What is wrong with the nanny state?

[tomarin]

While I don’t discourage anyone from buying a handgun, a shotgun would be a much better choice for home defense.

1. It is more shootable – a shotgun is designed to be pointed, not aimed. The separation of the hands give you clues where the gun is actually pointed – something you don’t get with a handgun, especially in low-light situations.
2. It is more intimidating. You don’t want to shoot anyone. If you are holding a small handgun, and your knees are knocking and your teeth chattering (and they will be), you’re sending a message, “You can take this thing away from me.” If you’re holding a shotgun, the message is, “If you make a wrong move, this thing might go off.”
3. With a full choke and a load of small shot (#6 or thereabouts), it is not likely penetrate the outer wall of your house and the outer wall of your neighbor’s house.

thanks to you and wirraway for the advice. what you say makes sense.

i’m not really into hunting (more of a birder) but that may be the only way to gradually legitimate this in my wife’s eyes. plus my brother-in-law is a hunter and she has a high regard for him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

thanks to you and wirraway for the advice. what you say makes sense.

i’m not really into hunting (more of a birder) but that may be the only way to gradually legitimate this in my wife’s eyes. plus my brother-in-law is a hunter and she has a high regard for him.

Try shmoozing up to your brother in law, and that may do the trick.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, it appears that the UK isn’t the gun-free zone it’s often touted to be: news.scotsman.com/uk/Gunman-killed-in-shootout-with.4055698.jp

Some things I don’t quite follow, however:

A brother and sister out shopping on the nearby Kings Road told how they saw armed officers running away from the square after the shots were fired.

The cops ran away from the scene??? Hmmm…

Ms Gillioz recalled seeing the first police arrive moments earlier. She said: "I noticed them putting their weapons together, then saw them position themselves.

The cops had to assemble their weapons when they arrived at the scene???

"Then I saw them getting their riot shields out. They were covering a door in Markham Square. There was the sound of commotion, then shots

Not sure if anyone’s explained this to the British cops, but riot shields will not stop firearm projectiles. At best, all they do is give the perp something to aim at.

Four armed officers ran down to the Kings Road away from there. They looked panicked."

Her brother added: “One of them shouted, ‘Get the hell out, this is serious’.”

So, what we have is a situation where a guman starts busting caps, and the British police have to put their guns together when they get to the scene, then try to hide behind riot shields, and when the gunman starts firing again, they run away?

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

If that’s what living in a “gun-free” society does for the police who are supposed to be protecting the public, I’ll stay right here, thanks. I mean, over here, the cops might be slow in showing up, but at least they’re armed when they get there, and prepared to deal with whatever they’re walking into.

 

[cynic]

So how come Britain has a higher crime rate today than it did before banning guns?

stats please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stats please.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

---

Posted: March 02, 2001
1:00 am Eastern
Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America’s former master – Great Britain – has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens – roughly one-quarter of the population – have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=20010723&section_type=com

Great Britain: Blown Away by Gun Control Laws
July 23, 2001
Tourism in Great Britain is down because of the foot and mouth disease scare this spring.

Now comes a second blow. A June CBS News report labeled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world.”

Dan Rather reported:

“This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. But now, the U.K. has a crime problem worse than ours.”

Crime Report
Dan’s got it right. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Britain’s rate of assault, robbery, and burglary now exceed those in the United States. Murder and rape are edging up very near the American rates, too.

BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime from 1998 to the present.” Relying on statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs, crime in England and Wales this year is at epidemic levels, 60% higher, per capita, than in the U.S.

 

[cynic]

It would have been better if you had linked directly to the studies quoted in those articles. Otherwise it’s third hand information.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It would have been better if you had linked directly to the studies quoted in those articles. Otherwise it’s third hand information.

Almost all studies are third hand information – the writer is not an eye witness to the events generating the data, and often relies on someone else to compile it.

The key question is – do you say those articles are false? On what grounds do you base such a claim.

 

[cynic]

How could I claim anything, there are no links to the source. At least the wikipedia article provided them :


unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

(United Nations Office on Drugs and CrimeUnited Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

 

[vz71]

How could I claim anything, there are no links to the source. At least the wikipedia article provided them :

unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

(United Nations Office on Drugs and CrimeUnited Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

Welcome back…
Perhaps you care to address my question now.
I think the cynic here has failed to answer for how exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

Perhaps he conveniently overlooked the question…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Welcome back…
Perhaps you care to address my question now.
I think the cynic here has failed to answer for how exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

Perhaps he conveniently overlooked the question…

Riddle me this: People who support the Nanny State are obviously people who know they **need **a nanny. They don’t believe themselves capable of handling their own affairs.

So how come they believe themselves qualified to come on an American forum and tell us how to handle our affairs?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Welcome back…
Perhaps you care to address my question now.
I think the cynic here has failed to answer for how exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

Perhaps he conveniently overlooked the question…

 

[anthony022071]

Welcome back…
Perhaps you care to address my question now.
I think the cynic here has failed to answer for how exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

Perhaps he conveniently overlooked the question…

I don’t really too much care one way or the other about this issue,but in answer to your question…
the guns that criminals use originate from legal gun manufacturers and dealers. So somewhere along the line these legally manufactured and sold guns are being sold to criminals. The dealers may not know that they are selling to criminals or their intermediaries,and they might not care anyway,so long as the sale is legal. It’s business. But what criminals do with guns is not the business of the manufacturers and dealers. So perhaps the government should be more strict with the manufacturers and dealers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t really too much care one way or the other about this issue,but in answer to your question…
the guns that criminals use originate from legal gun manufacturers and dealers. So somewhere along the line these legally manufactured and sold guns are being sold to criminals. The dealers may not know that they are selling to criminals or their intermediaries,and they might not care anyway,so long as the sale is legal. It’s business. But what criminals do with guns is not the business of the manufacturers and dealers. So perhaps the government should be more strict with the manufacturers and dealers.

Why?

In fact, the government often trumpets about how many “criminals” have been blocked from buying guns – but less than 1% of those “criminals” are ever prosecuted.

If the government would prosecute every criminal caught with a gun or tryhing to buy a gun, that would do far more to reduce crime than any other measure.

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

Why?

In fact, the government often trumpets about how many “criminals” have been blocked from buying guns – but less than 1% of those “criminals” are ever prosecuted.

Well,if a criminal has been prevented from buying a gun,then he has been prevented from illegally possessing the gun. So I’m assuming that there wouldn’t be much to prosecute him on except for the intent on buying the gun.

If the government would prosecute every criminal caught with a gun or tryhing to buy a gun, that would do far more to reduce crime than any other measure.

But remember that prisons are already over-populated and courts are already backed up. So if the government prosecuted all the criminals who were blocked from buying guns that might be a big strain on the prisons and courts. I’m assuming that the government doesn’t want to bother going through with prosecuting all those minor offenders because they don’t think it’s worth it,just like police who patrol ghettos don’t always bother busting all the known small drug-dealers and drug-houses,and the buyers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well,if a criminal has been prevented from buying a gun,then he has been prevented from illegally possessing the gun. So I’m assuming that there wouldn’t be much to prosecute him on except for the intent on buying the gun.

Excuse me!!

A criminal is trying to buy a gun (which is a federal felony) and it’s okay to just let him walk?

And next Tuesday, when he finally has a gun, and kills someone, we just shrug our shoulders?

But remember that prisons are already over-populated and courts are already backed up. So if the government prosecuted all the criminals who were blocked from buying guns that might be a big strain on the prisons and courts. I’m assuming that the government doesn’t want to bother going through with prosecuting all those minor offenders because they don’t think it’s worth it,just like police who patrol ghettos don’t always bother busting all the small drug-dealers and the buyers.

You’re kidding?

If we prosecuted criminals who tried to buy guns, we’d prevent violent crime. If we prosecuted violent felons for possessing guns (which is another federal felony), we’d prevent them from committing crimes with those guns.

There’s no shortage of concrete and rebar in this country. All the architects and builders haven’t died. There are people who need jobs, and could be employed as Corrections Officers.

There’s no need to knowingly allow violent criminals to run loose and prey on the innocent!

 

[anthony022071]

Excuse me!!

A criminal is trying to buy a gun (which is a federal felony) and it’s okay to just let him walk?

And next Tuesday, when he finally has a gun, and kills someone, we just shrug our shoulders?

I’m not saying it’s right not to prosecute. I’m just suggesting that the government probably doesn’t think that it’s worth it to prosecute those kinds of offences,even though they are felonies.

You’re kidding?

If we prosecuted criminals who tried to buy guns, we’d prevent violent crime. If we prosecuted violent felons for possessing guns (which is another federal felony), we’d prevent them from committing crimes with those guns.

But it’s normal for violent criminals to be prosecuted ex post facto – after they have committed a violent crime,rather than before. The federal government is not in the business of trying to prevent common criminals from committing violent crimes except in disaster areas,or attacks on government officials. Anyway,if the government is going to prosecute violent criminals who try to buy guns,they should also be more strict with the gun dealers who are selling to criminals. Gun dealers can look up a prospective buyer’s police record on the internet.

There’s no shortage of concrete and rebar in this country. All the architects and builders haven’t died. There are people who need jobs, and could be employed as Corrections Officers.

There’s no need to knowingly allow violent criminals to run loose and prey on the innocent!

It would take a strong public demand for the government to be more aggresive in prosecuting violent criminals who try to purchase guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not saying it’s right not to prosecute. I’m just suggesting that the government probably doesn’t think that it’s worth it to prosecute those kinds of offences,even if they are felonies.

Then the government isn’t doing it’s job, now is it?

United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3:

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But it’s normal for violent criminals to be prosecuted ex post facto – after they have committed a violent crime,rather than before.

No, it’s normal for criminals to be prosecuted when the government has reasonable cause to believe they have committed a crime. When a previously-convicted criminal tries to buy a gun, or is in possession of a gun, or when anyone is in simultaneous possession of guns and drugs, the commit a federal crime.

The federal government is not in the business of trying to prevent violent crimes from happening,except for attacks against the country,terrorist attacks,or in disaster areas,or attacks on government officials.

If the federal government is not in the business of trying to prevent violent crimes from happening, why have any gun laws at all?

Anyway,if the government is going to prosecute violent criminals,they should be more strict with the gun dealers who are selling to criminals. Gun dealers can look up a prospective buyer’s police record on the internet.

**Now **I get it!!

You don’t know what you’re talking about! You have no idea what federal firearms laws are, do you?

When you go to buy a gun, you have to fill out a form first and sign it. That form asks critical questions – like “Have you ever been convicted of a felony” and warns you that lying is a criminal offense. When you have filled out and signed the form, the dealer calls the FBI (there is an 800 number) and the FBI runs a background check on you at that time.

If you do not pass the background check, you don’t get the gun – and you have committed a federal crime by lying on the application.

It would take a strong public demand for the government to be more aggresive in prosecuting violent criminals who try to purchase guns.

As opposed to getting the government to respect the Constitution?

 

[anthony022071]

Then the government isn’t doing it’s job, now is it?

Not in regard to this issue.

No, it’s normal for criminals to be prosecuted when the government has reasonable cause to believe they have committed a crime.

If it really was normal,then there would be a lot more violent criminals being prosecuted for trying to buy guns.

That’s what this discussion is about.

In the case of gun laws,it isn’t about “reasonable cause to believe they have committed a crime”,but whether or not the government wants to follow up on reasonable cause to believe that a criminal will commit another crime. Obviously the government is not too interested in taking preventative measures when it comes to common criminals.

When a previously-convicted criminal tries to buy a gun, or is in possession of a gun, or when anyone is in simultaneous possession of guns and drugs, the commit a federal crime.

So if a criminal has been prevented from buying a gun,all he could be prosecuted for would be the attempt to buy it. Even if he were sent to prison,he’d probably get out in a short time.

If the federal government is not in the business of trying to prevent violent crimes from happening, why have any gun laws at all?

As I said,violent criminals are normally prosecuted only after they have committed a violent crime,not before. Criminals who break preventative laws don’t get prosecuted as much as when they commit a crime where someone gets hurt.

**Now **I get it!!

You don’t know what you’re talking about! You have no idea what federal firearms laws are, do you?

When you go to buy a gun, you have to fill out a form first and sign it. That form asks critical questions – like “Have you ever been convicted of a felony” and warns you that lying is a criminal offense. When you have filled out and signed the form, the dealer calls the FBI (there is an 800 number) and the FBI runs a background check on you at that time.

If you do not pass the background check, you don’t get the gun – and you have committed a federal crime by lying on the application.

But obviously,criminals are getting the guns anyway. If the gun dealers are really co-operating with the FBI and refusing to sell to to people who have committed violent crimes,then the criminals must be getting the guns through intermediaries who don’t have have a history of violent crimes. So the preventative system involved in selling guns isn’t preventing criminals from getting the guns. That’s something that the government should scutinize.

As opposed to getting the government to respect the Constitution?

It would take a strong public demand for that to happen also.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If it really was normal,then there would be a lot more violent criminals being prosecuted for trying to buy guns.

Which is the crux of the problem – if the laws we have now aren’t being enforced, what good will more laws do?

In the case of gun laws,it isn’t about “reasonable cause to believe they have committed a crime”,but whether or not the government wants to follow up on reasonable cause to believe that a criminal will commit another crime. Obviously the government is not too interested in taking preventative measures when it comes to common criminals.

That being the case, what good will more laws do?

So if a criminal has been prevented from buying a gun,all he could be prosecuted for would be the attempt to buy it. Even if he were sent to prison,he’d probably get out in a short time.

Actually, the sentence is 5 years for the first offense, and there is no parole in the Federal system. Now, since we’re talking about a previously-convicted felon, this would be at least his second conviction. If he has two previous conviction, the three-strikes law takes effect, and he get an automatic life sentence.

As I said,violent criminals are normally prosecuted only after they have committed a violent crime, not before.

So if we’re not going to prosecute, why have a law at all? The only people it affects are honest people.

But obviously,criminals are getting the guns anyway. If the gun dealers are really co-operating with the FBI and refusing to sell to to people who have committed violent crimes,then the criminals must be getting the guns through intermediaries who don’t have have a history of violent crimes. So the preventative system involved in selling guns isn’t preventing criminals from getting the guns. That’s something that the government should scutinize.

If previously-convicted criminals were charged and convicted for** trying** to get a gun, or for **possessing **a gun, or if people in simultaneous possession of guns and drugs were prosectued, we’d save lives – is that not a worthy goal?

We’d actually reduce violent crime, since we’d put a bunch of them away before they commit another violent crime – and that would save lives. Is that not a worthy goal?

 

[anthony022071]

Which is the crux of the problem – if the laws we have now aren’t being enforced, what good will more laws do?

I don’t know if more laws are needed,but the government should try to identify who the intermediaries are between the dealers and the violent criminals,or find out if the dealers themselves are selling guns under the table.

Actually, the sentence is 5 years for the first offense, and there is no parole in the Federal system. Now, since we’re talking about a previously-convicted felon, this would be at least his second conviction.

It’s not uncommon for a felon who has prior convictions to get his sentence commuted. Since prisons are over-populated,even violent criminals get let out early on good behavior.

If he has two previous conviction, the three-strikes law takes effect, and he get an automatic life sentence.

So if we’re not going to prosecute, why have a law at all? The only people it affects are honest people.

When criminals break preventative laws,it doesn’t provoke the same kind of public outrage as when they commit crimes where someone has been hurt. So the government doesn’t bother prosecuting those crimes to the extent that they should.

If previously-convicted criminals were charged and convicted for** trying** to get a gun, or for **possessing **a gun, or if people in simultaneous possession of guns and drugs were prosectued, we’d save lives – is that not a worthy goal?

Yes.

We’d actually reduce violent crime, since we’d put a bunch of them away before they commit another violent crime – and that would save lives. Is that not a worthy goal?

Yes. But again,those kinds of crimes don’t provoke the same kind of outrage as violent crimes.

Also,there’s probably not much of a monetary incentive for the government and law enforcement to make off of criminals who try to buy guns,as there is with parking violations and drunk driving.