Don't Mess With Old Marines

[Crazed Rabbit]

In Florida a couple days ago a 71 year old former Marine shot two criminals robbing a subway, killing one, after they robbed the store then tried to force him into the bathroom after getting his wallet.

In short, a clean shoot, the model of why citizens should be allowed to carry concealed guns.

Some News Links:
A Summary (http://www.nbc6.net/news/13585506/detail.html?dl=headlineclick)

A more in-depth piece. (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbsubway0629nbjun29,0,1772093.story?coll=sfla-news-broward)

According to a police statement, :Arrindell ordered Lovell to hand over his wallet. He intentionally dropped it on the floor and refused to pick it up, saying he was afraid. That's when Arrindell ordered him into the women's restroom.

"The victim believed he would be executed and when he noticed [Arrindell] distracted ... reached behind his back, removed his loaded .45 caliber handgun from his holster and fired seven rounds," the statement said.

Arrindell was struck twice — once in the head and once in the stomach — and collapsed. Officers found him face down, wearing sunglasses and a bandanna, with a gun near his left hand. Gadson was hit in the chest and ran from the store. Police dogs found him in the hedges of a nearby office building and bank.

And, as is usual for shootings like this, the criminal's relations come out and said how their kids were turning their lives around, had never harmed any, etc.

But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this - in Florida the Marine was never charged, and won't be. He had a permit for carrying a concealed handgun, also.

Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?

CR

[Watchman]

We don't even get those kinds of robberies around here you know. The law's pretty strict on "excessive use of force" though, and concealed carry Right Out far as I know.

And you wouldn't believe how few people get shot here every year, in spite of the country being rotten with guns. :yes:

[Tribesman]

Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?

yes of course they would over here .
Well actually no , they might if you shot a robber , then beat them with a stick until you fracture lots of bones including the the skull , then drag them across the road and dump them over a wall , then return to your house for more ammunition and go out and shoot them again just to make sure , but that sort of thing ends with a charge of manslaughter not murder .

[Crazed Rabbit]

We don't even get those kinds of robberies around here you know. The law's pretty strict on "excessive use of force" though, and concealed carry Right Out far as I know.

You're not answering the question. Suppose it did happen.

Tribesy, what are you referring to?

CR

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If, in the UK, you killed someone who was actually in the process of robbing you at gunpoint, I think you'd be ok.

[CountArach]

I think you could be charged in Australia, but the sentence would probably be less.

Also you would be charged for carrying a concealed weapon.

[KafirChobee]

The gun law in Florida is one can shoot someone if they just feel threatened by them - imagine. So, this ex-Marine will probably be given a medal - justly so.

Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?

A 71 year old sailor couldnt even pull the trigger:laugh4:

Seems to be a lot of stories lately about ex Marines doing these type of things. OOOoooo rah :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Tribesy, what are you referring to?

Ah sorry Rabbit I thought you wanted an example of what happens to people in other countries who shoot robbers when you asked...Would authorities in some countries take issue with his shooting the criminals and charge him with murder?
.
What I am refering to is an example of what happens in this country .
Though of course the example I use is slightly misleading (would you expect any less of me ~;) ) .
Such a miscarriage of justice is of course open to appeal , at the appeal the manslaughter charge was overturned .

[Divinus Arma]

Semper.

And all that. Stupid Jarheads. :laugh4:

Rrr.Kill.

[HoreTore]

An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?

[Husar]

An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?

The victim believed he would be executed
I don't know, but that guy was there and it's usually too late when you can know for sure. I'd say if you rob a store with a gun in your hand, you have to expect to get shot., it's a logical consequence. ~;)

I think here you'd at least be charged for carrying a gun though self defense should be allowed(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so).

[Hosakawa Tito]

Every shooting in New York State, even those by law enforcement, is considered by law to be a homicide till the particulars of the case are brought before a Grand Jury to determine if a possible crime has been committed.

This appears to be a legal case of self-defense (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap951.htm#Sec53a-19.htm) as defined in the Penal Code, which includes defense of a third person also; Sec. 53a-19 first paragraph.

Go Devil Dogs!

[JR-]

I don't know, but that guy was there and it's usually too late when you can know for sure. I'd say if you rob a store with a gun in your hand, you have to expect to get shot., it's a logical consequence. ~;)

I think here you'd at least be charged for carrying a gun though self defense should be allowed(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so).
agreed.

[Gregoshi]

Seven shots and only hit 'em three times? Sure he was a Marine, not a sailor?
~;)
The old marine probably has double vision so the other 3 shots went into the two illusionary doubles, which means he really missed only once. He's 70, so for that we can cut him some slack. :laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

Here in Cali, a young Marine got punk'd with his own weapon (http://news.myspace.com/local/sandiego/item/6939347), when he tried another in a series of armed robberies. The store clerk won't be charged.


...An alleged co-defendant, Navy Corpsman Quintel Antonio Brooks, pleaded not guilty Thursday to participating in four of the robberies on June 10.

Brooks, 19, was a lookout who held a BB gun on store employees and customers while Smith grabbed money from cash registers...

2 ironies reported on the TV last night: the 2 perps where due to rotate (for the first time) to Iraq in November 2007, and one of the store clerks is an Iraqi-American.

[Tribesman]

Well Kukri , it looks like some people will try anything to avoid getting sent to Iraq .

[KukriKhan]

Hehe, Tribesman; funny you said that; the 'comments' section of the local newspaper is full of comments echoing yours - and others decrying the low pay of USMC Lance Corporals, both of which OBVIOUSLY led these young men to pursue a life of crime.

I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through civilian court.

[Crazed Rabbit]

An unnecessary loss of life. Over what, a few bucks?

You'll notice that he gave up his wallet without a fight. It was only after the crooks got the wallet and ordered him into the restroom that he fought back. Now why would they have wanted him to be in the restroom? They already had what they were looking for.


(if in doubt, just carry a throwing axe or so)

Is carrying throwing axes more legal than carrying guns?

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

Is carrying throwing axes more legal than carrying guns?
I have no idea actually, but a normal axe is considered a tool, if you could throw that...
AFAIK muskets made before 1871(foundation of Germany) are legal, but it could be hard to find some that still work.:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

AFAIK muskets made before 1871(foundation of Germany) are legal, but it could be hard to find some that still work.
Damn that rules out the Henri Peiper, I will have to bring the India pattern instead .

[English assassin]

But what I'm looking for is insight on how other countries would have handled this

If we overlook the fact that in the UK it could not be legal for him to be carrying a concealed handgun (unless some very special circs apply) I suspect the answer is roughly the same as in New York. Namely that it would be investigated as an unlawful killing, and the case would turn on whether the force used was reasonable. I'm no expert on criminal law but two robbers, one armed, robbing one pensioner, suggests that opening fire was reasonable. Obviously if he downed them, reloaded, walked up, and shot them again, that might be a different story. But he didn't.

For UK bashing purposes though you will be delighted to hear that by carrying any sort of weapon (both things that are weapons, such as a cosh, and things that are not weapons but that you intend to use as a weapon, such as a hammer,) grandad would have been committing an offence.

[Pannonian]

Hehe, Tribesman; funny you said that; the 'comments' section of the local newspaper is full of comments echoing yours - and others decrying the low pay of USMC Lance Corporals, both of which OBVIOUSLY led these young men to pursue a life of crime.

I just wonder if the locals will turn them over to the Corps for prosecution, or run them through
Harsh justice, isn't it?

[KukriKhan]

LoL. Fine job of editing Pannonian. :bow: I shudda known better. :)

[Don Corleone]

If we overlook the fact that in the UK it could not be legal for him to be carrying a concealed handgun (unless some very special circs apply) I suspect the answer is roughly the same as in New York. Namely that it would be investigated as an unlawful killing, and the case would turn on whether the force used was reasonable. I'm no expert on criminal law but two robbers, one armed, robbing one pensioner, suggests that opening fire was reasonable. Obviously if he downed them, reloaded, walked up, and shot them again, that might be a different story. But he didn't.

For UK bashing purposes though you will be delighted to hear that by carrying any sort of weapon (both things that are weapons, such as a cosh, and things that are not weapons but that you intend to use as a weapon, such as a hammer,) grandad would have been committing an offence.

So basically it's illegal to defend yourself? Your hands are illegal to have on you, if you intend to use them as weapons, eh?

[Watchman]

I some states the state monopoly on legitimate violence is taken fairly seriously you know. It also happens that some states, unlike others, actually have decent enough law enforcement that the citizenry need not engage in an arms race with the criminals, which has the bonus effect of not having all that many handguns in circulation and thus available to the criminal element as well.

[Husar]

I some states the state monopoly on legitimate violence is taken fairly seriously you know. It also happens that some states, unlike others, actually have decent enough law enforcement that the citizenry need not engage in an arms race with the criminals, which has the bonus effect of not having all that many handguns in circulation and thus available to the criminal element as well.
Yes, but if you happen to come across an armed criminal, are you supposed to die for the state monopoly on violence instead of defending yourself with anything that is available?
The state monopoly on violence might not exactly be the grand idea you'd be willing to give your life for.

[Watchman]

The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...

[English assassin]

So basically it's illegal to defend yourself? Your hands are illegal to have on you, if you intend to use them as weapons, eh?

I'm not sure that body parts are covered.

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Section 1(1)) states that:


'Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him/her, has with him/her in a public place any offensive weapon, shall be guilty of an offence.

From the guidance manual for crown prosecutors:


'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.

Lord Lane, CJ, in R v Simpson (C), 78 Cr. App. R. 115, identified three categories of offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person, i.e. offensive per se; those adapted for such a purpose; and those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.

In the first two categories, the prosecution do not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

It's pedantic of me, but its not basically illegal to defend yourself, its basically illegal to have a weapon with you in a public place.

It seems to me there's no real room for middle ground on this one. With the possible exception of CS sprays (illegal in the UK as they are made for causing injury), there is no point in allowing people to carry weapons to defend themselves unless they are allowed to carry guns (would it have helped our 71 year old ex marine if he had had a knuckleduster in his pocket? No.) I would certainly feel less safe, overall, if, say, it was legal to carry a baton or something, but not a gun. I'm not sure a baton would do me much good if a gang wanted to rob me, and I am sure it would do my wife no good at all (obviously all thugs would take advantage of the ability to carry weapons legally, and be tooled up at all times). So either you have to allow concealed handguns or ban the lot, when at least you can bust thugs if you catch them carrying.

Obviously, in the UK, that means ban the lot. I've made it this far without feeling this puts me in much danger.

[Husar]

The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...
Yes, and I don't feel like I'm in great danger because I don't carry a machinegun around. I'm just thinking about the rare cases where someone actually wants to kill you, though I have to say I cannot think of any such incident where the victim survived or killed the attacker in self-defence.
Best thing is probably to wear a ballistic suit at all times, that way you won't need much in terms of offensive power...oh wait, that's not allowed either.:sweatdrop:
You could however go medieval and wear chainmail outside while in a pub, when you're shopping with the family or while you're swimming at the beach.:laugh4:

[Spino]

Glad to see this old leatherneck turned the tables on his attackers. It's so easy to intellectualize the plight of criminals and grant them every conceivable explanation a pro-environmental determinism mindset can offer. However this does nothing to change the fact that vicious, brutal crimes are more prevalent nowadays than ever before. If you are the target of robbers or rapists your chances of dying are much greater now than in any time in this country's history... even if you offer zero resistance! Most violent criminals may be on the lower end of the bell curve than the rest of us but they're clever enough to realize no witnesses = no conviction. It's getting to the point where we should treat violent criminals with the same prejudice we show fundie terrorists; with zero tolerance and maximum deadly force. The alternative is to run the risk of having your life taken on their terms rather than your own. How chilling a thought is it that someone of the decent sort should lose their life to some double digit IQ 'gamma' or 'delta' who cannot fathom the idea of making an honest living like the rest of us? I make no apologies when I say I love to hear about violent criminals meeting an awful end, especially when it's at the hands of their victims.

I also love it when the people who spawned these savages act as if there's some grand conspiracy at play which contributed to the demise of their precious darlings.

[Tribesman]

However this does nothing to change the fact that vicious, brutal crimes are more prevalent nowadays than ever before. If you are the target of robbers or rapists your chances of dying are much greater now than in any time in this country's history...
yeah yeah yeah , for some reason that has the stench of bull excrement about it , I wonder why that could possibly be ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
In other news house insurance continues to rise due to the threat of the big bad wolf huffing an puffing .

[Don Corleone]

The funny thing here is that our armed criminals rather rarely use their weapons for more than intimidation you know...

I see, so in your opinion, it's a good thing that a rapist only needs wave the knife at his intended victim to get her into the bushes. Lucky thing he never actually needs to stab her to get her down on the ground... :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

I'm not sure that body parts are covered.

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Section 1(1)) states that:



From the guidance manual for crown prosecutors:



It's pedantic of me, but its not basically illegal to defend yourself, its basically illegal to have a weapon with you in a public place.

It seems to me there's no real room for middle ground on this one. With the possible exception of CS sprays (illegal in the UK as they are made for causing injury), there is no point in allowing people to carry weapons to defend themselves unless they are allowed to carry guns (would it have helped our 71 year old ex marine if he had had a knuckleduster in his pocket? No.) I would certainly feel less safe, overall, if, say, it was legal to carry a baton or something, but not a gun. I'm not sure a baton would do me much good if a gang wanted to rob me, and I am sure it would do my wife no good at all (obviously all thugs would take advantage of the ability to carry weapons legally, and be tooled up at all times). So either you have to allow concealed handguns or ban the lot, when at least you can bust thugs if you catch them carrying.

Obviously, in the UK, that means ban the lot. I've made it this far without feeling this puts me in much danger.

You're right about there being no middle ground. Perhaps you could enlighten us Rebels on how to raise criminals that actually obey the law, at least with respect to carrying weapons. Ours seem quite determined to carry weapons despite the legislation we pass banning the carrying of weapons within certain areas or city limits. If we could just figure out how to get the Cryps and the Bloods to leave their Glocks and switchblades outside the city limits, like your criminals apparently do, all would be well. Until such time as we can raise a better class of criminal, I suppose we'll have to make do with the system we have and actually allow people the means as well as the right to defend themselves.

[Don Corleone]

All sarcasm aside, this really does touch on a fundamental issue of views on society. Reading between the lines, in various ways, my European friends seem to be arguing that in in the interests of having a more hospitable society, we must make the law abiding citizen helpless to the desires of the criminal element (Husar aside) and you all appear to view this as a good thing.

I suppose if I ever take to a life of crime, I know where to go, especially given the country club prisons you run over there.

[Tribesman]

Reading between the lines, in various ways, my European friends seem to be arguing that in in the interests of having a more hospitable society, we must make the law abiding citizen helpless to the desires of the criminal element (Husar aside) and you all appear to view this as a good thing.

not very good at reading between the lines then Don .

[Watchman]

We seem to have done pretty well with leaving the personal weaponry to the cops and criminals you know. Want to start comparing violent crime rates per capita, nevermind now actual killings ?


I'm just thinking about the rare cases where someone actually wants to kill you, though I have to say I cannot think of any such incident where the victim survived or killed the attacker in self-defence.Well yeah, certainly. But I'm by far more likely to die of a traffic accident or of falling down a flight of stairs than that; the risk is a price I'm willing to pay for a society where people do not feel the need to go around armed to feel even remotely safe. And do not have to wonder if the belligerent drunk two seats back is packing.

The damn Middle Ages ended centuries ago ferchrissakes.

[Pannonian]

All sarcasm aside, this really does touch on a fundamental issue of views on society. Reading between the lines, in various ways, my European friends seem to be arguing that in in the interests of having a more hospitable society, we must make the law abiding citizen helpless to the desires of the criminal element (Husar aside) and you all appear to view this as a good thing.

I suppose if I ever take to a life of crime, I know where to go, especially given the country club prisons you run over there.
We have quite a relaxed view of most crime over here. It's just that career criminals have worked out that it's more profitable with less risk and lesser penalties to engage in non-violent crime, whereas hold-ups involve the risk of heavy penalties with lesser gains.

[Don Corleone]

We have quite a relaxed view of most crime over here. It's just that career criminals have worked out that it's more profitable with less risk and lesser penalties to engage in non-violent crime, whereas hold-ups involve the risk of heavy penalties with lesser gains. I see. So you have no criminals for whom their express desire IS to cause physical harm? No rapists? No child molesters? No physical assaults? No extortion? No arsonists? My, I think I need to call the British consulate about emigrating.... such a wonderful PollyAnna land where even the criminals seek to avoid harming one's person.

Wait a second... Oops (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/0,,339240,00.html) Looks like you've got a little eye-opening to do...:coffeenews: I know, The Guardian must be one of those right-wing rags that makes stories up to scare us.

[Tribesman]

Wow Don whats up today , not only do you have difficulty reading between the lines , you cannot read the lines that are written .

Nice selection of crime stories BTW I bet if that two year old had a gun her pervert of an uncle wouldn't have killed her

[Pannonian]

I see. So you have no criminals for whom their express desire IS to cause physical harm? No rapists? No child molesters? No physical assaults? No extortion? No arsonists? My, I think I need to call the British consulate about emigrating.... such a wonderful PollyAnna land where even the criminals seek to avoid harming one's person.

Wait a second... Oops (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/0,,339240,00.html) Looks like you've got a little eye-opening to do...:coffeenews: I know, The Guardian must be one of those right-wing rags that makes stories up to scare us.
How the heck is owning guns going to protect against crimes within the family, which is what most child molestation cases are? As for casual violence - we have a social underclass, popularly known as "chavs", who are the result of Thatcher's liberalised society where everyone has rights and aspires to material wellbeing without the responsibilities of working for it. They're the social group most often involved in casual crime, sometimes violent. There's another aspect of them which you haven't noted - they're kids. My guess is they'll grow out of it in time, but then there will be another generation who will pose those same problems.

Unless you're suggesting we shoot those unruly adolescents, we have to find something to replace the conservative Britain which Thatcher toppled. Blair and Brown had ideas, which they've implemented. Blair's authoritarian ideas have failed (ASBOs, anyone?), while Brown's socialist ideas will take years for the results to show. One thing everyone here agrees on is that guns is not the answer - shooting kids is not voter-friendly.

[Don Corleone]

How the heck is owning guns going to protect against crimes within the family, which is what most child molestation cases are? As for casual violence - we have a social underclass, popularly known as "chavs", who are the result of Thatcher's liberalised society where everyone has rights and aspires to material wellbeing without the responsibilities of working for it. They're the social group most often involved in casual crime, sometimes violent. There's another aspect of them which you haven't noted - they're kids. My guess is they'll grow out of it in time, but then there will be another generation who will pose those same problems.

Unless you're suggesting we shoot those unruly adolescents, we have to find something to replace the conservative Britain which Thatcher toppled. Blair and Brown had ideas, which they've implemented. Blair's authoritarian ideas have failed (ASBOs, anyone?), while Brown's socialist ideas will take years for the results to show. One thing everyone here agrees on is that guns is not the answer - shooting kids is not voter-friendly.

Oh, I see. All violent crime in Britain is due to these 'chavs', so you should just look the other way and hope they grow out of soon? Wouldn't want to hurt the kids?

Interesting way of being magaminous you have there, Pannonian.

[Pannonian]

Oh, I see. All violent crime in Britain is due to these 'chavs', so you should just look the other way and hope they grow out of soon? Wouldn't want to hurt the kids?

Interesting way of being magaminous you have there, Pannonian.
Well, what can I say? We're different from youse, we think differently, we act differently.

[Watchman]

And just because I want to do low blows every now and then as well... which country was it now that had problems with gun-toting nuts going amok in schools ?
:juggle2:

[Xiahou]

Oh, I see. All violent crime in Britain is due to these 'chavs', so you should just look the other way and hope they grow out of soon? Wouldn't want to hurt the kids?
Is it that they grow out of it, or do they just kill each other off?

[Watchman]

Wouldn't the latter be right up your alley ?

[Strike For The South]

I think we have skewed veiws here. I live in a state in which the private citzens have better weaponry than most African nations and no one I know carrys constantly. We aernt all carrying with an itchy tringer finger. I also think most euros aernt living in constant fear of chavs or brown people shanking them for there monoply money

[Husar]

Strike wins again.:2thumbsup:

But I still want a suit of fine gothic armour, I will feel more secure in the underground.:laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Well yeah, certainly. But I'm by far more likely to die of a traffic accident or of falling down a flight of stairs than that; the risk is a price I'm willing to pay for a society where people do not feel the need to go around armed to feel even remotely safe. And do not have to wonder if the belligerent drunk two seats back is packing.

The damn Middle Ages ended centuries ago ferchrissakes.


You have an extremely skewed view of the United States. How often do you visit? :inquisitive:

[Papewaio]

What do the stats say about how healthy it is to live with in a country?

Per Capita violent crimes (and if possible predicted rate of reporting) etc while useful tend to be skewed by different reporting systems and rates of reporting.

I think average lifespan would be a good one as the hardest to fudge and it is the end outcome after all. I suspect that Zimbabwee would have a very low average lifespan.

[Watchman]

You have an extremely skewed view of the United States. How often do you visit? :inquisitive:That's beside the point. I don't incidentally recall singling out the US in this case either; that was a general observation. Around here you can be basically assured that the exact only people who're going to have guns on their persons are the cops, and fairly big-time criminals who most likely have some very specific use for them in mind and are unlikely to bother the average citizen much. Well, with their guns anyway.

[econ21]

I think average lifespan would be a good one as the hardest to fudge and it is the end outcome after all. I suspect that Zimbabwee would have a very low average lifespan.

You'd be right - 34 for women, the lowest in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4890508.stm

But it's nothing to do with violent crime - poverty and AIDS are the culprits; with AIDS probably being the key one[1]. Life expectancy in Zimbabwe in 1990 was 60 years.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=18&Country=ZW


[1]Neighbouring Botswana has been the best managed economy in Africa and one of fast growing economies in the world. But it has also seen life expectancy fall massively due to AIDS; about one third of adults are HIV positive.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's beside the point.

I figured as much. You should visit, the news that makes it to Europe is never good.

I can also say that despite living in one of the "most dangerous" cities in America (#3 in murders and #1 in rapes), I feel no need to carry a weapon, nor does anyone I know.

There is a certain element of the population over here that tends to bring our stats way up (Im not allowed to mention particulars). For the most part, though, they rob, rape and murder each other.

Needless to say, I feel just as safe here than I do when I'm in Europe - you just have to avoid the ghettos.

[Strike For The South]

Here is the 25 most dangoures cities on google maps

http://www.mibazaar.com/unsafecities/

Notice the state with the second largest population and 3 out of the 7 biggest cities AND the higest gun ownership isnt on the list? Why you may ask becuase were not stupid. Gun ownership is all about not being a retard.

[English assassin]

Perhaps you could enlighten us Rebels on how to raise criminals that actually obey the law, at least with respect to carrying weapons. Ours seem quite determined to carry weapons despite the legislation we pass banning the carrying of weapons within certain areas or city limits. If we could just figure out how to get the Cryps and the Bloods to leave their Glocks and switchblades outside the city limits, like your criminals apparently do, all would be well. Until such time as we can raise a better class of criminal, I suppose we'll have to make do with the system we have and actually allow people the means as well as the right to defend themselves.

Well, they do, in large part. Not all, of course, and often they have weapons stashed nearby even if not on them, but there is a stong disincentive to carrying a weapon as a matter of habit, because its mandatory jail time (IIRC two years for a knife and five for a gun, although I may be wrong).

What can I say? People still get stabbed, but the fact that if you are caught with a knife in public you get sent down, even if you weren't doing anything else, seems to me to be likely to reduce the number of criminals carrying knives. I'm OK with it. I might like my wife to be able to carry one of those CS spray things if she wanted, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Our way works OK. I guess your's does too. Vive la difference.

[Watchman]

I figured as much. You should visit, the news that makes it to Europe is never good.

I can also say that despite living in one of the "most dangerous" cities in America (#3 in murders and #1 in rapes), I feel no need to carry a weapon, nor does anyone I know.

There is a certain element of the population over here that tends to bring our stats way up (Im not allowed to mention particulars). For the most part, though, they rob, rape and murder each other.

Needless to say, I feel just as safe here than I do when I'm in Europe - you just have to avoid the ghettos.I'm willing to believe that readily enough. But it makes one wonder... where does that then leave the pro-gun argument which always seems to make it sound like personal firearms are very much necessary for one's safety there ?

[Spino]

I'm willing to believe that readily enough. But it makes one wonder... where does that then leave the pro-gun argument which always seems to make it sound like personal firearms are very much necessary for one's safety there ?

The pro-gun argument is first and foremost tied to the 2nd amendment which was created to protect the rights of the individual from infringement and abuse by the state. The fact that the 2nd amendment also allows the individual to protect himself and his property from harm or theft by other individuals is a fringe benefit. No amount of amendments, legislation, supreme court decisions, political promises, pink happy left wing ideologies or refined :daisy: can guarantee that our constitutional rights will never be violated. The founding fathers knew enough about human nature to empower the individual with the ability to effectively defend himself with force as well as with words and ideas.

America's unusually aggressive 'predatory' element has forced the pro-gun crowd to cite crime as a valid reason for the right to bear arms simply because it is an every day fact of life. On the other hand the last time anyone cited flagrant abuses of individual liberties on a national level was when we fought our Civil War. For some reason America's unusually unorthodox, free and diverse society seems to empower the criminal element as much as it does the entrepreneur. I suppose this is the price we pay for being able to cast off any and all unwritten rules of society & tradition.

[Watchman]

Or maybe you just have too many guns ? Handguns specifically. Per capita Finland AFAIK has around as many guns as the US, but they're practically all hunting long-arms out in summer cottages...

Not really convenient for hold-ups if you know what I mean.

[Crazed Rabbit]

(obviously all thugs would take advantage of the ability to carry weapons legally, and be tooled up at all times). So either you have to allow concealed handguns or ban the lot, when at least you can bust thugs if you catch them carrying.

EA, our Legislators have worked their law-fu and made it a crime for criminals to carry weapons, but not ordinary citizens. So you can have your cake, and eat it too.


Or maybe you just have too many guns ? Handguns specifically.

Pop Quiz: Which place has more crime; the one where any non-criminal can carry a pistol without an need for a permit legally, or where several national law and order agencies are Headquartered, and handguns are banned?



where does that then leave the pro-gun argument which always seems to make it sound like personal firearms are very much necessary for one's safety there ?

Very much necessary? I don't see that argument being made ; merely that, like airbags, they are useful in a tight spot.

The prominence of the self defense argument is due to that being foremost in people's minds, not, sadly, ideas of freedom from government tyranny.

CR

[scooter_the_shooter]

Or maybe you just have too many guns ? Handguns specifically. Per capita Finland AFAIK has around as many guns as the US, but they're practically all hunting long-arms out in summer cottages...



Yes, those handguns jump up and kill people without warning.... here’s a thought maybe we don't have to many handguns.... but to many criminals! (I doubt anyone ever saw a gun and decided "I will become a career criminal today!")

Let's try and get rid of the criminals we have and do what we can to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place.



For crying out loud I had 6 handguns when I was 13, plus some rifles and shotguns. I had many friends my age with at least their own shotgun or 22.


Guess what, we didn't go out and mug people:laugh4:

[Csargo]

Yes, those handguns jump up and kill people without warning.... here’s a thought maybe we don't have to many handguns.... but to many criminals! (I doubt anyone ever saw a gun and decided "I will become a career criminal today!")

Let's try and get rid of the criminals we have and do what we can to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place.



For crying out loud I had 6 handguns when I was 13, plus some rifles and shotguns. I had many friends my age with at least their own shotgun or 22.


Guess what, we didn't go out and mug people:laugh4:

You probably didn't need money for food, etc.

[Tribesman]

I doubt anyone ever saw a gun and decided "I will become a career criminal today!"
Of course not , they see that peope have guns and decide that to be a career criminal they need a gun too .:dizzy2:

[KafirChobee]

Glad to see this old leatherneck turned the tables on his attackers. It's so easy to intellectualize the plight of criminals and grant them every conceivable explanation a pro-environmental determinism mindset can offer. However this does nothing to change the fact that vicious, brutal crimes are more prevalent nowadays than ever before. If you are the target of robbers or rapists your chances of dying are much greater now than in any time in this country's history... even if you offer zero resistance! Most violent criminals may be on the lower end of the bell curve than the rest of us but they're clever enough to realize no witnesses = no conviction. It's getting to the point where we should treat violent criminals with the same prejudice we show fundie terrorists; with zero tolerance and maximum deadly force. The alternative is to run the risk of having your life taken on their terms rather than your own. How chilling a thought is it that someone of the decent sort should lose their life to some double digit IQ 'gamma' or 'delta' who cannot fathom the idea of making an honest living like the rest of us? I make no apologies when I say I love to hear about violent criminals meeting an awful end, especially when it's at the hands of their victims.

I also love it when the people who spawned these savage act as if there's some grand conspiracy at play which contributed to the demise of their precious darlings.
Sorry guys, couldn't get beyond this mess of an excuse for killing anyone that committed anything.

The first thing that popped into my mind was the "serve the entire sentance laws" recommended by the conservatives - that promotes kill everyone or the old piracy rule "deadmen tell no tales". The second thing was the "three strikes rule", which is prison is forever for anyone breaking any laws more than twice (which certainly encourages the piracy rule) - then there was the punishment versus redeeming or rehabilitation rule. Seems punishment over rules humanity.

We have excused race, poverty, circumstance far to long. Why wait? Kill 'em at their first offense - lets all become radical Islamists and be done with it.

[Watchman]

EA, our Legislators have worked their law-fu and made it a crime for criminals to carry weapons, but not ordinary citizens. So you can have your cake, and eat it too.So why is the end result still that your criminals are packing and ours aren't then ?

[Spino]

Sorry guys, couldn't get beyond this mess of an excuse for killing anyone that committed anything.

The first thing that popped into my mind was the "serve the entire sentance laws" recommended by the conservatives - that promotes kill everyone or the old piracy rule "deadmen tell no tales". The second thing was the "three strikes rule", which is prison is forever for anyone breaking any laws more than twice (which certainly encourages the piracy rule) - then there was the punishment versus redeeming or rehabilitation rule. Seems punishment over rules humanity.

We have excused race, poverty, circumstance far to long. Why wait? Kill 'em at their first offense - lets all become radical Islamists and be done with it.

I'm talking about what the average citizen should be allowed to do during the act itself and you're spouting off about prevention and punishment. So basically your saying while we wait for these 'pie in the sky' social programs of moral righteousness to take effect citizens should be happy, submissive victims and let a certain strata of society have their way with us?!? Fear not brave citizen, police officers nearby have just concluded their coffee & donut break and may or may not arrive on the scene in time to stop these misguided and misunderstood snowflakes of tragic character with non-lethal force!

So someone that robs a liquor store using a handgun, shotgun or hell... a knife or baseball bat, should be given the benefit of the doubt? "Awww, poor fella, his momma was a prostitute and his daddy a post-natal no show... by golly, let's just give him what he wants and hope that he only whacks a few of us instead of the whole lot." To hell with them, in a world of 6.5B people i'm not going to mourn the loss of those of us who find it difficult to refrain from acting like a wild animal.

[Watchman]

The point: completely missed.

Heated rhetoric with reality deficit: in abundance.