CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+May 5 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ May 5 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can see this pushing gang violance up. Two people have guns, one shoots the other, kills him.
"He had a gun, he was going to shoot me"
Case closed, no consiquences. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> in philadephia, PA (PA is a pretty lax state when it comes to gun restrictions) they made a pro gun restriction law in an attempt to curb gun related gang violence.
It worked but not in the way they wanted it too.
People stopped shooting each other and started using baseball bats instead.
I dont know about you but I think Ill take my chances getting shot (perhaps not even in the chest/head) than definitaly getting my skull crushed in by a baseball bat to the face.
That above comment was also supported by the ER staff at the local hospitals.
<!--QuoteBegin-CplDavis+May 8 2005, 10:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CplDavis @ May 8 2005, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It worked but not in the way they wanted it too.
People stopped shooting each other and started using baseball bats instead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As long as the bat swinger wasn't on roids ... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ZavaroTucson, ArizonaJoin Date: 2005-02-14Member: 41174Members, Super Administrators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
The law makes sense, but (as already said) a bunch of cases will come up with no witnesses. Look at bad neighbors for example. There will be plenty of abusing this law.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited May 2005
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The law makes sense, but (as already said) a bunch of cases will come up with no witnesses. Look at bad neighbors for example. There will be plenty of abusing this law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People breaking laws is not news. Neither is them getting tossed in the slammer afterwards.
- To the steroids comment - Perhaps you missed the past few thousands of years of human history, during which large blunt objects (Much like baseball bats!) were used by average men, to kill other average men? Quite effectively, I might add.
It does not matter WHAT tool a determined man uses to try and kill you with, if you don't stop him, directly or indirectly, you will be dead.
<!--QuoteBegin-Code9+May 4 2005, 02:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Code9 @ May 4 2005, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As long as we are playing what if, What If sub average joe gets drunk, fights, and crushes the other guys skull in with a tire iron? Did he start the fight, or did the other person? Lets go into specifics, because your scenario is vague and details can make all the difference.
Example A: Guy A gets drunk and guy B decides he doesn't like guy A for <insert reason> and commences a beatdown. Guy A is outweighed by guy B by about 75 pounds. Guy A takes <insert object> and manages to kill guy B. Is it irresponsible to get in a drunken fight? If the object used was a gun is he on shaky ground for having it accessible while alcohol was being consumed? Possibly a criminal charge in and of itself? Yes. Murder? No.
Example B: Guy A gets drunk and decides he doesn't like B. Fight ensues. Both are about equal size, but guy A starts losing the fight, whips out <insert weapon> and splatters guy B all over the wall. Self defense? Good luck with claiming that, I'm going to be putting my bet on the family of the deceased suing guy A's pants off and screaming for him to be thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It wouldn't be self-defence purely because pulling a gun on an unarmed man is not considered "reasonable force" by any definition, unless perhaps said man was more than twice your body weight.
Can someone who actually knows these things explain the definition of "reasonable force"? As far as I understand it, "reasonable force" basically means you can't pull a gun or any other "lethal" weapon on someone unless they have done the same. This brings into question whether a baseball bat is a leathal weapon....
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited May 2005
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wouldn't be self-defence purely because pulling a gun on an unarmed man is not considered "reasonable force" by any definition, unless perhaps said man was more than twice your body weight. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ding ding ding, we have a winner here folks. But please re read example A, especially the part about the attacker heavily outweighing the defender. From your post you seem to have missed that part.
<a href='http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes' target='_blank'>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes</a> 790.001 of the florida state code: (13) "Weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, <b>billie</b>, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other <b>deadly</b> weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife.
For those of you who do not know what a "billie" is, think: Officers nightstick.
From <a href='http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/deadly-weapon.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.legal-explanations.com/definiti...adly-weapon.htm</a> Deadly weapon: n. A weapon, one that is designed to do harm such as a gun or knife or any object which can kill. Deadly weapons have been found in some court cases to be rocks and penises of AIDS inflicted sufferers as deadly weapons. The classification becomes vital when proving criminal charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
<a href='http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/assault3.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/assault3.htm</a> Deadly Weapon is defined as any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used
or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.4
With the information above, it would seem a large, blunt object, such as a baseball bat, would fit. Seeing as how, I repeat, we've been killing each other with clubs since Og decided he didn't like Ug having a shinier bear skin.
I don't think you can compare baseball bats (or knives, for that matter) to guns. A baseball bat will only kill people a couple feet next to you, can be blocked or dodged, and require a strong person to strike multiple times. It's possible for a drunk 5-year-old to kill someone with a gun. In addition, a baseball bat has a use that doesn't involve inflicting harm upon something.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
clam, your post gives the impression of someone who has very little experience with, say, a handgun. Would I be wrong in this assumption? It has been my exprerience that if one thinks you pick up a gun and become Neo, that the previous opinion is more rooted in too many movies rather than logic. Likewise if someone believes that while a gun is an all destroying AWP howitzer deathcannon, a blade or a rock or a screwdriver cannot POSSIBLY harm a human being unless its being used by a martial arts grandmaster or has someone wailing away for 30 minutes. Now, if you have a good deal of experience with firearms and hold these opinions, then fine. That's one thing. But if not, please, (If legal where you live) go to a range where you can shoot trap or skeet, or a modern rifle range with moving targets, and see how many of those easy, point and click targets you can hit. From experience I can say it may humble you a great deal.
It's POSSIBLE that a drunk 5 year old could put his mothers SUV into nuetral after his mother gets out to go rent a video at the store and crush you like a pancake as you walk through the parking lot. Its POSSIBLE that a drunk five year old will have a grand ol time playing with a fork and that funny little hole in the wall and manage to insert the fork at the exact moment you grab him and electrocute the both of you. If the 5 year old was drunk in the first place i'd say there are much, MUCH more serious problems at work here, ones that cannot be solved by taking away the firearm of John Q Smith, address 70 miles away, or taking away his ability to carry that firearm if he so chooses.
Would it also be fair to assume you've never heard of "Target shooting" before today? There are several flavors of it. IDPA? ISPC? Service rifle? 3-gun? But judging from the previous posts, I'm pretty sure someone will shortly say "Wait, those don't REALLY count because it's violent." So I guess archery is another sport that isn't really a sport? Javelin? Discus? Shot put? Hammer? Fencing? Boxing? Kendo? Marathon has military origins yes? That lump in with target shooting as well?
But...in the end neither of our OPINIONS matter at this point in time because it is not you or I comparing guns to baseball bats, it is the law and to an extent the discretion of the prosecutor.
That's not what Clam was arguing. A baseball bat requires strength, guns require skill - unless you're at baseball-bat range. They can be instantly lethal, baseball bats take work and noise.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
Baseball bats? Noise? Are you really going to compare a/several 140db+ (At the very least, disregarding suppressors. Even then it's -Only- a 110-120db explosion.) explosion(s?) to at most, screaming?
Admittedly, guns can kill instantly....If the bullet hits the brain, or spine, AKA Central Nervous System. Similarly, if someone gives you a good smack to the skull with a club, or a crowbar through your forhead, you tend to stop living.
I'm sorry folks but there are just not many places on the human anatomy that will cause IMMEDIATE death if shot. (Or stabbed or clubbed, for that matter.) Even if the heart is obliterated entirely, thats still a few seconds of oxygenated blood left in his system that he can still fight back with. Now, there ARE cases in which say, the police shoot an armed suspect, and while the shot didn't kill him, he simply realized he had been shot and fainted. Or shots that shouldn't have killed, causing shock...and the person dying. (Please make note: These are somewhat unusual cases.) There *is* a psychological impact that a firearm has that something like a knife does not, even though a good sized knife can inflict, quite easily, more damage. MY personal theory on that is the gunshot noise and the muzzle flash, and movies/TV portraying them as portable artillery pieces, bark is worse than the bite and all that.
Saying "Baseball bats require X and guns don't!" is a bit of taking the easy way out. It would be a bit like saying "Baseball bats don't require any skill! You just swing away!" which isn't quite the truth. Granted, you can get by with just swinging around, just like pointing and pulling the trigger a lot with a firearm. But the results will leave something to be desired (Even with a firearm at baseball bat range. You would definately be suprised.). <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> In the Real World If weapons are clearing sheaths and holsters, regardless of what you're armed with, you may well have to struggle for control of your weapon before it's over with.
Guns simplify the act of killing someone. Guns make it easier for someone to make a snap judgement and kill someone in a crime of passion. You point the gun at someone, you pull the trigger, the person gets hit with a bullet and becomes incapacitated or dies. Is it really that difficult to hit someone 5ft away?
Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives. You like target shooting? I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mathematically, guns have prevented 140x more crime in America then have committed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cite?
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited May 2005
"Guns simplify the act of killing someone" You walk by about 500 things every day that simplify the act of killing someone. Your point being?
"Guns make it easier for someone to make a snap judgement and kill someone in a crime of passion." Oh, you mean like fire extinguishers, frying pans, hammers, kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and cars? Oh wait, I must've forgot that before firearms the world was a crime-free utopia again. Silly me.
"Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives." The purpose of a gun is to propell a small metal projectile at great speed on command. Wether the path of the bullet goes to a paper target or someones skull is dependant on who is holding it. Same could be said for knives. The quality of the person holding it determines wether its cutting onions or cutting someones throat so they can steal a wallet.
"You like target shooting?" Yes, I do like target shooting, thank you for asking.
"I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?"
Ok. Since you have said plainly that you don't know much about them, I will indulge you.
Yes. They're simply better for a target shooting. But more importantly....Listen closely now...I. WANT. ONE. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with me, but at this point in time you DO have to respect it unless I become a danger to you and yours through recklessness. Kinda like how you do not have to come and obtain my approval before you get a computer system that could potentially be hacking mine, or stealing my identity.
(PS: paintball and airsoft can be very nice (and FUN!) "force on force" training tools when kept within reason, simunitions is better, but more hazardous and far more expensive. )
EDIT: We are veering off the topic and moving dangerously close to a RKBA debate. If we go off the edge we will begin to have circular arguements, which we already have, and the admins may come and release LOCK-DOR on us. Which would be bad. So lets not this time around eh?
Here's what seems to be the actual language of the new law, already posted on Florida's website. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012' target='_blank'>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm...%20012#0776.012</a>
Note, "imminent use of unlawful force." This doesn't just mean "I feel threatened because I'm sitting next to a 6'5" bouncer weighing 350 pounds." This means, "he was about to (murder me/hack off my leg/dropkick my friend off a bridge), so I shot him."
<!--QuoteBegin-semipsychotic+May 11 2005, 09:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (semipsychotic @ May 11 2005, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's what seems to be the actual language of the new law, already posted on Florida's website. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012' target='_blank'>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm...%20012#0776.012</a>
Note, "imminent use of unlawful force." This doesn't just mean "I feel threatened because I'm sitting next to a 6'5" bouncer weighing 350 pounds." This means, "he was about to (murder me/hack off my leg/dropkick my friend off a bridge), so I shot him." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-Code9+May 12 2005, 12:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Code9 @ May 12 2005, 12:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Guns simplify the act of killing someone" You walk by about 500 things every day that simplify the act of killing someone. Your point being?
"Guns make it easier for someone to make a snap judgement and kill someone in a crime of passion." Oh, you mean like fire extinguishers, frying pans, hammers, kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and cars? Oh wait, I must've forgot that before firearms the world was a crime-free utopia again. Silly me.
"Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives." The purpose of a gun is to propell a small metal projectile at great speed on command. Wether the path of the bullet goes to a paper target or someones skull is dependant on who is holding it. Same could be said for knives. The quality of the person holding it determines wether its cutting onions or cutting someones throat so they can steal a wallet.
"You like target shooting?" Yes, I do like target shooting, thank you for asking.
"I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?"
Ok. Since you have said plainly that you don't know much about them, I will indulge you.
Yes. They're simply better for a target shooting. But more importantly....Listen closely now...I. WANT. ONE. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with me, but at this point in time you DO have to respect it unless I become a danger to you and yours through recklessness. Kinda like how you do not have to come and obtain my approval before you get a computer system that could potentially be hacking mine, or stealing my identity.
(PS: paintball and airsoft can be very nice (and FUN!) "force on force" training tools when kept within reason, simunitions is better, but more hazardous and far more expensive. )
EDIT: We are veering off the topic and moving dangerously close to a RKBA debate. If we go off the edge we will begin to have circular arguements, which we already have, and the admins may come and release LOCK-DOR on us. Which would be bad. So lets not this time around eh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, a little about me and guns.
I love guns. No. More than that. At one point in my life I could have quoted you the vital statistics, muzzle velocity and manufacturing history of more or less any automatic man portable weapon system in the world (revolvers are dull). I've read books on ballistics, I've spent hundreds of hours on ranges and in weapons training, both as an instructor and as a user. I've fired almost every calibre of weapon below .50. I've even used assault rifles and light machine guns.
All of this I managed without joining the army or police, whilst living in the UK, where guns above .22 are now banned (since 1997). This achievement alone, as any UK citizen will agree, confirms me as a total gun nut.
Now on to the topic in question...
If I lived in America, it would be my democratic right to be able to carry, or at least posess a weapon capable of selectively killing three or four disparate targets <i>easily</i> within a 3 second timeframe.
America has the worst gun crime in the world. Guns are legal there. In the UK, gun crimes have been non existant up until recently. Unfortunately, shedloads of Jamaican and Eastern European criminals have brought guns and gun culture with them recently and as a result our gun crime is up 35%.
My conclusion?
<b>Guns do not belong in the hands of the public.</b>
Guns don't really make any difference in crimes of passion, except to increase the implication of a moment's misjudgement. It's hard work to beat someone to death with a candlestick. It's easy to be waving a gun around in a heated argument and for someone to get shot. This isn't a particularly good reason for a ban on firearms.
Knives kill people? Yes, with effort, at close range, one at a time. However, they suck. <b>Guns rule.</b> An untrained individual can probably get a kill within 21 feet. A competent individual can get several kills or fatal woundings within a couple of seconds. A knife on the other hand is much dicier, requires training or strength and comes with the added excitement that your opponent can take it off you and shove it up your arse. This is probably why every armed force in the world uses guns and not knives, cars, fire extinguishers or even tea cups. The comparison is just facetious. Criminals don't use guns because they listen to Eminem. They use them because they are perfect for the job.
You want a gun? I want a tactical nuclear warhead, but you don't see me trying to justify it based on the childish notion that I should get what I want. There's lots of things I'd like to be able to do and I can even justify them to a certain degree, but that doesn't mean I should be able to do them. I'd love to go around shooting retards who blame symptoms rather than causes, for instance. Again, your justification holds no water.
If your PC gets hacked, you get over it. If you get shot in the pancreas, your life will either suck indefinitely or be over. The comparison isn't valid.
The only justification I've ever seen for the "Right to bear arms" is enshrined under the constitution. However, that was a law written before mass communication and the global village.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortunately, until we live in a society that focuses on solving the economic and social issues that create crime, all we can do, in my opinion, is heavily regulate gun ownership.
Sadly, because some countries flood the international market with weaponry, we end up with guns on our streets.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited May 2005
EDIT: Total revision of post. Original was just...Bad. I blame lack of sleep, and the removal of babblers.
Ok well first thing is first. You imply that the USA has the worst gun crime of any nation because of the legal right of a US citizen to own a firearm, and then say that, despite massive gun control measures (comparitively) the UK hasn't freed itself of that particular problem. So, keeping in mind that it has not solved your gun crime problem, explain to me why it is a good thing for the common peasant to be disarmed by law, while the bad guys, by your own post still have arms? Also please explain to me how that applies to Florida? Over here, not only do our police NOT have the ability to be everywhere at once, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to come to your rescue, merely to protect the public as a whole (As i've already said once before.). For the record I know the reasons for this ruling, understand them, and to a point agree with them. That however is another topic.
Secondly, "I want one" is not a justification. That is the REASON I buy <x>. The justification is something you tell someone ELSE to get them to stop breathing down your neck/agree/conceed/whatever. What I buy, unless it poses an immediate danger to those around me, requires no justification. (This does of course not apply to those of you who are married, for the wifey knows all, and your suffering will be great. If she is also a shooter, you may find your new purchase annexed <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
You also go on to say that arms in the hands of the public is a bad thing. Would I be wrong in assuming that arms in the hands of police and military are just fine in your opinion? If so, why? Does a badge, or the patch of a flag, and, for example, a yearly 40 round qualification at 21 feet (in the case of the local PD.) give them some superhuman control over thier tempers and a jedi like mastery over firearms that mere mortals cannot hope to attain?
Gun vs. knife I will not even bother with. I'm tired of having to repeat myself and people not reading my posts. It's rude and I have no time for it. If someone thinks I have not given enough information, or doesn't believe that a firearm is dismal where terminal ballistics meet the human body, fine, send me a message on AIM and I will happily supply all the info you can stand.
And you talk about guns on the streets...Perhaps that isn't automatically a bad thing?
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
Okey dokey.
"America has the worst gun crime in the world." Negatory good buddy. Have a look see at Columbia and Brazil.
"Unfortunately, shedloads of Jamaican and Eastern European criminals have brought guns and gun culture with them recently and as a result our gun crime is up 35%."
Not much of a gun culture in Jamaica, all privatly owned firearms are banned.
"Guns don't really make any difference in crimes of passion, except to increase the implication of a moment's misjudgement. It's hard work to beat someone to death with a candlestick."
Humans have managed to kill each other in huge numbers before the advent of firearms.
"Knives kill people? Yes, with effort, at close range, one at a time. However, they suck. Guns rule. An untrained individual can probably get a kill within 21 feet. A competent individual can get several kills or fatal woundings within a couple of seconds. A knife on the other hand is much dicier, requires training or strength and comes with the added excitement that your opponent can take it off you and shove it up your arse."
And they've killed hundreds upon thousands of people. Very nearly the entire Rwandan genocide was committed with big ole' knives.
"This is probably why every armed force in the world uses guns and not knives, cars, fire extinguishers or even tea cups."
They use them because they are good for keeping people at a distance and away from your space where they'd be using them as well as knives. I don't think anyone would say that fielding firearms in anyway without training yeilds positive results.
"If your PC gets hacked, you get over it. If you get shot in the pancreas, your life will either suck indefinitely or be over. The comparison isn't valid."
You know, you could have used your own gun to not get shot in the pancreas.
"The only justification I've ever seen for the "Right to bear arms" is enshrined under the constitution. However, that was a law written before mass communication and the global village."
Truth, but so was the 1st Amendment, want that restricted too?
I don't want to get too embroiled in this, but I believe we can all agree that it is easier to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger with a finger rather than attack with a blunt / sharp object that requires the use of a lot more muscle power.
Perhaps if the US had a gun-free culture for a very very long time, like some countries, gun crimes would be very low due to the difficulty in obtaining fire arms. However, guns have been in the US culture for a long time, and suddenly banning fire arms won't work that well since many people still have them.
Sort of like when aliens get their 2nd hive up. Continuing with old hive 1 tactics would get you massacred, gotta escalate the conflict with prototech to stand a chance.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited May 2005
Or perhaps if a criminal knew that to apply his trade, he would be taking very serious chances, they'd rethink thier plans. Check out the crime rate per 100,000 of Montpelier vs Washington DC. One city has the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. One has very few. (DISCLAIMER: Before I get flamed, I know that it is not simply availibilty of firearms causing such a massive difference. It *IS* a factor however.)
Perhaps if firearms were banned, or were banned for years, they'd simply manufacture thier own in addition to theft and smuggling, and prey on a populace legally placed at a disadvantage?
Perhaps your 2nd hive analogy is correct. Here, under an hour away, a man took an AK, a flak jacket and a kevlar vest to a local courthouse to kill his wife and son. Someone carrying a pistol concealed attempted to stop him, managed to hit Mr. AK twice (To little effect, bullets didn't go through the armor) and was then killed. Two things to note about this case are #1 the man with the AK was a felon and so had no legal ability to own either body armor or firearms, period. #2 "Armor piercing" pistol ammunition is banned here, last I checked.
Who did gun control help here? Maybe I have missed something, but it does not appear to have been the good guys. Especially when under a month later I turn on the TV to see an attempt to EXPAND the definition of "Armor piercing".
It took the shootout in north hollywood (You know, the one where the police had to borrow rifles from a gun shop before SWAT arrived, and the one where the bad guys had *illegal* full autos and armor?) for the police higher ups to realize "Hey, maybe we should start issuing rifles again, pistols and shotguns just aren't cutting it for a fight like this".
<!--QuoteBegin-BadKarma+May 13 2005, 05:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BadKarma @ May 13 2005, 05:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Unfortunately, shedloads of Jamaican and Eastern European criminals have brought guns and gun culture with them recently and as a result our gun crime is up 35%."
Not much of a gun culture in Jamaica, all privatly owned firearms are banned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a note: I'm fairly sure he's talking about London and the Yardies here, not Jamaica itself.
Comments
"He had a gun, he was going to shoot me"
Case closed, no consiquences. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
in philadephia, PA (PA is a pretty lax state when it comes to gun restrictions) they made a pro gun restriction law in an attempt to curb gun related gang violence.
It worked but not in the way they wanted it too.
People stopped shooting each other and started using baseball bats instead.
I dont know about you but I think Ill take my chances getting shot (perhaps not even in the chest/head) than definitaly getting my skull crushed in by a baseball bat to the face.
That above comment was also supported by the ER staff at the local hospitals.
And btw, why does everyone hate the police?
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Man. police are like the lawyers. Everyone hates them until they need 'em.
People stopped shooting each other and started using baseball bats instead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as the bat swinger wasn't on roids ... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
People breaking laws is not news. Neither is them getting tossed in the slammer afterwards.
- To the steroids comment -
Perhaps you missed the past few thousands of years of human history, during which large blunt objects (Much like baseball bats!) were used by average men, to kill other average men? Quite effectively, I might add.
It does not matter WHAT tool a determined man uses to try and kill you with, if you don't stop him, directly or indirectly, you will be dead.
Example A: Guy A gets drunk and guy B decides he doesn't like guy A for <insert reason> and commences a beatdown. Guy A is outweighed by guy B by about 75 pounds. Guy A takes <insert object> and manages to kill guy B. Is it irresponsible to get in a drunken fight? If the object used was a gun is he on shaky ground for having it accessible while alcohol was being consumed? Possibly a criminal charge in and of itself? Yes. Murder? No.
Example B: Guy A gets drunk and decides he doesn't like B. Fight ensues. Both are about equal size, but guy A starts losing the fight, whips out <insert weapon> and splatters guy B all over the wall. Self defense? Good luck with claiming that, I'm going to be putting my bet on the family of the deceased suing guy A's pants off and screaming for him to be thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wouldn't be self-defence purely because pulling a gun on an unarmed man is not considered "reasonable force" by any definition, unless perhaps said man was more than twice your body weight.
Can someone who actually knows these things explain the definition of "reasonable force"? As far as I understand it, "reasonable force" basically means you can't pull a gun or any other "lethal" weapon on someone unless they have done the same. This brings into question whether a baseball bat is a leathal weapon....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ding ding ding, we have a winner here folks. But please re read example A, especially the part about the attacker heavily outweighing the defender. From your post you seem to have missed that part.
<a href='http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes' target='_blank'>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes</a>
790.001 of the florida state code: (13) "Weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, <b>billie</b>, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other <b>deadly</b> weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife.
For those of you who do not know what a "billie" is, think: Officers nightstick.
From <a href='http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/deadly-weapon.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.legal-explanations.com/definiti...adly-weapon.htm</a>
Deadly weapon:
n. A weapon, one that is designed to do harm such as a gun or knife or any object which can kill. Deadly weapons have been found in some court cases to be rocks and penises of AIDS inflicted sufferers as deadly weapons. The classification becomes vital when proving criminal charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
<a href='http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/assault3.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/assault3.htm</a>
Deadly Weapon is defined as any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used
or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.4
With the information above, it would seem a large, blunt object, such as a baseball bat, would fit. Seeing as how, I repeat, we've been killing each other with clubs since Og decided he didn't like Ug having a shinier bear skin.
It's POSSIBLE that a drunk 5 year old could put his mothers SUV into nuetral after his mother gets out to go rent a video at the store and crush you like a pancake as you walk through the parking lot. Its POSSIBLE that a drunk five year old will have a grand ol time playing with a fork and that funny little hole in the wall and manage to insert the fork at the exact moment you grab him and electrocute the both of you. If the 5 year old was drunk in the first place i'd say there are much, MUCH more serious problems at work here, ones that cannot be solved by taking away the firearm of John Q Smith, address 70 miles away, or taking away his ability to carry that firearm if he so chooses.
Would it also be fair to assume you've never heard of "Target shooting" before today? There are several flavors of it. IDPA? ISPC? Service rifle? 3-gun? But judging from the previous posts, I'm pretty sure someone will shortly say "Wait, those don't REALLY count because it's violent." So I guess archery is another sport that isn't really a sport? Javelin? Discus? Shot put? Hammer? Fencing? Boxing? Kendo? Marathon has military origins yes? That lump in with target shooting as well?
But...in the end neither of our OPINIONS matter at this point in time because it is not you or I comparing guns to baseball bats, it is the law and to an extent the discretion of the prosecutor.
Admittedly, guns can kill instantly....If the bullet hits the brain, or spine, AKA Central Nervous System. Similarly, if someone gives you a good smack to the skull with a club, or a crowbar through your forhead, you tend to stop living.
I'm sorry folks but there are just not many places on the human anatomy that will cause IMMEDIATE death if shot. (Or stabbed or clubbed, for that matter.) Even if the heart is obliterated entirely, thats still a few seconds of oxygenated blood left in his system that he can still fight back with. Now, there ARE cases in which say, the police shoot an armed suspect, and while the shot didn't kill him, he simply realized he had been shot and fainted. Or shots that shouldn't have killed, causing shock...and the person dying. (Please make note: These are somewhat unusual cases.) There *is* a psychological impact that a firearm has that something like a knife does not, even though a good sized knife can inflict, quite easily, more damage. MY personal theory on that is the gunshot noise and the muzzle flash, and movies/TV portraying them as portable artillery pieces, bark is worse than the bite and all that.
Saying "Baseball bats require X and guns don't!" is a bit of taking the easy way out. It would be a bit like saying "Baseball bats don't require any skill! You just swing away!" which isn't quite the truth. Granted, you can get by with just swinging around, just like pointing and pulling the trigger a lot with a firearm. But the results will leave something to be desired (Even with a firearm at baseball bat range. You would definately be suprised.). <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> In the Real World If weapons are clearing sheaths and holsters, regardless of what you're armed with, you may well have to struggle for control of your weapon before it's over with.
Case Closed.
Lock Thread.
Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives. You like target shooting? I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mathematically, guns have prevented 140x more crime in America then have committed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cite?
"Guns make it easier for someone to make a snap judgement and kill someone in a crime of passion." Oh, you mean like fire extinguishers, frying pans, hammers, kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and cars? Oh wait, I must've forgot that before firearms the world was a crime-free utopia again. Silly me.
"Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives."
The purpose of a gun is to propell a small metal projectile at great speed on command. Wether the path of the bullet goes to a paper target or someones skull is dependant on who is holding it. Same could be said for knives. The quality of the person holding it determines wether its cutting onions or cutting someones throat so they can steal a wallet.
"You like target shooting?" Yes, I do like target shooting, thank you for asking.
"I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?"
Ok. Since you have said plainly that you don't know much about them, I will indulge you.
Yes. They're simply better for a target shooting. But more importantly....Listen closely now...I. WANT. ONE. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with me, but at this point in time you DO have to respect it unless I become a danger to you and yours through recklessness. Kinda like how you do not have to come and obtain my approval before you get a computer system that could potentially be hacking mine, or stealing my identity.
(PS: paintball and airsoft can be very nice (and FUN!) "force on force" training tools when kept within reason, simunitions is better, but more hazardous and far more expensive. )
EDIT: We are veering off the topic and moving dangerously close to a RKBA debate. If we go off the edge we will begin to have circular arguements, which we already have, and the admins may come and release LOCK-DOR on us. Which would be bad. So lets not this time around eh?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012' target='_blank'>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm...%20012#0776.012</a>
Note, "imminent use of unlawful force." This doesn't just mean "I feel threatened because I'm sitting next to a 6'5" bouncer weighing 350 pounds." This means, "he was about to (murder me/hack off my leg/dropkick my friend off a bridge), so I shot him."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012' target='_blank'>http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm...%20012#0776.012</a>
Note, "imminent use of unlawful force." This doesn't just mean "I feel threatened because I'm sitting next to a 6'5" bouncer weighing 350 pounds." This means, "he was about to (murder me/hack off my leg/dropkick my friend off a bridge), so I shot him." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
"Guns make it easier for someone to make a snap judgement and kill someone in a crime of passion." Oh, you mean like fire extinguishers, frying pans, hammers, kitchen knives, screwdrivers, and cars? Oh wait, I must've forgot that before firearms the world was a crime-free utopia again. Silly me.
"Guns have no purpose or than killing or damaging a living thing, unlike baseball bats or knives."
The purpose of a gun is to propell a small metal projectile at great speed on command. Wether the path of the bullet goes to a paper target or someones skull is dependant on who is holding it. Same could be said for knives. The quality of the person holding it determines wether its cutting onions or cutting someones throat so they can steal a wallet.
"You like target shooting?" Yes, I do like target shooting, thank you for asking.
"I don't know much about guns, but do you actually need a bullet to enjoy target shooting, rather than a paintball or plastic BB? Wouldn't an Airsoft gun work just as well?"
Ok. Since you have said plainly that you don't know much about them, I will indulge you.
Yes. They're simply better for a target shooting. But more importantly....Listen closely now...I. WANT. ONE. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with me, but at this point in time you DO have to respect it unless I become a danger to you and yours through recklessness. Kinda like how you do not have to come and obtain my approval before you get a computer system that could potentially be hacking mine, or stealing my identity.
(PS: paintball and airsoft can be very nice (and FUN!) "force on force" training tools when kept within reason, simunitions is better, but more hazardous and far more expensive. )
EDIT: We are veering off the topic and moving dangerously close to a RKBA debate. If we go off the edge we will begin to have circular arguements, which we already have, and the admins may come and release LOCK-DOR on us. Which would be bad. So lets not this time around eh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, a little about me and guns.
I love guns. No. More than that. At one point in my life I could have quoted you the vital statistics, muzzle velocity and manufacturing history of more or less any automatic man portable weapon system in the world (revolvers are dull). I've read books on ballistics, I've spent hundreds of hours on ranges and in weapons training, both as an instructor and as a user. I've fired almost every calibre of weapon below .50. I've even used assault rifles and light machine guns.
All of this I managed without joining the army or police, whilst living in the UK, where guns above .22 are now banned (since 1997). This achievement alone, as any UK citizen will agree, confirms me as a total gun nut.
Now on to the topic in question...
If I lived in America, it would be my democratic right to be able to carry, or at least posess a weapon capable of selectively killing three or four disparate targets <i>easily</i> within a 3 second timeframe.
America has the worst gun crime in the world. Guns are legal there. In the UK, gun crimes have been non existant up until recently. Unfortunately, shedloads of Jamaican and Eastern European criminals have brought guns and gun culture with them recently and as a result our gun crime is up 35%.
My conclusion?
<b>Guns do not belong in the hands of the public.</b>
Guns don't really make any difference in crimes of passion, except to increase the implication of a moment's misjudgement. It's hard work to beat someone to death with a candlestick. It's easy to be waving a gun around in a heated argument and for someone to get shot. This isn't a particularly good reason for a ban on firearms.
Knives kill people? Yes, with effort, at close range, one at a time. However, they suck. <b>Guns rule.</b> An untrained individual can probably get a kill within 21 feet. A competent individual can get several kills or fatal woundings within a couple of seconds.
A knife on the other hand is much dicier, requires training or strength and comes with the added excitement that your opponent can take it off you and shove it up your arse. This is probably why every armed force in the world uses guns and not knives, cars, fire extinguishers or even tea cups. The comparison is just facetious. Criminals don't use guns because they listen to Eminem. They use them because they are perfect for the job.
You want a gun? I want a tactical nuclear warhead, but you don't see me trying to justify it based on the childish notion that I should get what I want. There's lots of things I'd like to be able to do and I can even justify them to a certain degree, but that doesn't mean I should be able to do them. I'd love to go around shooting retards who blame symptoms rather than causes, for instance. Again, your justification holds no water.
If your PC gets hacked, you get over it. If you get shot in the pancreas, your life will either suck indefinitely or be over. The comparison isn't valid.
The only justification I've ever seen for the "Right to bear arms" is enshrined under the constitution. However, that was a law written before mass communication and the global village.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortunately, until we live in a society that focuses on solving the economic and social issues that create crime, all we can do, in my opinion, is heavily regulate gun ownership.
Sadly, because some countries flood the international market with weaponry, we end up with guns on our streets.
Ok well first thing is first. You imply that the USA has the worst gun crime of any nation because of the legal right of a US citizen to own a firearm, and then say that, despite massive gun control measures (comparitively) the UK hasn't freed itself of that particular problem. So, keeping in mind that it has not solved your gun crime problem, explain to me why it is a good thing for the common peasant to be disarmed by law, while the bad guys, by your own post still have arms? Also please explain to me how that applies to Florida? Over here, not only do our police NOT have the ability to be everywhere at once, but the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to come to your rescue, merely to protect the public as a whole (As i've already said once before.). For the record I know the reasons for this ruling, understand them, and to a point agree with them. That however is another topic.
Secondly, "I want one" is not a justification. That is the REASON I buy <x>. The justification is something you tell someone ELSE to get them to stop breathing down your neck/agree/conceed/whatever. What I buy, unless it poses an immediate danger to those around me, requires no justification. (This does of course not apply to those of you who are married, for the wifey knows all, and your suffering will be great. If she is also a shooter, you may find your new purchase annexed <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
You also go on to say that arms in the hands of the public is a bad thing. Would I be wrong in assuming that arms in the hands of police and military are just fine in your opinion? If so, why? Does a badge, or the patch of a flag, and, for example, a yearly 40 round qualification at 21 feet (in the case of the local PD.) give them some superhuman control over thier tempers and a jedi like mastery over firearms that mere mortals cannot hope to attain?
Gun vs. knife I will not even bother with. I'm tired of having to repeat myself and people not reading my posts. It's rude and I have no time for it. If someone thinks I have not given enough information, or doesn't believe that a firearm is dismal where terminal ballistics meet the human body, fine, send me a message on AIM and I will happily supply all the info you can stand.
And you talk about guns on the streets...Perhaps that isn't automatically a bad thing?
"America has the worst gun crime in the world."
Negatory good buddy. Have a look see at Columbia and Brazil.
"Unfortunately, shedloads of Jamaican and Eastern European criminals have brought guns and gun culture with them recently and as a result our gun crime is up 35%."
Not much of a gun culture in Jamaica, all privatly owned firearms are banned.
"Guns don't really make any difference in crimes of passion, except to increase the implication of a moment's misjudgement. It's hard work to beat someone to death with a candlestick."
Humans have managed to kill each other in huge numbers before the advent of
firearms.
"Knives kill people? Yes, with effort, at close range, one at a time. However, they suck. Guns rule. An untrained individual can probably get a kill within 21 feet. A competent individual can get several kills or fatal woundings within a couple of seconds.
A knife on the other hand is much dicier, requires training or strength and comes with the added excitement that your opponent can take it off you and shove it up your arse."
And they've killed hundreds upon thousands of people. Very nearly the entire Rwandan genocide was committed with big ole' knives.
"This is probably why every armed force in the world uses guns and not knives, cars, fire extinguishers or even tea cups."
They use them because they are good for keeping people at a distance and away from your space where they'd be using them as well as knives. I don't think anyone would say that fielding firearms in anyway without training yeilds positive results.
"If your PC gets hacked, you get over it. If you get shot in the pancreas, your life will either suck indefinitely or be over. The comparison isn't valid."
You know, you could have used your own gun to not get shot in the pancreas.
"The only justification I've ever seen for the "Right to bear arms" is enshrined under the constitution. However, that was a law written before mass communication and the global village."
Truth, but so was the 1st Amendment, want that restricted too?
Perhaps if the US had a gun-free culture for a very very long time, like some countries, gun crimes would be very low due to the difficulty in obtaining fire arms. However, guns have been in the US culture for a long time, and suddenly banning fire arms won't work that well since many people still have them.
Sort of like when aliens get their 2nd hive up. Continuing with old hive 1 tactics would get you massacred, gotta escalate the conflict with prototech to stand a chance.
Perhaps if firearms were banned, or were banned for years, they'd simply manufacture thier own in addition to theft and smuggling, and prey on a populace legally placed at a disadvantage?
Perhaps your 2nd hive analogy is correct. Here, under an hour away, a man took an AK, a flak jacket and a kevlar vest to a local courthouse to kill his wife and son. Someone carrying a pistol concealed attempted to stop him, managed to hit Mr. AK twice (To little effect, bullets didn't go through the armor) and was then killed. Two things to note about this case are #1 the man with the AK was a felon and so had no legal ability to own either body armor or firearms, period. #2 "Armor piercing" pistol ammunition is banned here, last I checked.
Who did gun control help here? Maybe I have missed something, but it does not appear to have been the good guys. Especially when under a month later I turn on the TV to see an attempt to EXPAND the definition of "Armor piercing".
It took the shootout in north hollywood (You know, the one where the police had to borrow rifles from a gun shop before SWAT arrived, and the one where the bad guys had *illegal* full autos and armor?) for the police higher ups to realize "Hey, maybe we should start issuing rifles again, pistols and shotguns just aren't cutting it for a fight like this".
Perhaps you are right and it IS time to upgrade.
Not much of a gun culture in Jamaica, all privatly owned firearms are banned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a note: I'm fairly sure he's talking about London and the Yardies here, not Jamaica itself.