• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

A Fascinating Discussion About Firearms Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Is Dog face still swooning over his gun fetish? I found some interesting stats while reading a story about a guy in Ohio who blew away a 15 year old kid for stepping on his lawn.. Pumped two rounds from a .410 shotgun into the lad at point blank range.

factoids:
1] a kid is killed by a gun every three hours in the US [ I know - old joke - why won't the kid stay down ? ]
2] nearly 1000 children under age 19 are killed each year by guns
3] 40% of households own guns. These guns are 22 times more likley to be involved in ' accidental ' shootings and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than used in self-defence
4] on average more than 80 citizens are killed by gunfire every day.


and as for the guy who offed the kid.. Ohio does not require a permit to purchase a gun, nor does the state require a licence to own [ though some municipalities have bylaws covering aspects of ownership ]

Most state legislatures are considering bills to ' relax' gun controls now in place.

Florida [ Dubya's brother runs the show there ] introduced a law last year giving citizens the right to ' stand their ground ' and open fire, even in a public place, if they ' feel threatened '. The Florida gun lobby is pushing for a state bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work, with or without employers' consent. [ so don't mess with the guy at the ' complaints' department ]

think I'll scratch Florida and Ohio off my vacation list for a bit.
 
#2
Found this, sorta funny really in an arrse about way:

Army tightens concealed gun policy for Alaska troops
DISCIPLINE: 8 incidents involving soldiers' personal weapons cited for decision.

The Associated Press

Published: March 20, 2006
Last Modified: March 20, 2006 at 02:36 AM


FAIRBANKS -- Soldiers based in Alaska are no longer allowed to carry privately owned concealed weapons, under a new U.S. Army Alaska policy.


The ban is in response to several incidents involving soldiers and weapons, officials said.

"In the last six to eight months, there have been a number of incidents involving soldiers and privately owned concealed weapons that indicated a need to look at this policy," said Maj. Kirk Gohlke.

Incidents include a fatal shooting in Fairbanks that led to the current trial of three Fort Wainwright soldiers, Gohlke said.

A jury is deliberating the fate of Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox, who are charged with second-degree murder in the August death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins. The soldiers have pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense in using personal weapons during a confrontation that killed Wilkins.

Gohlke said there have been seven other instances involving Alaska soldiers and personal concealed weapons in Fairbanks and Anchorage. He did not comment on specifics.

The new policy states that "soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or both."

Military personnel and civilians also are prohibited from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time at a military installation in Alaska under a policy that has been in place for some time.

Alaska law, however, is much less restrictive. In 2003, Gov. Frank Murkowski signed into law a bill that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit.

Joe Nava, a Fairbanks firearms instructor, said there are still benefits for getting a concealed firearm permit, although the state doesn't require it.

Permit holders are eligible to buy a gun from a dealer without a background check, are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 29 other states and are entered into the police computing system as a permit holder.

Nava disagreed with the Army's new policy.

"The military is taking away (soldiers') ability to protect themselves off base and that's not right," Nava said.

Gohlke, however, said the policy applies only to concealed weapons, not weapons for recreation and hunting.

"Our interest here is simply to protect the health and welfare of soldiers and promote good order and discipline," Gohlke said. "The intent is not to restrict soldiers' rights."
 
#3
Rocketeer said:
The Florida gun lobby is pushing for a state bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work, with or without employers' consent. [ so don't mess with the guy at the ' complaints' department ]
Rocketeer the bill is currently stalled in committee, and you are misrepresenting the bill completely. 1) the bill does not authorize a gun owner to bring their gun into the work place only to allow the gun owner to have a weapon in their vehicle in the parking lot 2) Is not just the Florida Gun Lobby but the NRA and it is in response to some recent firings of employees in other states for having rifles and other legally owned weapons in their vehicles parked at the site of employment during hunting season.

Please read the language of HB-129 before posting inaccuracies :wink:

Rocketeer said:
Florida [ Dubya's brother runs the show there ] introduced a law last year giving citizens the right to ' stand their ground ' and open fire, even in a public place, if they ' feel threatened '.
Again you are streching the truth. The law eliminates the "duty to retreat" but does not allow to indiscrimately shot when one feels threatend. A person using deadly force is still required to prove that they were "in fear for their life or great bodily harm". The prosecutor determines whether the burden of proof is met based on a police investigation. If the burden of proof is not met you go to trial or otherwise arrange a plea agreement, provided such agreement is offered. What the law does do is this; if you are found to be either adjudicated not guilty or not charged the person shot or his next of kin can not sue you in civil court. To often was the case where someone was defending themselves or others against a grave or deadly threat and resorted to legal and justified use of deadly force, only later to be sued in civil court and lose it all....just look back at the OJ case of an example of found not guilty in criminal court and sued in civil court and found guilty. That is and was not an isolated case.

As for your other enumerated facts, well let's just leave that for another time :wink:

DISCLAIMER:
In no way does my post refute the fact that "dogfeces" is a turd stabbing mong that should be removed from the gene pool.
 
#4
Isn't America a great country.

Where else could you have a law (proposed) that allows you to have a selection of deadly weapons in your car in the firm carpark but if you sit in the same car in the same car park and have a cigarette you could be sacked from your job.

Wonderful sense of priorities shown there.
 
#7
People - please keep this based (loosely) on the US gun culture etc etc, as opposed to another Dogface beating thread.

If it descends that way, y'all know where it's going - the NAAFI - so I can make it a free-fire zone! :)
 
#8
Ctauch, thanks for the information. In fairness to Rocketeer I read exactly the same thing in yesterday's Grauniad, so he could have been directly quoting the article rather than misrepresenting the facts. A lesson in not believing everything we read perhaps.
 
#9
This topic has been done to death but no, some moron starts it up again and with the same f*cktards digging at one person. Give it a rest knobs...f*cking civvies
 
#10
Rocketeer said:
Florida [ Dubya's brother runs the show there ] introduced a law last year giving citizens the right to ' stand their ground ' and open fire, even in a public place, if they ' feel threatened '.
32 other states already had this law on the books when Florida passed it, so we are hardly leading the way.

C'mon Rocketeer, we all know you have an Uzi next to the bed to "hunt" with. :wink:
 
#12
Whilst I do understand the sentiment behind restricting firearms ownership, quoting statistics regarding deaths and injuries from firearms sort of misses the point.
Looking at the big picture, man has a remarkable propensity for self destruction. leaving aside major feuds between nations and racial/religious groups, as a species, we are uniquely capable of killing ourselves and each other at a rate that would win the admiration of Pol Pot.
I dont have the figures to hand, but apart from the obvious ways in which we manage to inadvertantly off ourselves, numerous people die each year whilst, for instance, putting on their trousers or socks. Even just getting out of bed seems to be inheritently hazardous, as a number of people die each year doing just that.
Then theres the huge number of people who slowly but surely kill themselves through the abuse of alchohol, tobbaco and even food, how crazy is that?
My favourite reverse analogy is to look at social insects. For instance, bees and ants individually are fairly mindless creatures, but group them together and they seem to demonstrate a kind of collective intelligence. Statistics would suggest that we humans work the opposite way round, individually, we're usually fairly smart, but get a few of us together and watch the mayhem that ensues.
My point is, that no matter how much you attempt to preserve life by banning guns, introducing speed limits, restricting access to drugs and pharmaceuticals, etc etc, we humans will continue to cause the deaths of ourselves and each other in epic numbers.
 
#13
Don't get hot under the collar Dogface. I'm not interested in points-scoring or spam-baiting. I make no comment on this, I only posted the link so you could see where Rocketeer might have got his information.

Thanks for the first informative paragraph though.
 
#14
Farmer Martin finds two intruders in his home. Gets his shotgun and kills one as they run away. Survivor is being paid by the BBC to give his side of the story after said farmer has spent a few years in jail. USA will generally back the gun owner over any incident deemed self defence. UK seems to want to send the gun owner before the courts and give him some jail time for self defence. I'm glad we don't have the gun laws that the US have, we have our own fair share of secret gun freaks without having them legally walking around carrying any amount of preferred hardware. However when it comes to defending my family from god knows what I believe our sane American cousins are right. I only have an ornamental brass poker to arm myself with, I would of course love a Ruger or Glock.
 
#15
easymoney said:
Farmer Martin finds two intruders in his home. Gets his shotgun and kills one as they run away. Survivor is being paid by the BBC to give his side of the story after said farmer has spent a few years in jail. USA will generally back the gun owner over any incident deemed self defence. UK seems to want to send the gun owner before the courts and give him some jail time for self defence. I'm glad we don't have the gun laws that the US have, we have our own fair share of secret gun freaks without having them legally walking around carrying any amount of preferred hardware. However when it comes to defending my family from god knows what I believe our sane American cousins are right. I only have an ornamental brass poker to arm myself with, I would of course love a Ruger or Glock.
Get your facts straight from the scum then?

Martin was prosecuted for shooting someone who was running away from him. Not self defense.

I agree that the scum bag involved deserved shooting but if you do shoot/hit/injure a crim then you have to be 100% sure that they are a threat to you at the time or else it is just revenge and not defense.
 
#17
Steven said:
I agree that the scum bag involved deserved shooting but if you do shoot/hit/injure a crim then you have to be 100% sure that they are a threat to you at the time or else it is just revenge and not defense.
And that's the nuance of the issue in America that I believe ctauch was trying to address earlier.

I think that "getting a free one," so to speak, requires that you can prove by reasonable standards that you were in physical jeopardy at the time you fired on an assailant (this actually happened to a distant cousin of mine). I believe this has to be more substantial than believing someone's intentions were malicious, i.e., "he looked at me funny and we were the only two people in the parking lot!" In my cousin's case, third-party witnesses and statements from police at the scene were considered as well as physical evidence. Because I do believe that someone has a right to defend themselves or their families against bodily harm, this seems like an acceptable standard.

But all Americans know that administering justice or punishment is the domain of law enforcement and the courts. If it can be proved that your intent was to supplant the courts' position in this, rather than defend yourself, you're going to jail for a long time.

I know that the popular impression of American gun owners is that they're all misanthropes with itchy trigger fingers just waiting for the chance to pop some person that they don't like for whatever reason. In fairness, all the paranoid crap that certain people *cough* spout can certainly aid that impression. But I really believe these people are a vocal minority.

Edited to add that the most lethal thing I own is a hockey stick. :)
 
#18
Dear Dogface et al:

' factoids' came from a news article attributed to AP Wire Service whome, I suspect, might have checked their facts once , maybe..


As for people with gunsd ' at work ' well, and this is just for stirring the pot.. how many times do we read of some guy getting fired, sh*t on by the bossd for dropping a box, etcv. then returning with ordnance and proceeding to ventilate the co-workers.. happens enough times to become a cliche in films..
Now, I'm sure, given that the guy under law could have been ' without guns' would have found another way to take out his anger [ and fellow men ] the fact that he had ready access to firearms increased the possibilites..

Its all very well tio grantsomeone the 'right' to defend themselves when they ' perceive an immediate threat' but, as others have pointed out that is an individual judgement and after it is all said and done and the guns have be drawn the ' factoid' io that someone will likely be lying in a pool of blood and all the investigation and blame laying and possible lawsuits or blockage thereof will not bring back the victim [ perp or bystander or other ]...

and dogface.. what immediate threat did the 15 year old kid pose to the guy with the shotgun who ' leagally ' had the right to protect his lawn from damage?

okay awaiting the inevitable brickbats or, in dogface's jurisdiction, a 9mm copper jacketed hollow poiot...
 
#19
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/NEWS01/603220444&SearchID=73239346348857

My state just ratified a similar law.

Indiana has become the third state to join an emerging national debate on self-defense, making clear that people have the right to use deadly force when threatened without first trying to back away.
As an aside, just got back from Walmart. Bought 40 rounds of .22-250 for my Remington 700, and 100 rounds of 9mm Luger...all purchased with a gift card!!

What a great country! :D
 
#20
Dogface said:
Rocketeer said:
Dear Dogface et al: ' factoids' came from a news article attributed to AP Wire Service whome, I suspect, might have checked their facts once , maybe.....
Bad assumption.
Another dazzling riposte, elegantly (and so very succintly), made by Dogface.

Would you care to share your inside source on the lack of care taken by the AP in preparing this particular piece. Or do you just mistrust any written material not nailed to the hitching post in front of the Sheriff's Office?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads