lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 11-16-2009, 04:03 PM   #41
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,278
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
^ I second that notion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
He found a illegal “shorn-off” shotgun in his garden. Instead of calling the police, he waited until the next day and call the Chief Superintendent, but instead of telling what he had found, he just asked if he could “pop in and see him.” Then he took the gun to the police station? What was this guy thinking? How did he know the gun had not been used in a crime? How did he know his garden was not actually a crime scene?
Having once worked along side law enforcement as a Sargent once told me: "Unless you know *every* little thing about an item, you don't know jack squat; where it's been, what it was used for, or even who ELSE it belonged to."

Quote:
I really don’t know what being a former soldier has to do with anything, but I would have thought such discipline required for the military would have taught him to think better.
You aren't the only one, my friend. This sounds like a mistake that no average citizen (with even moderate common sense) should make.

Quote:
You find an illegal weapon on your property, you call the police. Let them handle removing and investigating the reasons that weapon is where it should not be. You do not take that weapon yourself to a police station. I can understand the rule and I can also understand why there is a zero tolerance for violating that law.
Well, now that is true. Least the guy could have done is taken measures to avoid getting handprints and fingerprints on it. :¬:

Quote:
Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.


EDIT: I still think the law is overblown and that the penalty is rather steep.

Last edited by Darth Avlectus; 11-17-2009 at 03:26 PM.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 08:43 AM   #42
vanir
Forumite
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: south of Gundagai
Posts: 632
Darth Insidious,
Quote:
Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.
It is most definitely not related to any kind of militia but the right of relatively affluent citizens to defend themselves from thugs and highwaymen and for gentlemen to engage in duellling. The idea was a landowner could carry a small short range firearm if he should be walking the streets at night with a purse, which were finally lit in London in 1680 for similar reasoning.
By contemporary reasoning it is the right for stable, law abiding citizens to engage such sports as shooting, and keep shotguns on their estate without too much trouble, or for a wealthy gentleman to defend himself against a home intruder with a Webley in between hunting trips to Africa. It's nothing to do with shoe salesmen and auto mechanics running around on the street strapping 9-mils shooting up criminals for example.
You must understand the cool thing about the parliamentary system is you can't repeal their authority with say constitutional law for example, it doesn't work that way, you can't wave a document in their faces and tell them how it must be interpreted, they'll tell you how it is to be interpreted and generally speaking will do so by examining it "in context as to the reasonable mind."

But then, where examined as a historical document neither is the US constitutional ammendment relating to the "right to bear arms," as it was a State right by intention and for the formation of State controlled militias beyond the authority of the federal government and aside national militaries, it had nothing to do with individuals either defending themselves from criminal activity of any kind, nor running around on the street bearing arms for giggles and inherent stupidity.
Certainly it is used in modern times by lobbyists and individual citizens alike pertaining to individual self defence and vigilanteism however this was clearly never the intention of the document. But then American culture has evolved with ridiculous laws like justifiable homicide, where modern parliamentary legal systems and commonwealth culture observe that homicide is never justified, ever, but it is occasionally unavoidable. Big difference in perspective on the matter.
If the United States was governed by a parliamentary democracy there is no way on earth they would allow the constitutional ammendment in question to be interpreted as a common right for citizens to bear arms wontonly or whimsically, it would enshrine the right of individual States to form paramilitary militias for use by State government officials in the event of dictatorial and oppressive federal government (ie. inadvertant neo-Nazi national election) only. And they wouldn't be using concealed handguns, they'd be using F-16's. It was meant to be State controlled national guards.

It must be recognised that Americentric and Eurocentric views on the entire subject are culturally at odds. Entirely different perspectives on what a democracy entails are being practised and have been for hundreds of years.
The yank way is very bad in terms of proliferent deadly crime pro rata. The same guy that bottles a feller down the pub in the face in England shoots six dead in the US and then starts on a school.
vanir is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 12:12 PM   #43
JuniorModder
Junior Member
 
JuniorModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
Yes, I'm in favour of Gun control, I don't see why it's oppressive? I imagine the students shot by those armed with guns might find that oppressive. I don't see how the above stupidity is an inevitability that accompanies the legislation; I think this was just laziness on the part of law makers; but I think that incompetence is an accurate description of the Labour government generally.

If the U.S. wants guns, and given how powerful the NRA is, I don't see any gun control legislation coming in to force in the U.S. so you needn't be concerned, but frankly the majority of the U.K. populace is more than happy with our "oppressive" gun control.

I dare say though, I'd rather have "oppressive" gun control than a lot of people dead, who would for the sake of people's right to bear arms be alive.
I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary. Man the government's going down the tubes..


JuniorModder
JuniorModder is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 01:51 PM   #44
Sabretooth
鬼龍院皐月
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,367
10 year veteran! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary.
So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.


Sabretooth is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 02:27 PM   #45
JuniorModder
Junior Member
 
JuniorModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 371
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is b.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder

EDIT Whoops meant b

Last edited by JuniorModder; 11-17-2009 at 10:06 PM.
JuniorModder is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 02:39 PM   #46
Trench
Guy with Monocle
 
Trench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Under a rock.
Posts: 1,638
Current Game: DX:HR, iKotOR
LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder
That's pretty close to my logic. Either that, or all the good people in America can move out to Redneck territory (like me) and start farming. Because everyone knows that if you shoot at rednecks, we shoot back.

On-topic: After reading some of the posts here, and re-reading the OP, I agree that this guy used hardly any common sense. He should have called the police and had someone get it, or at least have told them he wanted to turn in a gun. Maybe he should do a few days of community service.


Last edited by Trench; 11-17-2009 at 03:05 PM.
Trench is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 03:02 PM   #47
ForeverNight
nrgurt researcher
 
ForeverNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,204
Current Game: q2
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. My issue with the ruling is the 5 years minimum that he's going to get for doing this. I think that a law is stupid if having the shotgun for ~a day makes it yours in the eyes of the law. Maybe Jury Nullification should've come into play?

@Junior: What? Are you saying that if everybody has guns more people are likely to die of gun violence? Or are you saying the opposite?


ForeverNight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 03:07 PM   #48
JuniorModder
Junior Member
 
JuniorModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 371
@ForeverNight: Less people are going to die if everyone has guns.

I'll repeat what I said:

Quote:
If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."
This is also another difference between European and American thinking about guns.

JuniorModder
JuniorModder is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 03:11 PM   #49
ForeverNight
nrgurt researcher
 
ForeverNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,204
Current Game: q2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.
That threw me off, maybe go back and ninja-edit it?

@Your thought: I'm in almost total agreement with that.


ForeverNight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 03:57 PM   #50
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,278
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
I'll let moderators do their job but maybe suggest another thread be opened on this off-topic but gun related discussion. This thread is about european laws (though maybe not without an implicit scoff, to and fro, Americans and Euros) and someone violating a law with a lack of common sense. Unless this is all part of the same discussion?

Whose to say the high society we appreciate today with no (apparent) practical need for firearms will last forever? It won't. Societies and all things eventually crumble, wither, or in some way cease over time. It may be seconds long or it may span millenia.

No guns means no gun violence, true. Once guns have been introduced into the equation, however, you'll never get rid of them. I am fairly certain if we got rid of all guns and all plans for them--one day another person would rediscover and reinvent them even given no evidence physically or historically.

At some point arms are involved with preserving and protecting society. We live in an age where threats are minor and docile. But that could all change. Hence my preference for preparedness. I do not share blind trust in government, so I am that of the self reliant, self preserving mind and someone other than military, law enforcement, or government has to keep up on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.
Ah Sabre, how did I know you'd say something like this?

I won't say the likelihoods are uniformly true all across the board and vanir is right: it really comes down to cultural differences and personal preference.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 04:06 PM   #51
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Back on topic please.

Also please leave the moderating to those of us trained in such humble arts.

There are already threads on gun control, but per forum rules do not resurrect unless you have something to actually contribute to the discussion.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 05:27 PM   #52
Ping
Elementary.
 
Ping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 788
Roleplayer 
Quote:
Sounds like curing the headache by cutting off the head to me.
I'm a realist, and that seems like the most practical and best way to go. Not all gun violence will be stopped, but crime rates should go down. I'd love it if guns were legal and people can use them correctly, but, since people can't (school shootings and some murders are evidence of this), then the most practical way to go is to get rid of firearms. I may have read a bit too much of Machiavelli's Prince, but hey, what works, works.


"There is no such thing as coincidence, only inevitability" - xxxHoLiC

"Justice? But I don't serve justice, Watson, I serve the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
Ping is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 07:51 PM   #53
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 09:07 PM   #54
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
@ForeverNight: Less people are going to die if everyone has guns.

I'll repeat what I said:



This is also another difference between European and American thinking about guns.

JuniorModder
Yeah which entirely ignores the statistics I posted earlier which prove quite the opposite; that a ban on guns reduces the number of fatalities; America has the highest murder rate of any MEDC.

Now I really don't care if America wants guns or not, that's your call. However don't ignore things and post things which are false - A statistical fact, I posted earlier in this thread that the more widespread gun ownership is, the more people die from gun related injuries. Furthermore I really fail to see how anything else would be the "logical" conclusion of this!

Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran

Last edited by jonathan7; 11-17-2009 at 09:15 PM.
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 09:32 PM   #55
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Strange, is post 51 showing up for anyone else, or does this color make it harder to read?
Hey--you know how it can be with things disappearing in Area 51. --Jae

Back on topic or suffer the consequences.

You too J7, don't make me call Lynk or Jeff.


Who ya gonna call??? I shall refrain from posting in the rest of the thread -- j7



Last edited by Jae Onasi; 11-18-2009 at 11:59 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 09:54 PM   #56
Sabretooth
鬼龍院皐月
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,367
10 year veteran! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.
What is this supposed to mean? You say yourself that more people will die if everyone has guns. That's my side of the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.
To prevent that, we implement a little something called gun control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."
What if the criminal decides to shoot someone in their sleep, when they can't heroically defend themselves with a gun? Or maybe they'll pick on the handicapped, the ones with poor aim, or on children. Would you rather that we give our children guns in the interest of personal security?


Sabretooth is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:07 PM   #57
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder
So when the enforcers show up they'll just have to shoot everyone in the school, good idea.
Learning self-defense would seem like a more sensible option.

As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen. Nearly 68% of all US Military serving in Vietnam shot high of their target, not including the additional 14% who didn't fire their weapon at all. Clearly even trained killers aren't too willing to outright shoot a lifethreatening target.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:09 PM   #58
JuniorModder
Junior Member
 
JuniorModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 371
I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

JuniorModder
JuniorModder is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:11 PM   #59
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

JuniorModder
I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:24 PM   #60
JuniorModder
Junior Member
 
JuniorModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there


Quote:
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

JuniorModder
JuniorModder is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:31 PM   #61
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:35 PM   #62
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Guns aren't the only arms. In fact it's illegal in 3 states to purchase, own, or "operate" nunchaku.

Where's the NNA for my nunchaku rights? To be honest we don't need guns for anything other than hunting. Want a gun otherwise, join the military or police (hence the well regulated militia part). If you're afraid the military is going to come into your house and take it over, then you should probably learn how to disarm.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:53 PM   #63
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorModder View Post
Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

JuniorModder
It is against UK law, which is where this happened.



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-17-2009, 10:57 PM   #64
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,064
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
It is against UK law, which is where this happened.
Carry an illegal weapon and shells unannounced into an American police station and see what happens. I have no doubt that you would not get 5 years, but I have even less doubt that you will have wished you used some common sense before doing something so stupid.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-18-2009, 01:13 AM   #65
HK-42
HK47+Marvin=
 
HK-42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Unknown Regions
Posts: 2,040
Current Game: AssassinsCreed,kotor
Hot Topic Starter 
Wait he got all the way to the chief's office? Do they not stick him through a metal detector first? But yeah, he deserves no more than a small investigation of the gun to make sure he wasnt lying then be let off.

HK-42 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-18-2009, 01:15 AM   #66
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Det. Bart Lasiter View Post
There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-18-2009, 01:48 AM   #67
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.
I believe you forgot projectile shape, speed, and material, as well as the fact that musket barrels weren't rifled. Plus, when you can fire 50 rounds in the time it takes another weapon to fire one, your chances of hitting your target go up quite a bit.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-18-2009, 02:37 AM   #68
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Q View Post
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.
Not entirely true. First we must face the fact that other than quality of material there wasn't any real distinct difference in the weapons, after that it was merely a matter of what style of weapon. Today we've finely tuned firearms, such as the rifle. There are automatic rifles and bolt-action, these have increased the range of a shot 4x over that 200 years ago, as well as the number of shots per minute even more so than distance.

Second you have to recognize that 200 years ago the average citizen was fully capable of utilizing a firearm properly and people were taught to use them with reasonable efficiency. They were required commonly for defense of animal attack as well as hunting. During the time there was also a very definite fear of home invasion after foreign invasion.
We have since formed a well regulated national army as well as National Guard to defend our homeland and established ourselves as a top-notch military force. The defense used by the NRA of the second ammendment is obsolete and doesn't really have much of a standing in the present day. We also have other means to defend ourselves without presenting more danger to the situation; security systems, self-defense courses, etc.

A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.

Now, I'm not against the right of citizens to own guns, but I do think it's pointless for anyone other than active military to possess an automatic weapon. The more we work to prevent them from flowing around the market, the more we'll remove them from the illegal trade. When guns are confiscated they need to be destroyed.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 03:07 AM   #69
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,278
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7 View Post
Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!
This has been said about the rapper culture for years in America. Interesting.

@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao. Where an attacker is out of range of melee weapons but well within good accuracy range, you try to make a move and they'll just shoot. If he's a scrapper too, you are in for a nasty fight at least. Most average people don't know enough martial arts to effectively disarm and fight off an armed criminal.

Also, greater numbers: if there are two or more and not clustered together which they rarely are. You might KO/whack one guy but the other turns and shoots or beats you down while you're preoccupied. You're no match for the gun out of range, especially if you can't see it. You might be able to fight it out if he is unarmed, and this is a big IF.

Secrecy/element of surprise only works for the stealth. Out in the open, this dies quickly for most.

Last edited by Darth Avlectus; 11-20-2009 at 06:13 AM.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 04:17 AM   #70
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Sitherino View Post
A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.
While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes? Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door. With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.

Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 06:37 PM   #71
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao.
How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 11:17 PM   #72
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes?
To be honest, I can't think of any particular instances off the top of my head that can be linked to online, however I know of several anecdotal incidents. As well, while I do dislike police for the most part, I have frequently spoken to detectives. Many of which will tell you the chances of the average citizen getting off a reasonable shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door.
And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.
Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.
True, but I don't believe that was the argument here. Besides, there are few people who receive articles written about them that shoot to kill and are not former/current military or police.


Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 11:23 PM   #73
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.
I have quite a collection of edged weapons. Some of which are not exactly inexpensive. I even have my great great grandfather's civil war sword. But like you, I could HARDLY be classified as the average person(I also happen to have a couple of .50 cal rifles). BUT the average person IS likely to have a farther reaching cutting weapon. I mean a machette is cheap, durable and easy to get. As is a fire axe.

Granted none match the stopping power or range of a shotgun(personal preference for home defense), which requires less skill to use than any edged weapon for effective defense(WAAAAAAY better than a 50 cal... cheaper too haha).


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 11:43 PM   #74
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-20-2009, 11:48 PM   #75
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Det. Bart Lasiter View Post
no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*
Better be pretty quick with that blade to stop 00 buck shot.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-21-2009, 12:55 AM   #76
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Sitherino View Post
Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.
I disagree. Self-defense teaches exactly that, self defense. Assuming the person is only after you're valuables, it quickly raises the legal question: why did you attempt to use force to stop them, if you weren't threatened. Of sure there's an argument for "well they might become a threat" but unless you're President, the "pre-emptive strike" argument tends to fall flat.

Fact of the matter is, to incapacitate someone invading your home, even when trained in self-defense(assuming we're talking some sort of martial arts here), requires a high level of skill, or a strong desire to hurt the person. Either of which can put the defender in jail or under the microscope of the law to find out exactly why you went to such lengths. Since the law clearly fails to understand that a single kick is unlikely to stop an invader.

A gun on the other hand, succeeds in that area of "lack of training". People who are well-versed in guns will generally tend to not use them. They are aware that the threat of a gun is greater than it's use. However, for everyone else, you have the argument "he was in my home, I grabbed my gun, and shot." And it plays right into that lack of know-how. You are not well versed with it enough for people to be able to say "you should have known better!"

Sadly, this is because it's not so simple as to just kick the invader's butt and have them run away. In some places, the law works fine just like that. In other places, it's not so simple. Guns leave a wide variety of forensic evidence that allow investigators to find out if you actually shot Invader-Man in your home, or if you shot him outside and drug him in. Self-defense however, does not. There is no evidence left(assuming you don't beat him to a bloody pulp), that you actually were defending yourself inside your home.

I agree people should get self-defense training(in a non-military-lead manner), and that people should be required to annually or bi-annually submit to gun-use and gun-safety tests if they own one(or more)(though in the US that will raise 2nd Amdenment questions). But then, the people invading homes are people would would probably take these classes as well. There is no greater guarantee that knowing kung-fu would give you any advantage over an invader who also knows some form of martial arts. While guns can be acquired illegally, they are still expensive, even more so illegally, and they are an expense that many robbers do not take. As well, if the invader owns the gun legally, it can be easily traced. Where a person learned karate from cannot.

So, while I agree that people need to be trained to defend themselves better, I think that there is great value in "brandishing" a gun in self defense. Particularly within your own home. An invader may or may not be scared of any supposed "martial skill", but they can recognize a gun, and they know what it can do. Some guy in a funny pose threatening to "kick his ass" if he doesn't leave, that's a bluff people will readily call.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-21-2009, 01:22 AM   #77
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-21-2009, 02:40 AM   #78
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.
Exactly, not to mention that in this day and age, knowing some form of "martial arts" is "cool" and "hip" and lots of people who know none of them often claim to know some. See: Napoleon Dynamite.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-21-2009, 04:28 AM   #79
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,278
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Sitherino View Post
And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?
...yet going back some...

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Sitherino View Post
As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen.


If they live by do or die ideals, they don't care and ought to have all the nerve in the world to muster--even against all reason. If they are lacking in nerve and resolve then they will hesitate.

It can't be both ways at once.

Quote:
Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.
Neither is close range martial arts or melee effective all the time either. Neither is waiting for the cops every time. Neither is surrender always viable.
With so many unknowns, we can't know exactly.



Quote:
Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.
Part of self defense is about perception, deception, and intimately knowing that which you will combat. Self defense against guns requires the subject to be familiar with them in all aspects which would include usage against another armed with the same.

You aren't the only one, BTW, who has had contact with law enforcement--and an uneasy relationship at the same time.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-21-2009, 04:29 AM   #80
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Haha its been that way for a long time. Heck even when I was in elementary everyone "knew" Karate.

Add on top of it that many people actually ARE in some form of training for some random MMA competition, even knowing some form or another isn't protection. An 80 year old gramma isn't going to be able to take on a guy that's been training for <insert local MMA competition>. The gun is an equalizer. The gramma can point a shotgun in the general direction of someone breakin into her home a lot easier than she could beat him down.

Oh and at least one recent story
Shotgun blasts stop home invasion
This is the type of crime I advocate having a firearm as defense against. Again, it doesn't exactly justify having a Barrett .50 cal or SAW. BUT it lends credence to ownership.

The 50 cals I have are for hunting rabbits What... You don't hunt rabbits with .50 cal Armor Piercing Incendiary rounds?


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.