatness of
the Amiga. Sad to say, most people agree. It's d*mn*d hard to start an
argument when everyone agrees on the superiority of the Amiga <g>.
And yes, I was serious about the French Presidential elections. How
are they shaping up? Has Delors tossed his hat into the ring yet?
Ok, Steve has made the subject of this forum clear, so here we go!
No, Jacques Delors has not entered the competition yet (at least not
officially), and neither Jacques Chirac nor Edouard Balladur did so. The
only one that made a public announcement is Jean Marie Le Pen. Opinion
polls indicate that "La droite" (conservative?) would win. The trouble is
that it won't be clear until the candidates are chosen, which seems to be
a real PITA for (conservatives?). Some people are also thinking
anticipated elections if Francois Mitterand was to die before he finishes
his mandate. It's clear that he is seriously ill, but he, on his own
words, thinks he'll be able to finish his task.
It is time now for all the infamous rumours, accusations from all
parties… F. Mitterrand has been accused of relations with former Vichy
government leaders during WW2, and some ministers from the current
goverment are accused of money misappropriation…
Fred.
Frederic Botton from Paris, France
fbotton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Frederic,
This is the Ramblings section. Any topic is fair game. If it offends you
in any way, turn the section off.
-sja
Fred, if you think no one here is interested in the French elections, you
have a sad surprise coming. Most of us are interested in EVERYTHING.
That's how you can tell you're in an Amiga forum rather than, say, IBM
Sys. <BG>
-Karl
Oh, I think it sort of depends on how you ask the question. If you just
ask "Do you think we should have Gun Control", you naturally get a very
large positive response. Nobody is in favor of criminals owning firearms,
after all. What those simple-minded polls do NOT measure is knowledge of
current gun control laws, since if you check you find that the "additional
gun control" laws the respondants favor are WEAKER than current laws. The
poor gun controllers still haven't gotten over the votes in Mass and
California to ban handguns. Pre-election polls showed that both measures
would win in landslides, both lost 2 to 1. Since then they try not to let
people vote on these things. <B evil G>
-Karl
You are wrong, and I sometimes question the clear and present danger
exception to the First Amendment, to begin with. However, the First
Amendment leaves room for interpretation; the second does not. The reason
is clearly stated, and the rule is clearly stated. NOTHING can be done to
stop the guy next door from keeping and bearing even a Stinger missile.
(now, I, being his neighbor am armed with a rifle; at the point at which
I, his neighbor see him pointing his Stinger at a MacDonnel-Douglas jet,
will shoot him; if he points it at a United Boeing jet, I'll prolly go
watch it on the news <grin>).
BTW, the assualt weapons ban does not stop him from owning an automatic
rifle; $200 and 6 months paperwork, and you too can own a 50 caliber
automatic rifle. And, unless you've spent $300 on a kevlar vest, the guy
next door can kill you just as dead with a cap and ball colt.