Where is our BASEBALL BAT CONTROL, and WHY DIDN'T THESE PEOPLE GET SAVED BY THE POLICE?!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

If we don't get BASEBALL BAT CONTROL LEGISLATION, [I]MORE WILL DIE NEEDLESSLY AND BRUTALLY[/I].

SIX people killed with BASEBALL BATS over a fuckin' VIDEO GAME SYSTEM

Quote

(CNN) -- Authorities in Deltona, Florida, have arrested and charged four people in the killings of six people in a rental home, Volusia County's sheriff said Sunday.

Sheriff Ben Johnson said the murder was organized by a man who was angry because he believed his Xbox video game system and some clothes had been stolen.

Alleged ringleader Troy Victorino, 27, has not confessed, but three teenagers Johnson said Victorino recruited to assist him have, Johnson said. The three were identified as Robert Cannon, 18; Jerone Hunter, 18; and Michael Salas, 18.

All are charged with first degree murder and armed burglary.

The Associated Press reported that Victorino has a criminal record.

The four killers, armed with aluminum baseball bats, forced their way into the home where the victims were in beds early Friday morning, and beat them to death -- just as Victorino planned, Johnson said.

The victims, four men and two women, also sustained knife wounds, but autopsies showed the blunt force trauma from the bats killed them, the sheriff's office said.

The victims had no chance to arm themselves or fight back, Johnson said. "There was no way they could really defend themselves."

All of the victims experienced severe trauma -- and one body was so badly mangled that it has not yet been officially identified, he said.

"This is the worst thing I've ever seen in my career," Johnson said.

This is one fucked up state in one fucked up country in one fucked up world, man. How is it that people who were even able to bring themselves to do this were walking around as free people just minutes beforehand? That's fuckin' chilling. They were able to get themselves to smash bodies until they were unrecognizable -- there, in person, with baseball bats!

Some people who are anti-gun say that guns make killing too "impersonal" because you don't have to get right up close (despite the fact that yes, most gun murders happen right up pretty damned close). I guess this disproves that theory. Imagine the horrifying sound of bat on skull, bat on spine, bat on radius and ulna, bat on ribs, bat on hip... and being the kind of person who can hit again and again and again until a human being is a smashed thing lying in its own blood on the floor.

Now imagine doing it not because you were wronged, not because someone had brutally victimized you and been released by the courts -- imagine doing it because your friend was pissed off because his video game system had been stolen, and he asked you to come with him to murder six people for it.

Suffocation in a vat of human feces is too kind a death to give these shitwads.

Now, it's true that the police claim the victims had no chance to defend themselves. I question whether that is absolutely true. When these guys arrived, what if one person had been in a bedroom when the attacks began, and had a gun in there, and came out with a Beretta 96 pointed at the four scumbags who are armed with bats?

So for those who argue against guns for self defense, and tell us that the police are what we should use for protection -- um, why weren't the police like Superman watching over these people? Why didn't they swoop in and protect innocent lives? Could it possibly be that the police are a protection only in the abstract, and we need to protect ourselves?

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Ron 7]

Thats it...Its getting insane. Its time we outlaw bats.

It's clear that they kill, and don't give me that crap line about "Bats don't kill people, people kill people".

Or "If we outlaw bats, only outlaws will have them".

What are we as a civilized society to do? We must stop the making and selling of bats.

"If there were no bats, there would be no bat crimes".

Think of the children...Bats are glamorized in such movies as "The Natural" , and "Babe Ruth Story"...They are show how to use them by such movies as "Scarface"...

We must band together to outlaw bats.....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[FallRate 0]

Perhaps the most chilling aspect is the motivation of the three teenagers. What were they offered? A turn on the XBox!?

FallRate

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Perhaps the most chilling aspect is the motivation of the three teenagers. What were they offered? A turn on the XBox!?

FallRate

Now, I don't go around stealing anybody's anything, but all the same, sometimes people get picked as victims for no apparent reason. That's why I maintain a readiness to use a firearm to defend myself if something bizarre like this were to befall me, and advocate that others do the same. In a case like this, YOU are the only person who has a chance of saving you. There may have been a cop on patrol half a block away, but what good did it do these people?

The world is a fucked-up place, and people like these animals could be on line right behind you at the supermarket. It pays to be prepared.

And you're right, that's part of what's so chilling to me about this crime: what the fuck, these "friends" didn't need any real motivation to go and commit the most brutal murders just to "help" out their buddy?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[FallRate 0]

Well, here's to hoping that the accused don't have any funerals coming up!

FallRate

[Botellines 0]

I don´t think anyone denies the fact that maybe at some point of your life a gun can come handy. What anti gun people claim is that in general for the society, easy access to a gun gives more harm than good.
This 6 guys may (or may not) be alive if they had a gun. But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion? If he had no gun, he may kill him instead with a knife, but also if those murderers had guns the victims would most likely be dead anyway.
It all comes down to that unstable people should have no acess to any short of weapon (gun or no gun), but how do you track all the unstable people? The point is that with a gun it is much easier to kill a person, although someone determined to do it will use any short of weapon.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion?

I don't know, you tell me. Are you just making that statment because it sounds good or because you actually have some knowledge that is a problem?

So tell me, how many lives have been wasted by a driver with a bad temper shooting another driver?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So tell me, how many lives have been wasted by a driver with a bad temper shooting another driver?

Well, there was an instance of a CHL carrier in TX using his weapon after road rage...that's not the full story, though. The CHL holder shot a man from his car seat, after trying to fend off a severe beating. A man ran the CHL holder off the road, ran up to his car, starting beating him through the open window. As a last resort the CHL holder shot and killed the other man. The CHL holder had to go to the hospital due to a severe concusion and to recieve quite a few stitches due to this event. The court ruled that it was truely self defense and that the CHL holder might have been bludgened to death via the other man's fists.

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

[Botellines 0]

I don´t know either, it was a rhetoric question. I know there has been some, but i am sure i can find on the net some statistics that will prove my point (so can you with your point)
I was just pointing out the line of thinking that some people have for wanting a more strict control of guns.
Anyway, it is obvious that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than in a fist fight or with a knife.

[beowulf 1]

What is the number of times that a person legally able to carry a gun has killed some one for no good reason?
Laws only apply to law abiding citizens.

[Ron 7]

Quote

easy access to a gun gives more harm than good.

Got proof or is this just a claim from the left?

Quote

But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion?

Got proof or is this something you saw in a movie?

Quote

It all comes down to that unstable people should have no acess to any short of weapon (gun or no gun), but how do you track all the unstable people? The point is that with a gun it is much easier to kill a person, although someone determined to do it will use any short of weapon.

So if you really want to kill someone you will do it anyway right? So why outlaw the only way for you to defend yourself against that?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

don´t know either, it was a rhetoric question. I know there has been some, but i am sure i can find on the net some statistics that will prove my point (so can you with your point)
I was just pointing out the line of thinking that some people have for wanting a more strict control of guns.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I fully understand what the thought process behind people advocating gun control is. However it's based on a fallacy. Before you advocate restricting something, don't you think you should have a reason besides a gut feeling?

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I fully understand what the thought process behind people advocating gun control is. However it's based on a fallacy.

Why is it based on a fallacy? can you prove it? The statistic we have are either way too biased or don´t include all of the variables that may affect the outcome, so they are pretty useless. My point is at least as valid as yours.

Quote

Before you advocate restricting something, don't you think you should have a reason besides a gut feeling?

Of course. However, you too advocate restricting something because of a gut feeling. Would you allow anyone to have hand granades at home? what about a lion for a pet? or weapon grade plutonioum. The only diference is were you draw the line, i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control.

[Luv2Fall 0]

What's wrong with you people? Guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I don´t think anyone denies the fact that maybe at some point of your life a gun can come handy. What anti gun people claim is that in general for the society, easy access to a gun gives more harm than good.

They can "claim" that all day long.
In the end, they cannot prove nor demonstrate any truth to the claim.

But studies of defensive gun usage estimate 800,000 to 2.5 million such usages each year in the United States. That dwarfs the total number of people killed using guns even if we include all the suicides and lawful killings in with the person-on-person criminal homicides.

Quote

This 6 guys may (or may not) be alive if they had a gun. But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion?

You're the one making the claim. Why don't you tell us how many? Until you do, all you're doing is spouting off unsubstantiated phantom fears.

Quote

If he had no gun, he may kill him instead with a knife, but also if those murderers had guns the victims would most likely be dead anyway.
It all comes down to that unstable people should have no acess to any short of weapon (gun or no gun), but how do you track all the unstable people? The point is that with a gun it is much easier to kill a person, although someone determined to do it will use any short of weapon.

And so at the end of all your hemming and hawing, you
a) have not shown that guns are used so much more often to harm than to save
b) still point out that determined people will find the means to kill, and will kill, even if they have no guns. So making sure that good, honest, defensive people have no guns will not save people from getting murdered.

Thanks for making my case for me.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Luv2Fall 0]

Projection is a powerful defense mechanism, IMO........just an impression I get from a post of two of yours.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I don´t know either, it was a rhetoric question. I know there has been some, but i am sure i can find on the net some statistics that will prove my point (so can you with your point)
I was just pointing out the line of thinking that some people have for wanting a more strict control of guns.
Anyway, it is obvious that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than in a fist fight or with a knife.

You ask rhetorical questions that you can't answer and then use your own unfounded "conclusions" based on a hypothetical answer to argue that guns are bad for citizens to have, and shouldn't be owned by the general populace.

I wonder if you have any idea how ridiculous that ends up sounding.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control.

Here is some homework reading for you.

"Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws", October 3, 2003.

Summary:
"During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws.

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

If they can't prove that any gun laws are effective, then those gun laws should be rescinded!

And since they couldn't prove what they hoped, they couldn't resist adding this little bit of disclaimer: "Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." Hah! In other words, they still cling to the hope that passing gun laws will actually make criminals obey gun laws.

Here are some examples of what they found, by type of gun law:

"Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases."

"Restrictions on firearm acquisition. Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases."

"Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase."

"Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent."

"'Shall issue' concealed weapon carry laws. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible." work!

"Child access prevention laws. ...the findings of existing studies were inconsistent."

"Combinations of firearms laws. ...available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent."

Despite decades of ever-increasing restrictions on gun ownership, they still can't come up with even a single case where gun laws have proven to have reduced gun injuries or crime.

Gun laws don't work!

Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I fully understand what the thought process behind people advocating gun control is. However it's based on a fallacy.

Why is it based on a fallacy? can you prove it? The statistic we have are either way too biased or don´t include all of the variables that may affect the outcome, so they are pretty useless. My point is at least as valid as yours.

Quote

Before you advocate restricting something, don't you think you should have a reason besides a gut feeling?

Of course. However, you too advocate restricting something because of a gut feeling. Would you allow anyone to have hand granades at home? what about a lion for a pet? or weapon grade plutonioum. The only diference is were you draw the line, i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control.

Think again.........

To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England

England`s increasingly repressive firearms laws often are praised by those who would restrict the American right to arms, so it is important to realize that those firearms laws, which now prohibit the private possession of handguns, rest heavily on one foundation--the British gun owner licensing system.

The right to keep and bear arms had been alive in England for eight centuries when Parliament enacted the Pistols Act of 1903. The Act, which prohibited the sale of pistols to minors and felons, also dictated that pistols could be sold only to those who possessed a gun license. Since the license could be obtained at a post office with only the payment of a fee, and since no license was required to keep a pistol solely in the home, there was no opposition. But within a few short years, the licensing system had moved from the post office to the police station. Suddenly, Britons who wanted to own handguns--or rifles--had to prove they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit. Shotguns were considered "sporting" and were exempted from licensing requirements until 1967.

Anti-gun lobbyists in the United States have called for a "needs-based licensing" system and some politicians have lined up to do their bidding.

Is licensing gun owners a good idea? After all, "we license people to drive cars don`t we?" If requiring gun owners to obtain a government license seems like a harmless idea to you, you may want to know about "Firearms Form 101." That`s the "Application For A Firearms Certificate" that must be filled out by Britons in order to purchase a rifle or muzzleloading handgun. A separate form is required for a "shotgun certificate."

Section 27 of the Firearms Act of 1968 (as amended by the 1997 Act) requires a chief officer of the Police Firearms Licensing Department to be satisfied that the applicant is "fit to be entrusted with a firearm." (Emphasis added) As the applicant, you must provide:

Your home address for the last three years.
Your occupation and business address.
Information about previous convictions, including traffic violations.
Information about any history of Epilepsy.
Information about past treatment for drug use, depression or nervous disorders.
The name of your doctor, and permission for the police to search your medical records to obtain "factual details" about your medical history.
A list of the firearms you already own, including caliber, type, maker`s name and serial number.
A list of the ammunition you already own, including caliber and quantity.
A list of the firearms you wish to purchase, stating the reason for wanting to purchase them and where you plan on shooting or hunting with them.
A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you wish to possess at any one time, by caliber.
A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you plan to purchase at any one time, by caliber.
An address where the guns will be stored, for possible future inspection.
Information about whether you have previously held a firearms certificate, or a shotgun certificate.
A letter signed by the secretary of your shooting club or each landowner where you plan to hunt attesting to the fact that you have permission to shoot at those locations.
Four passport size photos of yourself.
A fee of L56 (approximately $90).
As an applicant, you must also designate two "referees" who will fill out a reference form regarding your character. This form will never be shown to you even though it weighs heavily in the final decision to approve or deny the application. The "referees" must:

Have known you for at least the last two years.
Not be a member of your family, a firearms dealer, a police officer or a police employee.
Be of "good character."
Sign the application form declaring that it has been answered truthfully.
Sign and date the back of one of your passport photos attesting that it is an accurate representation of you at that time.
Explain in what capacity they have known you.
Indicate if they are members of a shooting club, and if so their license number and role in the club.
Provide their "opinion as to the applicant`s suitability to possess firearms."
Provide information on your personal history, including any history of emotional problems, mental or physical disabilities and explain how knowledge of the information was gained.
Explain any difficulties you have with members of your family which "may give cause for concern given that a firearm or ammunition may be available in the household."
Explain their knowledge of your experience with firearms.
Explain their knowledge of your attitude toward firearms.
Be subjected to a background check and allow personal information to be held on a police computer.
These measures have put Draconian regulations on the law-abiding gun owners of Great Britain and done little to reduce crime. On Jan. 16, 2000, the London Times published an article about the increase in gun crimes, and bemoaning the fact that there are an estimated three million unregistered guns in the nation. Besides confirming the inescapable fact that criminals don`t bother to license their guns, the article stated that fatal shootings in London more than doubled between 1998 and 1999, and overall armed crime rose 10%.

So, if licensing honest gun owners doesn`t reduce crime--and how could it?--what is the real purpose? For British gun owners, the answer came too late, when the government that licensed them finally decreed that they were not "fit to be entrusted" to own handguns for any reason. Gun owners in the U.S. cannot plead ignorance--here the true purpose of licensing gun owners was defined nearly a quarter-century ago by the first Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. "Our ultimate goal," Pete Shields said, is "to make the the possession of all handguns and handgun ammunition . . . totally illegal ("The New Yorker , July 26, 1976)

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. I fully understand what the thought process behind people advocating gun control is. However it's based on a fallacy.

Why is it based on a fallacy? can you prove it? The statistic we have are either way too biased or don´t include all of the variables that may affect the outcome, so they are pretty useless. My point is at least as valid as yours.

Quote

Before you advocate restricting something, don't you think you should have a reason besides a gut feeling?

Of course. However, you too advocate restricting something because of a gut feeling. Would you allow anyone to have hand granades at home? what about a lion for a pet? or weapon grade plutonioum. The only diference is were you draw the line, i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control.

Then add this....


Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries` crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of (England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

That is some pretty fucked-up shit right there.

And I've read several times in the last few years (the most recent being last week) about psychos using BLADED weapons to commit mass murders. (A few years ago, a guy killed 8 children in a school, and the other week, someone killed several people in a family over some "simmering hatred" issue.)

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

That is some pretty fucked-up shit right there.

And I've read several times in the last few years (the most recent being last week) about psychos using BLADED weapons to commit mass murders. (A few years ago, a guy killed 8 children in a school, and the other week, someone killed several people in a family over some "simmering hatred" issue.)

-

Scary as hell!!!!

Did you hear about the court case in either Boston or New York (and I may have that wrong) where a person filed suit against the police. The case stated that the police took too long to get to the seen after a 911 call. If I remember right some one ended up being murdered.

Anyway, the part of the case that really caught my attention was the verdict. Not guilty of course but the judge said it was unreasonable to expect the police to be able to protect the citizens. They could not stop crime and violence and therefore could only be reasonably expected to catch and punish.

If that is not a case for self defense I do not know what is.

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

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Not guilty of course but the judge said it was unreasonable to expect the police to be able to protect the citizens

Of course it's unreasonable to expect the police to be able to protect all of the citizens, hell, I'm not even sure that they can protect MOST of the citizens. I'd love to know where the idea came from that it isn't. People - the police are report writers - with the exception of a few sting operations here and there they show up AFTER the crime has been committed. Why trust anyone but yourself to protect you? It just isn't realistic.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 3]

Quote

So tell me, how many lives have been wasted by a driver with a bad temper shooting another driver?

I guess you didn't live in Los Angeles during the 1980s. It continues to this day, all be it in much lower numbers.

http://www.google.com/search?q=road+rage+incidents+in+los+angeles&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Of course it's unreasonable to expect the police to be able to protect all of the citizens, hell, I'm not even sure that they can protect MOST of the citizens. I'd love to know where the idea came from that it isn't. People - the police are report writers - with the exception of a few sting operations here and there they show up AFTER the crime has been committed. Why trust anyone but yourself to protect you? It just isn't realistic.

Yeah, it's amazing that a judge even has to say it. Police could protect citizens from crime by doing things like:

1) Searching all people, houses, papers, effects and seizing items and people suspected of wrongdong therefrom.
2) Executing suspected criminals
3) Holding suspects on unreasonably large bails.
4) Taking all guns from all citizens by the aforementioned methods.

Of course, you've got the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Second Amendments standing in the way of that stuff. Daned dead white european men stopping out efforts at security.

My wife is hotter than your wife.