So. About those gun laws...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?

And that there is a difference between cultures wider then oceans.
Police coming in without invite are what we call a dictatorship.

There was a shooting in Alexandria the other day right across from my parents house, I was home at the time and I did not fear the officer who knocked on our door and informed us that the shooting had happened and asked for any information we could provide on the suspect.

He wasn't invited, but I was glad the Alexandria Police Department is willing to go door to door asking if people are okay, and offering to search peoples houses for the suspect if there scared.

I don't understand being afraid of cops, but then again, I live in an area with a well functioning police department and I dislike how police often profile people in places like New York.

READ THE DAMN POST.
He said cops COMING IN UNINVITED AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT TO HIS HOUSE MONTHLY.

**Alexzandvar**

Frazzled wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Why would anyone have an issue with the police coming into their house?

And that there is a difference between cultures wider then oceans.
Police coming in without invite are what we call a dictatorship.

There was a shooting in Alexandria the other day right across from my parents house, I was home at the time and I did not fear the officer who knocked on our door and informed us that the shooting had happened and asked for any information we could provide on the suspect.

He wasn't invited, but I was glad the Alexandria Police Department is willing to go door to door asking if people are okay, and offering to search peoples houses for the suspect if there scared.

I don't understand being afraid of cops, but then again, I live in an area with a well functioning police department and I dislike how police often profile people in places like New York.

READ THE DAMN POST.
He said cops COMING IN UNINVITED AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT TO HIS HOUSE MONTHLY.

I apologize for not reading his initial post, but I will say that I did address the fact that being so utterly afraid of the police is irrational.

You and I have different standards of course, you think I'm a "leftie" (and I hope you read D-USA's post on how that's insulting) who wants to sign away your rights.

Honestly I just want people to calm down. I was being silly when I got all passionate about a revolution being possible in another thread and it's just as silly for everyone to be jumping up and down all a tizzy over these gun topics in this thread.

**CptJake**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its better to have a gun and not need it, and need it, but not have it.

I'm not arguing against guns per se, but rather that belief the government will protect you is somehow a worse option. Both involve faith (or fathers apparently ), and acting like its a one or nothing deal, or that either is any less an assumption is delusional.

There is a major difference to me. I cannot control the gov't. I can't control police response times. I can control myself. Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.

**NuggzTheNinja**

LordofHats wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:

I've never had a bomb dropped on my house. In fact, none of my neighbors have experienced that either. But I have used a lawfully-carried handgun for self defense, and I know several other people who have done the same.

But if a bunch of thugs kick down my door at 4 in the morning, I'd rather have an AR15 than a telephone with the President of the United States, Delta Force, Seal Team 6, and Chuck Norris on the other end of the line.

And when they gun you down and rob you anyway, which is always a possibility, maybe you'd still be alive if you just let them come and go. Or maybe not. You simply assume that because you have a gun you are safe, which is bull. It makes you feel safer. If you really want to guarantee your safety, you're better off jumping out the back door and running away.

Not really. I make the reasonable conclusion that, because I am in familiar terrain, in a superior position, with the element of surprise, weilding a weapon through which I've fired tens of thousands of rounds and on which I've trained for thousands of hours (many of which occurred during my tenure as a designated marksman in an Israel Defense Forces airborne infantry brigade), I am probably in a better position using deadly force against armed attackers than I am laying down and praying that they don't hurt me.

Furthermore, my bedroom is on the second floor, and I would rather shoot people than jump out of a window.

**Frazzled**

Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.

I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).

**LordofHats**

CptJake wrote:
Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.

Well they do have an obligation. Whether they live up to that is on them and chance. But this is kind of my point. The gun is a self-affirmation of your own ability, which is fine. We all have things we know we can and can't do, things we think we can and can't do, etc. But really, if three guys break into your house, you have no idea if they're armed or even if there's only three of them. Maybe there's five. In the end, it's still an assumption that you can handle the situation. Short of claymoring every entrance into your house, which is probably inadvisable kids don't do at home, it's still an assumption (and refusal to accept assumptions for what they are is delusion).

Lots of burglars have no interest in hurting anyone or being hurt themselves. Saying "take what you want and go" and relying on that is probably going to get you about as far, but it gives you little control so you don't like the option or want to believe in it even though statistically it'll probably work (again, not saying everyone should do this, or shouldn't keep guns for self-defense, just that pro-gun advocates seem to inflate firearms into offering a lot more than they do)..

**Alexzandvar**

Frazzled wrote:
Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.

I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).

I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.

**whembly**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who's afraid of the police? I shoot with them, was taught to shoot by the rangemaster of a major county in California.

I just don't want the government thinking it can barge into my house for no reason whenever it wants. Thats why my relatives fought the British (they were French at the time of course and shouted things like "Vive Le Emperor!" and there was some unpleasantness with holding back some Prussians on a particular day but hey lets not point fingers).

I would be interested to hear what you think of Establishment republicans such as Nixon and Eisenhower, since I ironically hold a lot of views that they did.

Nixon = tricky Dickey

Eisenhower = Loves big governments, or at least big projects. (at least he hated the Nazis

)

**Knockagh**

I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.

It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.

**whembly**

Knockagh wrote:
I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.

It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.

O.o

Its not that I don't trust them... I simply don't trust anyone that I don't know.

See the difference?

Besides... You live on a tiny island. The US is ginormous and in some places of the US, the po-po is multi-minutes away, if not hours.

Mr. Smith & Westen may be your only line of defence in some cases.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Knockagh wrote:
I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.

It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.

Police officers in the UK can do no wrong.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/Corruption_in_the_Police_Service_in_England_Wales_Report_2_May_2012.pdf

Do you really believe the things that you write?

**Grey Templar**

Its not just that some people don't trust the cops, its that the cops aren't going to get there fast enough. ever.

When someone is breaking into your house you need the cops there immediately, but at best they're at least 5-10 minutes away if you live inside city limits. Outside it could be upwards of 30 minutes if you are lucky.

The police almost never stop a criminal act in progress. They play catchup with criminals after the fact, its just how it works. Guns stop crimes, police simply avenge them.

So unless you are so lucky as to call at a time when a Cop happens to be patrolling right by your location they're not going to be there fast enough.

**SOFDC**

It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.

Who could have foreseen that when they banned all red cars (As defined by examination under a digital camera and having a "Red" RGB value of 230 or over) that non-red cars of 229 value start appearing on the market.

This is what happens when you play specifics games with people who use and work with machines and specifications on a regular basis.

**whembly**

SOFDC wrote:
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.

Who could have foreseen that when they banned all red cars (As defined by examination under a digital camera and having a "Red" RGB value of 230 or over) that non-red cars of 229 value start appearing on the market.

This is what happens when you play specifics games with people who use and work with machines and specifications on a regular basis.

Wait... is that a real thing? (or is this one of those screened-doors submarine jokes?)

As in, a certain red color cars to circumvent traffic cams?

**LordofHats**

He's drawing an analogy to the whole 'guns that look like such and such' are banned. Like a gun's lethality is completely based on its appearance;

Clearly anything else just isn't deadly enough @_@

**Grey Templar**

I'll bet that gun could empty 30 magazines in half a second

**LordofHats**

I personally favor something with more, thump

The things you find on the internet when you type in 'ridiculous gun'

**Grey Templar**

Why are 2 of them facing backwards

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's what happens when the law forbids gun control and people try to achieve something by workarounds, and then the workarounds are worked around.

So-called "assault" weapons could easily be dispensed with by banning self-loading weapons. People would still be able to have revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles. These are certainly good enough for target shooting, hunting and home defence.

A six round revolver that is slow to reload and has a limited capacity is good for home defense? When you factor in the adrenaline dump and how is takes multiple rounds to down a single assailant then you may wish to revise what you consider "good enough".
Bolt action rifles are too slow for multiple assailants, cumbersome in close quarters and often have a limited magazine
Shotguns produce a lot of recoil and are not suited for every frame.

This law is a farce because it tackles a firearm based on it's characteristics. It is wholly ineffective and a waste of time. Shootings with legally held rifles are in a significant minority.

Knockagh wrote:
Examples?? I lived near a farmer who owned 2 ak47's. The weapon I grew up with being used to murder innocent people in the streets and bars of my city.
He had an armalite, a weapon that was used to injure a good friend of my fathers who happened to go shopping on the wrong day.
Many of the weapons that fond their way illegally into my country were bought without restriction in the states and shipped here by people who used the lax gun laws to murder innocent civilians. Tragic?

Don't let the flag fool you, I'm originally from the North myself.
Yeah.... you do know that most of those weapons came from LIbya (for the IRA) or South Africa (for the Loyalists) right? The amount of firearms that made their way from the United States to Northern Ireland is minuscule by comparison.
You seem to be conflating legal ownership by law abiding citizens with illegal ownership by terrorist groups. That is not exactly comparing apples with apples.

Knockagh wrote:
American people were tried and convicted of aiding Irish terrorists many times and of the specific crimes of arms smuggling, but many terrorist shipments got through the graveyards of my country are testament to it.

I shoot myself I have a 12 gauge shotgun I need on the farm and an .22 air rifle I use for target shooting. All ammunition I must purchase and be recorded on my licence. My guns are inspected regularly in my home by police officers as are all licensed gun holders weapons. My shotgun is a tool I need to do my job it's not a toy or a source of amusement, it is what it is a weapon designed to end life.

And rifles used for hunting etc. and held legally in the United States are not?

You seem very hung up on the whole assault rifle thing, so to help me understand your point better what do you understand an assault rifle to be?

Knockagh wrote:
Thats why you are in the colonies....

And is that why the illustrious North is such a bitter little hole with everyone clinging onto their flags?

Knockagh wrote:
Ha ha brilliant. I love it when a yank gets all 'up in arms' about their constitution. It just a document folks not Holy Scripture. All documents change with the times, that's what history is all about.

You are correct, it is not holy scripture. It is a legal document and is primary legislation that other legislation is subordinate to.

Knockagh wrote:
I suppose if I lived in a country were the police were not trustworthy I wouldn't want the police in my house but I don't thankfully the police here are a professional force who the law abiding community support and enjoy the protection of.

It must be awful to live under a police you can't trust. My heart goes out to you guys. Awful times.

I'm sorry. Did someone who is living in the North of Ireland just post that statement? Perhaps you would care to investigate the history of collusion between the security services and terrorists. I recommend starting with the Stalker Inquiry. Or maybe read up on how the Police helped conceal the truth of Bloody Sunday which helped serve as the IRA's best recruiting tool and helped fuel the violence. And a lot of the people involved with those programs made the leap from the RUC to the PSNI.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
Why are 2 of them facing backwards

Incase someone gets behind me, clearly XD

**CptJake**

LordofHats wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.

Well they do have an obligation. Whether they live up to that is on them and chance. But this is kind of my point. The gun is a self-affirmation of your own ability, which is fine. We all have things we know we can and can't do, things we think we can and can't do, etc. But really, if three guys break into your house, you have no idea if they're armed or even if there's only three of them. Maybe there's five. In the end, it's still an assumption that you can handle the situation. Short of claymoring every entrance into your house, which is probably inadvisable kids don't do at home, it's still an assumption (and refusal to accept assumptions for what they are is delusion).

No, they really don't have an obligation to act in my best interests, not a legal one nor a moral one. And your hypothetical is just that, I can wargame through that situation many ways, the reality is (based on experience) you'll never have close to prefect knowledge of how good or bad a situation really is until after the fact. Frankly 3 or more or less, armed or unarmed, hostile or looking fro quick stuff, all end up in the giant category of 'someone who ain't supposed to be here is'. I don't assume I can handle the situation. I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other. As the 'guy on the scene' as opposed to some unknown govt worker an unknown response time away I guess I refuse to place faith (or responsibility for my family and property) in that unknown.

**Wilytank**

LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Why are 2 of them facing backwards

Incase someone gets behind me, clearly XD

Reminds me of when I had this thing:

Oh to be 9 again.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.

It's the very last element of it - the fact that the police have no duty to actually protect any citizen - coupled with the incredibly slow response times in my semi-rural area - that weighed heavily into my eventual concealed carry permit.

**Relapse**

Wilytank wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Why are 2 of them facing backwards

Incase someone gets behind me, clearly XD

Reminds me of when I had this thing:

Oh to be 9 again.

I remember when some areas were considerin a ban on super soakers because some people were using them to spray others with chemicals.

**LordofHats**

legal one nor a moral one

Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.

I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.

Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.

Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Putting faith in my abilities based on a pretty decent understanding of my capabilities, strengths and weaknesses makes a lot more sense than putting my faith in unknown folks with no real obligation to do anything in my interests.

It's the very last element of it - the fact that the police have no duty to actually protect any citizen - coupled with the incredibly slow response times in my semi-rural area - that weighed heavily into my eventual concealed carry permit.

Yup... as a reminder, in Warren v. District of Columbia, police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals.

And in 2005, the SC again ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman (in this ruling) who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

**Ouze**

That last case kind of makes you shake with anger, doesn't it?

There was another similar case in NY as well with the transit police IIRC where the cops did not engage someone who was busy stabbing somebody because they were afraid he might have a gun.

Ultimately all you have is you.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
legal one nor a moral one

Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.

I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.

Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.

Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.

Didn't some cops and some other bikers pull a guy out of a car and beat him senseless in front of his wife and kids? I swear I heard that up in some Yankee place recently.

**Relapse**

Frazzled wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
legal one nor a moral one

Cops who don't do their job (ideally) are fired. And yeah. They do have a moral obligation to help you. They can't teleport to your house at the snap of a finger, but acting like every low brow robbery is a life of death struggle is just fear mongering. Whether they live up to their obligations is on them. But standing around jerking off while on duty is the text book definition of immoral, not to mention unethical.

I know I can act to influence the situation as it develops, even as it develops fast. I've been in bad situations before. Again, I place faith in knowing my strengths and weaknesses and how to influence a situation to take advantage of one and mitigate the other.

Which is fine. I'm more opposed to the "guns solve all problems" types, who pretend it can't go bad, in spite of the fact it can go very very bad. Getting out of a bad situation when possible and waiting for the cops, is not terrible idea. Confrontation isn't the best solution to all problems, and while the cops can't master the technique of instant transmission to any location at will, you can rely they'll show up eventually.

Things can be replaced, and many buildings have more than one exit (hence my bringing up the issue of apartments). Violence is not the only solution and the 'gun um down' attitude isn't very endearing.

Didn't some cops and some other bikers pull a guy out of a car and beat him senseless in front of his wife and kids? I swear I heard that up in some Yankee place recently.

Naw, that kind of thing happens over the Macon County Line!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ8d4VN1MlE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYQ8d4VN1MlE

**Frazzled**

I'll just leave this here.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/11/cartel-hitman-testifies-to-800-murders-daily-quotas-at-kingpin-trial/

Cartel hitman testifies to 800 murders, daily quotas at kingpin's trial
By Joseph J. Kolb /
Published February 11, 2014 / FoxNews.comSince Arturo Gallegos Castrellon was arrested in 2010, the murder rate in Juarez has plummeted. (AP)
EL PASO, Texas – The ongoing trial of a man accused of killing three U.S. Consulate workers and family members in Juarez is revealing the shocking depravity of one of Mexico’s most violent gangs, including the charge that it had a daily murder quota calibrated to instill fear in police and the public.

Jesus Ernesto Chavez Castillo, a star witness in the murder trial of Arturo Gallegos Castrellon, told jurors in an El Paso federal courtroom how the Barrio Azteca Gang Catrellon grew from a Texas jail gang into contract killers for the notorious Juarez cartel. Thousands of murders committed by the gang over a four-year period helped Juarez earn the dubious title of "Murder Capital of the World."

Chavez testified he stopped counting the number of people he killed at 800, and said he often beheaded and dismembered victims to impress his boss. The idea was "that it would be big news," he said.

“I feel I did the right thing, since I did so much wrong.”
- Jesus Ernesto Chavez Castillo
“I feel I did the right thing, since I did so much wrong,” Chavez said in court, explaining why he was now testifying against his former boss.

Castrellon is accused of ordering the March 13, 2010, shootings of Lesley Enriquez, her husband, El Paso County Sheriff's Officer Arthur Redfels, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, husband of another consulate employee. Earlier this month, an FBI agent and another former gang member testified that the shootings may have been a case of mistaken identity.

The victims were driving in a white Honda Pilot and a Toyota SUV following the birthday party of a consulate co-worker’s child. The Pilot matched the description of a vehicle rival gang members had been spotted in, according to witnesses.

But the revelations about the Juarez cartel’s brutality in its long-running war with the rival Sinaloa cartel have cast a chilling pall over the trial. The Sinaloa cartel ultimately won control of the drug trade route into the El Paso region.

While it may not be possible to prove how many murders are attributable to the Barrio Azteca Gang or the cartel it worked for, what is certain is that after the arrests of 35 members for the 2010 killings, the murder rate in the violent city plummeted to 2,086 in 2011 from 3,622 a year earlier. In 2012, it declined to 751.

But the real reason for the decline in murders was that the Sinaloa cartel won the war, according to Stratfor Mexico Security Analyst Tristan Reed.

“The murder rate in Juarez persisted because you had two powerful criminal organizations providing the weaponry, money and illicit drugs to push gangs to kill one another,” Reed said.

With the Sinaloa cartel and its elusive leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, unrivaled, the body count in Juarez has slowed, he said.

But the Barrio Aztecas, implicated in numerous high-profile El Paso murders in recent years, are still active on the Texas side.

“It is important to remember that Los Aztecas are still a very dangerous street gang operating in both Mexico and the United States,” Reed said. “However, their ability to carry out violence as seen in 2010 is no longer around.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Wilytank wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Why are 2 of them facing backwards

Incase someone gets behind me, clearly XD

Reminds me of when I had this thing:

Oh to be 9 again.

I remember when some areas were considerin a ban on super soakers because some people were using them to spray others with chemicals.

is it me or does that look like something a Nid might point at you?