Uechi-Ryu.com

Ian said: "All killers have clean records until they're caught and many aren't."

Hmm... All killers? None have a past record? This statement amuses me. I believe Van has a better input on the matter:
"Never forget, violent criminals have rap sheets.all of them: they are recidivists."

Gene: As for the decision by the 9th Circuit Court, well, they also believe the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional.


Back to Ian: "Now does anyone want to defend FORCING gun ownership on everyone?"

No, I do not. However, it really is not necessary as a large percentage of homes has a firearm in it. I do not have the stat at hand but believe it to be in the 40% range. That % is more than enough to keep many burglers and car thiefs from graduating to home invaders and carjackers.

A good example is Florida, and Orlando in particular. In Orlando, a growing problem with rapes and assualts on females in the late 80s led to an active campaign to train and arm females. The response was huge and rapes and assualts went to almost zero after a few females dispatched would be attackers.

With all of these armed citizens running around and 'shall issue' permit laws now at an all time high in 36 states you would think murders and violent crime would be soaring. However, read this:

'Good news abounds. New data from the Justice Department show the crime rate today is at a 30-year low. Sexual assaults are down 25% from two years ago. Attempted theft is down 22%. Robberies are down 27%. What`s behind this nationwide outbreak of safety? Well, the crime rate is dropping because the government is using effective tools to track and catch lawbreakers, then enforcing tough penalties against them. It seems simple, but it`s true: "Crime is prevented when career criminals are taken off the streets," as Attorney General John Ashcroft recently observed.'

Read About It: Washington Times

And maybe it is because of this:

'Gun Permit Applicants Increasingly Are Women

Even after working several years as a prison guard, Twanda McCurry never felt the need to carry a gun for protection outside of work, and especially not after she went into a new business as an office manager at a bottling plant. Until about three weeks ago.'

Read About It: The Tennessean

There is also some confusion about licensing and permitting. Some states require a licence to own a firearm. That is separate from a permit to carry one. You can legally have a firearm in your home but not be allowed to carry it out of the house legally. Ohio does not permit concealed carry, but does allow open carry and has no license requirement for ownership. Virginia requires no licence for ownership and is an open carry as well as a 'shall issue' state. Florida started the 'shall issue' trend, but does not allow open carry. The laws vary widely state to state but in most a firearm can be in the home.

Rich

IJ wrote:Panther, I am unable to follow most of your post on licensing.

I don't know how to be any clearer. My apologies.

I have not:

--said that I think you should have to go through those hoops to get it, or get it at all

Didn't say you had, just pointed out what those hoops are.

--said I think you should be treated more harshly than the sex offenders

Just trying to bring it into perspective by relating it to and contrasting it with subjects that you've brought up before.

--said that you are a hypocrite for getting one

IMNSHO, someone who says one thing and does another is a hypocrite. You pointed out that I have maintained certain beliefs in limited government and expanded personal Freedom (correct assessment BTW, and I appreciate that), at the same time I was discussing my having obtained the mandated license from the government with all that entails. Those two things could be seen as contradictory in as much as my actions did not follow my espoused beliefs. I wished to point out why there was not a conflict... simple.

I also don't see how its relevant what someone's citizenship is, or whether someone is dishonorably discharged from the military (in SOME cases), or whether was a drunk 30 years ago (sure, it's harder to get a gun license but does that tell us about citizenship now?).

Evidently the government believes it tells them something about citizenship and to a certain extent it does.

There are some differences with the medical license but these are proportional to the different tasks or permissions involved with the license (were YOU required to show a malpractice record? No. Does it matter? No.).

Since, in many cases, malpractice is a legal offense, then my clean criminal record goes above and beyond merely showing that I haven't injured others through negligence.

Am I asking YOU to go prove you can get a medical license? No. Who cares?? I'm only asking that we not chortle about people who don't carry as if they're NOT quality citizens.

I never said they weren't quality citizens. I did and do point out that they have a higher percentage who can be shown are NOT quality citizens. If it doesn't apply to you, what are you upset about?

"My point was that having obtained that license, I carry Government documented PROOF that I am a good citizen."

Swell... what you have, actually, is government documented proof the government does not know you to be a bad citizen.

Nooooo... What I have is government documented proof that I have been thoroughly checked out and found to have no disqualifying blemishes in any court or jurisdiction in the U.S. from at least the time I turned 18...

All killers have clean records until they're caught and many aren't.

Where did you get that completely off-base comment?!?!?!

You don't really believe that... do you? There are government stats and documentation up the yin-yang that completely disproves that comment! I'm sorry... Its just too off-base to even get into!

Didn't that guy who capped the prank playing, fleeing teen and the japanese exchange student who was lost both have gun licenses? Are they top citizens??

As previously stated, gun-owners are not perfect, but they have a far, far lower crime rate (on the order of a fraction of a percent lower) than Non-gun-owners. Now, let me point out that in the first case, the teen playing a prank picked the wrong house to scare and in the second case, the exchange student was warned (in clear English, which is the majority language in this country) to leave immediately. In both cases, the person did not leave and made motions or took actions which led the home/gun-owner (on their own property, late at night) to feel that there was an imminent threat to them and their loved ones. So, while those incidences are tragic and avoidable, the fact remains that the home/gun-owner was rightfully acquited of wrong-doing.

Anyway, I'm not sure what all this licensing stuff has to do with the question at hand except as summarzied thusly: The licensed gun owners have clean records and are not known to be anything but upstanding citizens, but this is no discredit to the large majority of nongun owners who are also good citizens. No one is saying anything about the appropriateness of licensing or how it is done.

Now does anyone want to defend FORCING gun ownership on everyone? To echo Panther's question, that makes about as much sense as forcing CAR ownership on everyone.

To answer the question directly: No, no one should be forced to own a firearm.

(Gene is correct that there isn't any oath "requirement", but in that instance... I feel there should be.)

"Evidently the government believes it tells them something about citizenship and to a certain extent it does."
--yep, that's what I said--some cases. Not others.

"I never said they weren't quality citizens. I did and do point out that they have a higher percentage who can be shown are NOT quality citizens. If it doesn't apply to you, what are you upset about?"
--the fact that there are more who have records is simply definitional; it does not add to the discussion. It bugs me for that reason (it's misleading), and people frequently get bugged by statements that don't apply to them. For example, the Bell Curve may have been right by numbers in stating that blacks have a lower IQ (as a group), but since this information has multiple possible explanations and varies widely for individuals, it's useless. Similarly while more nonlicensed people have records by definition, this is useless in dealing with individuals and has no relevance to the discussion. The potential negative impact that kind of publicity can have on people is reason enough to be bugged.

My comments about killers not having records until they're caught means simply this: the license only indicates that teh government does not have evidence that you have a record of law breaking. The government is not perfect, therefore many people without records actually are criminals. The license does not "guarantee" good citizenship, only a record of good citizenship. I did not mean that killers don't have records of other crimes before they kill the first time. Many to most do. In any case, this stuff about licenses is off topic. It's been adequately explained why; in further posts I'll stick to the topic at hand and let people write what they want about their good citizenship card. Suffice to say that good citizens know who they are and that the issuance of a government stamp of approval doesn't change their quality one iota relative to all the other good citizens who have a card issued by just their conscience.

Regarding the innocent children that were shot down, God have mercy on the soul of anyone who kills a child because s/he rang their doorbell and ran away. And the idea that they were responsible for their own death nauseates me. He rang a doorbell. Kids are imperfect, and this one didn't harm a soul or even property. It is the firearm licensed adult, with the power of life and death in his hand, that I expect some friggin discretion from. And to correct the misstatement, that kid was RUNNING away. He was murdered by a shot to the back by someone under no threat at all.

The exchange student was a teenager walking up the front drive dressed as John Travolta from saturday night fever, in the evening. Hardly a usual MO for a home invader.

No doubt these homeowners felt threatened. Their assailants however were 1) ringing a doorbell and fleeing, 2) wearing costumes and coming to the wrong house (doorbell not yet rung, no unusual behavior, just walking up the drive). I submit that the fact they felt threatened is precisely the problem with the shooters' conduct and mindset, not something we can pin on the dead. Afterall, one might feel threatened if a black man walks up to my door trying to sell me magazines or recruit for jehovah's witness, or if someone ome don't like asks them out, but that falls short of justification for self defense.

The mindset that these shootings were 1) justified and 2) caused by the deceased is precisely what makes the soccer mom recoil from the gun owning philosophy. If gun owners truly want to make themselves understood to the "hoplophobes," they ought to 1) acknowledge these mistakes should not have been made 2) look for ways to prevent them in the future. There are still millions of kids out there who might do something silly or accidental like these two, and it's an understatement to say chalking any future deaths up to the actions of the teens is poor policy.

People got upset by "Bowling for Columbine," and its portrayal of gun ownership, and that's fine. I don't dispute what's been said about Moore's selective editing and tricks of the eye and staging. (he is a performer not a journalist, however, much as is/was Rush Limbaugh). But the POINT of that movie overall was that it WASN'T the guns but rather a media / societal attitude of constant threat and fear, overpublicized violence, in COPS and the news etc, etc, that leads to gun deaths. THAT point I think is well underscored by the two cases above. The analogous Canadian (at least as Moore presents them) wouldn't have had lethal force on his mind in either case.

First off:

I am completely disappointed (though not totally surprised) that you would try to compare this to the unrelated (at least in this thread) context of racism. It is also offensive that twice in your response you go back to a racial/racist context that has not previously been an issue in this thread.

Second:

There is a relevance to my (and Rich's and others') having a "good citizen card" while you (or others) do not. It is simply this. We have been checked out and found to not have any felonies, domestic violence issues, a restraining order against us, a DUI/DWI/OUI and a number of other misdemeanors which are reasons for denial. Additionally, you can be assured that (in most States) getting any of those things after getting the "good citizen card" is grounds to have the card revoked immediately! (conviction not required...) So, the relevance is that those without the "good citizen card" have nothing that they can show me (those of us who have gone through the steps necessary to get the card) that indicates their current and previous clean legal status. I never said that meant that they were necessarily not a good citizen, just that there's nothing to backup their clean legal status claims without going through the same background and criminal records checks. Now, be bugged all you want, but you don't have anything that you can show me that indicates you've been through that kind of scrutiny. Certainly not your medical license.

the license only indicates that teh government does not have evidence that you have a record of law breaking. The government is not perfect, therefore many people without records actually are criminals. The license does not "guarantee" good citizenship, only a record of good citizenship.

True enough. do you carry around a card that shows you've had that kind of scrutiny of your background? No. Are there gun-owners who go on to commit crimes? Yes. Is the precentage of those who've been through that scrutiny and go on to commit crimes extremely low? Yes. Can that be said for any other segment of the population? No. That's the point.

I did not mean that killers don't have records of other crimes before they kill the first time. Many to most do.

OK... we must have been mistaken in what we read...

Third:

In the two deaths mentioned. You type like you know the cases and what happened, but you miss too many important details. Such as: the fact that both homeowners were acquited of wrong-doing, the person who was shot in the back was later proven to have turned away at the last second (yes that can happen) and to have been "pranking", harassing and threatening the house all evening and overnight (which was an escalation of previous harassment and threats), the japanese exchange student had already rung the bell at a house where the lights inside were all off and only a porch light was on, then walked away, then the woman in the house woke up her husband who went to check things out, but didn't see anyone... there had been a rash of armed break-ins with assaults & rapes in that neighborhood, the student was back in the car when he saw the porch door open, the homeowner didn't see the student at that point and headed back to bed, then the student went and knocked on a window, then the homeowner got his firearm and headed to the porch door while his wife called the police, when the homeowner opened the porch door, the student was walking away, the student heard the door open and turned around to head back to the house, the homeowner yelled for the student to stop and raised his firearm, the student not understanding english continued towards the homeowner and began to raise his camera, the homeowner (already under an extreme adrenaline cocktail) saw the camera as a firearm and fired. A mistake? Absolutely. A tragedy? No doubt. Avoidable? Certainly. Should the homeowners pay? They certainly will regardless. (In the case of the exchange student, the student's family along with the homeowner have contributed significant time and money to educating homeowners, gunowners, students, and others in order to prevent this type of thing from recurring. They also have setup a scholarship fund in the name of the student tragically killed.)

Again, in both cases, once the evidence was given (both homeowners were initially prosecuted BTW), they were both acquitted (or charges were dropped). Yes there are mistakes, tragedies, and avoidable situations. These instances are exactly why so many gun owners seek additional training, shoot in competitions and scenerios, and spend the extra time to learn about these things. Those instances are extremely rare considering the millions and millions of guns in this country.

So, your version of the events in these two cases is far from complete and paints a picture that is more akin to a rough drawing with crayolas than a detailed masterpiece with oils.

People got upset by "Bowling for Columbine," and its portrayal of gun ownership, and that's fine. I don't dispute what's been said about Moore's selective editing and tricks of the eye and staging. (he is a performer not a journalist, however, much as is/was Rush Limbaugh). But the POINT of that movie overall was that it WASN'T the guns but rather a media / societal attitude of constant threat and fear, overpublicized violence, in COPS and the news etc, etc, that leads to gun deaths. THAT point I think is well underscored by the two cases above. The analogous Canadian (at least as Moore presents them) wouldn't have had lethal force on his mind in either case.

But that wasn't Moore's point at all... If it had been, then he might have been a little more intellectually honest. Then again, dishonesty runs in those of his ilk. It was absolutely NOT against the media, hollywood, video games, the mainstream news, at ALL. He was very open that the movie (and he personally) was against the U.S. "gun culture". Regardless, it was touted as a Documentary... That means it was real. It was far from real in any sense. I have never defended Rush and have no intention of starting now. The two cases you mention don't underscore the problems with the U.S. "gun culture" at all, they underscore what can happen when things go bad.

Re: racism, it's merely an analogy, not an accusation. The items are similar in the way they are described, and there is no statement to indicate I think anyone here is a racist. I also compared forcing or banning guns to helmet, seatbelt and smoking laws. It is no different.

I agree that it is fact you have gun license proof of a criminal background check for a firearm and I do not. I'm unclear on the relevance, again, because there are good people without and bad people with the same license. Let's agree to disagree.

"We must have been mistaken in what we read..." The statement was unclear, then it was explained.

"Both homeowners were acquited of wrong-doing." --Will you let your kids play at Neverland ranch if MJ is acquitted? It's reassuring, but not completely so.

"And to have been "pranking", harassing and threatening the house all evening and overnight." --so were the police called? So did the person know the teen was a prankster and not a threat? So did annoyance at the previous pranks lower the threshold for a shot?

"In the case of the exchange student, the student's family along with the homeowner have contributed significant time and money to educating homeowners, gunowners, students, and others in order to prevent this type of thing from recurring. They also have setup a scholarship fund in the name of the student tragically killed." --Kudos for them. Admirable response to the tragedy. Not criticizing the actions taken under stress now that details are helpfully filled in (seriously!), but would the lesson here be not to open a closed front door between you and a potential threat? Presumably a threat will identify itself by continuing to enter a locked dwelling (at which point the threat becomes better identified and the shooting becomes more necessary) and lost people will go about their business.

"But that wasn't Moore's point at all." --Then we have different interpretations of the movie. I'm not disputing how he colored gun ownership, but he also stressed that places with lots of guns don't necessarily have lots of shootings, and emphasized our obsession with violence and crime and contrasted it with the laidback Canadian view of leaving front doors unlocked and not being on orange alert all the time.

"It was absolutely NOT against the media, hollywood, video games, the mainstream news, at ALL." --Opinions are just those, but this statement is objectively false. Moore spends time specifically lambasting our news, and the show COPS in particular, plus the frequent mention of suspect descriptions with a long string of "black male" quotes from newscasters who are publicizing every attack, and interviews a black man from Detroit relaxing in the calmer nearby Canadian culture. He then specifically contrasts the American news with a clip of Canadian news going over the installation of a speed bump. Whether it was his major point is one thing; it is indisputably ONE well developed theme in the movie.