http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4083871.stm
Dimebag is my biggest guitar influence. He's the reason i started to play and his music was a gateway to the music i listen to today. RIP Dime
guns don't kill people, people whot pull triggers kill people. If there were no guns we'd still be beating eachother over the head with swords and big hammers. It's just the newest way to kill
quote:
Originally posted by derf
guns don't kill people, people whot pull triggers kill people.
The Michael Ryan documentary was on this week, the Hungerford massacre, and nobody knows why these things happen. If you were carrying something big enough to beat 3 people to death before you were brought down you wouldn't get through the door. There will always be lunatics who want to kill people but it should be made harder for them to get the tools to do it. If you want to shoot guns join the army
quote:
Originally posted by derf
guns don't kill people, people whot pull triggers kill people. If there were no guns we'd still be beating eachother over the head with swords and big hammers. It's just the newest way to kill
Don't have many break-ins of occupied houses here.
Leathal force is only justified if a fear of death or great physical injury is justified, but the legal precidence is, that anyone who will break-in
with you home IS willing to kill you. If someone breaks in with you home, a shooting is self defense.....period.
As far as being stopped with a weapon big enough to kill several people......you drive one all the time. Although in a Locost it might get you a tad
messy.
Killers are killers. Take the gun he'll use a knife. Take the knife he'll use a car, etc. etc.
With guns commonly available there is a known deterent. With no guns there is no reason not to break-in, even when the folks are at home.
Guns are an interesting subject, they're a great tool for depersonalising killing and at short range require very little skill to do a lot of
damage.
They're also reasonably easy to aquire in the UK dispite being illegal etc.
Still they're not the only way to kill people, if someone wants someone else dead, they'll find a way to make it happen.
As a strange side note, it's totally legal to own say, a crossbow in the UK, which are more than sufficent for home security, and i assure you,
they will do enough damage to stop anyone in your home being alive. 
quote:
Take the knife he'll use a car, etc. etc.
Not very comfortable stuck in your waistband or under the pillow though.
Shootist, if he'd taken his car into the concert I think someone might have noticed that before he killed 3 people with it.
A burglar with a bullet between his eye's will never brake in again...i think,or it had to be at St-Peter's gate.
In Israel 80% of the familys have guns at home and there is no excesive killing with guns used for family troubles,neighbour troubles etc....
There is no way any law can stop criminals from getting/using guns for their "activity's" so the only thing a gun restricting law will
do is make it harder for the citizen to buy one and defend himself.
It's not very difficult to make a gun with the help of the internet,even a 9 mm machine gun can be made without the use of machine tools like a
lathe,milling machine etc...with ordinary hardware and simple handtools.
Accidents will happen all the time and lunatics will be around also all the time but banning the car because many innocent children have died in car
accidents is not very realistic.
The criminal who brings a gun with him has the intention to use it.
a car is for transportation, but could be misused.
What is a gun designed for?
atb
steve
If someone wants to get something that much then they will get it.
But, if someone has had a lot of trouble/mad/oppotunist then if there isn't a gun around they won't use it. This is what most massacres are
nowadays.
Adam
A gun is designed to shoot a bullet with high speed and accuracy.
A knife is designed to cut.
A pencil is designed to write.
An axe is designed to cut wood.
Al these things can be used to kill people.
One can talk around it for ages but very few guns have killed people by themselve.
What is wrong by saying that it are the people who do the killing,not the bullet,axe,knive,pencil etc....
[Edited on 10/12/04 by Cita]
A 9mm machine gun is easier to make that a semi-auto. (Strange but true)
One of the many hobbies that I pick-up and drop as it suits me is target shooting. As good target guns are pricey, I also do my own gunsmithing. (I
have a 12x30 engine lathe that will ship from Michigan next Weds. if all goes to plan.) A full-auto is sooo easy to make that I have been tempted to
apply for the Class III paperwork to manufacture one.
The biggest thing that draws me to guns isn't the destructive capacity. I don't care for "Black Rifles"(refers to the black
Parkerized finish on military weapons) but I do love the dicipline required to make that .22 bench rifle I built from scrounged parts, throw a slug
50yds and punch out a bullseye which is .10" in dia. I have about $300 USD in this gun, and I can't think of one single part that isn't
modified by my own hand.
Persons of the opinion that gun are designed to kill don't understand the way that war is waged. Guns, especially military guns are intended to
WOUND not kill. The anti-assault weapon crowd in the US claimed that military ammo was "full metal jacket" to make it more destructive WRONG
FMJ is designed to penetrate and wound, but to kill outright. Hunting ammo is almost always soft point expanding slug that flattens to more than twice
the cross-section when it hits. Some will claim that military ammo will penitrate a bullet proof vest.... so will a .22 Magnum RIMFIRE.
My interest in guns is the same as one of you UK chaps might like darts(got a board hung in the garage, boss wants to put one up at work), or Cricket,
football, bowling, cars.....
I did a little shooting last Sunday. Had 2 45 pistols , a 12ga shotgun and a .22 mag. Trust me no haybales were harmed in this venture.
Rescued attachment Dsc00616.jpg
Here is the bonnet shot....
Rescued attachment Dsc00611.jpg
"It seems to be there's going to be a point in our development or evolution when we put our guns aside." Bill Hicks
EDIT: Not aimed at your guns, white130d, by the way Killing others context meant ^_^
[Edited on 11/12/04 by Benzine]
cmon cita thats really stretching things
I could jam a pencil in someones eye and kill em if I wanted to.
but a gun isnt designed to fire bullets! Its designed to kill or maim. The bullet is just a mechanism. Its a bit like saying that your tv is designed
to fire a stream of electrons at a glass plate. You are describing a mechanism, not a final aim or function.
the designer of the gun im sure didnt intend it for target practice!
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
A gun is designed to shoot a bullet with high speed and accuracy.
A knife is designed to cut.
A pencil is designed to write.
An axe is designed to cut wood.
Al these things can be used to kill people.
One can talk around it for ages but very few guns have killed people by themselve.
What is wrong by saying that it are the people who do the killing,not the bullet,axe,knive,pencil etc....
[Edited on 10/12/04 by Cita]
You are right Stephen,i indeed am stretching things to make clear that it are the people who handle the objects that do the killing,not the objects
itself.
If you kill somebody, for whatever reason,
than you can be in two states of mind:you are fully aware of what you are doing - or you are not aware of what you are doing.
The first catagory is the coldharted killer who will kill with any weapon,including a pencil if neccesary,so banning gun's wont stop him.
The second catagory contains the killing by accident in which a gun plays a major role.
If one is not in a clear state of mind than he's probably not able to make a well thought over choice wich weapon will be best to commit his
action with at that moment.Any weapon will do but for some strange reason,our brain is programmed to look for the most effective one.Very often the
gun is the most effective because it requires little effort,can be used from a distance and due the lack of physical contact during the action,will
give us a "safe" feeling.Perhaps the greatest disadvantage is that a gun can be used several times over a very short period of time which
gives the user the chance to "correct" his attempts in his effort to take his opponent out whithout increasing his own chances of being
harmed.
I'm not worried about guns but i'm worried about tha fact that people using them without being aware of the dangers.
We have come to a point where it is accepted that children are killed on the road every day yet nobody in his "right mind" would think of
banning the car in general,and the fact that a car is not designed to kill is'nt much of a difference for the parents of those children.
Responsability is not only a matter of the state Stephen.
I hope you never gonna have to do it Stephen but it's more effective to stick that pencil up in somebody nose than in his eye
[Edited on 11/12/04 by Cita]
Guys,
Just a general observation, having just caught this thread.
Which country has the dubious honour of the highest per capita gun ownership?
Switzerland. They have a standing "citizens army". But not so many unauthorised shootings - YET!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Dick Axtell
Guys,
Just a general observation, having just caught this thread.
Which country has the dubious honour of the highest per capita gun ownership?
Switzerland. They have a standing "citizens army". But not so many unauthorised shootings - YET!!!
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!
NOW THAT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET ANY GUNS LEGALLY IT IS REPUTEDLY MUCH EASIER TO GET THEM ILLEGALLY!
This is backed up by some mates of mine that are in Police drug squads,when I asked a friend how many drug dealers carry guns his reply was a little
scary "ALL OF THEM"".
Oh Stephen! I do think that not all guns are designed for killing,I have a couple designed purely for target and clay shooting. Yes just like a car
they could be used in anger!
It is unfortunate that the way in which all of the newer gun laws in this country have been implemented that they have actually made things worse in
someways,driving a lot of illegal guns underground.
I recently handed in an Air cartridge revolver which I intended to compete in Practical pistol competitions,this I did as a good citizen boere the
deadline recently.
AS they were only low powered they were classed as air pistols and therefore previously not on any licence.Guess what,only 10% have been handed in,and
with some skillful machining they have been adapted to fire .22 bullets by villians.
So now there are quite a few thousand of them floating around,most quite innocently by people who did not know about the new laws coming in.Virtually
no publicity was given about this,and now it is an offence to own one,so how do people get rid of them when they find out they already are breaking
the law and face imprisonment for owning up late.
Yet again another badly handled cock up!
Vote Labour? I dont think so!
DEAN C.
Why not just make Nukes legal over there then and put us all out of our misery .......
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
Why not just make Nukes legal over there then and put us all out of our misery .......
dean
ive actually got a couple of air pistols - i recon that they would be pretty hard pushed to kill.
can still be used for target practice.
its not necessary to have a gun thats capable of lethal force for target practice.
at the end of the day, is any sport worth the deaths of 1000s of people a year, if thats the only justification for guns.
just cos drug dealers have guns, doesnt mean that you or I need them too.
atb
steve
as a fullbore shooter, you will find most gunshot deaths in the uk are caused by blackmarket handguns.
but the government are in discussion to stop certain certificated calibres, but surely would'nt the general public feel safer that the illegal
gun trade is being dealt with.
Too busy 'earning' revenue from motorists
Stephen, with all due respect,what I was trying to get across is that a lot of the laws brought in through certain incidents,have probably increased
the chances of guns falling into the wrong hands.
I am actually in favour of licensing all guns,including air rifles,of which I have three pre-charged air rifles (field target and Hunting) as well as
having been a keen clay and game shooter for the last 25 years using most calibres of shotguns.
Guns are not toys and I wouldn't fancy being shot with even a 12ft/lbs legal limit air rifle,as they have been known to kill at close range.
DEAN....
In the USA there are approximately 30000 gun related deaths per year
In UK there are approximately 100
Population of USA is wot? 300 000 000?
The population of UK is 60 000 000
Therefore the USA which has a population 5 times greater than UK has 300 times more gun related deaths??
And altho only briefly finding out some facts, i didnt find any articles saying that the UK has an increased number of deaths due to alternative
weapons such as pencils
(Just because i am bored and tryin to put off washing the cars )
(p.s. facts are fairly accurate. wouldn't bet my balls on them tho)
can you explain to me how banning guns makes them fall into the wrong hands?
If laws, such as the 'if you are caught with a gun, you automatically get 5 years' come into play, then its surely easier to implement if
all guns were banned. Then, simple posession of a gun in itself gets you off the streets for 5 years.
I cant see how making guns unavailable to the general public makes them so much more availble to criminals.???
I also dont have any problem with guns being used for sporting purposes in controlled situations within gun clubs or controlled hunting areas. I can
see a justification in the usa in certain circumstances - it would be useful if you had a gun when a bear is chasing after you in the woods. In the UK
we dont have such a need.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by DEAN C.
Stephen, with all due respect,what I was trying to get across is that a lot of the laws brought in through certain incidents,have probably increased the chances of guns falling into the wrong hands.
I am actually in favour of licensing all guns,including air rifles,of which I have three pre-charged air rifles (field target and Hunting) as well as having been a keen clay and game shooter for the last 25 years using most calibres of shotguns.
Guns are not toys and I wouldn't fancy being shot with even a 12ft/lbs legal limit air rifle,as they have been known to kill at close range.
DEAN....
a while back i read a few articles about illegal handguns in london in the early nineties you could buy a 9mm pistol on the blackmarket for £500, but the price in 2003 was down to as low as £200 for the same item, apparantly due to an influx of east european weapons, so someone must be bringing them in...
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
I cant see how making guns unavailable to the general public makes them so much more availble to criminals.???
Guns are big buisiness Stephen and the makers will bring them on the market either in a more or less controled way with laws,or in the on-controled way via the underground circuit.
The underground circuit is probably the most lucrative way of "earning" money with the sale of guns.
A law that will give one 5 or even ten years of jail when they caught him make the owner more willing to use that gun as most of the time the most prescious thing they can loose is their freedom to do their criminal activity's.
It's very sad but that's the way it is Stephen.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by DEAN C.
Stephen, with all due respect,what I was trying to get across is that a lot of the laws brought in through certain incidents,have probably increased the chances of guns falling into the wrong hands.
I am actually in favour of licensing all guns,including air rifles,of which I have three pre-charged air rifles (field target and Hunting) as well as having been a keen clay and game shooter for the last 25 years using most calibres of shotguns.
Guns are not toys and I wouldn't fancy being shot with even a 12ft/lbs legal limit air rifle,as they have been known to kill at close range.
DEAN....
[Edited on 12/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
cita
are you saying that you think gun manufacturers will supply guns - knowingly - for illegal sale in the uk?
atb
steve
If not so Stephen than the only illegal guns would be those who have been stolen from the factory-police stations-military etc... and that,i'm
afraid ,are'nt many.
The factory will not sell directly to the underground but as long as all the official paperwork is legal,not too many questions will be asked,not
towards the dealers or places of destiny.
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
a while back i read a few articles about illegal handguns in london in the early nineties you could buy a 9mm pistol on the blackmarket for £500, but the price in 2003 was down to as low as £200 for the same item, apparantly due to an influx of east european weapons, so someone must be bringing them in...
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
If not so Stephen than the only illegal guns would be those who have been stolen from the factory-police stations-military etc... and that,i'm afraid ,are'nt many.
The factory will not sell directly to the underground but as long as all the official paperwork is legal,not too many questions will be asked,not towards the dealers or places of destiny.
) was able to do a lot of fund-raising to afford them in the first place! 
quote:
Originally posted by James
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
a while back i read a few articles about illegal handguns in london in the early nineties you could buy a 9mm pistol on the blackmarket for £500, but the price in 2003 was down to as low as £200 for the same item, apparantly due to an influx of east european weapons, so someone must be bringing them in...
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
If not so Stephen than the only illegal guns would be those who have been stolen from the factory-police stations-military etc... and that,i'm afraid ,are'nt many.
The factory will not sell directly to the underground but as long as all the official paperwork is legal,not too many questions will be asked,not towards the dealers or places of destiny.
I gather from a program on BBC that a lot are coming in from Northern Ireland.
Thanks to the peace process a lot of paramilitaries no longer need their weapons so they're ending up in gangland here.
And we all know from where the IRA (or do I mean Sinn Fein!
James
[Edited on 13/12/04 by James]
well i don't thinkthey need to sell them on the black market to raise funds..... they all got buried incase things went tits up again
,
after all there are plenty of unused .303's from way back and plenty of ammo for them too, all wrapped in muslin are fully greased up, weapon
stores don't you just love'em
[Edited on 13/12/04 by marcyboy]
I gather from a program on BBC that a lot are coming in from Northern Ireland.
Thanks to the peace process a lot of paramilitaries no longer need their weapons so they're ending up in gangland here.
And we all know from where the IRA (or do I mean Sinn Fein! ) was able to do a lot of fund-raising to afford them in the first place!
James
[Edited on 13/12/04 by James]
I seem to recall Mark Thomas doing a rather scary expose on the internation gun trade by securing a deal for not only several hundred MP5 submachine guns but also for delivery to an embargoed nation (Zimbabwe I believe).
quote:
Originally posted by mackie
I seem to recall Mark Thomas doing a rather scary expose on the internation gun trade by securing a deal for not only several hundred MP5 submachine guns but also for delivery to an embargoed nation (Zimbabwe I believe).
Sad as this news maybe, but could you imagine the mayhem this guy would have done, in the ~ 4 sq. miles he roamed in, for more than an hour, in
central London, in rush hour, if he had had a gun?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1379194,00.html
Guns should be banned, absolutely, no exceptions or buts.
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson I can see a justification in the usa in certain circumstances - it would be useful if you had a gun when a bear is chasing after you in the woods. In the UK we dont have such a need.
quote:
Originally posted by krlthms
Sad as this news maybe, but could you imagine the mayhem this guy would have done, in the ~ 4 sq. miles he roamed in, for more than an hour, in central London, in rush hour, if he had had a gun?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1379194,00.html
Guns should be banned, absolutely, no exceptions or buts.
I didnt even mention the movie 'Deliverance' did I
that was filmed in wisconsin - ive been there about 8 times. the people are so overweight there that if you ran away, they would never catch you.
would have been a very short move 
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by andkilde
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson I can see a justification in the usa in certain circumstances - it would be useful if you had a gun when a bear is chasing after you in the woods. In the UK we dont have such a need.
LOL...
You've been watching too much television Stephen.
Bears...
ROFL, even in the somewhat "wilder" country of Canada we live in cities for the most part and bears usually run away from people -- if you are lucky enough to ever see one.
Cheers, Ted
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
quote:
Originally posted by krlthms
Sad as this news maybe, but could you imagine the mayhem this guy would have done, in the ~ 4 sq. miles he roamed in, for more than an hour, in central London, in rush hour, if he had had a gun?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1379194,00.html
Guns should be banned, absolutely, no exceptions or buts.
If one of the victims had a gun the raid might have stopped there?
Guns shouild be banned?
Nobody makes you buy or own one.
Criminals will love to hear that!
The criminals will love to hear this.
, I will go and buy shares in Gun makers.
well i love owning firearms and enjoy shooting very much... (targets of course),
the dodgy thing is the sale of precharged
air rifles and such like....
now they can be sold to anyone at a premium though, but still deadly in the wrong hands especially when most em can be customised to higher capacity.
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
well i love owning firearms and enjoy shooting very much... (targets of course),
the dodgy thing is the sale of precharged
air rifles and such like....
now they can be sold to anyone at a premium though, but still deadly in the wrong hands especially when most em can be customised to higher capacity.
quote:
OK, would you mind explaining to the owner (in this case me) of one of the aforesaid 'dodgy' precharged air rifles, exactly how they can be turned into deadly weapons please?
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that
because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding
firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are
caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
quote:
Air rifles must have a muzzle velocity of no more than 12fps, air pistols, 6 fps. Any more and they are classed as firearms and will get you locked up.
As in the pellets move at no more than 12FPS? Isn't that like fast walking speed? ^__^
Peteff - 27/12/04 at 12:16 AMKeen on the subject are you
krlthms - 27/12/04 at 01:50 AMquote:
Originally posted by locodude
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
Loco,
It is unfortunate that you want to lower and personlize the debate. Here we go:
1. The guns you mention are not target practice guns; they are specifically designed to kill people, at short range, and just because you fire them in a firing range does not make you a sportsman. For target practice there are special, and much more accurate guns. You don't see army, police etc carrying target pistols, and you don't see olympic target shooters firing Colt .45s, so your point is bogus.
2. True, cars kill people, mostly accidentally, but some times delibrately. However the question you should be asking is what percentage of cars, on the road today or in total, have killed people, and comapre this with any type or make of handgun.
But you knew this anyway, and your false outrage does not advance the debate, but insults the memory of those innocents that have been killed by guns in Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine, and numerous other places.
So, who is talking sh1te?
Cheers
KT
Peteff - 27/12/04 at 02:12 AMI know someone who was the legal owner of a .44 magnum and I feel a lot safer knowing that he is no longer in possession of this. If he had a psychiatric examination he would never have been allowed to own a gun. He was a milkman, for f*%ks sake, what did he need a gun for. Skimmed milk theft was never the top crime in U.K..
Cita - 27/12/04 at 08:27 AMquote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know someone who was the legal owner of a .44 magnum and I feel a lot safer knowing that he is no longer in possession of this. If he had a psychiatric examination he would never have been allowed to own a gun. He was a milkman, for f*%ks sake, what did he need a gun for. Skimmed milk theft was never the top crime in U.K..
I'm fully agree with you Pete,a lot of people should not have the right to own a gun.
A lot of people should not have a drivers license to.
Cita - 27/12/04 at 08:41 AM2. True, cars kill people, mostly accidentally, but some times delibrately. However the question you should be asking is what percentage of cars, on the road today or in total, have killed people, and comapre this with any type or make of handgun.
But you knew this anyway, and your false outrage does not advance the debate, but insults the memory of those innocents that have been killed by guns in Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine, and numerous other places.
So, who is talking sh1te?
Cheers
KT
cita
you are either playing devils advocate or creating a very strange non sensical argument.
there are no reasons why a common person should own a gun. If you accept that its wrong to take a life, then a gun in the possesion of a normal member
of the public is wrong. putting guns in the public's hands would make it more likely for a criminal to carry a gun for their own defence.
burglars generally dont have guns. if they expected one to be whipped out of the average joe's pillow when they were caught in their bedroom
would certainly make the criminal carry one.
I think if you looked deeply into yourself, I would expect that any given person could have a threshold that they could be pushed to that would make
them kill with a gun. jealousy, adversity, whatever, could push many people to a point where a gun might be seen as a viable option.
a gun is designed for a single purpose - killing. guns were never designed for target shooting - thats an offshoot- like cars were designed for
transport, not for racing. Its using something in a sporting context that wasnt intended originally.
knives cut food or materials, cars transport people, hands are for tasks other than strangling, etc. guns are soley for penetrating living objects
with a view to ending life.
the argument about guns for self defence doesnt stand - has there been a massive increase in people dying as a result of not having a gun handy in the
uk when attacked since the ban? Or indeed any instance where some member of the public has saved themselves from harm in the past cos they had a gun
handy?
atb
steve
[Edited on 28/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble. Or he may have suffered at the hands of his
burglars instead of the other way round. If you have a weapon to hand you will be premeditating using it. Don't keep the shotgun in the bedroom
unless you have an excuse for it. A fox in the wardrobe might qualify . Sorry, I'm drinking my Glenfiddich Christmas present to get rid of my
cold so I'm losing the thread now.
quote:
Originally posted by locodude
With the exception of those enlightened few you're all talking sh1te. I do have a vested interest in this debate as the authorities decided that because an inept Scottish Chief Constable let a certified lunatic have a firearms licence that they would take mine and evey other law abiding firearms owners guns off them. (1 x 9mm, 1 x .45, 1 x .357 and 1 x .44. all used for target shooting). Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by vehicles? Ban them I say, let's walk everywhere!
quote:
Originally posted by Browser
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
well i love owning firearms and enjoy shooting very much... (targets of course),
the dodgy thing is the sale of precharged
air rifles and such like....
now they can be sold to anyone at a premium though, but still deadly in the wrong hands especially when most em can be customised to higher capacity.
OK, would you mind explaining to the owner (in this case me) of one of the aforesaid 'dodgy' precharged air rifles, exactly how they can be turned into deadly weapons please?
) can buy one with no police checks or the such like and have them customised.also brococks have
recently been banned and re-categorised...cos people were tinkering with em to accept live .22 rounds...which afterall are known as the assasins
round becaused it can be easily silenced, even my air arms s410c could have its pressure raised upto 23fps from 12fps and some can be raised even
higher, but if i raise mine i will have to add it to my firearms certificate and will be restricted to where i can use it, Hi Steve,
you seems to be surprised that i'm against killing of people/animals because i believe in the right to defend yourself and/or your goods.
The one about the burglar who's gonna carry a gun to defend himself is a nice one.Perhaps he has no f"#king buisiness being in your home in
first place.
Perhaps the door could be left open and the expencive goods stored in the living room nicely packed together so that the burglar wont be upset by
searching for things,after all it's not an easy job, is it?
Every soldier in every army has a gun,yet the murder rate commited with those guns is no greater than in normal society,on the contrary.
Perhaps those soldiers know what a gun can do and therefore are not very eager to use it.
Cita - you do talk some sh*te - that's for sure
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
Cita - you do talk some sh*te - that's for sure
I'll second your opinion Jasper. Jesus if Cita and his friends on this list had their way we'd all be living like Patrick MacGoohan in
'The Prisoner'. And you know what he drove till the suits took his freedom? Yes a lotus seven! Your'e one step away boys that's
all
thirded locodude...
some of whats been said makes me laugh, but its not funny.
Mark
thought tony martin might come into this.
If you have ever seen an interview with the guy, I dont think hes got the right mental attitude to look after a cat, let alone have a gun.
The kid (16 years old) that he killed was running away and was shot in the back. Then he shot the guy that was with him.
He had been burgled many times before, which really doesnt give the right to kill, and I dont recall it ever coming out that he had been threatened
with violence.
in my view, mr martin is a whacko that illustrates my point that there are too many risks allowing the public to have guns
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble. Or he may have suffered at the hands of his burglars instead of the other way round. If you have a weapon to hand you will be premeditating using it. Don't keep the shotgun in the bedroom unless you have an excuse for it. A fox in the wardrobe might qualify
Cita
in the civilised world, there exists a concept called 'the state'.
this 'state' takes away your right of an individual to take the law into his own hands and gives it to 'the state'.
'the state' has things like laws, police, and the courts. Until a few years ago, this all powerful state had the right to take life away.
You live in belgium? part of the eec? In no EEC country does the 'state' have the right to take life. so why (to use your word ) the f@ck
should you?
are peoples lives less important than your video recorder? Ive been burgled in the past, and lost my video - in fact thats all they took before they
wer chased away. Now, if I had been in the house, and killed the little bastard, I would likely have got ten years. That would probably be fair, cos
ending someones life over a 100 quid video from dixons really doesnt make sense, does it?
Can I stretch the concept further? Perhaps I find someone with my wife? blow em away? yeah why not - im the law. Someone runs my kid over. blow that
bastard away too. my boss fires me. yeah, shoot that git as well. someone crashes into my car - hes a gonna - bang bang.
me, steve gusterson, would be oh so more powerful than the state and makes up his own feelings of whats right and wrong.
that would be a pretty crap place, wouldnt it?
we have a society where there are rules. One of them is that you dont kill people for whatever reason. The state deals with it. It would be better for
the state to have better policing, rather than instant justice over a few quid at the trigger of a gun.
therefore, if the state doesnt give the individual the right to kill, then guns are useless. Dont confuse the right to defend yourself with the right
to kill.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
Hi Steve,
you seems to be surprised that i'm against killing of people/animals because i believe in the right to defend yourself and/or your goods.
The one about the burglar who's gonna carry a gun to defend himself is a nice one.Perhaps he has no f"#king buisiness being in your home in first place.
Perhaps the door could be left open and the expencive goods stored in the living room nicely packed together so that the burglar wont be upset by searching for things,after all it's not an easy job, is it?
Every soldier in every army has a gun,yet the murder rate commited with those guns is no greater than in normal society,on the contrary.
Perhaps those soldiers know what a gun can do and therefore are not very eager to use it.
Steve and Co.
I think Cita is pulling our collective plonker; otherwise, if he is serious, he is one Captain Haddock short of the full Tin Tin.
Let us find out how seriuos he is:
Cita, could you please tell us about Marc Dutroux.
As for Mr Martin, before him was the Subway vigilante in New York, who, after allegedly being mugged, got a pair of guns and went
"target-practicing" on a bunch of black teenagers in the subway, and claimed (yup) self defence. One of the kids may have died, and one for
sure paralyzed. I think the vigilante is serving time at Mr Bush's pleasure.
ah, but if those 8 year old girls had guns........
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble.
Carry on mate, if you're not reading them just replying at random I'll not bother.
This problem has been around since the day the damn gun was invented. Gone are the day's when "I challenge thee to a duel!" was
followed by a slap in the face with a glove, then it became walk ten paces turn and shoot. Now its just shoot.
I don't think all gun's should be banned, some do have uses. Hunting. My mate just got a nice shinny (his opinion) shotgun for christmas.
Now I know this guy isn't going to wander down the high street of his town blasting people who annoy him, he will use it to blast away small
fluffy rabbits and shoot down birds, he doesn't do it for sport, he actually eat's the stuff he kill's, the same as every one popping
off to tesco's to pick up some cow, just someone has done all the killing for you.
Now handguns and automatic weapons are a different subject. I have to do an weapons handling test each year, it's part of the job, firing a
multitude of nasty bullet spewing weapons, purely to kill the enemy, but why does joe public need a gun that can fire 200 rounds a minute.
I watched an interesting program on discovery a couple of week's back about some old guy at a summer fair in America who just suddenly died.
Everyone thought he had a heart attack until the post mortum found a bullet in the back of his head. After some interesting reconstruction stuff the
police eventually worked out that some guy was having a party in his back yard. After a few drink's he pulled out his new handgun to show off to
his mates. They set up a barrel and popped off a few shots. One of the bullets missed and flew over a mile before hitting the unfortunate man in the
head.
These are the gun's that should be banned from joe public. Pointless weapons, not sporting accessories.
Why not toss another log on the fire and ban knives? That simple kitchen utensil we use every day. You see the news and more people are getting killed
more through the use of a simple knife. Kids getting stabbed by other kids just for their phone. Ok, stop selling knives to under 18's. Great.
Now all Master Stabby need's to do its grab mum's handy carving knife. Now give us the phone.
So maybe the question should be on how to stop people wanting to kill other people rather than just banning everything? These weapons have been around
for years, yet it's only in the last 20 that violent crime is rapidly on the increase. Is it the so called "violent games and movies"
that every one want's to blame? or the fact that if you do waste someone you get 10 years in a secure hotel with a slap on the wrist and a
"don't do it again"
Maybe the government should look into re-introducing harsher penalties for serious crimes. I dont mean the death penalty, just an couple of
electrodes, one on your nad's, the other up your bum and a couple of jolts, just enough to make your hair fall out. Something like that. Just
enough to make someone think twice before letting loose with both barrels, because the way it stand's at the moment, people are getting away with
murder. (sorry about that - bad joke!)
Enough from me
Chris
Some of you give the impression that i'm in favor of giving every lunatic the right to own a gun.If i gave that impression than i'm sorry
but that's certainly not what i mean.
If tommorow a few idiots cause some deadly accidents with locost's they have builded themselves with chickenwire instead of welding than the
chance might be that the state prohibit the building of cars by amateurs,as in many country's is the rule.
If you Steve and the rest believe that this would be the right solution to avoid deadly car accidents than dream on guys.
You seems to know more about M.Dutroux than i do KT so please tell me how many children that lunatic has killed with a gun he legaly bought in a
gunstore?
The views in modern society about crime has changed in the last 30 years so dramaticaly that there never before has been so much fear among civilians
in peace time.
Saying that a burglar will start carrying a gun because the owners of the house he's about to brake in might have a gun is turning things
around.
If you put your son on the same levell of importance as a stupid video when it comes to defence Steve than i feel sorry.
If a criminal is in my house and one of my relatives is in danger than i hope i have a gun and hope i'm able to pull the trigger.
If that makes me go to jail for ten years than so it be but at least i would'nt have to worry that the wrong person has died.
I believe in the fact that the state should care for his citizens with laws that are not allways liked or popular but if i see how police force is
restricted by laws these days to take on crime,than i'm surprised that they are able to catch any criminal at all.
If you all think that banning is the general solution than take that damn locost out of the garage and go for a ride cause it wont be long before the
right to build and drive your own car on public roads will be banned.
and if you read pete, you will see that at no point did I disagree with said line......
and cita - in this case you are not reading what I said.
you distorted the bit about my son. I said if he was killed by a driver I didnt have the right to kill the driver - then you chucked a video into it
that was part of another example. Thats a bit rambling dont you think?
your chickenwire locost is also a daft one. In fact 'the state' has answered this problem - its called SVA in the UK and any car thats been
chicken wired wont be on the road cos 'the state' prevents it. (like the state meters justice instead of you having to do it with a gun). In
fact, many countries (if not all?) in europe have gone the totalitarian route in europe by banning building kit cars.
you dont seem to be putting forward a cohesive argument without misquoting or making up scenarios.
where the hell did the right to build a kit car come into the gun debate?
a car is for transport, and if built wrong, may kill (but we have sva for that). as a gun only has one purpose. you dont seem to adress that.
The classic way to try and hang on to a losing argument is to strike off at a tangent - you are doing that big time. when that fails, people generally
resort to insults......
lets stick to the point, which was I asked if there was any reason, given the rules of society that an individual should own a gun.....
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I know it's contradictory, but if he hadn't had a gun he might have been in a lot less trouble.
Carry on mate, if you're not reading them just replying at random I'll not bother.
because we can
legally and it's quite a cheap sport considering.
and as for the fella getting shot in the back of the head by a handgun over a mile away... handgun or a anti-tank missile ?, there can't be many
handguns that can shoot that far, can there.
i don't know much about hand guns but ballistically is there a handgun capable of travelling near a mile let alone over a mile.
answers on a postcard plz
a projectile is affected by gravity, regardless of its speed. If you shoot a gun from a height of 5 ft, and drop a ball from a height of 5 ft, both
bullet and ball will hit the floor at the same time.
Thats why cannons point upwards, to allow the projectile to gain height, and increase the time it takes gravity to pull it to ground.
so, either the weapon was fired into the air some degree, or they were using a very high velocity weapon - such as a rifle or whatever. could it
cover a mile in the time it takes the bullet to drop 5 ft? dunno - ive never fired a real gun in my life.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
because we can
legally and it's quite a cheap sport considering.
and as for the fella getting shot in the back of the head by a handgun over a mile away... handgun or a anti-tank missile ?, there can't be many handguns that can shoot that far, can there.
i don't know much about hand guns but ballistically is there a handgun capable of travelling near a mile let alone over a mile.
answers on a postcard plz
i was being sarcastic rorty, plus we do get assessed by the gunclubs we have to belong to otherwise the licence gets revoked.
as far as i know there is no such handgun that could travel that far ... but my heavy barrelled target rifle does.... but not much further,theres only
a handful of places in the country to shoot greater distances... that's why i didn't go and buy a .50 calibre,
[Edited on 29/12/04 by marcyboy]
You have a fair point about misreading the part of your son Steve.If i insulted you with that than i'm sorry,it was not my intention.
The car comes in the debate because it used to be very easy to legalize a homebuilt car in the UK,before the SVA.
Instead of going the SVA route the govern. could easely dealth with the subject by simply banning homebuilt cars from the road and luckely they did
not but engaged themselves with a controle unit.
It's obviously a spread opinion that people who own a legaly bought handgun will sooner or later go on the street and start killing people as if
all the sportshooters or collectors are lunatics.
It's my opinion that i have the right to defend myself Steve.
Your opinion is that the state is doing it for you.
Perhaps i dont give/have all the answers to your questions but so far nobody have given me a clear explanation on some of my question,except that
i'm talking s"#te.
Why is the murder rate in Switzerland not higher than in any other western country inspite the fact that more than 50 percent of the family's
have a gun at home?
The same goes for Israel where perhaps 80 percent of the family's have a gun at home.
So the link between owning a gun and going on the street to kill people is not as strong as someone wants us to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
i was being sarcastic rorty, plus we do get assessed by the gunclubs we have to belong to otherwise the licence gets revoked.
as far as i know there is no such handgun that could travel that far ... but my heavy barrelled target rifle does.... but not much further,theres only a handful of places in the country to shoot greater distances... that's why i didn't go and buy a .50 calibre
[Edited on 29/12/04 by marcyboy]
well at least i hope i've got a fair amount of knowledge as i use home made loads
Check this site out.
http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/10switzerland.htm
Despite claims that Switzerland is one of the most armed countries in the world, only 27% of Swiss households have firearms, 60% of which are
military weapons.
Although firearm numbers in Switzerland are similar to other countries, its gun death rate is high, a consequence of its elevated suicide rate. SA
version of gun control.
http://www.gca.org.za/bill/newfeatures.htm
Looks like your kind of place marcyboy.
[Edited on 29/12/04 by Peteff]
you must be kidding peteff.... there only allowed 200 rounds of ammo for each calibre
Actually a handgun bullet can travel a lot further than you think, for example:
a 9 mm 120 grain bullet fired out of an average sized handgun at 45 degrees elevation will travel about 2300 meters before falling - NRA Firearms Fact
Book. Yew York. Second Edition. 1983
A 9mm bullet travels around 1500 ft/s. It will travel around 2500 yards before it falls. Kelly, Kenneth Sergeant. 60th Precinct, City of New York.
Personal Interview. 21 May 2002.
The table below shows the average maximum range in yards of several types of popular handgun and rifle ammunition. The calculations were made for Sea
Level and 72 °F. Warmer temperatures and higher elevations will significantly increase the maximum range of the bullets. [see table below]
Caliber Weight/Type Muzzle Velocity (ft/s) Maximum Range(yd) Velocity at Impact (ft/s)
.22 Long Rifle 40 gr RN 1255 2000 300
.223 Remington 55 gr SP BT 3240 3875 545
30-06 Springfield 180 gr SP BT 2700 5675 800
9mm Luger 124 gr RN 1120 2400 350
45 ACP 230 gr RN 850 1800 330
44 Magnum 240 gr FP 1760 2500 350
http://www.hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DomnaAntoniadis.shtml
Sorry about the state of the table, cut and pasted it from a website. As to the guy who got it, I cannot find any information on the program to
confirm the distance or type of handgun used, however I do remember he was hit in the back of the head where neck iis, so explains why the bullet
entered with the lower velocity, and if I remember rightly the man got several years in jail for accidental manslaughter.
A complete accident in my eyes but still shows that miss use of guns is still leathal. I jjust don't see the point of why anyone needs a
handgun.
Cita - if there is a difference, perhaps its due to culture or mentality.
Apparently, in Japan, rape is really low - but there are the most horrendous forms of cartoon pornography comic books available. but it doesnt make
people rape.
In the UK if people are made to live in apartment blocks, then they tend to trash the place. They are generally in downbeat areas, graphitti,
voilence, etc. The mentality seems to be created in that environment. However, go to singapore, and everyone lives in apartments. Crime is extremely
low, there isnt any graphitti.
why? could be the attitude or people, or, that word again, the state. In singapore, if you drop litter, its a months salary in fine. When I was there,
a 16 and 18 year old couple abandoned a baby in a phone box. In the Uk they would likely get probation and councilling. In Singapore they get 8
years!
We live in a society, and have a mentality, that tends to voilence. There are too many people around that would use a gun too easily in a given
situation.
In most european countries, you would end up in prison for a very long time if you used a gun - even in self defence - you should have it anyway in
the UK.
atb
steve
[Edited on 30/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
you probably are right Steve.
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
you probably are right Steve.
probably
oooooh! Steven,
"go to prison for along time",
"even in self defence"
I think thats another debate entirely,Has not a senior police officer just said something about us being able to defend ourselves on our own property
using force if needed without prosecution.
Dont get me wrong,I dont advocate any type of violence but surely if you and your family were at risk you wouldn't let someone on your property
do any harm to anyone ?
This really is not a gun debating point but more of a moral grounds issue.
Steven, the floor is yours!
quote:
Originally posted by DEAN C.
oooooh! Steven,
I think thats another debate entirely,Has not a senior police officer just said something about us being able to defend ourselves on our own property using force if needed without prosecution.
Hi Dean
Of course id defend my home and my family. However, I wouldnt consider myself much of a fighter physically. Id probably come off worse ! So, in my
case, if I had a gun in the house, Id confront a burgular with it. It would be my best chance of a result. And if he came after me, rather than
getting the crap beaten out of myself, id probably shoot.
then Id be in court, and under current UK law it would be excessive force, and id get banged up.
so, all in all, not much of a result.
thats the problem really - a gun can be used as too much of a first resort. Women, little old ladies, 5ft 9 slightly built guys confronted by 15 stone
gym attending burglars, - it would be really tempting to shoot.
Burglars are a$$holes..... my video was stolen 15 years ago by a teenager.....but would it really be right that the law should be changed so that the
life of a burglar can be taken at will and that I coulda killed him? Burglary doesnt carry a death sentance normally.
We are concentrating a bit too much on a scenario - not the fact that there is an argument that guns should be freely available.
and that it would be wrong.
Im amazed that things such as the subject of this thread dont happen more often.
atb
steve
but my hands are dirty and it tastes really bad.
Stephan, are you sure that you have been to Wisconsin? Are you sure you have also seen Deliverance? Huh? Huh?
Wisconsin is big and flat with low rolling hills (called Dells). Deliverance was filmed in the Nantahale Gorge area of North Carolina (about 700 miles
south of Wisconsin). The movie is about a bunch of guys who go deer hunting on a whitewater river that is going to disappear when a new dam is
comissioned (Lake Laneer outside Atlanta Georgia).
My wife and I make the drive up the gorge on our way to Gatlinburg Tennessee several times a year and we have never been shot at, or even seen a
toothless kid playing a banjo.
There ..... Now I feel much better.....
I have to agree though that the difference in our attitudes about guns is mostly a cultural thing. Just please don't base your oppinions of the
US gun owners on movies or even the news reports, because our media is notoriously liberal.
Any occurance where some nutcase goes off and hurts people will ALWAYS make national news coverage, you never see anything about the 2.5 million times
per year that a legally owned gun is used to prevent a theft or something even worse.
That fact is that most gun related deaths in the US are criminal against criminal. Turf wars and such. The liberal establishment here has spent so
much time teaching the lower classes to expect a hand out that they can't earn a living on their own. Then a teenager realizes that he can get
out of the ghetto by setting up shop as a "pharmcutical sales entrepeneur" and viola more fuel for the drug war. The average drug dealer in
most urban areas is 19, has a BMW, a handgun, and will be dead next year. Banning his handgun would do no good, beacause he can import them from the
same folks he gets his product from. In most cases the gun was illegally obtained anyway, because he can't buy one till he is 21.
I personally feel that I know part of the reasonwe have had problems with gun crime in the last couple of decades. Years ago kids has toy guns to play
with...cops and robbers, cowboys and indians were games we all played. Then one day we got a BB gun, and almost certainly got stung when we were
careless and got shot with it. We learned that even a BB gun could hurt you. Later we got to shoot real guns, either with parents, grandparents, or in
school rifle teams. We felt the recoil, and knew that these would cause more pain than the BB guns. Some of us would hunt and see the damage that a
high powered rifle can do to a deer, or that a .22 can do to a fuzzy little bunny, and we learned to respect these guns.
But today bleeding heart liberals have decided that guns kill people, as opposed to the person who pulls the trigger. This mentality has led to guns
being taboo around kids to the point that kids will play with them like toys, becase they have no idea that they can maim or kill. And when the inner
city youth gets involved with the wrong crowd and first uses a gun, it's accompanied by the adrenaline rush that comes from commiting the crime.
This rush is an attraction that will bring this youth to commit the crime again and again, just to feel the rush.
I was raised around guns. Shot a .357 Magnum when I was 5, got a BB gun of my own when I was 6 (had sense enough not to get shot with one though,
stings like a bitch I'm told), traded (with my dads permission) for a .30-30 Winchester rifle when I was 10 (I still remeber how much it hurts to
shoot it, and I still have it 28 years later, and I got my 1st shotgun for my 12th birthday ( my grandfather got it so we could go to ham shoot s
together on Saturdays).
I currently own:
a Berreta model 92 9mm pistol
a Ruger KMK512 bull barrel target pistol .22
a .22 revolver which is in too poor condition to shoot
a Remmington 510 bolt action single shot .22 rifle (set up for rimfire benchrest shooting)
a Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle with a custom cherry stock(set up for benchrest)
my .30-30 that I've had since I was 10, and a Yugoslavian M48 Mauser that I got last year, it is presently 8mm but I plan to rebarrel it for
.22-250 for .....you guessed it BENCHREST.
My wife has a Kel-tech p-11 9mm pistol.
All of this hardware, living not only in the US, but in the gunloving south and I haven't killed anybody yet in almost 38 years.
But there's always tomorrow.
benchresting aint that for the old timers,
as for the distances i was'nt talking about maximum possible distance at 45 degrees,not unless the fella in question was shooting a barrell of
water that happened to be on his roof,
but you probably test shells and mortars too. where as i use a scope or iron sights. theres always one ain't there
Pages and pages of justifications, and still nobody can explain why the US has such a high proprotion of gun related deaths compared to other western
(not the John Wayne kind ) countries that have far tighter gun control.
If you're all so goddam careful with your guns, how come so many of your people (and children) end up dead?
im still waiting for a real life illustration where someone can tell me of an instance in the UK where someone has been saved from harm by a gun in
private ownership. Except for the whaco martin, who was offensive, not defensive.
Deliverance. I had been told it was filmed in Wisonsin. Pehaps i was told wrong.
Ive been to Kenosha, wisconsin, about 8 - 10 times. Its about 50 miles from the souternmost border with illonois into a very tall state that heads
northwards, and ive never been any further up than Milwakee. So, ive got no idea if its hilly, flat, or what past there.
you could visit london and have no idea what its like in the peak district, and thats only about 150 - 200 miles north. So Wisconsin could be like the
moon at the northern border for all I know
atb
steve
ps
if your wife caught you in bed with a woman, would you be happy knowing that she had that 9mm handy?
[Edited on 31/12/04 by stephen_gusterson]
no but it's a bloody good deterrent!!!
like when the uk banned handguns poland encouraged people to own handguns especially for people whose jobs were high risk, even bank tellers or so i
hear, and within 2 years the crime rate was less halved,maybe conrodski could shine more light on this subject.
but i think thats a good deterrent for the majority of hoods.
plus i remember watching bowling for columbine and did'nt canada have the lowest gunrelated deaths compared to how many firearms are owned.
[Edited on 31/12/04 by marcyboy]
Nope don't test mortars and shells, only fire the browning 9mm, gpmg and the sa80, -Royal Navy marksman at 100m with iron sight.
Some of us can shoot, and shoot quite well. I just don't boast about gun's being a cool hobby. When you see the left overs of a couple of
guys who were blasted by a couple of iraqis, you kinda loose interested in shooting for fun.
thats why i only shoot targets , thats fun
i've heard loads of bad stories from WW2
and korea... men being cut in half by a vickers machine guns...ouch.
as for the .223 i shot one with a scope and hit the target at 500yds... but only just worried it...and did'nt think much of the AR15 at 100yds
either.
the same day we shared the 100yd range with a bunch of bench resters...lol,
its not a deterrent!!!!!
when would a villan think ANYONE he was attacking in the UK had a gun!
And we still have a lower crime rate than the USA thats full of guns.
still not getting anyone taking up my request for an example of a gun protecting anyone in the uk!
atb
steve
if your wife caught you in bed with a woman, would you be happy knowing that she had that 9mm handy?
thats the deterrent
This is the editorial from the Chicago Tribune today. It is a conservative newspaper, certainly not anti gun owning. In fact it endorsed Bush for
president , despite the overwhelming majority of this city and state being democrat.
Nevertheless, it makes interesting reading. Any reactions? comments? I certainly have a few but I will refrain for now:
Cheers.
KT
++++++++++++++
Another 151 murders averted
Published December 31, 2004
The crushing of skulls on a gorgeous summer evening in 2002 awakened Chicago to a travesty this city long had tolerated. The deaths of two defenseless
men--they were beaten with masonry and fists by a mob of bystanders after their van struck three young women--shocked America. The vigilante
executions of Jack Moore, 62, and Anthony Stuckey, 49, accomplished something that more than 600 homicides a year, for 34 straight years, had not:
Those two murders embarrassed Chicago.
In a series of 2002 editorials, "The Chicago crime," this page framed the nonchalance of a metropolis to its ritual massacre:
"In a city that has improved by almost every measure--from infant mortality to public education, from calmer race relations to the broad
diversity of its economy--one civic failure stubbornly defies conquest. Not since 1967 has a year concluded with fewer than 600 people being murdered
here. . . . What none of us wants to say, but what we as a city say by our tolerance of 600 murders a year, is that many of these lives are
expendable. There is no empirical proof that Chicagoans ignore homicides by the hundreds because the blood flows in impoverished neighborhoods where
most of the faces are black or brown. But to deny that reality is to ignore what most of us will admit under our breath."
Year after year, fewer than 10 percent of Chicago's murder victims are white. That enduring calculus penalizes parts of Chicago by race, and also
by class. Reverse the percentages, making nine of every 10 victims white, and Chicago's civic outrage would have demanded decades ago that the
murder toll be slashed.
The fact that such a demand is being sounded now is a belated acknowledgement that in terrorized neighborhoods across this city, too many young bodies
wind up wearing toe tags.
- - -
Chicago's crusade since 2002 to drive down the carnage is making extraordinary progress. As of mid-Thursday, with barely a day of killing time to
go, the 2004 murder toll stood at 447. That is 151 fewer victims, 151 fewer heartbroken families, 151 fewer anguished funeral sermons, than the 2003
toll of 598 by the same date, Dec. 30.
When the final corpses were counted, Chicago ended 2003 with 600 homicides. That was down from 654 in 2002, which was down from 668 in 2001. In short,
while the number of homicides nationwide has been growing slightly, in Chicago it has starkly declined. So, too, has the all-important murder
rate--homicides divided by population--the humiliating category in which Chicago has led the nation's biggest cities in nine of the last 10 full
years.
Two more lifesaving achievements attest to this progress--which has been, in the parlance of logicians, necessary but not sufficient.
- For many years, through 2002, Chicago endured some 4,000 intentional shootings every year in addition to its murders. (Four of five killers here use
guns.) But in 2003, as this crusade against violence took hold, the number of intentional shootings in Chicago dropped by 23 percent, to 3,016. As of
Thursday, the count for 2004 had plummeted by another 39 percent, to 1,824.
- The number of guns seized this year by Chicago police has risen more than 5 percent to 10,479--an average of 29 firearms taken off the streets every
day. Just since Sept. 13, when Congress and the Bush administration inexplicably let the federal ban on assault weapons expire, police here have
seized more than 100 of those hyperefficient killing machines.
In sum, a city defined by gun violence since the bloodthirsty days of Capone is now experiencing . . . much less gun violence.
The overarching reason is that Chicago--its public officials, some of its victimized communities, its foundations and other institutional voices--has
come to see homicide as an issue of basic civil rights. For too long, law-abiding residents of impoverished minority neighborhoods have been hostages
to violence, deprived of the security and freedom the rest of us enjoy.
Mayor Richard M. Daley signaled an assault on the killing early in 2003. The slaughter angered Daley, formerly Cook County's chief prosecutor;
since he became mayor in 1989, more than 11,000 people have been murdered in his city. He hired federal prosecutor Matthew Crowl as his de facto
homicide czar. Later that year, Crowl had a role in Daley's choice of Philip Cline as police superintendent.
Credit for that inspired appointment also goes to Ald. Ike Carothers (29th), head of the City Council's Police and Fire Committee. Carothers was
disgusted by mayhem so ruthless that every two weeks on average, another schoolchild died of gunshot wounds. Carothers took a political risk, telling
Chicago's African-American community that crime-fighting ability--not the race of any candidate--mattered most in the choice of a top cop. In the
realpolitik of Chicago, Carothers' candor allowed Daley to promote Cline, who is white.
Cline is the architect of imaginative tactics to put more "cops on the dots," flooding officers into zones where violence has occurred or
where improved gang intelligence suggests it is likely. He has ordered desk officers and top brass onto vicious streets during the nighttime hours
when killings tend to occur. As never before, officers have disrupted open-air drug markets, gun trafficking and retaliatory cycles of gang
warfare.
Cline also has benefited from work by his predecessor, Terry Hillard, who is black. It was Hillard's outreach to minority communities, including
frequent forums he hosted, that left many neighborhoods open--however cautiously--to the heavier police presence Cline has delivered. Chicago cops
have increased their one-to-one contacts by tens of thousands, mostly in minority areas, with no increase in citizen complaints of misconduct by
officers. The fear often voiced in many neighborhoods is that the police will lose interest in quelling gunplay and retreat.
Chicago owes some of its improvement to federal prosecutors who have aggressively wielded gun laws, and to federal judges who treat these cases more
seriously than before. Experimental efforts to teach parolees about Draconian federal prison penalties for repeat firearms offenders has cut homicides
in those neighborhoods even more dramatically than the citywide reduction. Those tutorials also have prompted some suspects captured during gun
offenses to beg of the arresting officers: "Don't take me federal!"
- - -
Chicago is at a tipping point. For some potential killers, it appears, a gun is now too toxic a possession to be an everyday article of attire. The
halving of intentional shootings in just two years suggests that violent behaviors can be changed, even after decades of constancy. A balance of power
is shifting away from those who long have terrorized much of Chicago. Their influence must continue to diminish. The murder numbers here must continue
to fall.
Speaking to police commanders earlier this month, Cline bluntly instructed them not to confuse being pleased with being satisfied. On Tuesday he
reiterated: "We can't become complacent. We've had 445 homicides this year. Those victims' families are not rejoicing today when
they hear that we're down 145 homicides." Two more homicides have occurred since Cline spoke those words.
Chicago paid a terrible price for its one-third of a century with more than 600 murders every year: During that pogrom, more than 28,000 lives were
exterminated.
Homicide isn't one pathology, but a constellation of pathologies--from domestic violence to tavern brawls to gangbanging--that leave corpses.
Driving down homicide demands a strategy for each pathology. Example: In 2005, Chicago police will launch new efforts to curb infanticides.
The long-term solution to homicide is to better educate young people before they turn to dangerous lifestyles involving gangs, guns and drugs.
Until that effort can prevail, we're forced to evaluate Chicago's expanding crusade against homicide by the number of people still among us.
To give thanks, at the end of that crusade's third year, for another 151 murders that didn't occur.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
i think male testosterone would make you end up dead
its also proving my point - you seem to be accepting that your wife might shoot you if she caught you with a woman.
the penalty for adultery in the western world isnt death........
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by marcyboy
if your wife caught you in bed with a woman, would you be happy knowing that she had that 9mm handy?
thats the deterrent
from the bbc website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4135675.stm
the bit i noted was
" Then it teaches them how to make the right choices and how to control their anger when things go badly so they don't get tempted to reach
for a gun."
guns make killing too easy and simple.
atb
steve