Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[rushmc 23]

>I don't own any guns because I fear bureaucrats far more than I fear criminals.


I DO own any guns because I fear bureaucrats far more than I fear criminals.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,078]

>Today, at the gym where I work out, I was watching a group of police
> train. They were practicing this exact scenario.

If a gun owner had this training, I would agree that they would stand a better chance of not having their gun taken away from them by an assailant. From my observations most gun owners do not get such training.

I think we've been over all this about three times, so I figure I'll just say my position and leave it at that.

-I think most people should be able to buy guns if they want them. The only things that should disqualify a person should be proven mental incompetence (i.e. cannot tell right from wrong) or use of a gun in a crime.

-I think that gun registration is a non issue as long as it does not hinder your ability to get a gun. If it helps enforce laws against illegal gun use, it should be implemented.

-I think that ballistic fingerprinting is a good idea - again, as long as it does not hinder your ability to get a gun. This is true even if it's 75% effective instead of 100% effective.

-I think that a gun is a far less effective deterrent than most gun supporters believe it is. I think it's like an FXC 12000 used as an AAD - it can hurt you or help you. If you want the protection and are willing to live with the risk, then go for it. As with AAD reliance in skydiving, it can sometimes do more harm than good, but that is based not on the gun itself but on the attitude of the person using it.

[steve1 5]

If a gun owner had this training, I would agree that they would stand a better chance of not having their gun taken away from them by an assailant. From my observations most gun owners do not get such training.
..........................................................................
Bill,
I respect your opinion. I agree that training is important. As you mentioned earlier this is at times very expensive. I think much of this training can be self taught though. I received some training in the army. I was once a weapons specialist, trained in both light and heavy weapons, on a special forces A-team. But to tell you the truth probably the best training I have had is shooting a gun from the time I was about six. Not only shooting, but hunting. As kids we started out with BB guns and graduated to 22's. What little I know about self defense training I learned mostly from books and magazines. I also have a brother who teaches firearm training in the police academy so he was a source of info. But I'm no expert in this area by a long shot. All I know is that I like the idea of keeping my family safe and I don't want to give up that right. Steve1

[jfields 0]

Steve,

Quote

Last I heard there are over 20.000 gun laws on the books now in the US. Will more really make any difference in stopping crime.

I'm not advocating more laws. I'm advocating better laws, and more uniformity of laws. Many of the laws on the books are probably dumb. Get rid of them. I'm not supporting an ever-growing bureaucracy. My ideal goal would be to make gun ownership a non-issue, because people were so safe and conscientious that it wouldn't make a difference. But I think human nature makes my ideal unobtainable.

Quote

As long as they are managed carefully, why is this needed? I have different guns for different purposes. I use one for birds, another for deer, another for elk, and so on.

As long as they are carefully managed, I don't care whether you have one slingshot or an arsenal. The problem is the great number of gun owners who aren't as responsible as you. Kids do get their hands on their parents weapons, and that shouldn't happen. Guns do get stolen and used for crimes. Otherwise good people do lose their cool behind a weapon and succumb to the power they posess.

Quote

I'll tell you government over-regulation and even the BATF scare me.

They can annoy me too. But I'm more worried about the other direction. I'm not a fan of anarchy, and a post-apocalyptic scenario where our government fails is scarier. Yet I'm not willing to stockpile guns, convert my life savings to gold and build a bunker in my basement to prepare for that contingency. The sacrifice of quality of life and social exclusion are not justified to me by the slim chance of that occurring. But that is my choice, and other may choose differently.

Quote

But I think you also need to have respect for our country's constitution and what it stands for. Our basic rights aren't something that should be given up easily. Lot's of good people fought and died to get these rights and others have fought and died to keep them. Did all these people give up their life just so someone can manipulate the constitution to their own whim? I think not.

I have a great respect for our country's constitution and what it stands for. I was sincere when I swore to defend it upon enlistment in the Army. What I do dispute is the assertion that firearm ownership is a constitutionally-promised right, other than in a role in defense of our country. I don't think my view is a manipulation of the constitution. Neither does the Supreme Court. The writers of our country's essential documents new what they were talking about, but they also realized that they couldn't see every contingency that might ever come up in the future of an entire country. That is why they made it possible for the laws to be changed. They made sure that it wouldn't be easy, to help guard against mob-mentality changes being passed through.

Gun control and private firearms ownership are hot-button issues right now. That is especially true where I live. You can't imagine it. Six of the sniper killings were within 5 miles of my home. It was allegedly done with a legally-purchased borrowed weapon. Many people are calling for complete and instant banning of firearms. I'm against that. I see it as an overreaction. Luckily for the gun owners, the laws will not change overnight, even though they'd probably pass a popular vote right now. In the same way, gradual changes to improve safety and responsibility would appease many gun control activists, save lives, yet still let people own firearms. I do not understand why safety and responsibility are opposed. I think our constitution and the principles on which it was founded give us a moral obligation to make firearm ownership safer, to guard the rights (and very lives) of all citizens.

[mnischalke 0]

You know, I think it has been mentioned, but has anyone noticed the "slippery slope" this thread has traveled down. It was started questioning the validity of so-called ballistic fingerprinting. It quickly evolved into the question of guns in general, and even calling the intent of the Second Amendment of the Constitution into question. Now, does anyone else see how this stuff works? It's not just the lobbies or politicians. It is us, here, today. It starts with something that seems rather benign, then it evolves into questioning god-given rights of self-defense.

While we are here...

You may not be able to defend yourself, and you may need the government to do it for you. Unfortunately, Johnny Law doesn't travel everywhere with every person, protecting them day and night. He may take as much as 20 minutes to respond to an urgent 911 call. That's not his fault, it's just logistics. I prefer to take care of myself. If someone breaks into my house while I am home, I am assuming he is quite willing to take my life or the lives of my family. I sure as hell am not going to take a moment to question his intent. Nope. Secure my family and then two in the chest, one in the head. Problem solved.

Guns are used 2.5 million times each year to prevent crime. Anti's haven't even been able to dispute this.

Now, on to Amendment II, of the Constitution of the United States of America, written as part of the Bill of Rights ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. "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."

The anti's hang their hopes on the prepositional phrase at the beginning of the Amendment, and the misguided ideal that this Amendment, unlike the other nine of the original Bill of Rights, does not apply to individuals. This is an utter twisting of the truth. Please look at the prepositional phrase for a moment. It says "Militia," which was considered at the time to be every, able-bodied male citizen of this nation not the national guard, not the army. That's EVERY ABLE MAN who could come to the defense of the nation during times of attack from enemies, both foreign and domestic. If you look past this phrase, the context is clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I do not blame anyone in this country for being misled by a few elitists, who would love to make everyone believe that guns are the root of the problems we have, or even that a ban would cure them--all for the goal of control over the masses without fear of repercussion. I do not blame people for exercising their right to speak their mind granted under Amendment I of the Bill of Rights. The only thing I ask is that you not pass judgment for exercising my God-given rights to defense and deriving enjoyment and mental discipline from shooting. If you are afraid of firearms, take a shooting class. If you don't want to own a firearm, don't. Just never tell me I should not own one (or more). I have not been tried and convicted of a felony, therefore my rights as an American citizen are in full force.

Should you ever be somewhere and your life is in jeopardy, and I happen to be around, you will be very happy that my rights are still intact. Guns save lives--maybe yours (which is why I believe all women should be armed at all times as an equalization tool in a violent world of inequality).

Peace,

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jfields 0]

Mike,

I brought up the whole "Slippery Slope" issue way earlier in this thread, as did someone else. I agree with you that the whole issue is all about that, in both directions.

I agree with you that the masses are being misled by a few elitists. We just disagree on who they are. In your interpretation of the second amendment and belief in gun ownership as a "god-given right", you are directly inferring that the supreme court are the conniving elitists, because they have a markedly different interpration from yours. I'd say that the elitists trying to swindle the public are the NRA and bought politicians.

On a personal note, how did you manage to get firearm ownership as a "God-given right"? If you are religious, and that tight with God, there are a lot of other things I'd ask for instead.

[rushmc 23]

The Supreme Court has never stated that firearm ownership is a collective right governed by the State. The case that the anti-gunners use only stated that a sawed off shotgun was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, earlier this year, stated that the right of the "Individual" to own firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The Courts agree with the NRA.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jfields 0]

Quote

The Courts agree with the NRA.

We'll just disagree on that one. There is a wide range of precedence in the other direction, including decisions of the Supreme Court. We could start quoting cases and citations at each other, but that has actually already happened in this thread and it doesn't accomplish anything.

[rushmc 23]

4 years ago I had no idea what was behind the Gun Control debate. I spent nearly a year looking into what was going on. I even read the Federalist Papers! I am quite confident when I say 'I do not believe you can produce any evidence coming from court cases, that back up your assertion.' If it, the evidence, is out there please tell and the others that are following this thread, where it is? I have an open mind I am willing to learn.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jfields 0]

McRush,

Check post #23 of this thread, back when it was still about ballistic fingerprinting. There are plenty of cases backing the anti-gun cause, and also some backing your side. As I said then, the courts are split, but it is certainly not clearly and unequivocably backing the NRA view.

Quote

I have an open mind I am willing to learn.

I appreciate that. As I learned while in the thread, I decided that the ballistic fingerprinting or whatever we call it, makes no sense if it is not generally accurate.

[kallend 2,108]

This question is addressed to those who feel insecure unless they have a gun to defend themselves (several people in this thread have said as much).

If you visit a foreign country (Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany...) where there are really tough gun controls, and you may not take your gun with you, do you feel threatened and insecure? If so, why? If not, why not?

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Last I heard there are over 20,000 gun
laws on the books now in the US. Will more really make any difference in stopping
crime.

20,000 or 20,000,000 doesn't matter. The only set of laws that matter is the lowest common denominator that is actually enforced. All the others can be circumvented with ease. Morton Grove, IL, has a total ban, but it's also unenforced and unenforcible, so it might as well not exist. NYC, Chicago and Washington DC have strict laws, but a quick ride to a gun show in the suburbs and you're in business.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

... but a quick ride to a gun show in the suburbs and you're in business.

So, in reference to your prior post, you think that Canada has tough gun laws. But according to this, a quick drive across the border and presto, trunk full of stuff. Are Canada's laws of any value? So they don't have any effect?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And that separates you from the "thugs" you are worried about in what way? Isn't it the courts of our country that decide what is right and what is wrong for our country? We vote and serve on juries as our part of those decisions.

Let's see. I'm not a thug, and I don't hurt others. I don't break laws. I have a clean conscience. They have no conscience.
The courts interpret the law. When judges are deciding what is right and wrong, things are already bad. Their job is to mediate and interpret, not decide morality. I vote, and I do jury duty.

Quote

Quote

but they knew what was theirs to take, and they did in any possible way...I'll do the same

Bank robbers and rapists think the same way. If each person is entitled to act in any way they want, who is to judge if you refute the jurisdiction of our court system and laws? Nobody? Do you truly think anarchy is better than democracy?

People ARE entitled to act the way they want. I judge people around me just the way they do me. This is why I will live someplace predominantly Christian and that values freedom and responsibility. That's not anarchy, THAT'S civilization and democracy. What you are professing is socialism.

Would you say the slaves were wrong for taking their freedom? After all, the law, and the courts' interpretations of it, said one thing, but they did something else. The courts, and the government are not always right. On most any other topic, you'd be the first to agree with me. Didn't you have a few things to say on the topic of "I'm from the government, I'm here to help?"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[steve1 5]

Kallend,
The gun shows I've been to still include mountains of paper work including background checks, waiting periods on pistols etc. This wasn't the case a few years ago, but the story is different now. This is pertaining to Montana. I'm sure many states have even tougher laws and restrictions regulating gun sales at gun shows. Steve1

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Since you declined to answer the question, I will assume the homicidal had a GUN.

And so did the people who stopped him. Which is why they were able to stop him.

Quote

Was the homicidal a felon prior to the incident? Was he declared mentally incompetent prior to the incident? Was he allowed to come by the gun legally, or did he steal it from some careless but legal gun owner?

He had obtained it long ago by legally purchasing it. Passed all the background checks. He did not have any felony convictions. Totally competent. He had been fired recently by someone present.

Quote

One might be tempted to point out than in most western industrial nations, those who "go postal" for various reasons generally don't have easy access to a gun, and going postal with a box cutter is far less likely to kill a lot of people than going postal with a gun.

Box-cutter. Did you mean to set this up? How many thousand people in NYC and DC would disagree with you. But if maybe the pilot(s) had been armed with a gun loaded with frangible rounds, maybe they'd all be alive today.

Besides, going postal doesn't happen all that often. Something like 85% of all crime is committed by less than 10% of all criminals [I'm sure you can find the DOJ stats for that one]. I'm worried about career criminals, or as I call them, thugs.

Quote

Why can't you guys just be honest and admit than owning a gun makes you feel more manly and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Instead the gun lobby comes up with all sorts of bogus arguments to explain away the fact that the US has a major problem with gun violence that other similar nations don't have, without admitting that it has anything to do with gun ownership.

round and round we go. OK, AGAIN, violence happens here. Right. It happens because guns are here. WRONG. It happens for too many reasons to mention, but the largest one I see is inner-city illegitemacy and inner-city drug market / gang abundance. Didn't you say the people getting knocked off in your neighborhood are gangbangers and drug dealers?

Owning a gun does make me feel manly in that I believe it's a man's job to defend hearth and home. It does give me a warm fuzzy feeling deep down. That feeling comes from knowing I CAN DEFEND MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.

as an aside: why are pro-gunners "lobbyists" and anti-gunners "advocates" in your vocab?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jfields 0]

Quote

People ARE entitled to act the way they want.

Really? So what the recent sniper was doing is cool by you? Hey, he is entitled to act the way he wants. Just sucks to be one of the victims, huh?

I don't think you believe that. But you aren't acknowledging the role of laws in setting boundaries of what people can and cannot do. We decide the laws, through the channels of government. I'm not saying those channels are efficient, but the laws we create generally reflect the middleground of the country's wishes over the long term.

Without laws, (or with them if totally unobeyed), what you are proposing is anarchy. Valuing freedom, responsibility, the laws we have created for our country, and our role in maintaining our country is democracy.

Quote

Would you say the slaves were wrong for taking their freedom?

Are you saying that having to register ownership of a gun is equivalent to slavery? If so, I think that is demeaning to human life and the fundamentals of freedom you claim to value.

In regards to slavery, I'm with you. I see a higher justification for the violation of laws pertaining to the ownership of humans. I'm not a totally inflexible "law-freak". But I also have a great deal of problem with equating human slavery to mere firearm registration.

Quote

The courts, and the government are not always right.

True. So we have a choice. Do we choose to work to fix the courts and change the bad laws, or do we just decide to throw the whole system and our constitution out and start over with something else? I'm in favor of helping to fix our system, rather than trying to subvert it.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Please explain the discrepency between quoting the second amendment and professing your utter disregard for the law. If you feel that your personal value system makes you exempt, how is that different than a criminal's justification of their actions? Is it merely that your chance to act has not yet come up, while the criminal's did, making them a criminal?

I explained that in a recent post.

Quote

I'm not saying you are a bad person, or that you'll randomly go off shooting someone.

No, I'm not a bad person and I won't and don't go around randomly shooting people.

Quote

But the underlying principles you state are directly in conflict with both the laws and the truth. I'm not saying that guns can't be used correctly in self defense on occasion.

The best estimate of guns being used to defend people from violent crime is somewhere between one and two million times, every year. There is no specific number for many reasons. The truth depends on what is fact. You appear to accept things as fact that I believe are complete lies.

Quote

But you are attempting to explain away and negate every factual circumstance involving deaths to innocent people, misrepresenting opinion as fact and simply ignoring the body of evidence that contradicts your opinion.

I am not ignoring anything. Statistics are only valid as what they measure. I look beyond what they tell me to what they are showing me. "I believe what I see, I don't see what I believe." Look back in this thread to when kallend mentioned the "43 times more likely." I refuted that with facts of the study and did not recieve a reply. Besides, I can say everything I just quoted about you and the gun control lobby.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Another person believing that "red neck beer swilling bumpkins" are the ones "blowing each other away" in recond numbers.

Well, you could pick any pair of names; any location, any presumed ethnicity, any religion. It's easy to pick on rednecks here in Texas, but the concept is the same regardless.

Right, you can chage all those things. But it seems to be Jose and Carlos, or Malcom and Shebazz, a lot more often than Billy Bob and Jimmy Dean.

The crime is happening in certain places for a reason. The reason is not the guns. You mentioned Texas, and someone has quoted rates for Houston or Dallas. What I haven't seen is any stats for tiny little towns in the middle of nowhere in Texas, where the number of guns to the number of people is a whole lot higher. Why? The guns in the little town don't get used to kill people as often as the few illegal guns in the cities.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I do believe people are entitled to act as they please. I didn't say they were always right to do so. I believe in a free society, with PERSONAL responsibility.

I'm saying taking away freedom is the same as taking away freedom, and it's always wrong for a government to do to its people.

Quote

So we have a choice. Do we choose to work to fix the courts and change the bad laws, or do we just decide to throw the whole system and our constitution out and start over with something else? I'm in favor of helping to fix our system, rather than trying to subvert it.

Well, the slaves tried fixing the courts too. Remember the Dred Scott(sp?) case? Well, we haven't gotten that far yet, thankfully, and I hope we never do. I was answering your question that was posed in a hypothetical future.

Right now, I am working to fix the system [read: government as a whole] and limit the courts back to their intended role. I happen to read the constitution very closely, and don't believe in trashing ANY part of it, even those that don't concern me as much. I don't want to start over. I want to bring things back onto the tracks leading in the original direction.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,545]

[replyThe crime is happening in certain places for a reason. The reason is not the guns.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

20,000 or 20,000,000 doesn't matter. The only set of laws that matter is the lowest common denominator that is actually enforced. All the others can be circumvented with ease. Morton Grove, IL, has a total ban, but it's also unenforced and unenforcible, so it might as well not exist. NYC, Chicago and Washington DC have strict laws, but a quick ride to a gun show in the suburbs and you're in business.

So you're saying laws don't work? You're saying what matters is what someone decides to do? That laws only stop the lawabiding?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

The crime is happening in certain places for a reason. The reason is not the guns.

care to share what that reason is?

You said it yourself. "They have more homogeneous populations, and they're less crowded." They also have almost no gangs and less drugs running through. Why is that? I've seen 50 page dissertations on that answer. Our inner-cities are violent. Why? Too big to say here. But it's not simply becasue there are guns are there.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Really? So what the recent sniper was doing is cool by you? Hey, he is entitled to act the way he wants. Just sucks to be one of the victims, huh?

Justin, you really surprised me with this one. You really think this is what he meant? I don't think you do.

This is exactly the type of thing that pisses me off. I own guns and believe in my God-given rights as an American (you may debate me on this, but God-given are words of the architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), but somehow I or people like me become grouped with disturbed individuals who commit heinous crimes. I take serious offense to this characterization. It would be like me calling all gun-banners Nazi sympathizers who revel in the blood of 6 million disarmed Jews. It's ridiculous.

A couple years back, right after an incident of a young criminal terrorizing his school with a gun, a man in California ran down a group of school children with his car--intentionally killing little kids. While the news reports had been painted wall to wall with the evils of and easy access to guns, the news media generously donated short spots to the plight of the children in the vehicular murder case, and that was it. So, using your logic applied to this case, should you as a driver be painted with the same brushstrokes as this murderer?

I ask you to think before you make these kind of characterizations in the future.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Look back in this thread to when kallend mentioned the "43 times more likely." I refuted that with facts of the study and did not recieve a reply.

I looked back and couldn't find that quote, nor any refutation of it by you. Maybe you'll give a better reference to help me find it.


I gave the source of every statistic I quoted - and they were all government sources. Maybe you don't trust the FBI and DOJ, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft? Please explain how your "facts" refute the government's.