Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-25-2007, 02:52 AM   #101
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Interesting posts although I have a few comments

Firstly in the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your home - so laying into a burglar and splitting his head open with, for example a golf club, is well with in the law. So it is misleading to say in the UK we are obliged to call the police and protect ourselves. And no you cannot be prosecuted for defending your own life. (Unless you consider shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you 'self defence')

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.

With regard to armed Robberies in Canada - How many gun related deaths there. (Murders and 'Accidents')
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 06:24 AM   #102
Tom Fish
Dojo: McAllen
Location: McAllen
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.
I don't think that the "only" protection from a gun comes from more guns. I do think that I would prefer a gun if one were needed. So far, after owning firearms for over forty years, I've neither shot anyone nor been shot. Owning a gun does not make me anything other than a gun owner. It doesn't make me smart, stupid, handsome or dangerous. However, just like the tools in my garage, if I need one, I have it. So owning one perhaps does give you some peace of mind. Particularly living in an area with home invasion crimes on the rise. I would much rather face unknown assailants with something more effective and available for protecting my family than say, a stern look, or a grand discussion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 06:41 AM   #103
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

[quote=David Chalk;192348]

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.
/QUOTE]

Until somebody comes up with a better idea.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 07:13 AM   #104
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 07:13 AM   #105
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.
Hi David,
I don't think that most people look at it as the "only" protection. Most of the people I know also use common sense - Don't wander around the "wrong" areas in major cities at night, alone; don't go into bars to start fights; keep track of your surroundings; don't place yourself in a corner if things look like they could go bad; etc.

However, that said, it's a matter of proper tool usage. In the right hands, a hammer can be more lethal than a knife. A knife can actually be more lethal than a gun, depending on distance and skill levels. But, overall, the one tool that bridges the self defense gap easier and overwhelmingly, is the gun.

So, yeah, the best protection against a gun is ... to not be there at all. But if you are there, a knife or a hammer isn't going to turn you into a superman or wonder woman. You can't dodge bullets or use the outside of your arms to deflect a bullet.

And, yes, some people say just give over whatever you have and you'll be safe. Unfortunately, all that is doing is playing the statistics game and hoping that you're lucky. Plenty of hard evidence out there where people have given robbers what they want and a) were left alone or b) were injured/killed.

And there's building evidence that gun owners stop anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of criminal acts per year. So, if not for gun owners, would we have that much more crime? Here in the US, I believe it. Just look at those places where guns are illegal and outlawed (DC, Chicago, NYC) and you'll find that crime is extremely high compared to the rest of the nation.

It will be very interesting to see what impact the current cases against DC will have once the Supreme Court weighs in. If they are upheld (which means that the gun ban in DC goes away and people can have guns in their homes), what impact on crime will it have? You'll go from a complete and total ban on guns (where law abiding citizens can't have guns but criminals can) to law abiding citizens allowed to own guns (until DC passes stringent laws again).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncateg...un-case-nov-9/

These cases are some of the more important decisions facing the US today. And for politicians, mostly Democrats, they're really nervous about the situation. In either case, Democrats are going to fare badly. If the Supreme Court rules against DC, it means one of the fundamental Democrat principles (anti-gun) has suffered a major blow. If the SC rules for DC, 2nd amendment conservatives will rally and vote again, pushing Democrats out of office and out of power.

These are interesting times ...

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 07:48 AM   #106
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??
As I said, nothing compares to the ease of use and to bridging the self defense gap as a gun.

Guard Dogs?
There are stories about even police dogs being killed.

Tazers?
I've been tazered. Once the button is released, I had full functionality in micro-seconds. You going to rely on being able to tazer someone for hours?

Gas and pepper spray?
Been through CS gas. Not fun, but certainly not that debilitating. Also, wind and area size factor in quite heavily.

Those are just some downsides, not all. Add in the intimidation factor and nothing really does compare with a gun. If you are a criminal and are robbing a 60 year old woman -- what's worse for you? She pulls out mace/pepper spray or a gun?

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 08:02 AM   #107
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Interesting posts although I have a few comments

Firstly in the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your home - so laying into a burglar and splitting his head open with, for example a golf club, is well with in the law. So it is misleading to say in the UK we are obliged to call the police and protect ourselves. And no you cannot be prosecuted for defending your own life. (Unless you consider shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you 'self defence')

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.

With regard to armed Robberies in Canada - How many gun related deaths there. (Murders and 'Accidents')
You have of course the right to self defence in Sweden as well.
You are only allowed however, to reciprocate with the same amount of force (according a scale) as your attacker(s)
The scale goes unarmed - simple weapon - Blade (knife) - Weapons (firearms and for come reason collapsible batons)
I am always allowed to "match" my attacker in terms of weapon but not going over.
So if I'm attacked by someone with a knife I'm theoretically allowed to use a knife to defend myself, (but I'm not allowed to carry a knife for protection purposes, I AM however allowed to carry a knife if I have a job that requires the need of a knife or if I'm travelling to or from a place where I might need a knife, like if I'm going fishing.

I have already answered the question about gun related murders in a previous post. But I can put in the quote again.
Quote:
in America there is an average gun-killing rate of 3.97 per 100,000 of the population; in Canada it is 0.59; in Switzerland it is 0.51; in Sweden it is 0.37; in England and Wales it is 0.14 .
Naturally, in countries like UK and Sweden, gun related crimes seems to be on the rise..
But to assume this is because we don't have guns to defend ourselves with are erroneous. As I've already stated, Sweden are at place number 8 in the top list of civilian owned weapons (weapons owned/citizen) when the reason are that the criminals are getting their hands on illegally smuggled guns.

To me, the only natural response would be to increase the efforts of stopping the smuggling of guns..

But back to the statistics I presented earlier.
Are the reason Americans are so much more "triggerhappy" if you pardon my use of the word because:
1) They still hasn't matured as a country/society yet (as Walter hinted at)
2) To easy to get weapons/to easy to get permit for weapons
3) are just more violent than other people
4) not enough homogeneous culture, to diverse.
5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government
6) Government choosing the wrong methods in trying to deal with the issue.
7) not enough people own guns to protect themselves against criminals.

if 1) is true, then we must recognize the factors which makes other countries much more "mature" and the citizens of the US of A must not fear change but rather try and emulate those factors.
If we look at history, almost every country in Europe have been a Superpower at one time or another: Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, Spain and Portugal in the days of the Armada, Britain in the Victorian age and the French before that. Germany had their time in the limelight during the Holy Roman empire, and speaking of Romans, we have Italy and Greece before them.
Right now, we are in the age of the American empire, and sorry to disappoint you, but it will not last forever...
Maybe that's what's required to mature..

if 2) is true then some gun control could be the answer. Don proposed some courses on how to handle, fire and safeguard guns.
Unfortunately there are some elements who are paranoid about the government taking their guns away from them and don't want to listen to the arguments.
Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?
Do you personally object to having to take a course in proper procedure before being allowed to own a gun? And if so, why?

if 3) then why are you more violent? Is it congenital or due to environment?
if 4) then your basically ****ed because isn't that's what USA are all about?
if 5) then how do you propose the government getting your trust back? Is it time to reform the Constitution? It's like the government see their citizens like their enemy and vice versa sometimes. And considering it is the citizens constitutional rights to depose of a "tyrant" and revolt, no wonder..
if 6) then you have to make the law enough balanced so as to not restrict the rights of those with valid reason to own a weapon but only those who shouldn't have one in the first place. See 2) for a suggestion of such a law.
about 7) well, I had to put it in there for a balanced vision didn't I

Last edited by Mattias Bengtsson : 10-25-2007 at 08:07 AM.

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 08:14 AM   #108
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Guard Dogs?? Shoot it
Tazers?? Maybe, but what would you rather get shot, or tazed over and over by some ticked off guy with a taser. Seems just as bad.
CS Gas Canisters?? Hehe
Pepper Spray?? I'd shoot anybody who hit me with that.

Last edited by DonMagee : 10-25-2007 at 08:24 AM.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 08:16 AM   #109
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Mark

I hate to break it to you - but there are also stories of gun owners being killed.

As far as the intimidation factor is concerned - all you are saying is easier = better although you don't take into account the 'power high' possession of a gun can bring and the effect that has on individuals.

Mattias

I do take the view that any society that reveres use of force and lack of self discipline will inevitably be a violent society

Tazer incapacitate - long enough for other means of incapacy

Gas and Pepper Spray - see above are you claiming you your prevent being restrained right those are shoved in your face.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 08:16 AM   #110
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Don Magee wrote: View Post
I'd shoot anybody who hit me with that.
Or
"Today's lesson is about how to perform a Kotagaeshi on someone showing a canister of pepper spray in your face"


Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 11:11 AM   #111
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Mark

I hate to break it to you - but there are also stories of gun owners being killed.
To help with perspective here in the US:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
As far as the intimidation factor is concerned - all you are saying is easier = better although you don't take into account the 'power high' possession of a gun can bring and the effect that has on individuals.
"power high"? That's a myth. That's like the old saying liberals used years ago before concealed carry passed in so many states. They used to cry, the streets will run red with blood from old west style shootouts if you allow people to carry guns. Uh, yeah. Not true. Neither is the "power high". Especially considering that the concealed carry group (people with cc licenses) is *THE* most law abiding group ever. There are no power highs, no wild west shootouts, no road rage shootings by cc people. They are very law abiding, very courteous, and very conscious of the fact that they are carrying a gun.

If you really want to know the facts, do some research and get the breakdown on where and who used guns. Factor out suicides. Then dig deeper and find out the age groups. Sadly, a good portion ends up being inner city black youths. And that is a problem, we (as a society in the US) have yet to tackle, but guns aren't the problem there either. If it were, then all the poor, rednecks would have the same problems. Or other inner city racial groups.

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Tazer incapacitate - long enough for other means of incapacy

Gas and Pepper Spray - see above are you claiming you your prevent being restrained right those are shoved in your face.
Good luck with the tazer. I've heard of people who ignore it, doped up people ignore it, and you've got to be able to use it effectively. And anyone with a club or knife is going to whack you while you try to taze them.

I was in a room full of gas. Completely cloudy and thick. Was it incapacitating? For some but not for others. Overall, nothing that lasted long and certainly not debilitating. Someone hyped up on adrenaline or drugs will probably shrug it off. In open space, wind and area will minimize the effect. And as before, someone with a club or knive will bash and cut you while you're trying to hopefully spray it to good effect.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 11:25 AM   #112
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post

To me, the only natural response would be to increase the efforts of stopping the smuggling of guns..
Yeeesss! And leave the law abiding people the heck alone! Sounds great!

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post

Are the reason Americans are so much more "triggerhappy" if you pardon my use of the word because:
1) They still hasn't matured as a country/society yet (as Walter hinted at)
It might surprise you, but I can agree with that. Way too many people don't know how to forgive. Too many don't realize how much a heartfelt apology can fix. Not enough people look in the mirror and acknowledge what is wrong with them and start making attempts at improvement. The problem is dwelling on who's to blame instead of fixing anything.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
2) To easy to get weapons/to easy to get permit for weapons
If one has been a victim of violent crime, then going to the concealed carry class, taking the required test, practicing at the range, and registering with the government DO seem easy.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
3) are just more violent than other people
Grrr! I'll get you!


Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
4) not enough homogeneous culture, to diverse.
Too much blame, not enough forgiving; Too much dwelling on the past, not enough planning for the future. See #1.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government
Government in general screws up a lot of stuff, and not just my government.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
6) Government choosing the wrong methods in trying to deal with the issue.
Bill Clinton's cabinet banned firearms that looked dangerous. People who didn't know their butts from their elbows were banning rifles with black synthetic stocks while leaving the identical guns with wooden stocks alone.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
7) not enough people own guns to protect themselves against criminals.
Too many people doing everything they can to insure that the criminals are armed and that their rights are protected while trying to disarm law abiding citizens.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 1) is true, then we must recognize the factors which makes other countries much more "mature" and the citizens of the US of A must not fear change but rather try and emulate those factors.
If we look at history, almost every country in Europe have been a Superpower at one time or another: Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, Spain and Portugal in the days of the Armada, Britain in the Victorian age and the French before that. Germany had their time in the limelight during the Holy Roman empire, and speaking of Romans, we have Italy and Greece before them.
Plenty of war long before guns were invented. We're doing the same things that everyone else has done, and dealing with the same issues. Our technology has just gone crazy.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Right now, we are in the age of the American empire, and sorry to disappoint you, but it will not last forever...
Maybe that's what's required to mature..
I'm not disappointed, but thanks for your concern. I think that if our "empire" were to collapse, a lot of our citizens and a lot of other nations would have to get real self reliant real fast.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 2) is true then some gun control could be the answer. Don proposed some courses on how to handle, fire and safeguard guns.
Unfortunately there are some elements who are paranoid about the government taking their guns away from them and don't want to listen to the arguments.
Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?
Do you personally object to having to take a course in proper procedure before being allowed to own a gun? And if so, why?
I took a concealed carry course. I don't have a problem with that. If the government ever decides to take our guns, I don't think it will be very difficult for them.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 3) then why are you more violent? Is it congenital or due to environment?
I don't think that Americans are any more violent than anyone else.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 4) then your basically ****ed because isn't that's what USA are all about?
Diversity and exchange of ideas are great when everybody can behave themselves. I don't think that diversity is the problem.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 5) then how do you propose the government getting your trust back? Is it time to reform the Constitution? It's like the government see their citizens like their enemy and vice versa sometimes. And considering it is the citizens constitutional rights to depose of a "tyrant" and revolt, no wonder..
Our government has done so many things that our nations founders never intended, income tax being among them. Our government has shown repeatedly that they don't trust us.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
if 6) then you have to make the law enough balanced so as to not restrict the rights of those with valid reason to own a weapon but only those who shouldn't have one in the first place. See 2) for a suggestion of such a law.
It's been done. Registration and monitering of firearms always ends in confiscation from law abiding citizens. Except here, at least so far.
Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
about 7) well, I had to put it in there for a balanced vision didn't I
Yeah. This balances your "trigger happy" comment quite nicely.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 01:19 PM   #113
Bronson
 
Bronson's Avatar
Dojo: Seiwa Dojo and Southside Dojo
Location: Battle Creek & Kalamazoo, MI
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,677
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, [i]if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?
The difference between the two examples, at least here in the U.S., is that driving is a privilege that can be awarded or taken away while the ownership of arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Bronson

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 01:29 PM   #114
Bronson
 
Bronson's Avatar
Dojo: Seiwa Dojo and Southside Dojo
Location: Battle Creek & Kalamazoo, MI
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,677
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??
Just to address some of these.

I am also an advocate for a home self-defense system. While being pro-firearms I also feel it should be your last line of home defense. I always recommend to others to first get good locks, lights, and dog(s) (if possible) as these will go a long way to deter potential break-ins.

Here in Michigan tazers are not allowed for civilian use and the pepper spray concentration that is legal for civilian carry is generally felt to be well below the level considered effective for personal defensive purposes. Also collapsible batons are not allowed for personal defense. So I can go through my class, pass my test, pay my fees and be given a permit to carry a lethal form of self-defense (a handgun) but this does not allow me to carry any of the "less than lethal" alternatives out there. So based on the laws here I am allowed to carry nothing to defend myself or a lethal weapon, but nothing in between.

Bronson

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 01:33 PM   #115
Walter Martindale
Location: Edmonton, AB
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 763
Canada
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
You have of course the right to self defence in Sweden as well.
You are only allowed however, to reciprocate with the same amount of force (according a scale) as your attacker(s)
The scale goes unarmed - simple weapon - Blade (knife) - Weapons (firearms and for come reason collapsible batons)
I am always allowed to "match" my attacker in terms of weapon but not going over.
So if I'm attacked by someone with a knife I'm theoretically allowed to use a knife to defend myself, (but I'm not allowed to carry a knife for protection purposes, I AM however allowed to carry a knife if I have a job that requires the need of a knife or if I'm travelling to or from a place where I might need a knife, like if I'm going fishing.

(snip)

5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government

(more snip)
Canada has similar rights about self defense except you'll go a long way before you'll get judicial blessing for using a firearm for self defense - seems that a 60 kg woman, raped and bleeding on the ground is more honourable than that same woman standing over a 100 kg attacker who has a few new holes leaking red stuff.. She has a mobile phone, and is saying "could you send the police, I've just shot an attacker".

It's true, if you carry a firearm for self-defense, it's possible that an attacker will disarm you before you get a shot off - it's also been shown that an attacker with a knife who is within 7 m of a person with a gun, but whose gun is still holstered will get the knife into the gun owner before the gun can be brought into action. That's unless you've had some very specific training, and then you're still likely to get knifed - however - if you carry a firearm for self-defense it's also MUCH more likely that simply demonstrating the presence of the firearm and willingness to use it will, more often than not, dissuade an attacker.

The business about 5).. The folks who designed the US constitution were, I believe, conscious of the possibility that armed revolution against an out of control government might be necessary at some time in the future.
We Aikido people must be pretty big wheels, we keep going round in circles - oh, wait, that's part of Aikido
W

Last edited by Walter Martindale : 10-25-2007 at 01:35 PM. Reason: correcting my spelling, AGAIN
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 02:23 PM   #116
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Bronson Diffin wrote: View Post
The difference between the two examples, at least here in the U.S., is that driving is a privilege that can be awarded or taken away while the ownership of arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Bronson
To go into detail a little more ...

I can buy any car, anywhere. I can buy any truck, anywhere. I can buy a foreign car. I can do *all* this without a license, without a background check, and without the government's approval. I can't do that with a gun.

If I own 100 acres, I can buy any automobile and drive it on my land without ever needing a driver's license *or* a vehicle license plate. I can't do that with a gun.

To drive on the publicly funded interstate system is a privilege that is funded by licensing. There are two licenses, a driver's and a vehicle plate. It only takes paying taxes to get the vehicle plate. It only takes a cursory test or two (written and/or driven) to get the driver's license. Neither involve background checks. If I have both, I can drive into any state without fear of being illegal. I can't do that with a gun.

The right to a gun is an inalienable, constitutionally backed right. Yet it is more strict than the licensing for an automobile. Not only that, there are lots more people killed by an auto than a gun. But, the gov't still gives out millions of driver's licenses a year, even to illegal, felony aliens.

So, license guns like cars? Sure. In a heartbeat. There would be a whole lot less problems. Places like DC, Chicago, NYC, California would be forced to obey my home state's licensing. That'd be great.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 02:42 PM   #117
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
To go into detail a little more ...

I can buy any car, anywhere. I can buy any truck, anywhere. I can buy a foreign car. I can do *all* this without a license, without a background check, and without the government's approval. I can't do that with a gun.
True - but that car or truck will be sitting in your driveway unusable, since you need a license, etc... to operate it. So, you really do need government approval if you want to use it legally. Hey, just like a gun!

Quote:
If I own 100 acres, I can buy any automobile and drive it on my land without ever needing a driver's license *or* a vehicle license plate. I can't do that with a gun.
Yeah, but if you do damage to person or property with that vehicle, & you were unlicensed, guess what?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 02:57 PM   #118
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
True - but that car or truck will be sitting in your driveway unusable, since you need a license, etc... to operate it. So, you really do need government approval if you want to use it legally. Hey, just like a gun!
Not true. Legally, I can drive that vehicle anywhere on my property w/o gov't approval. Heck, if I have good neighbors, I can drive all over the area without gov't approval and/or licensing. In fact, there are even certain circumstances where I can drive that vehicle on the road w/o gov't licensing.

If I want to exercise a privilege & drive on public roads, I get a license. Even then, the licensing is less restrictive & all States are forced to accept the home State's license.

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Yeah, but if you do damage to person or property with that vehicle, & you were unlicensed, guess what?
Then you have that person arrested for trespassing & sue for damages. Best lawyer wins.

Seriously, licensing has little to do with it. It's your property and most states have home castle doctrine. People coming into your property have little recourse if they are there illegally.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 03:54 PM   #119
Mattias Bengtsson
Dojo: Halmstad Aikidoklubb
Location: Halmstad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Sweden
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post

So, license guns like cars? Sure. In a heartbeat. There would be a whole lot less problems. Places like DC, Chicago, NYC, California would be forced to obey my home state's licensing. That'd be great.

Mark
Dont get your hopes up. If states like California can forbid people from transporting fruits over the border, you betcha they can forbid people from transporting weapons over the border

Uke Iacta Est
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2007, 04:09 PM   #120
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mattias Bengtsson wrote: View Post
Dont get your hopes up. If states like California can forbid people from transporting fruits over the border, you betcha they can forbid people from transporting weapons over the border
Lol!!

Things get transported over our borders all the time. Forbid it all you want, it'll still happen as criminals aren't particularly concerned with laws. Laws only target the law abiding.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2007, 03:50 PM   #121
sutemaker17
 
sutemaker17's Avatar
Dojo: Mokurin Dojo
Location: Louisiana
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Thanks James,
That reminded me of what my Grandfather used to say: "Laws are for honest men." (and women)
Regards,
Jason
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the whole competition thing Nick General 26 02-05-2001 07:01 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate