SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Ohio newspaper publishs names and addresses of gun owners (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117435)

Puster Bill 06-27-07 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty
Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:
Not necessarily. First, the pattern of burglary in the United States is that burglars tend to go after homes that are unoccupied, simply because they fear being shot. That doesn't mean that they avoid houses known to have guns, indeed knowing that is an incentive to burglarize the house: Guns have a certain value among criminals, more so than televisions, computers, and cameras.

Secondly, while it is definitely a good thing for you personally if everyone knows that you are armed, it doesn't help those who are not (unless, of course, you happen to in the vicinity during an incident). Not knowing who is armed and who is not adds an uncertainty in the mind of the criminal contemplating an attack: He has to measure the likelyhood of success against the possibility that the person he is attacking will kill or injure him.

Think of it this way: Militarily, if you are thinking about bombing a city, knowing exactly where all the Anti-Aircraft sites are allows you to avoid them. If you do not know where they are, you are likely to run up against them sooner or later. That is why the military spends so much money to camoflage things, to preserve the element of surprise.

SUBMAN1 06-27-07 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puster Bill
...Secondly, while it is definitely a good thing for you personally if everyone knows that you are armed, it doesn't help those who are not (unless, of course, you happen to in the vicinity during an incident). Not knowing who is armed and who is not adds an uncertainty in the mind of the criminal contemplating an attack: He has to measure the likelyhood of success against the possibility that the person he is attacking will kill or injure him.

Think of it this way: Militarily, if you are thinking about bombing a city, knowing exactly where all the Anti-Aircraft sites are allows you to avoid them. If you do not know where they are, you are likely to run up against them sooner or later. That is why the military spends so much money to camoflage things, to preserve the element of surprise.
I disagree. Having no one know who is armed and not armed is more of a deterrance then having everyone know who is armed. One more thing, if an armed criminal knows you are armed, then guess who gets to be the first target he shoots at? I'd rather conceal it. Most days, I am not armed though. Having a gun around is kind of like having to babysit it and worry about it all day. I only bring it along if I am going downdown or something.

-S

PS. Unlicensed open carry is still an option for citizens in several states. A friend who is a 911 operator takes panicked calls on this all the time, and he has to tell them that it is his or her right to open carry, and that the caller should go about there business and forget about it. Typically these calls are made from Californians, who are all practically from a different world anyway.

dean_acheson 06-27-07 12:16 PM
This happened in Virginia recently.

Heibges 06-27-07 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puster Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heibges
A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.
Wrong. Gun violence in the United States tracks almost exactly with where your ancestors came from.

Those of European descent (and by the way the most likely to own a gun), have homicide rates similar to that of Western Europe taken as a whole. Those of African descent (one of the least likely groups to own a gun) have the highest homicide rate.

I deduce, therefore, that homicide rates are cultural. It has nothing to do with the availability of cheap guns.

If you don't believe me, check for yourself. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a nifty mortality tracking site here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Go ahead and check out the homicide rates for whites, blacks, hispanics, etc., and let us know what you find.

It also borders on classism and racism to blame the availability of those guns for the homicide rate in the US. Those guns are basically for the poor and disadvantaged, who shoulder the overwhelming majority of homicides. To deny them the ability to protect themselves legally, which is what legislation aimed at 'junk guns' is really about, is morally indefensible unless you deny ALL the ability to protect themselves (which is morally indefensible itself, but in a different way).


The racism part is at the root of all gun control in the US: No one talks about it, but really only the black population has a serious problem with homicide rates. So, making guns more expensive to obtain, or by making the requirements strict, you will restrict the number of black people who will own them (at least legally). Historically, laws against cheap firearms originated in the post Civil War south, as a way to prevent blacks who now had the theoretical right to own a gun from owning one. Arkansas is a perfect example: A law passed in 1881 forbade the carrying of any pistol or revolver except "any such pistol as used in the army
or navy of the United States". That meant Colt or Remington revolvers, which were generally too expensive for blacks to own. Rich whites could be armed, but poor blacks couldn't.

There was a massive change in the laws in the South after the 14th Amendment was passed, from laws that explicitly forbade blacks from owning guns, to those that while their language is race neutral, their effect is mainly against blacks. Those laws, and the court cases that arose out of them, are the basis for gun control in the United States today.

Oh, one last little historical tidbit: Do you know why 'junk guns' in the US are exclusively made in the US? Protectionism. Congress passed laws against the importation of inexpensive handguns at the behest of the gun industry, to protect their markets. That isn't capitalism.
I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.

Heibges 06-27-07 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puster Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatty
Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:
Not necessarily. First, the pattern of burglary in the United States is that burglars tend to go after homes that are unoccupied, simply because they fear being shot. That doesn't mean that they avoid houses known to have guns, indeed knowing that is an incentive to burglarize the house: Guns have a certain value among criminals, more so than televisions, computers, and cameras.
Another reason for this is legal. Breaking and Entering is a misdemeanor. This is because folks are less likely to be home during the Day. Breaking and Entering After Dark is a felonly.

SUBMAN1 06-27-07 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_acheson
This happened in Virginia recently.
Nice. Got lists in two states now. This makes it real easy now for criminals just having to go down the list to find houses to steal guns from. Pathetic.

-S

Puster Bill 06-27-07 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heibges
I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.
No. The fact of the matter is that blacks comprise roughly half of all homicide victims in the United States, despite being only 12 to 13% of the population. That is a fact.

Does that mean that we should prevent blacks from owning guns? Of course not, that would be racist and unconstitutional, Second Amendment aside, because it fails other parts of the Constitution.

However, blacks also tend to be economically disadvanged. They can't afford to buy a $400 Taurus, or a $500 Colt (hell, *I'd* be hard pressed to pay that for a gun, and I'm a white collar professional). They can afford a $109 Jennings, though.

If you take away the guns that they can afford to buy, you've essentially disarmed them. True, it will also affect poor whites, but they are a smaller proportion, and can essentially be ignored. The problem is we are talking about legal gun ownership, not criminal gun ownership. You are preventing people who have the right to own a gun from owning one by making it economically out of their reach.

Puster Bill 06-27-07 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heibges
Another reason for this is legal. Breaking and Entering is a misdemeanor. This is because folks are less likely to be home during the Day. Breaking and Entering After Dark is a felonly.

Not necessarily. In New York State, Burglary is classified as a felony (Class B, C, or D for First, Second, or Third degree, respectively). No where does it specify the time of day of the offense as a characteristic of the crime, nor does it specify whether an occupant is home or not (although to get First Degree you have to physically harm someone not involved in committing the crime, ie., most likely the owner).

Even some forms of Criminal Trespass are felonies, if you are armed.

Besides which, you can compare the rate of 'hot' burglaries (where the occupant is home) in the UK to the rate in the US: It's just under 50% in the UK, and about 13% in the US: Clearly, burglars in the UK are less afraid of the immediate consequences (ie., being shot), and take advantage of the fact that people often have highly liquid assests (ie., cash and jewelery) with them.

California law does make a distinction as to whether a home is occupied or not:

460. (a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, vessel, as
defined in the Harbors and Navigation Code, which is inhabited and
designed for habitation, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d)
of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, or trailer coach,
as defined by the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any
other building, is burglary of the first degree.
(b) All other kinds of burglary are of the second degree.
(c) This section shall not be construed to supersede or affect
Section 464 of the Penal Code.


461. Burglary is punishable as follows:
1. Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state
prison for two, four, or six years.
2. Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.

However, the pattern is nationwide, so individual differences in the laws regarding burglary can't have the effect you state.

Heibges 06-27-07 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puster Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heibges
I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.
No. The fact of the matter is that blacks comprise roughly half of all homicide victims in the United States, despite being only 12 to 13% of the population. That is a fact.

Does that mean that we should prevent blacks from owning guns? Of course not, that would be racist and unconstitutional, Second Amendment aside, because it fails other parts of the Constitution.

However, blacks also tend to be economically disadvanged. They can't afford to buy a $400 Taurus, or a $500 Colt (hell, *I'd* be hard pressed to pay that for a gun, and I'm a white collar professional). They can afford a $109 Jennings, though.

If you take away the guns that they can afford to buy, you've essentially disarmed them. True, it will also affect poor whites, but they are a smaller proportion, and can essentially be ignored. The problem is we are talking about legal gun ownership, not criminal gun ownership. You are preventing people who have the right to own a gun from owning one by making it economically out of their reach.
Although I hate using the term "them", but are you making it easier for them to protect themselves, or easier for them to kill each other?

Skybird 06-27-07 04:34 PM
I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job. In fact I think in this scenario he should be brought to court.

I support him if he reveals private persons who hold such a permission - I regard the protection of privacy as secondary to the public interest in this case. Or as Spock would put it: the reasonable and valid interest of the many weighs heavier than the interest of the few, or the one.

06-27-07 04:56 PM
[quote=Skybird]I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.[quote]


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

VipertheSniper 06-27-07 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.
What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

Heibges 06-27-07 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipertheSniper
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.
What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?
Basically, cops cannot be sued for non-performance of duty, and failing to respond to citizens in distress.

06-27-07 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipertheSniper
Quote:
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.
What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?
Here you go

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Edit:
Many states have specifically precluded claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

The Court in DeShaney held that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (ability to defend ones self)

Yahoshua 06-27-07 05:49 PM
And entrusting only the police and the military with firearms requires the basic foundation that you will rarely come across a corrupt cop. In the United States the corruption is becoming more widespread, more noticeable, and more open than before.

In the last few weeks and months this has become more pronounced.

Examples: Atlanta Ga, the ENTIRE drug enforcement division was pulled from duty work and is under investigation, several officers in Va and Tennessee have been arrested for running prostitution rings and distributing and selling drugs they seized from people they've arrested. A police officer lost his pension and was dismissed from the force after getting a....um,..... "rim job" (for lack of a better euphemism) froma porn star during a speeding stop, and another officer wanked off on a woman he pulled over a few weeks before that.

Things are deteriorating here in the U.S. REALLY quick and it worries me alot when people want to only let police and military have the guns while the citizens are forcibly disarmed. That isn't a democracy, that's a dictatorship and you can see the examples of forced disarmament of the citizens and the near draconian enslavement right afterward in nations like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and in North Korea.

While these examples may not exactly be recent, the lessons learned from how each acquired power and how it was abused still applies today.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.