If criminals want to get guns ...

[iverglas]

... why, they're just going to get them, right?

So why not just make everybody's life easier, and give them to them?

The following was posted in the What is your primary reason for owning a firearm? thread by 1a2b3c. I think that it deserves a wider audience than it might get there now.

Part of his first post, #7, was:

Handguns- There use to be a .44mag around here for hunting but my brother in law stole it. So now the only handguns are used for self defense and plinking.

I asked, #18:

But of course you still own the stolen handgun.

So you really ought to tell us what it's used for.

Hunting, right? He just couldn't be bothered buying one of his own, maybe? Not being acquainted with your brother-in-law, I can't guess what his motives for taking it would be, or yours for not getting it back. Perhaps there's just a long tradition in your family of taking other family members' stuff, and everybody considers it to be an informal "gifting" process ...

Ultimately, he replied, #73 (emphasis added by me):

Yep it was reported <stolen>

We think the gun got pawned for drugs since thats what happened to my dads skillsaw. We have a huge walk-in bank vault in the basement for storing the guns and other stuff dad collects. He left it open one night....next morning everything was there except the .44mag.

A couple days later he was in a pawn shop looking around at tools, and damned if he didnt find his skilsaw there for sale. He called the cops. The brother in law had to pay for the saw but the gun was never found. His dumbass might have just traded it to his meth dealer. Anyway there was no proof, therefore there is nothing else the cops could do.

Ohh yeah, and i guess i still own it....if its ever found.

I replied, #75:

One more law-abiding gun owner behaves in such a negligent and irresponsible way that the firearm in his possession slips away into the criminal underworld, via a theft by someone who could easily have been foreseen to have had access to it and to have wanted it.

(I assume the firearm was lawfully in your father's possession? That it was legal for you to leave it in someone else's residence? Too bad you couldn't rely on him to store it safely. Looks like a bit of negligence on your part too, I'd say; your firearm, your responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands.)

Sounds like there were other firearms in the vault. Funny how the criminal in question only took the handgun. Handguns sure do seem to be attractive to criminals. I wonder why? I wonder why anyone would ever want the private possession of handguns, in particular, to be restricted?

Yup, if criminals want guns, they'll sure enough find some way to get them. Why not just give them yours, eh?

Who knows how many people that handgun may have killed by now? How many crimes it may have been used to commit? How many kids may have been shot in drug-deal crossfire?

Who knows whether it's been sold and smuggled into Canada and used to commit a robbery in Toronto, or in a gang war shootout in Montreal?

Law-abiding gun owners. Some of 'em, I could sure live without.

This tale leaves me flabbergasted.

It does. It leaves me absolutely flabbergasted.

On and on we hear about these "law-abiding gun owners", and how all us anti-freedom paranoid crybabies out here just hate them because of our own fascist political tendencies and fear them because of our own personality defects.

I don't know whether the gun owner in question here -- who left a presumably lawfully owned firearm in someone else's possession at that person's residence -- was being "law-abiding" or not. (In Canada, even had the firearm been legally owned, I believe that it would not have been lawful to do that.) I don't know whether the person who had custody of the firearm was being "law-abiding" or not. (In Canada, I believe that failing to secure the firearm so that it could not have been stolen like this would not have been lawful.)

But either way, eh? Either the "law-abiding gun owner" (and/or his agent who had custody of the firearm) WAS NOT law-abiding, if he violated the laws governing his possession of the firearm, or he (and/or his agent) WAS law-abiding and was also so appallingly negligent that his firearm is now, certainly beyond any reasonable doubt, somewhere in the hands of a criminal.

And I'm supposed to not worry, be happy, that there may be such "law-abiding gun owners" all around me?

There seem to be some, by the way. In 1994, I think it was, some teenagers on a crime spree broke into a home in a neighbourhood not far from mine, stole the legally-owned handgun and ammunition that were illegally stored in that home, and went driving around the city shooting it out the car window, eventually hitting and killing a young man visiting from the UK who was walking along a main downtown street.

Me, I don't know how anyone could live with him/herself knowing that this could be the result of his/her own negligence. Pert_UK has referred to the "casual" possession of firearms in the US. This tale has to be about the height of "casual"ness, it seems to me.

.

(html edited)

[Brucey]

1. Guns are one of those special topics that you can't argue about

rationally. Some people have been conditioned to love them, and it appears that all reasoning is fruitless. Like abortion, religion, and evolution, I have given up talking about guns. I wish you well in your campaign using logic and reasoning... good luck. But I fear that you will be blasted and shot down.

[MrBenchley]

2. Let's not forget the posts

in that thread suggesting (for Koresh knows what reason) that when the poster said "stole" he surely didn't mean "stole."

Some deterrant to crime THAT gun turned out to be, eh?

[iverglas]

3. seriously, eh?

When I asked my question, I was really just being idly curious. When I suggested that "stole" meant, essentially, "my idiot brother-in-law is too cheap to buy his own hunting weapons, and now he's got mine, and whaddaya gonna do about it, but heck, I stole his lawnmower!", just the way I'd say that my mother "stole" my B.A. when she removed it from my possession for respectful safekeeping, I really was serious. I figured that 1a2b3c was more than likely being facetious.

And I really was astounded at the reply. I wonder how many others will be.

Am I just that naïve?

.

[MrBenchley]

4. No, I don't think you're being naive

although I wonder about anyone whose gun ends up with a meth dealer who shrugs and says, well, nothing ought to be done at all about it...

[1a2b3c]

60. Can i get a link to where i said this?

I wonder about anyone whose gun ends up with a meth dealer who shrugs and says, well, nothing ought to be done at all about it...

[1a2b3c]

75. I guess not

[MrBenchley]

76. Sorry, missed your post

So what DID your family do? Did they call the cops and report the gun theft?

[1a2b3c]

77. You mean you dont know

Thats what this whole thread is about and ive already mentioned a time or two what they did. Are you saying you wrongfully accused me of not giving a shit about crime because i believe in the right to keep and bear arms? I am flabbergasted! Shocked to say the least.

They called the cops and reported it stolen along with who they believed the perp was...my sisters boyfriend.

[MrBenchley]

78. Whoop-de-frigging-do

Perhaps it was the way the circumstances seemed to change with each telling....it was "around here," it was "at your dad's," "your brother in law strole it and traded it to a meth dealer," there's "no proof" your brother in law had anything to do with it....

And of course there were the typical messages of concern for law and public safety from the RKBA crowd..."It's not your gun, so you have no right asking what he or his Brother-in-law does with it."

"Are you saying you wrongfully accused me of not giving a shit about crime"
Gee, who was it described careless gun ownership as "shits and giggles?"

[1a2b3c]

79. Can i see a link to this quote?

Gee, who was it described careless gun ownership as "shits and giggles?"

This is yet another one i didnt say.

[MrBenchley]

80. Surrrrrrrrre....

1a2b3c  (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-22-03 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. I cant answer this with the results in your poll
So i have a mix of hunting, tradition, self defense, and one "just for shits and giggles".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=11684&mesg_id=11692&page=

[1a2b3c]

81. I guess i might just be too reasonable

Or maybe i just dont have the spin you people at the VPC and NRA have, but how in the holy blue f*#k do you come up with this: Gee, who was it described careless gun ownership as "shits and giggles?" out of this line: So i have a mix of hunting, tradition, self defense, and one "just for shits and giggles".

[MrBenchley]

82. Is that a shit or a giggle?

"So i have a mix of hunting, tradition, self defense, and one" that's probably in the hands of a meth dealer because somebody else had it and left the safe open...and this by you is CAREFUL gun owning?

Jeeze, I'd hate to see YOUR idea of careless gun ownership.

[Spentastic]

5. Exactly what I'd expect

If you really see a gun as no more than a tool, such as a hammer. Why would you be *that* bothered if someone stole it?

Is this the epitome of "casual" gun ownership? The particular poster seems more annoyed that their gun has been taken away, rather than the fact that said gun could now be perforating people. Out of site (sic)out of mind? Personally, I'd be mortified if something that belonged to me was now in the hands of criminals being used for God knows what. Perhaps it's just me.

What you fail to realise Iverglass is that none of this is the fault of the gun owner. It's all the fault of the Brother in Law. Presumably, no one knew of his drug habit and therefore assumed that leaving highly marketable weapons lying around was fine. I mean it was only "one night" that the vault was left unlocked! Why would responsibility all the time be reasonable when we're talking about lethal weaponry?

Law abiding gun owners doing nothing to stem the flow of weapons to criminals are part of the problem. If the poster involved can present a defence of their position I'd be interested to read it.

[iverglas]

6. communications problem

All those folks who don't want to be exposed to the irrational rants composed by fascistic lunatics such as moi won't see this thread, because putting me on "ignore" means that threads started by me don't show up on the radar at all, as I understand it.

(Obviously this doesn't apply to 1a2b3c himself, since he did answer the question I asked in the other thread.)

So hey, let's just keep talking about 'em behind their backs, eh?

Maybe somebody will let them know they're not being fairly represented. Why, just imagine what jody might have to say if she knew about this.

Actually, I could cut and paste in 30 seconds what jody would have to say about it, so no great loss ...

.

[MrBenchley]

7. Don't forget that your posts are too long

and mine are just one-liners...

There's no end of excuses among the RKBA crowd....

[Spentastic]

8. I'm foreign

so I know nothing

[MrBenchley]

9. And don't forget

none of us can identify guns at a glance...or have wasted time trying to learn to do so.

[MrBenchley]

10. Purely gratuitous bump

for the sheer hell of it...

[iverglas]

11. the silence

is quite deafening, isn't it?

.

[MrBenchley]

12. Well, I'm just going to help it along...

Maybe they should let all those crickets they seem to be hearing lately, post....

[iverglas]

13. ah yes

I realized I'd forgot to mention those crickets, and was just about to do it but you beat me to it.

Hey, Pellet-Gun Bill ... I hum to myself as I wait.

I did save the best of Pellet-Gun Bill. Every once in a while I give it a read when I feel a need for some levity, and I have regaled others with it, one of whom remarked that old DU must not be as boring these days as she remembered it ...

.

[MrBenchley]

14. Spen's ballad cracked me up

Between old Bill, and guns for the blind, and the guy who shot his eyes out with the frog, it HAS been a pretty entertaining month down in the old gun dungeon....

[iverglas]

15. frog?

I missed that one! Do tell.

Spentastic should let us know what the tune to his ballad is. I keep singing it to the tune of Tom Lehrer's "Oedipus Rex": "There once was a man named Oedipus Rex, you may have heard about his odd complex ... ." But the last line of each stanza doesn't scan.

And I still don't know whence

Pellet-gun Bill
Pellet-gun Bill
If the cops don't get him
The laws to protect "stupid people" will

was derived. Mine, of course, was obvious ... to anyone over 40, anyhow.

Heeey, Pellet-Gun Bill, who did ya kill, Pellet-Gun Bill ...

.

[MrBenchley]

18. Mine deliberately didn't scan

which I thought would be funny....

The frog in the face started here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=5138

And continued hilariously here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=205370

[Spentastic]

20. No tune

I was thinking corny western type intro.

Read with a kind of video voice over type style I've updated for superior scanning.

There once was a man name of Pellet Gun Bill
If it were not for NJ Lawmakers he'd be with us still.
But to a sticky end young Billy did come
When he was pressed to give up his precious gun.

"From my cold dead hands" poor Billy did cry.
"O.K" said the sheriff and shot him in the eye
As into the dirt Billy's blood did run
The sheriff cooly blew the smoke from his gun

Now this might seem to be the story's end
But out from the shadows came the late pellet Billy's friend
He said to the cop "well Billy's up Boot hill"
"Cos, that what happens if you Press Pellet-Gun Bill"

I like it! Ideally it'd finish "Nj lawmakers press pellet gun bill". But it's the best I could do.

[MrBenchley]

21. Brilliant anyway

Bravo!!

[iverglas]

22. Now I remember!

Spoken word, as I recall. You, of course, are too young to recall.


http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/b/big_bad_john_jimmy_dean.html

Big Bad John

-Artist: Jimmy Dean
-the # 14 song of the 1960-1969 rock era
-was # 1 for 5 weeks in 1961
-Words and Music by Jimmy Dean

(Big John, Big John)
Ev'ry mornin' at the mine you could see him arrive
He stood six foot six and weighed two forty five
Kinda broad at the shoulder and narrow at the hip
And everybody knew ya didn't give no lip to Big John.
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Nobody seemed to know where John called home
He just drifted into town and stayed all alone
He didn't say much, kinda quiet and shy
And if you spoke at all, you just said "Hi" to Big John.

Somebody said he came from New Orleans
Where he got in a fight over a Cajun Queen
And a crashin' blow from a huge right hand
Sent a Loosiana fellow to the Promised Land-Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Then came the day at the bottom of the mine
When a timber cracked and men started cryin'
Miners were prayin' and hearts beat fast
And everybody thought that they'd breathed their last-'cept John

Through the dust and the smoke of this man-made hell
Walked a giant of a man that the miners knew well
Grabbed a saggin' timber, gave out with a groan
And like a giant oak tree he just stood there alone-Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

And with all of his strength he gave a mighty shove
Then a miner yelled out "There's a light up above!"
And twenty men scrambled from a would-be grave
Now there's only one left down there to save-Big John

With jacks and timbers they started back down
Then came that rumble way down in the ground
And then smoke and gas belched out of that mine
Everybody knew it was the end of the line for Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Now they never reopened that worthless pit
They just placed a marble stand in front of it
These few words are written on that stand
**At the bottom of this mine lies a BIG BIG man** Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

FADE (Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

**TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The 45-single version has this line as "At the bottom of this mine lies a hell of a man."


... and the crickets chirp.

.

[CO Liberal]

23. The Little-Known Last Verse of "Big Bad John"

"When they go to the spot where Big John died,
He was one inch tall and twelve feet wide.

Big John....."

:-)

[iverglas]

24. and it isn't even Friday yet

I *like* this private thread business. Glad you joined us! I'd offer you a cup of tea, but the stuff makes me nauseous so I don't have any. Even ran out of diet coke a little while ago, so I couldn't christen your post properly.

;)

.

[MrBenchley]

25. LOL!!

That was a weird era of popular music...anybody remember that Walter Brennan had a spoken hit...some demented gibberish about "that mule, Old Rivers, and me..."?

[iverglas]

26. google, man!

The lyrics are down below; the only version I could find was all caps & I'm not retranscribing.

I spent 3 of the last months of the 1950s interned in the children's ward of an RC hospital, in traction from a broken leg. (Never thought about it -- me on a playground structure, a real fire pole, if you can imagine in this century; my dad on a roller coaster ... we're apparently not built for fun.) When I participated in a post-trauma study a couple of years ago, it dawned on me that I had actually been more seriously traumatized by that experience than by being abducted and sexually assaulted and having an attempt made on my life years later.

I had no diversion but books and the radio. At the end of the three months, I could no longer see past my outstretched hand (genetic tendency exacerbated by reading in the dark) and I had probably listened to "Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" five hundred thousand times. And "Teen Angel". And of course "El Paso", but that was cool.

But I don't think I recall this mule business at all.


http://www.lyricsdepot.com/walter-brennan/old-rivers.html


HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE I FIRST SEEN OLD RIVERS?
WHY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN HE WEREN'T AROUND.
WELL, THAT OLD MAN DID A HEAP OF WORK;
SPENT HIS WHOLE LIFE WALKING PLOWED GROUND.

HE HAD A ONE-ROOM SHACK NOT FAR FROM US,
AND WE WAS ABOUT AS POOR AS HIM.
HE HAD ONE OLD MULE HE CALLED "MIDNIGHT",
AND I'D TAG ALONG AFTER THEM.

HE'D PLOW THEM ROWS STRAIGHT AND DEEP
AND I'D TAG ALONG BEHIND,
BUSTIN' UP CLODS WITH MY OWN BARE FEET --
OLD RIVERS WAS A FRIEND OF MINE.

THAT SUN WOULD GET HIGH AND THAT MULE WOULD WORK
TILL OLD RIVERS'D SAY, "WHOA!"
THEN HE'D WIPE HIS BROW, LEAN BACK IN THE REINS,
AND TALK ABOUT A PLACE HE WAS GONNA GO.

(CHORUS)
SAY, ONE OF THESE DAYS I'M GONNA CLIMB THAT MOUNTAIN;
WALK UP THERE AMONG THEM CLOUDS,
WHERE THE COTTON'S HIGH AND THE CORN'S A-GROWIN',
AND THERE AIN'T NO FIELDS TO PLOW.

I GOT A LETTER FROM BACK HOME THE OTHER DAY --
THEY'RE ALL FINE, AND THE CROPS IS HIGH --
AND DOWN AT THE END MY MAMA SAID,
"YOU KNOW, OLD RIVERS DIED."
I'M JUST SITTING HERE ON THIS NEW-PLOWED EARTH,
TRYIN' TO FIND ME A LITTLE SHADE.
AND WITH THE SUN BEATING DOWN, 'CROSS THE FIELD I SEE
THAT MULE, OLD RIVERS...AND ME

(repeat CHORUS)


Ah ... now that I think ... I don't recognize the theme, but I do recall the Walter Brennanness of it -- and yes, I can hear that chorus soaring now ...

.

[MrBenchley]

36. The thing about that era

which would seem absolutely foreign to people now is that a radio station would play that song, then Fats Domino, then Dean Martin, then Percy Faith, then Patsy Cline.....all in one mishmash....

El Paso WAS very cool....also "Running Bear," with its authentic Native American striptease sax break under the chorus....

[CO Liberal]

41. "Old Rivers" Was a Hit in 1962, If I Remember Correctly

[DoNotRefill]

16. Actually....

if the gun had been recovered after being used in a crime, 1a2b3c would know about it, because the police would have come to his door asking where it was.

"But either way, eh? Either the "law-abiding gun owner" (and/or his agent who had custody of the firearm) WAS NOT law-abiding, if he violated the laws governing his possession of the firearm, or he (and/or his agent) WAS law-abiding and was also so appallingly negligent that his firearm is now, certainly beyond any reasonable doubt, somewhere in the hands of a criminal."

So, by your line of reasoning, a person who is in his house and is visited by a person who has been convicted of drunk driving is negligent if the person takes his car keys without permission and steals his car?

[iverglas]

17. beeg fucking deal

"if the gun had been recovered after being used in a crime, 1a2b3c would know about it, because the police would have come to his door asking where it was."

And the person or persons who had been killed or robbed or maimed would what? be resurrected and miraculously healed?

Am I to assume that all firearms used in crimes are recovered by police, and that this is why you decided that your comment was relevant here?

That would be a pretty good deterrent against using firearms in crimes, alright, and also against storing one's firearms negligently. Since it is of course not true that all firearms used in crimes are recovered by police, I completely fail to see the point of your comment.


"So, by your line of reasoning, a person who is in his house and is visited by a person who has been convicted of drunk driving is negligent if the person takes his car keys without permission and steals his car?"

Hmm. If you can explain what earthly analogy you think you have drawn, do let me know. The issue simply isn't "whether someone is negligent". How obvious is that?

I couldn't care less how negligent people want to be with their personal effects; have you not grasped this yet? I care about people being negligent with their personal effects when the personal effects in question are in great demand by people who use them to harm and kill other people.

Try this one:

By my line of reasoning, a person who is in her house and is visited by a person whom she knows to be an addict and prone to stealing things of value to sell for drugs is negligent if the visitor takes her stereo without permission and sells it.

So what?

Seeing a difference between that situation and the one in which a firearm is stolen?

Nobody I know of has ever been killed with a stereo. But I'm sure someone will find a case now.

In fact, a stolen car is more like a stolen firearm than like a stolen stereo. Stolen cars are very often used in a way that kills or injures other people. That's precisely why, where I'm at, it is an offence to leave one's keys in the ignition.

NOT to protect stupid negligent people from having their cars stolen -- to protect OTHER PEOPLE from being injured or killed by people who steal the cars of stupid negligent people.

I'm not remotely interested in protecting 1a2b3c from having his guns stolen; let him get insurance.

I'm appalled that he treats the theft of his firearm and the obvious fact that it is now in the hands of criminals, where it is a danger to many more people, as something of so little concern, and something for which he seems to think he bears no responsibility.

.

[DoNotRefill]

27. So, what's your solution???

"By my line of reasoning, a person who is in her house and is visited by a person whom she knows to be an addict and prone to stealing things of value to sell for drugs is negligent if the visitor takes her stereo without permission and sells it."

Further stigmatizing drug addicts? What, was 1a2b3c's dad not supposed to allow his other son into the house to keep him from possibly stealing stuff?

[1a2b3c]

61. Just to clear this up

He didnt 'let' them into the house.

[MrBenchley]

19. Another gratuitous bump

"If you just want to bang the anti-gun drum and not discuss guns and learn about them from the people who know them, then I would say why bother?...If everyone agrees, than someone is redundant and not needed."

[Terran]

28. Wow. Where is all the opposition?

This astonishing.

Anyway, I must agree with you here, iverglas. I evidently missed the fact that the brother-in-law stole the gun because he was a meth user. I just assumed it was some sort of jolly family thing going on, relatives borrowing each others tools, as it were. Apparently not.

The "casual" attitude spoken of by our British friend is very clearly illustrated here.

Dirk

[LastDemInIdaho]

29. What the UK thinks of Americans Right to arm themselves doesn't matter

Americans will NEVER accept draconian gun laws like they have forced upon UK residents. If you support preventing Americans from arming themselves then you will never be elected or listened to.

[Terran]

30. What

does your post have to do with the topic at hand?

[LastDemInIdaho]

31. It has everything to do with it

Canada, UK, Aussies etc have abandoned the rights of their citizens to protect themselves. We won't let that happen here in the US.

[MrBenchley]

37. So who cares that the gun ended up with a meth dealer, eh?

<sarcasm>Some "law abiding gun owner crowd." </sarcasm>

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

44. Excuse me?

How many of us chose to live in a country where gun theft was supposed to be indulged?

"I'm NOT stopping in England, despite the fact that I could save money going through there instead of Zurich."
THAT will teach them the folly of sane gun laws, eh?

[DoNotRefill]

46. Well....

it'll prevent them from earning around $2K for the pair of round-trip tickets, plus incidentals and lodging.

It's called voting with your pocketbook.

[MrBenchley]

49. Too funny....

You're actually going to pay $2,000 because you don't like the fact that gun control works....

And this is suppose to impress us how, exactly?

[DoNotRefill]

51. Nope...I'm going to pay $2000 because...

I want to fly 12,000 miles with my wife. WHO I pay that money to is a different matter. Going through Zurich will cost me about $300 extra for both of us. It's worth it to me to not have to go through England. It's the same principle as people going from the North to Florida not stopping in South Carolina because of the flag issue.

[MrBenchley]

53. Surrrrrrrrre....

"It's the same principle as people going from the North to Florida not stopping in South Carolina because of the flag issue."
Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

[DoNotRefill]

55. How is it different? Please be specific.

eom.

[MrBenchley]

56. You mean besides the FACT

that the confederate flag represents opposition to civil rights for black people and is abhorrent to people of good conscience....

[DoNotRefill]

62. Just as...

prohibition of self-defense and the neccesary tools for effective self-defense represents oppression of civil rights for EVERYBODY and is abhorrent to people of good conscience.....

[MrBenchley]

63. Like who?

Ted Nugent? Larry Pratt? Johnn AssKKKroft?

Hand us a big big big laugh.

"oppression of civil rights for EVERYBODY"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrre.....

[Pert_UK]

70. So let me get this straight.......

You're refusing to visit a country because that country's government introduced a law that banned the owning of handguns. Handguns had NEVER (in recent times) been allowed as weapons of self-defense in that country anyway, and were not permitted to be carried. This law had the backing of the VAST majority of that country's population. This law had NO implications for citizens of the US and effected only a small percentage of the UK population.

And this is a political/moral protest is it? Against the democratic introduction of a popular law in another country?

Makes a whole lot of sense to me....

:eyes:

[Spentastic]

57. Boo Hoo

I'm gutted.

[MrBenchley]

58. It's all your fault

for CHOOSING to live in a country like Communist Britain where you are a slave.....if you had any gumption you'd come over to the land of the free, pimp for what John AshKKroft pretends the second amendment says, and piss and moan aloud whenever anyone mentions that gun control works spectacularly well to cut crime and reduce violence. (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, refill....

Part of what being MrBenchley entails is facts, some actual sanity and an ability to focus on the issue at hand.

"I must say that it's quite rude for them to be telling us what civil liberties we should have."
Whereas careless gun owners and gun-toting meth dealers seem to be just ducky.

[DoNotRefill]

42. careless gun owners and gun-toting meth dealers seem to be just ducky

Hate to break it to you, but the rights the meanest criminal gets are EXACTLY the rights the rest of us get.

Fraud's a bad thing, right? Yet would you curtail freedom of speech?

Drug dealing's bad, right? But until convicted, don't they have the same exact rights as the rest of us?

Foreigners may be very nice people, right? But until they come to the United States, they live under the laws of their homeland, with the rights they have there, and NOT our laws, and the rights we have here, right? As such, they have NO "standing" to lobby for a change in our laws. I find it BEYOND arrogant that they would try. If some foreigners want to live under a total slave state, that's fine with me, I'll stay home. When they try to convince people here that living under a slave state is a good thing, and we should do the same, well, I have to tell them to piss off. It's none of their fucking business. If they don't like our laws and rights, they can bloody well stay the fuck home.

[iverglas]

45. has anybody figured out yet ...

... what this post could possibly have to do with the subject of the thread?


"Drug dealing's bad, right? But until convicted, don't they have the same exact rights as the rest of us?"

Hmm. I must assume that we are talking about "the right to trade drugs for a stolen firearm".

Yeah, I'm sure I have that right. It must be around here somewhere. I know I saw it last week. Lemme just look under my chair ...


"Fraud's a bad thing, right? Yet would you curtail freedom of speech?"

Have you somehow managed to go through life without realizing that your freedom of speech IS curtailed by, for instance, statutes that provide for you to be liable to imprisonment if you speak in certain fraudulent ways??


Nonetheless, what this has to do with this thread ... dog only knows.

.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Oh, please, Oma....

"Hmm. I must assume that we are talking about "the right to trade drugs for a stolen firearm"."

Actually, I was referring to ALL civil liberties....be it the right to vote, the right to own a gun, the right to counsel, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

"Have you somehow managed to go through life without realizing that your freedom of speech IS curtailed by, for instance, statutes that provide for you to be liable to imprisonment if you speak in certain fraudulent ways??"

Nope, I realize that quite well. Fraudulent speech is criminal. However, that doesn't mean we should outlaw ALL speech to stamp out fraudulent speech. The object is to penalize the CRIMINALS for CRIMINAL action, rather than penalize EVERYBODY for something they didn't do.

[MrBenchley]

50. Really?

"the right to vote, the right to own a gun, the right to counsel, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures"
Some of those are in the constitution...but not the right to own a gun. And certainly the right to steal a gun is not.

[DoNotRefill]

52. Heh...

the right to own a gun is much more explicitly stated in the BoR than the right to counsel. And I never said there was a right to STEAL a gun...

[MrBenchley]

54. Not even close to true...

but it's interesting to know you share John AshKKKroft's lunatic fantasy.

[MrBenchley]

47. What a pantload...

Where do the rights of the accused involve giving them a handgun...except in RKBA fantasyland?

"If some foreigners want to live under a total slave state, that's fine with me, I'll stay home. When they try to convince people here that living under a slave state is a good thing, and we should do the same, well, I have to tell them to piss off. "
Refill, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

[Pert_UK]

71. Reality check......

People like me and Spen are talking from our own point of view and not representing the UK per se. Our views are as relevant as anybody else's - we're here for the discussion of an issue, we're not touting UK laws as a global panacea for gun crime.

UK laws were not draconian and not forced upon the population - they were introduced with the backing of the public and were seen as the only way to guarantee that firearms were not misused by legal owners, and to send the message that the UK does not regard firearms

You seem to be a "one issue" person here - the RKBA seems more important than anything else, which I find bizarre. "Everything else is debatable, but we have to concede gun ownership as a first step."

I actually agree that legal gun ownership will never be abolished in the US, but there's certainly a lot of room for debate around how gun laws are enforced and develop.

[Pert_UK]

72. Reality check......

People like me and Spen are talking from our own point of view and not representing the UK per se. Our views are as relevant as anybody else's - we're here for the discussion of an issue, we're not touting UK laws as a global panacea for gun crime.

UK laws were not draconian and not forced upon the population - they were introduced with the backing of the public and were seen as the only way to guarantee that firearms were not misused by legal owners, and to send the message that the UK does not regard firearms

You seem to be a "one issue" person here - the RKBA seems more important than anything else, which I find bizarre. "Everything else is debatable, but we have to concede gun ownership as a first step."

I actually agree that legal gun ownership will never be abolished in the US, but there's certainly a lot of room for debate around how gun laws are enforced and develop.

[shatoga]

33. Who knows how many people that handgun may have killed by now?

I laid a loaded handgun on a bookshelf.
It remained there for over five years.
It never jumped up and killed anyone.
It never robbed anyone.
It never threatened anyone.

It just laid there inanimate and did nothing.

Get the point.

A hand must point the gun and pull the trigger before any gun can harm anyone.

The gun doesn't do the harming.
The person does.

[Spentastic]

35. In that case

Why not just have guns liberally spread around playgrounds? Or Shopping Malls?

[MrBenchley]

39. Gee, amazing you were able to leave that gun there

considering how often you have to shoot it out with the KKK and the local football team.

[Pert_UK]

67. And if a thief came in, stole it and shot a cop......

That would be entirely the thief's fault, and nothing to do with the fact that you had left a gun lying around unsecured in your house?

Amazing.

P.

[MrBenchley]

40. I think another bump is warranted

since we've actually got a news story on our board about a meth dealer shooting a cop...

http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=652

[1a2b3c]

59. negligent and irresponsible ?

We have a huge walk in safe in the basement. It got left open one night. My sister and her boyfriend came over the next morning. Gun was stolen.

Negligent and irresponsible would have been to leave it on the kitchen table.

[BullDozer]

64. That's a little extreme

Me, I don't know how anyone could live with him/herself knowing that this could be the result of his/her own negligence

So the person who has a gun stolen from them and which is subsequently used in an unlawful manner to do harm to another should stop living with him/herself? That would lead a person to infer that you want that previously mentioned person to commit suicide, which is the only ways I can see that someone can indeed stop living with themselves.

Now in 123s specific case it would seem that you are saying that he perhaps should stop living with himself because of something that happened to his presumably trust worthy father and from which said event no evidence has been presented that would indicate any criminal activity beyond the theft itself has occured let alone murder or other acts of violence.


Are you now going to propose victims of crimes commit seppuku?

[Spentastic]

65. Mwa ha ha ha hah - I'm speechless

Which by your strictly literal translation of Iverglass's post, means that I'm actually incapable of speech.

Taking figures of speech literally will lead to serious problems. Taking figures of speech literally and then formulating an argument against them is certainly an interesting tactic. Next time someone declares that something makes them "mad" are you going to have them committed?

so,

"Now in 123s specific case it would seem that you are saying that he perhaps should stop living with himself."

No, that's not what she's saying is it?

"because of something that happened to his presumably trustworthy father"

Trustworty apart from the abilty to secure the weaponry conatined in his house.

"and from which said event no evidence has been presented that would indicate any criminal activity beyond the theft itself has occured let alone murder or other acts of violence."

Yeah, lets just not worry about what the gun is actually being used for. Someone is probably using it as a hammer. I'm sure somebody buying a gun through disreputable channels is looking for a new paperweight :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

66. You will notice all the details

missing from the original story about the stolen gun...such as "was the theft reported to the cops?"

None of that concens dozer, though, who is busy fussing over the vital issue of "seppuku."

[Pert_UK]

68. Grenades don't kill people.....People kill people!

In itself, a hand grenade is equally as inanimate and harmless as a loaded gun or indeed a pineapple. Nobody could really argue that a competently constructed grenade had the ability to do anything other than sit there, without intervention from some external force, most often human.

In theory, every household in the USA could be issued with 5 grenades each, given comprehensive training in their safe usage and storage, and strict instructions that they should only EVER be used in the event of hostile foreign invasion.

In theory, nobody should ever even touch their grenades except for a weekly check to ensure that they are still securely and properly stored.

In theory, nobody would be hurt by them.

In practice, how many people do you reckon would be blown to pieces in the first week following issue?

And yet that's exactly what you've got with guns.........a bunch of people who own them and who claim to be "responsible" owners, and who point out that nobody would ever be killed illegally if the rules were followed.....except that people are killed every day.....and guns get stolen because the law-abiding owners occasionally over-look a law or two and leave gun-safes unlocked......and they wouldn't ever register their guns even if the law required it..........

Basically, in theory everything is fine.....it's just in practice that it's utterly fucked up.

[Pert_UK]

69. As far as I can tell, the situation is as follows:

Pro-RKBA:

"We are all law-abiding, responsible gun-owners and therefore we are against any form of gun registry as it suggests that we're doing something wrong and infringes on our right to privacy whilst conducting a legal activity and right. Gun registering won't help anyway, criminals will always find a way to get guns illegally"

Anti-RKBA:

"Yes. Criminals will steal guns from law-abiding, responsible gun-owners who just occasionally forget to lock them away. It would be quite nice to be able to track which people aren't following the rules and are inadvertantly providing weapons to criminals."

It just seems insane to me that people regard it as some infringement of a Holy right if you have to account for the guns you've obtained compared with the guns you currently have.

"It's an infringement of my rights to have to tell you that my handgun is now probably in the hands of a crack addict because I didn't lock it away one night!".

[MrBenchley]

74. And of course, despite the pious claims that

""We are all law-abiding, responsible gun-owners"...

In practice we can see they are no such thing.

[happyslug]

73. I knew a police Officer whose service revolver was used in a Murder.

They were about to indict him until he produced his receipt for the gun from his supervisor who had put it in the Police Department's safe. The murder is still unsolved, no one knows how the pistol was removed from the safe.

John Dilliger's (I know I am going back in time) first choice of where to get weapons was the various small town police Departments. He would raid them for guns (or more guns). The Baader-Meinhof Gang also perferred to get their guns from police departments (in their case West German Police).

For more information on Baader-Meinhof gang see:
http://www.baader-meinhof.com/who/terrorists/index.htm

Now you may say if someone will try to do that today, the police can stop them. How? By Staying in the station? (That will increase police officer's patrols on the streets). One of the problem with ANY concentration of firearms is that it becomes a tempting target for ANYONE who wants weapons and are willing to kill to get them.

Most Criminals do not want to kill, they want to protect themselves (If they are in the drug trade or similar illegal criminal activity) or use it to rob someone. Thus most Criminals perfer to buy their weapons. We import huge amount of drugs from overseas, it is simple to have the drug dealer buy the gun overseas and ship it to the US with the drugs. Neither drugs nor guns take up make room so it is easy (See how well our War on Drugs is working, and unlike Drugs, most criminals only have to buy a gun once or twice a month).

Now I am not saying if I own a pistol (which I Don't) I should not just leave it laying on the floor in my house, but I do own a two ton weapon, which can be operated to kill people on the street and in their homes. If I leave it unlocked, the law does NOT punish me if someone steals it and uses it to kill someone. The same with pistols, why should a firearm owner be held to a higher standard than a automobile owner? Now most people view Automobiles as a means of transportation, but most firearm owners do not view their firearms as people killing devices ether (yet both can be used to kill people).

The problem I have is I do not see any need for any CRIMINAL STATUTE that makes a Firearm owner criminally liable for any crime done with a stolen firearm. Like crimes done with a stolen Automobile the person liable is the person who did the crime, not an innocent owner of a piece of property.