Florida's new law

[R. Richard]

R Richard

A nice Wyatt Earp speech, but a couple questions:

RRL It is not unusual to have an armed home invader with a long record of violence, rape and robbery shot by a home owner, only to have the home owner jailed for illegal possession of the weapon he used to defend himself.

As to 'not unusual'-- supply figures and source as to how many homeowners shooting invading felons were jailed. For the sake of argument, do you think it was more than one *per year*.? Any evidence or do you just kinda make things up?

What you ignore, is, given the present level of ownership in NY, absent carte blanche to possess: 1) how many kids per year die from playing with the gun in the home, and 2) how many persons person die when, in the dark, there is a mistake and they are shot by a family member.

If you want specific facts and figures, I would strongly suggest that you review the last year's issues of the New York Post. I read the newspaper over that length of time and the number of homeowners reported jailed for shooting house invaders over that time was very substantial.

Again, reading the NY Post will reveal that a substantial number of children do die (or are severly injured) when they find an (almost always) illegal gun in their house. [You see, it is both difficult and dangerous to train NYC children in firearms safety when they and their parents are prohibited from legally owning firearms.]

Again, read the NY Post and you will find that in "gun free" NYC, householders still shoot family member or friends by mistake.

Let me further clarify the NYC position on firearms ownership. If you are a rich white man with good political connections in your precinct, you can get a permit to own [but not to carry] a gun. If you are poor, black, brown or live in the kind of neighborhood where you might really need a firearm for self defense, lots of luck.

I would like to call on residents of NYC to back me up on the conditions there. It is difficult to really understand the situation unless you have lived there. [Please, no responce from Tuxedo Park stating that "It is really safe here and we don't need guns to protect ourselves." You don't and, theoretically, you don't have to be a millionaire to live in Tuxedo Park either. I do think there is a city code requiring all adult males to own a Tuxedo.]

 

[rgraham666]

Bored.

The real problems can't be solved with firearms. But firearms are simpler to use.

 

[Pure]

RR,

I see your New York Post, and raise you one National Enquirer.

OK, I'll settle for a single case of a white homeowner in NYC jailed for shooting a adult felon who broke into his house.

I know, there was something there in Midnight a couple years ago, next to the story "Woman gives birth to two-headed calf."

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm all for self-defense or protection of another human being. Shooting someone in other to protect your material possessions? That, I have a problem with. No material possessions is worth the loss of a life in my eyes, no matter who that life belongs to. They want the car, let them have the thing, get yourself insurance.

This law makes me uneasy because it sounds to me like it's getting a step too close to letting people take the law in their own hands. No system is perfect, there are always loopholes and room for interpretation and I, like any of you, sometimes get angry at a less than perfect system which once in a while plays in the favor of the "bad guy".

Am I wrong to believe that the courts of law already recognize self-defense? This whole thing sounds to me like they've just redefined the term "self-defense"? That all of the sudden it's not simply about legitimaly protecting your or another's life but that they've also opened the door to insert protecting what's yours. I'm sorry but in my book, a burglar or a car-jacker isn't necessarely after me, he's after what's mine and self-defense might be simply letting him take it. In most cases they won't hurt you if they get what they came for. Sometimes the best thing you can do to protect yourself is do nothing at all or give them what they want. A burglar or a car-jacker isn't automatically a rapist or a murderer. Yes, they're still the "bad guy" but I don't live in a world where everything is either black or white, in mine there are shades of grey and the bad guy is not necessarely all bad and I still believe in second chances.

This scares me... it opens a door too wide and I'm affraid of who might step through and take the law in his or her hands.

Did you actually read the proposed law? Assuming it passes, and I understand it already has, a person will be allowed to defend the sanctity of his or her home or vehicle against intruders. To me, that seems highly reasonable.

As you say, a carjacker may just want my vehicle but I can't know that. It's entirely possible that he will want to abduct me and kill me so I can't identify him or make a complaint against him. In the case of a woman, he may decide to rape her first. I can say much the same about a residential burglar. The thief may just be after money or something to steal and sell but I can't know that. It's entirely possible the burglar is armed and ready to kill anybody who might be able to make an identification. I certainly wouldn't want to take the risk.

I don't see any shades of grey. The criminal is the bad guy. Period. They may have certain personal problems or may need a drug fix, but that is their problem. The guy who is trying to rob or injure me or my family or friends is the bad guy, with no room for argument.

The case of Bernhard Goetz was a cause celebre all over when it happened. I remember reading columns by bleeding-heart liberals who claimed the muggers were innocent pan-handlers who were just asking for money. I don't know if even they believe that. They were actually armed with sharpened screwdrivers that they would use to jimmy open vending machines. So much for their description of "innocent".

The jury in the case convicted him only of having a gun in his possession. The judge, angered at having the prey almost escaping, hit him with maximum sentence of one year, and he got out on good behaviour, etc. after eight months. I have always wondered why he couldn't have claimed Second Amendment rights.

 

[Pure]

you ignore the obvious inference, box.

if goetz served 8 mos for shooting 4 black kids**, how time do you figure a white NYC homowner will get *for killing an intruder* while in his home and fearing for his life or family's safety?

---
**{Added, 4-11} A note to my slacker, debate opponents RRichard and Box: Yes, the 8 months were *in connection with the shooting*, not actually for it. And it was I who posted details of the Goetz case--including the actual charge-- before making this offhand remark to Box.

 

[Boxlicker101]

you ignore the obvious inference, box.

if goetz served 8 mos for shooting 4 black kids, how time do you figure a white NYC homowner will get *for killing an intruder* while in his home and fearing for his life or family's safety?

They were not "kids"; they were young men, and armed criminals who were in the process of robbing him. He was acquitted for shooting them, the jury rightly figuring he was defending himself. He was convicted on a weapons charge, and he could have been charged with that even if nobody had been hurt.

A person who, while in his home and fearing for his life or his family's safety, kills an intruder, shouldn't even be charged with a crime and should be congratulated for his deed. I am assuming that the deceased can be clearly shown to be an intruder.

 

[R. Richard]

you ignore the obvious inference, box.

if goetz served 8 mos for shooting 4 black kids, how time do you figure a white NYC homowner will get *for killing an intruder* while in his home and fearing for his life or family's safety?

Goetz did NOT serve eight months for shooting four black kids. Goetz served zero time as he was acquitted of any crime in the shooting of the four black kids. Goetz served eight months [of a one year sentence] for illegal possession of the handgun that a jury ruled he used only in his self defense.

White homeowners almost never serve any jail time for killing an intruder. They do routinely serve time for the same charge that got Goetz jailed: illegal posssession of a handgun.

There is a real lesson to be learned here. NYC does not care if you kill people, just don't use an illegal handgun when you do it. [Actually knives are also illegal, thus you might consider using single sticks or a garrote.]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Goetz did NOT serve eight months for shooting four black kids. Goetz served zero time as he was acquitted of any crime in the shooting of the four black kids. Goetz served eight months [of a one year sentence] for illegal possession of the handgun that a jury ruled he used only in his self defense.

White homeowners almost never serve any jail time for killing an intruder. They do routinely serve time for the same charge that got Goetz jailed: illegal posssession of a handgun.

There is a real lesson to be learned here. NYC does not care if you kill people, just don't use an illegal handgun when you do it. [Actually knives are also illegal, thus you might consider using single sticks or a garrote.]

Actually, NYC does frown on killing people, except when cops do it. They're allowed to use guns.

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

BERNARD GOETZ


On December 22, 1984, Bernard Goetz, otherwise known as the "subway vigilante," shot four young men in a Manhattan subway car after he said the men threatened him and tried to rob him.

The shooting became a national sensation, as many subway riders, concerned about subway muggings, applauded Goetz's actions. But others criticized Goetz as a racist because the four young men were African-American.

Three years after the shooting, Goetz, a 39-year-old electronics specialist, was acquitted of attempted murder and assault, but was convicted of criminal possession of an unlicensed weapon and spent 250 days in jail.

Goetz said he started firing because he thought the four men were about to rob him. Many suspected however, that Goetz acted as an "avenging angel" because he had been mugged twice before. The youths said they were panhandling money to play video games when they asked him for $5, not trying to rob him.

One of the four men, Darrell Cabey, was paralyzed in the shooting. In reaction to a $50 million lawauit filed by Cabey's familiy, Goetz said in a December 20, 1994 Toronto Star article, "If you're injured, paralyzed or whatever while committing a violent crime against me, that's not my fault."

After the verdict, Goetz' lawyer Barry Slotnick said, "I think the true message is that people have a right to protect and defend themselves under justifiable situations." Goetz said he wants to "go back to being an anonymous stranger in New York," said Slotnick in a June 17, 1987 Toronto Star article.

Supporters and critics argued outside the courthouse immediately after the verdict. Anti-Goetz demonstrators chased his car, shouting, "Goetz is an oppressor, murder no more." Another man carried a sign, "Criminals, think twice or we will Goetz you."

Added

That “anonymous stranger” ran for mayor of NYC in 2001, an won 1,300 votes, has been a spokesperson for vegetarianism, and has been cast in two movies filmed in New York. In the independent film, "Silver Night" he played a nutrition advisor to vampires. In the film, Goetz shoots one of the characters.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I stand my ground on this one Box, even if the exact point where self-defense becomes self-defense is impossible to predict and can't be set in stone.

I don't believe the petty thief and the serial killer, although they are both "bad guys", have much in common. I don't believe in shooting them all just in case. I value human life too much for that, even theirs.

But apparently there are plenty of people who share your opinion and they are entitled to, just like I am entitled to be scared and made uneasy by possible outcomes and application of this law. I can only hope.

Nobody has said anything about petty thieves. We are referring to armed robbers (carjackers in particular) and residential burglars. Those are very serious felonies. The perps might or might not be serial killers, but it wouldn't really make any difference to me. A person who burglarizes a store or hotwires a parked car or shoplifts or something along those lines is another matter entirely.

 

[Pure]

R Richard,

As you prove (and I stated) Goetz got no time for the actual killing. Again, this undermines your claims of good citizens going to jail for 'self defence' (assuming G was a good citizen).

Still you've not produced a single case of a NYC homeowner jailed for shooting an intruder.

I know it's as futile to try to have you face reality, as to have Cheney approve lesbianism, but here's a couple articles cited in the Gun News Daily which zealously collects alleged infringements of alleged gun rights. The search covered back to Jan 1.

First is a FLA newspaper's comment on the Bill for 'home protection',and then two stories about homeowners and intruders.

-----

from gunnewsdaily.com

daily survey of world press, news related to gun control, rights etc.


http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050326/NEWS/503260326/1036

Lakeland Register, April 10, 2005
Lakeland Florida

Is there no end to the Legislature's eagerness to indulge the National Rifle Association? Apparently not. The NRA snaps its fingers, and lawmakers snap to attention.

[...]
Now, bills are moving quickly through the Legislature that would expand the so-called "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes against intruders. The bills would sanction gun violence in the name of "self-defense" -- not only in in one's home, which certainly makes sense, but on the streets, in public places, just about anywhere, so long as a perpetrator "reasonably believes that it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

What's "reasonable" when it comes to killing thy neighbor? Who knows?

Call it the Road Rage Facilitator bill. A fender bender occurs, two angry motorists get into a shouting match, one feels "reasonably" threatened and pulls a gun. Nofault manslaughter. [...]

Last year, in Palm Beach County, a teenager celebrating his 16th birthday did something stupid. Goaded into a prank by his friends, Mark Drewes tried to tie a fishing line to the front door knocker of Boca Raton accountant Jay Levin. Hearing scratching noises, Levin picked up his handgun, opened his door and shot a retreating Drewes in the back. In a subsequent manslaughter plea bargain, Levin got 52 weekends in the county jail and 10 years probation.

"If this bill were in effect back then, the case would not be prosecuted," a spokesman for the State Attorney's Office told The Palm Beach Post this week.

Sanctifying gun violence on flimsy pretense is madness. It's understood that the Florida Legislature is a political handmaiden to the gun lobby. But if this legislation actually passes, we hope Gov. Jeb Bush will have the good sense to veto it, just as one of his predecessors, Reubin Askew, vetoed a similar effort years ago on the ground that Florida law already provides adequate protection when citizens must legitimately use deadly force in self-defense.

====
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/17/BAG0SBQMTS1.DTL


3/17/05

OAKLAND
D.A.'s office clears man who shot teen neighbor
His crusade against drug dealing gained him friends, foes

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005


A North Oakland man known for his crusade against neighborhood drug dealers won't face charges for shooting a 16-year-old neighbor, prosecutors said.

Patrick McCullough, 49, whom police had arrested on suspicion of felony assault after he shot Melvin McHenry in the arm and torso, appears to have acted in self-defense, said Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Jim Lee.

And because McCullough was standing in his yard when the shooting occurred, he cannot be charged with a weapons violation.

"This fact makes any possible weapons offense inapplicable," Lee said Wednesday.

Furthermore, Melvin -- whom McCullough said appeared to be reaching for a gun during the Feb. 18 confrontation -- also is not expected to face charges, said District Attorney Tom Orloff.

"At this point we don't anticipate any charges against anyone involved in that incident," he said.

The shooting galvanized McCullough's neighborhood on 59th Street near Shattuck Avenue, where residents urged prosecutors not to charge McCullough on the grounds that he was defending himself. McCullough said he is pleased that he won't face charges.

"I didn't want to have this thing hanging over my head any longer," he said. "I knew ultimately I was going to not be found guilty of anything. I'm really glad that the D.A. now has looked it over two times and pretty much confirmed what everybody else in the community seems to know."

McCullough wounded Melvin during a Feb. 18 confrontation in front of the man's home near a well-known drug-dealing spot at 59th Street and Shattuck Avenue. McCullough, who has reported suspected drug dealers to police for 10 years and frequently tells the young men who gather on the sidewalk outside his home to beat it, said he fired in self-defense after Melvin and other youths surrounded him, yelled "there's the snitch" and hit him. He said he fired only because he heard Melvin call out for a pistol and then reach into a friend's waistband.

But Melvin told The Chronicle that McCullough started the confrontation by yelling at a group of teens as they walked past McCullough's home and then started a fight. Melvin said he hit McCullough after the older man grabbed him by the arm, and was running away when McCullough fired.

Melvin's mother, Stacy Hegler, declined comment Wednesday. The family's attorney, Ivan Golde, said he wasn't surprised that McCullough wasn't charged. "It's a difficult case because it's politically unpopular," he said, adding, "There's no question there's civil negligence."

Some have wondered why McCullough has not moved. He has said the city-run first-time homebuyer program that allowed him to buy the home requires him to stay put for 20 years or risk losing his equity. But the city hammered out a deal Wednesday to free him from the 20-year obligation.

Under the agreement, McCullough and his wife can sell their home and stay in the program -- and keep their equity -- as long as they remain in Oakland, said Councilwoman Jane Brunner. "I think he needs to keep his family safe, and the police are telling him to move, so this gives him an option."

Lt. Lawrence Green, who oversees patrols in North Oakland and not only supported McCullough but urged prosecutors to file charges against Melvin and his friends, said Wednesday that prosecutors made the right decision. "I'm pleased obviously," Green said. "I think all the good neighbors coming forward in the interest of justice made the difference." Chronicle staff writer Jim Herron Zamora contributed to this report.E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

----
Houston
ABC13.com
1/11/05

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/011105_local_burglarshot.html


Suspected burglar shot by homeowner's son during botched robbery

Houston police are investigating what appeared to be a botched burglary.

By Laura Whitley


ABC13 Eyewitness News
(01/11/05 - HOUSTON) — Gunshots pierced the silence of a neighborhood on Houston's south side late Monday night. It happened when investigators say a group of burglars picked the wrong home to try to break into.

Detectives say just before 1am, a woman noticed four masked men breaking into the home next door to her, which was vacant. That's when she called her son, worrying that the men were heading to her home next.

When the son arrived at the home, he immediately grabbed a gun. Investigators say that's when the son started firing at the four men and they shot back. At some point during the scuffle, the woman was actually taken hostage. She managed to get away.

That's when the suspects took off.When police arrived on the scene, they searched the area and found the body of one of the suspects in the back yard of a home five houses down from the scene of the shootout. The other suspects remain on the loose.

The mother and son weren't injured in the incident. Investigators say the case will go the grand jury, but likely the son will not be charged.
(Copyright © 2005, KTRK-TV)

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm puzzled about this. I read this after Pure posted the URL and I don't see anything in there about using deadly force away from the home or vehicle. Personally, I think it should include business place or place of employment also.

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...ssion&Submenu=1

 

[LadyJeanne]

I went to a shooting range once, as part of a women's self-defense course. They taught us gun safety, how to load and unload, and then supervised us as we tried out a variety of handguns.

I'm the last person who would seek violence, but firing those guns was exhilarating. I got into the focus and accuracy part of it, but the feeling of holding something very powerful and potentially dangerous in your hands, your hands, and then feeling the force of what happens when you fire it...and it's so easy to fire it...that feeling was addictive.

I imagine that, for some people, the feeling of holding that kind of power in their hands transforms into a belief that they themselves are powerful when they hold the gun. Others seek that kind of power when they feel they're in danger.

I don't think we can come up with a 'one law fits all' solution. We'll keep moving the legal lines back and forth, but all this stuff will keep happening.

 

[Pure]

Bill 0436 ER

url for the final form (almost identical to what I already posted)

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...tory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html/

Box opined: Personally, I think it should include [justified use of deadly force in] business place or place of employment also.

Hey, wherever you lawfully are--as is made plain in the bill-- you should never have to retreat before some asshole, esp. if you believe you may be harmed; he or she is to be filled with lead, whether in your home, your office, at the coffee shop or truck, or at the stoplight.

One good weapon for this is the AK 47, carried by many of those in combat areas such as Iraq.

This 'no retreat' is the code of seasoned, macho fighter pilots like George W. Bush.

We can all learn from it.

 

[rgraham666]

There are no dangerous weapons. Only dangerous people.

One thing I am noticing though. People on both side of this argument are using the extremes of human behaviour to justify their stance.

Why, I wonder, must we use rare occurrences to decide our day to day lives?

 

[Pure]

but using common occurrences is very rare!

Let's try applying your principle:

RG://There are no dangerous weapons. Only dangerous people.//

Which of the following are true:

There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous owners.

There are no dangerous A-bombs, just dangerous bomber pilots.

There are no dangerous mines, just dangerous mine owners [or careless miners].

There are no dangerous plague viruses, merely dangerous guardians of them.

There are no dangerous mountain lions, merely dangerously careless hikers.

There are no dangerous tsunamis, just dangerously unwise people living on coasts.

There are no dangerous prisons, merely dangerous people running them.

There are no dangerous traffic crossings, simply dangerously careless motorists.

There are no dangerous asteroids, simply a dangerously unwise planet choice by earth dwellers.

 

[R. Richard]

R Richard,

As you prove (and I stated) Goetz got no time for the actual killing. Again, this undermines your claims of good citizens going to jail for 'self defence' (assuming G was a good citizen).

Still you've not produced a single case of a NYC homeowner jailed for shooting an intruder.

Prison added to injury for burglar
Intruder wounded by homeowner may face 25 years to life

By:Jeff Lipton September 16, 2004

A 43-year-old man who was shot and wounded by a homeowner as he attempted to break into an Inwood home in December 2002 was convicted last week in the break-in.
A jury deliberated for about three hours last Thursday before finding the defendant, Edwin Murdaugh, of Almeda Avenue in Far Rockaway, guilty of second-degree burglary after a week-long trial. Murdaugh, who is considered a persistent felony offender, faces a prison term of up to 25 years to life when he is sentenced by Nassau County Court Judge Alan L. Honorof on Oct. 7.
According to authorities, Murdaugh was armed with a knife when he climbed through a screen window of a home on Monroe Street in Inwood on Saturday, Dec. 28, 2002, at 1 a.m. "He came crashing through the dining-room window," the homeowner, Mark Freamon, 46, said in a phone interview on Monday. Freamon said he has lived in the Monroe Street home since 1970.
Freamon said he was home with his mother at the time, and had been hearing noises throughout the evening. When he went to investigate, he saw the intruder breaking through the window. Freamon said he grabbed his 22-caliber target pistol from an upstairs room and fired four times, striking the intruder all four times. "I was panicking," Freamon said. "One doesn't normally expect someone to crash through their window. I didn't know if he had a weapon or anything else. As soon as I fired at him, he reversed his direction. I didn't even get a good look at who he was."
Freamon added that he was frightened for his own safety, having no idea what the intruder's intentions were.
Police said that after the homeowner shot Murdaugh, the burglar stumbled away. Murdaugh went to a friend's house nearby, and police officers who were on routine patrol made the arrest.
Murdaugh was taken to Jamaica Hospital in Queens, where he was treated for his injuries, which were not life-threatening. He was charged with second-degree burglary by Fourth Precinct police officers, and arraigned later, when his condition improved, officials said.
Freamon, who testified at Murdaugh's trial on Sept. 1, said the gun, which was not registered, was not necessarily being kept for protection. "I used it at that time for protection, but that's not how I intended on using it," he said. "It's not very effective as a weapon, and that could be determined by the fact that I fired at the person several times and he didn't sustain any life-threatening injuries."
Freamon was initially charged with criminal possession of a weapon, and was given a desk-appearance ticket for a future court date. But the charge was later reduced to disorderly conduct, to which he pleaded guilty. No fine was imposed, although Freamon did have to pay a $60 surcharge, he said.
"I'm happy and I'm satisfied that justice was served all the way around," Freamon said. He said he was not surprised that he was charged, since his weapon was not registered. "The police are there to enforce the law. They are not there to determine which laws shouldn't be enforced."

[Note: Although they dance all around the issue, Freamon was arrested and taken to a police precinct. Per normal procedure, Freamon would have been placed in a holding cell until a desk-appearance ticket was issued. Then the charge under which Freamon was jailed was reduced to disorderly conduct. "No fine was imposed, although Freamon did have to pay a $60 surcharge." No fine imposed still means that Freaman had to go through a court proceding and pay a $60 surcharge. What caused the trouble for Freamon? He defended his home against a man who was found guilty of second-degree burglary after a week-long trial. The burglar will likely be sentenced to 25 years to life. Oh yes, Freamon used an unlicensed handgun to defend himself.]

 

[Pure]

R Richard.

Hey you did dig up something. Thank you for posting something that people can have a look at. I wish you had cited it, and told people where to find it. But thank you.

Let's see if it supports your claim that homeowners non uncommonly get jailed for shooting intruders, or more precisely for illegal possession of a firearm, after they have shot an intruder, somewhat as in the famous Goetz case. And there is the further implication that a FLA style "shoot to kill if you're scared" law is a good one, which I take it you believe.

You said, previously
A Mayor named Giulliani came in and began enforcing the law. Crime dropped dramatically and Giulliani was regarded as one of the better Mayors NYC has ever had. Even so, Giulliani still would not let the citizens of NYC have self protection weapons. It is not unusual to have an armed home invader with a long record of violence, rape and robbery shot by a home owner, only to have the home owner jailed for illegal possession of the weapon he used to defend himself.


RR quoting articleFreamon was initially charged with criminal possession of a weapon, and was given a desk-appearance ticket for a future court date. But the charge was later reduced to disorderly conduct, to which he pleaded guilty. No fine was imposed, although Freamon did have to pay a $60 surcharge, he said.

Surely doesn't look like any jail time, to me. Indeed, there was no fine, technically.

Thanks for supporting my contention that jail is NOT a common consequence in NYC--or elsewhere--for shooting a home intruder.

Was justice done? Freamon, said, according to your article:
"I'm happy and I'm satisfied that justice was served all the way around," Freamon said.


As to your addition to the article:

RR commenting on the article: Freamon would have been placed in a holding cell

This seems like speculation on your part, and is not stated in the article.

In any case, were he to spend a few hours in holding, it's not exactly a civil rights emergency that requires the NRA to step in.

Again, thanks for bringing an actual case to the table, and allowing one to see the situations that the FLA law (0436) is designed--by the NRA--to address.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh.

Pure. My observation applied only to weapons.

No weapon is dangerous until a person picks it up.

Even then the amount of danger depends on a myriad of factors; the lethality of the weapon, the skill of the user, the skill of the target, the range between the two, the amount of cover available.

But no weapon is dangerous until a human picks it up.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sigh.

Pure. My observation applied only to weapons.

No weapon is dangerous until a person picks it up.

Even then the amount of danger depends on a myriad of factors; the lethality of the weapon, the skill of the user, the skill of the target, the range between the two, the amount of cover available.

But no weapon is dangerous until a human picks it up.

That's not entirely true. A garden rake, left carelessly lying around, can be dangerous to somebody who steps on its tines. A knife, left in a drawer, can inflict cuts on somebody rummaging in that drawer. A single action revolver, or shotgun or rifle left loaded on a shelf, can be fired when a cat or other animal investigates it and knocks it to the floor. Bullets can be fired or explosives can detonate when they are in a burning building. All these things are dangerous and I am sure there are many others.

 

[Pure]

nice examples, box!

the statement
rg://But no weapon is dangerous until a human picks it up.//

is also refuted when you leave a hair triggered .22 pistol in the chimp cage at the zoo, during visiting hours.

Of course the NRAs position is roughly
no weapon is dangerous unless in the hands of a felon bent on crime

That is childishly simple to rebut.

 

[Boxlicker101]

nice examples, box!

the statement
rg://But no weapon is dangerous until a human picks it up.//

is also refuted when you leave a hair triggered .22 pistol in the chimp cage at the zoo, during visiting hours.

Of course the NRAs position is roughly
no weapon is dangerous unless in the hands of a felon bent on crime

That is childishly simple to rebut.

Actually, Pure, I am in disagreement with you on the issue here, which is the Florida law. I think it is an excellent idea and should be copied by all other states. I am also not fully in agreement with the NRA. I have never done so but if I wanted to, I could walk into any sporting goods store and buy a rifle or a shotgun. If I paid cash, I probably wouldn't even need to tell them my name. Years ago, I bought a handgun and the store examined my ID and took various info from me to the effect that I was not a felon or junkie. Apparently, they checked with the police in the city where I lived and, when the result was negative, I came in and bought the gun. They did have a rule that I couldn't buy the gun and ammo at the same time but this just delayed the purchase for a few minutes. I had no problem with the process. The NRA would probably refer to the documentation as red tape but I thought it was reasonable.

I believe any adult with a reasonably clean record should be able to do the same thing. Law-abiding citizens should be able to buy handguns and keep them at at home or on their persons. Most persons wouldn't carry them around anyhow but that should be a matter of choice. Personally, I believe that most muggers or carjackers would think twice or many more times if they knew there was a good chance that their intended victims might be packing heat.

Edited to add:
You realize, I hope, that if a loaded, hair-triggered pistol is sitting in a drawer at home, it is not a very dangerous weapon. If, however, a person takes the weapon and puts it in his pocket and takes it to the zoo, it is a dangerous weapon. If he stupidly chooses to place it it a chimpanzee cage, it becomes even more dangerous but it was the human act of placing it there that made it so much more dangerous.

 

[Pure]

Well, you had a lucid moment there, box.

Now it's the same tired sloganing.

The idea that getting lots of handguns out there to the citizenry is a way of lowering crime is without any evidence to support it.

Box: //Law-abiding citizens should be able to buy handguns and keep them at at home or on their persons//

On the negative side there are incidents like that below (though it's not yet certain it was a firearm).

Most nations of the West, and Japan etc have reached the obvious conclusion. Minimize handgun ownership. Oddly, these are nations with far lower crime/murder/and home invasion rates.

----
Here's a small note to the reading challenged. You've said you favor the Florida law. RRichard is worried about prosecutions and jailings of burglar-shooting homeowners on gun charges, though he can't find any examples. Both of you might note that the FLA law simply says, if you, fearing grave harm, shoot a burglar, you cannot be charged *for that killing.* (my paraphrase).

IOW, it's entirely possible to be charged with illegal possession or other crimes (like unsafe storage; endangering children, etc.). In short, the law does not prevent the situations--chargings and jailings-- RR was worried about (should they happen to exist).

What you really want, as you say, is not so much the FLA law, as one that licences or encourages gun ownership, lets say, gives you some tax and insurance breaks if you own and keep a gun. Make all expenditures on home weaponry over 500 dollars, doubly tax deductible. Perhaps make it possible to buy handguns at the corner store, as people now do with porn. Make a law providing that any driver who displays a gun prominently, visible from the outside of his car, cannot be charged with any traffic offence, unless a life is endangered. As it stands the FLA law would not prevent the Freamon situation--posted by RR-- from unfolding as it did. (Gun using homeowner facing a trivial charge.)
====
www.cbc.ca

3 dead in Manitoba domestic dispute: RCMP

Last Updated Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:00:57 EDT
CBC News

WINNIPEG - A Manitoba churchgoer arriving for early mass found a man's body in a parking lot Sunday, leading police to discover two more bodies inside a nearby house.

RCMP believe a domestic dispute resulted in the deaths of the three people in St. Andrews, 25 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

Sgt. Steve Colwell said a parishioner at St. Margaret's Roman Catholic Church found the first body at about 8:30 a.m.

"They went over and checked to see if this person was maybe sleeping and they were unable to arouse him," he said.

"Another congregation member went to the residence and noticed the front door open and some papers were strewn about inside, so they backed off and contacted the RCMP."

Police found the bodies of a man and a woman inside the house.

Colwell said a firearm may have been used in the crime.

Autopsies are scheduled for Monday.

The victims appear to be in their 30s, Colwell said.

One of the dead men and the dead woman had been in a troubled relationship in the past, the officer said.

The couple's children were not in the house at the time of the deaths, he added

 

[R. Richard]

Pure: Something I got from www.commonlawvenue.com. I do not know if it is authentic or not. However, the article names names and gives hard statistics. Your comment?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late!