Ballistic "Fingerprinting"

[billvon 3,088]

>But that's where the firearms=freedom issue jfields brought up
> comes in. People may choose to defend their family however they
> decide is best.

Oh, I agree. People have the right to make decisions that I think are foolish, as long as they don't endanger me or my family.

>This is where others infringe on my freedom. I am free to
> defend "life liberty and [my] pusuit of happiness." You can decide
> whether guns are right for you. You may NOT decide whether or not
> they are right for me. That's MY choice.

Again, I agree. Subject to a few conditions (i.e. you haven't committed a crime with a gun, you are mentally competent etc) then you can choose to defend yourself with a gun if you want.

[jfields 0]

  Quote

You can decide whether guns are right for you. You may NOT decide whether or not they are right for me. That's MY choice.

I agree with almost all of this. I have decided that guns are not right for me. I may not decide whether they are or are not right for you. It is not my place. It is your choice, provided that the courts grant you that choice. We both have an indirect say in that issue, by how we vote.

[Kennedy 0]

  Quote

I think just different. I lived in Rio de Janeiro in high school, and have lived and worked in several less-desirable parts of Houston since then. I've never been particularly scared, and never really let it affect what I wanted to do. I don't really speak for Kallend, but I know what worked for me. I just don't think that being armed to the teeth is the only way to deal with the uncertainties of urban life. I'm not stupid, and probably not particularly brave in the sense you're thinking of either. Wendy W.

OK, that's your determination to make, but nobody is trying to pass a law saying that you are required to carry. Somebody is trying to pass a law saying I am REQUIRED to NOT be carrying. They are trying to take my ability to choose away from me.

Hence my problem is with people trying to stop me from carrying, not people who choose not to carry themselves.

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

[Kennedy 0]

  Quote

It is your choice, provided that the courts grant you that choice. We both have an indirect say in that issue, by how we vote.

This is where we disagree. I say the courts be damned, I'll own firearms regardless. This is one instance where I would break the law knowingly and intentionally. The slaves in the south didn't give a shit what the courts said. Their ability to choose was not recognized by the courts, but they knew what was theirs to take, and they did in any possible way. Put me in that position, and I'll do the same.

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

[Kennedy 0]

OOH RAH!!

A meeting of the minds!! Yippee

And on this happy note, I'm out of here for today. It's quiting time here in MD.

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

[billvon 3,088]

>OK, that's your determination to make, but nobody is trying to pass
>a law saying that you are required to carry. Somebody is trying to
> pass a law saying I am REQUIRED to NOT be carrying. They are
> trying to take my ability to choose away from me.

Again, no one on this thread has suggested that you not be allowed to carry a gun. The thread started over whether it might make sense for the police to be able to identify the gun you are carrying if it is ever used in a crime, and I think that's a good idea - as long as it does not restrict the right to carry one (under applicable state laws.)

I was once a student of a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Steve came upon you in a street, and he wanted your gun, he could take it from you. It would be too bad, if such a thing happened, to have an unidentifiable gun at large. Had it been my gun that had been taken, I would feel badly if it were used to kill people. If ballistic fingerprinting were available, at least the police would have a starting point (i.e. they would know who it was taken from, and I might know what my assailant looked like.)

[jfields 0]

  Quote

I say the courts be damned...This is one instance where I would break the law knowingly and intentionally

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.

  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?

[steve1 5]

[

From 1978 to 1981 I lived on the south side of Chicago (31st and State for those familiar with the area). I still work there. By any measure this is considered one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA - absolutely no comparison to any part of Montana. I manage to go about my daily life unarmed and without fear, and by "using our heads" neither I nor my family have ever felt threatened in any way.

[steve1 5]

I was once a student of a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Steve came upon you in a street, and he wanted your gun, he could take it from you.
..........................................................................
If you let any criminal get too close to you there is a danger of this happening. That is why police are trained not to let a criminal get that close. If they are holding a person at gun point, you tell them not to come closer. If they do you can legally shoot. I watched this once in a real life scenario on the news. A cop had a guy at gun point. He told him not to take another step. The guy did and was seriously wounded by the policeman. Everyone was crying foul, but the police officer was aquitted on all charges. This is something everyone needs to know if they are in a similiar situation. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this karate guy wouldn't take my gun away. Steve1

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

  Quote

From 1978 to 1981 I lived on the south side of Chicago (31st and State for those familiar with the area). I still work there. By any measure this is considered one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA - absolutely no comparison to any part of Montana. I manage to go about my daily life unarmed and without fear, and by "using our heads" neither I nor my family have ever felt threatened in any way.

It's one of the worst neighborhood sin Chicago and you've never felt threatened? You walk around without fear? Boy, you're brave. Or stupid.

"Well, gee, I live in a dangerous neighborhood, but I've never been attacked, just lots of others. But I'm not those others, so I have nothing to worry about." Is THAT your mentality?

How bad can a neighborhood be that you go about your business not worrying about where you are? I can walk around a friends acres-wide property where nothing has ever happened but still be constantly aware that it could.

I didn't say I wasn't aware of my location. I said I used my head. I don't know of a single one of my unarmed colleagues (and that's all of them) who is paranoid with fear, either. The reason is clear, almost all violent crime around here relates to drug turf wars or stealing guns. No drugs and no guns to steal, why would they bother a bunch of college professors?

Maybe you should try using your head instead of doing the John Wayne thing. Have you heard of "device dependence"?

I am amazed by how many homicide victims are themselves armed (well, not really amazed, it's quite predictable).

[billvon 3,088]

>If you let any criminal get too close to you there is a danger of this
> happening. That is why police are trained not to let a criminal get
> that close.

Yeah, but hard to do on (say) a subway. Someone tried to mug me in Times Square once, and even afterwards I couldn't keep people from "getting too close" - the crowd was just too thick (New Year's Eve.) In such a situation, a gun is a definite liability.

>I'd bet dollars to donuts that this karate guy wouldn't take my gun
> away.

Believe me, he could. It wouldn't even be a contest. He can move faster than you can think.

[kallend 2,115]

Well, none of the Texans came up with the homicide statistics for Houston and Dallas so:

FBI statistics for 2001

Houston 8.3 homicides per 100,000 population
Dallas 8.7 homicides per 100,000 population

Interesting compared with

London 2.4 per 100,000
Belfast 5.3 per 100,000 (say, don't they have a terrorist problem)
Sydney 1.3 per 100,000

Apparently you're safer on the streets of Belfast than Dallas.

[steve1 5]

Bill,
I've taken a fair amount of karate in my day and I don't know anyone anywhere who is faster than a bullet. If you kept this guy at say fifteen feet and told him not to move or he was going to get shot, there is a chance that he might get you but the odds would be stacked way in my favor. In a home defense situation I'd bet my life on it. (not just donuts).

Yes, there are scenarios where a pistol wouldn't be a good weapon. Of course you wouldn't open fire in a crowded subway, you would probably want to keep it concealed until a better time to pull it out. Much of this ties into a person's common sense or proper training. In most scenarios a pistol would be a very effective tool to save your life. Steve1

[steve1 5]

Kallend,
It may be true that it is safer in many other countries, but what is your point? Steve1

[jfields 0]

Kallend can certainly speak for himself, but I would assume his point is a refutation of the often-asserted "fact" that a substantial degree of private firearm ownership contributes to a lower crime rate. In specific, people had quoted the alleged drop in crime after the initiation of a concealed carry law. But that is just my assumption about what he means..

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

Kallend,
It may be true that it is safer in many other countries, but what is your point? Steve1

Justin said it pretty well.

However, just to make sure the point is not lost:

The US has a far, far higher homicide rate than any other western industrialized country.

The rates of other felonies are similar in the US and the other western nations. It is only in homicides that the US is way out of line. (Source - USDOJ)

The US is the only western industrialized country that does not have serious controls on firearms ownership.

Around 70% of US homicides involve firearms as the murder weapon. (Source - FBI). The fraction in other western nations is more like 7%.

The US is also way out of line with all other western nations in "accidental" firearms deaths. (Source - US CDCP)

In places where concealed carry laws are claimed to reduce crime, the crime rates are still no lower than in other western nations and the homicide rates are still way higher.

Note that the data come from US government sources, not kookie web sites on either extreme of the debate.

Anyone that denies a correlation/causation has to be either biased or has some hard explaining to do.

[steve1 5]

>>The US has a far, far higher homicide rate than any other western industrialized country.

.........................................................
"I talked about this earlier. Yes America has a very high homicide rate, but this is also due to many other factors aside from the availability of guns."
..........................................................

>>The rates of other felonies are similar in the US and the other western nations. It is only in homicides that the US is way out of line. (Source - USDOJ)

..........................................................
"I talked about this earlier. There are other reasons why America is so violent, other than the availability of guns."
..........................................................

>>The US is the only western industrialized country that does not have serious controls on firearms ownership.

...........................................................

"Of course. It's guaranteed in our constitution. It's one of our constitutional rights. Other countries do not enjoy the same freedoms that we do."

...........................................................

>>Around 70% of US homicides involve firearms as the murder weapon. (Source - FBI). The fraction in other western nations is more like 7%.
. ..........................................................

"Does this really mean anything? In other countries it is often impossible to own a gun. How can you commit a homicide with one if none are available."

............................................................
>>The US is also way out of line with all other western nations in "accidental" firearms deaths. (Source - US CDCP)

...........................................................

"Again this statistic is meaningless. If it is impossible to own a gun, or if all guns are confiscated by the government, how can there be a firearm death?"

...........................................................

>>In places where concealed carry laws are claimed to reduce crime, the crime rates are still no lower than in other western nations and the homicide rates are still way higher.
...........................................................

"That doesn't mean that concealed carry laws don't help to reduce crime. It would make more sense to make this comparison between states that have concealed carry laws and those that don't. Again the U.S. is a violent place for a host of reasons. Comparing it to other Western Countries with different cultures is again meaningless in my mind."

..........................................................

Note that the data come from US government sources, not kookie web sites on either extreme of the debate.

Anyone that denies a correlation/causation has to be either biased or has some hard explaining to do.

[happythoughts 0]

""I talked about this earlier. Yes America has a very high homicide rate, but this is also due to many other factors aside from the availability of guns."
Right. The US is just a more violent country.
Guns are the tool of choice. If you want to compare uncomparable statistics, remember that Japan has a higher rate of sword murders/suicides than the US. Are swords the problem? They are just different cultures. Yes, the US has a higher murder rate. Does Switzerland have drug gangs murdering each other all the time?
Here's an interesting thought: If they take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, what effect would this have on the crime rate?
In Florida, they did 2 things. If you use a gun in a crime, it's 10 years. Also, we started keeping criminals locked up. 80% of the violent crimes were caused by 10% of the criminals. Habitual criminals in jail, crime went down.
There are other causes to crime. It's criminals and the attitude towards violence in the societies.

[AggieDave 6]

  Quote

In Florida, they did 2 things. If you use a gun in a crime, it's 10 years. Also, we started keeping criminals locked up. 80% of the violent crimes were caused by 10% of the criminals. Habitual criminals in jail, crime went down.

In Texas we just execute them and move along with our lives...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jfields 0]

  Quote

In Texas we just execute them and move along with our lives...

As long as you only fry/inject the guilty ones, I'd have to agree that it would definitely reduce crime. Right now, lots of people where I live are wishing Maryland didn't have a moratorium on capital punishment.

[bmcd308 0]

>>It is your choice, provided that the courts grant you that choice. We both have an indirect say in that issue, by how we vote. <<

And this is where the problem comes in. Neither of us should have an indirect say in that issue - that would mean that the definitions of basic freedoms chnage with the "whim of the mob", one of the very problems with democracy that our Founders hoped to avoid by having a Bill of Rights.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[AggieDave 6]

Just about all the systems the founding fathers put in place was to protect the nation from the "whim of the mob." From how elections are run (especially presidental) to the steps that have to be taken to...well, I'm not going to go into it, everyone here knows what I'm talking about.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[bmcd308 0]

>>And that separates you from the "thugs" you are worried about in what way?<<

Morality. As Dr. King said, we are obligated to break laws that offend our morality. There have been a number of "bad" laws in this country in the past, and the only way they got changed was for good people in society to break them and for good people on juries to refuse to convict them.

BMcD...

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[bmcd308 0]

Possibly, but what does that have to do with guns. I am willing to bet that there are more than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 population in Houston and Dallas that take place with no weapon at all (hands and teeth).

The fact that we Americans have a culture devoid of morality does not necessarily mean that disarming the good people will make them safer.

BMcD...

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[AggieDave 6]

  Quote

The fact that we Americans have a culture devoid of morality does not necessarily mean that disarming the good people will make them safer.

Take my gun, I've still got the defense knives I carry. Take those, I've still got the 4 years of Tae Kwon Do. Take that and I'm still one big mutha fucker...cut my legs and arms off, I'm going to bite and spit at you while you try to mug me. Its all about attitude...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."