What value, life?

[X_Digger]

In the last month, we've had posters claim that it's okay for some people to be armed or have armed guards because they're rich, they're politicians, they're famous, or they deal with large amounts of cash or valuable property (jewels, drugs, bonds, etc).

My question is, how much "value" (financial or political) must one attain before it's "acceptable" that these people can protect themselves?

Here's a scale. Please tell me where you draw the line:

Politicians-
-dog catcher
-city/county clerk
-sheriff/constable
-city council / alderman
-mayor
-state appointed position (solicitor general, comptroller, etc)
-state representative
-state governor
-federal appointed position
-federal judiciary
-federal representative
-federal senator
-executive branch

Non-politicians-
-joe six pack
-convenience store clerk
-store manager who makes deposits
-bank teller / jewelry store clerk / drug store clerk
-bank manager / jewelry store owner / pharmacist
-celebrity
-millionaire
-multi-millionaire
-billionaire
-multi-billionaire

I thought about making this a poll, but it's not a 'pick one' kind of question.

Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves with the most effective tools available, so my answer would be 'all of the above'.

[Uben]

1. All of the above

Our constitution allows for every citizen to bear arms to protect themselves. I will never, ever submit to being protected solely by the government. It is quite evident that it is not capable of doing so. As long as mankind is still alive on this earth, there will be those who will prey on others. And, as long as there are other animals large enough to prey on mankind, weapons will be necessary.
I own several firearms, none of which I have fired in years. They are all kept unloaded and secured under lock and key. I do not carry a firearm either legally or illegally. At this point, I do not feel the necessity to do so, but retain the right if I feel it is necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. I will never give up that right without a fight.

I fully respect others opinions to the contrary, but I do not share their concerns.

[rrneck]

2. ...

:popcorn:

[Glassunion]

3. You forgot a couple...

Add the word black, Asian, Arabic, etc... in front of all of them.

You will get different results. Asian store manager vs. White store manager vs. Black store manager.

[X_Digger]

4. Good point, but..

I tried to keep the choices as neutral as possible.

You and I know there's a lot of racism intertwined in the history of gun control, some overt, some implied.

But the idea that some life is more valuable than others intrigues me, and I'm curious to see what some of these people who espouse such positions think.

[Glassunion]

8. Good try, but...

They will not answer.

This is too hard of a question for those on the other side of the fence to answer. Just that guns are bad... Really, really bad. Make them go away!

[X_Digger]

9. Well, if I can challenge them to think about their own positions..

.. then it's better than just taking it as given without comment.

[jazzhound]

10. Exactly. And lurkers on this thread will take notice of the deafening

silence coming from the pro-control movement.

[cliffordu]

5. I don't currently have a firearm.

And I cannot tolerate those who would bar me or any other reasonably sane adult from having one.

As a civilian I've needed a pistol exactly twice in the last 50 years. I had one both times.

I didn't fire in either circumstance, but if I had not been armed, would certainly have been a victim of terrible violence.

[TPaine7]

6. So strong is the gun control reality distortion field

that some people will devalue their own lives--by devaluing their right to the tools to defend their lives--in order to defend gun control.

[Callisto32]

11. Or the lives/well being of others.

I have personally had two young women tell me that they would allow someone to be raped rather than use a gun to stop the rape. One was talking about her self, and I supposes that it is her body, so her choice. The other said she would not use a firearm to stop a person who was violently raping their child.

I'm not sure I believed them.

[mjane]

54. that's almost Dukakis'esque

in his response to the question about the death penalty and Kitty. Regardless of whether it was true (and even he didn't know, he was only predicting how he would respond), it just struck people as wrong.

Considering the immensely strong natural (evolved) drive in parents (and especially moms) to protect their "cubs" at all costs, I find it hard to believe that this woman wouldn't make the choice to shoot if and when she was actually IN that situation.

I'd be curious to know if this young woman who said she wouldn't shoot to protect her child from rape had a child or not. I know from personal experience, and it seems from everybody else I talk to, that you can never truly understand a parent's love for their child until you experience it firsthand. It is that profound.

[57_TomCat]

77. I was blessed with a son after I was forty...

and I concur heartily with your comments. Until I was a father I never felt the sanctity of the bond between parent and child. It has colored every one of my decisions since.

[wolfgangmo]

25. I am (was) rated an expert marksman and was on a SWAT team

Discolosure - the team was a SORT - special operations rescue team. Used for hostage situations with a goal of getting the hostage out.

I don't hate guns, I don't fear guns. But I also don't feel a need for guns. Hear me out please.

The gun rights advocates on this board and others fail in establishing a prima facie argument on the value of carrying a concealed weapon. They have not established a primary assumption that stands up to logical scrutiny, namely that the presence of any weapon stops crime. This is, of course, impossible in logic. One cannot prove something by using an negative example - "it didn't happen because, er, someone had a gun and so, um, someone else who might have shot up the place, ur, didn't, um, shoot, um ... so there!" Contrawise, one cannot use logically the opposite example that "some folks were shot up and none of the victims had a weapon."

Please note that I am only looking at the logic of the argument. I am not saying I disagree with those of you who carry concealed, although I will tell you, based on my subjective experience as an officer, that if someone is packing, that they are a danger, either overtly or by omission of duty. I.E. they are more likely to shoot if they have a gun and they are more likely to have a gun taken away from them and used if they have a gun. Someone without a gun cannot do either of these acts.

My reason for posting this is to encourage those of you who want to post in support of concealed carry to work on your reasoning some. Keep in mind that those opposed (many of whom are equally or more guilty of slaughtering the laws of logic as anyone) to your viewpoint are correct in much of what they say and until your arguments evolve to transcend this logical defect in your argument, then you will not convince them. Ask yourself how often you want to have this argument and how many hours of your life it has occupied, and then decide if you want to invest the skull sweat involved in improving. Is this the hill you want to die on?

[Glassunion]

26. In the past these points you raise have been argued.

As for your statement: “They have not established a primary assumption that stands up to logical scrutiny, namely that the presence of any weapon stops crime.” In fact this point has been argued in the past here. Although you do raise an excellent point that: “One cannot prove something by using an negative example - "it didn't happen because, er, someone had a gun and so, um, someone else who might have shot up the place, ur, didn't, um, shoot, um ... so there!" Contra wise, one cannot use logically the opposite example that "some folks were shot up and none of the victims had a weapon."” However those are not the only arguments that one can use.

Yes it is impossible to say that a crime did not happen because of “A”. Because the crime did not occur, it is speculation to say that the crime did not happen. Hence the logical defect you mentioned. However, on the other hand you do have crimes that did occur or were attempted. The NCVS surveys of 2007 had some interesting data in them about victims that resisted a violent crime and the outcomes of those situations.

Now the survey did not specify what weapons the victims used to defend themselves, however it did show that those that did in fact use a weapon or threaten to use a weapon were more than 2 times more likely to stop the crime after it had begun. The issue with the data is that it goes through great lengths to specify what weapons the bad guy uses, however it does not at all break out the defensive uses of firearms, blunt objects, knives or other. It just states weapons.

Under the topic of self-protective measures, 1.2% of victims of violent crimes actually attacked the offender with a weapon. 2.1% of victims of violent crimes threatened the use of a weapon. Those who actually attacked the offender with a weapon had 2 to 1 odds at being successful at stopping the crime that was being committed. Now those who attacked the offender without a weapon had 1 to 2 odds to remain a victim. Those who threaten the offender with a weapon (but never use it) had 3 to 1 odds at stopping the crime. Those who threaten without a weapon only had about 1 to 1 odds of stopping the crime.

Overall what the report did show was that resistance by the victim or others was the avenue to take. Further resistance with a weapon is the most successful of those avenues. 65% of victims reported that resisting helped the situation. Only 6% stated that it hurt the situation with 11% reporting that it neither helped nor hurt the situation. Over 50% stated that by resisting they avoided injury or greater injury, nearly 20% scared off the offender and 15% were able to escape.

There have been several surveys in the past on defensive gun uses. All with varying results. The bare minimum numbers out of the surveys was that there were over 750 thousand defensive gun uses a year where at the top of the scale a report of up to 4 million a year. I personally believe in the Department of Justice report that there are about 1.5 million a year.

Finally as for: “I am not saying I disagree with those of you who carry concealed, although I will tell you, based on my subjective experience as an officer, that if someone is packing, that they are a danger, either overtly or by omission of duty. I.E. they are more likely to shoot if they have a gun and they are more likely to have a gun taken away from them and used if they have a gun.” You are correct, one cannot shoot a firearm or have one taken away if they do not have one. As a retired officer how often did you notice people, police included, having their gun taken away? This is also a point that has been brought up often, and there is not one statistical claim that I have seen that supports that this happens with any form of frequency. Yes it does happen, however it is quite rare.

http://ncjrs.gov/
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

[InanimateObject]

27. Negative logic is illogical and doesn't mean it didn't happen!

Summer, June 1983, several months after my leaving the Marines. My mother, 5'1" 100 lb, normally home by herself asked me to pick up some groceries and drop them off during lunch time break. As I walk in the door of my parents house, I hear my mother, ya know dynamite comes in small packages raising hell with someone. As I turn the corner, I see a 6'3" 300 plus lb monster just break the latch on the sliding glass door in the back. I walk toward him telling him to get the hell off the property and he replies FU. In a second, he has a 4" S&W Model 29 ,44 magnum planted in his face, he turns white as a sheet, craps himself running of the back porch.

Dont know why I didn't pull the trigger, could I have physically taken him, maybe, but with my mother in question, you get the point. Because of the laws of that time, to follow or further pursue the incident beyond the perp leaving would have invited MY prosecution, so the incident wasn't "officially reported" as what could he have been prosecuted for, misdemeanor mischief or trespass? Being that I did have personal contacts in the police department, I was able to review the mug shots and pull up his rap sheet, quite impressive that long list of violent assaults he had.

Now fast forward to 1995Professor Kleck & Gertz DGU study http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm identified that up to 2.5 millions DGU’s occur per year.

Can you academically refute the scholastic reputation of one of the most noted anti gun advocates Professor Wolfgang http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html could not find fault with professor Kleck & Gertz’s methodology. The best they have done is to rant about the sample size.

Then we go to the anti gun hero expert professors http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf which is the “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig from 1997.

This is a GOVERNMENT sponsored study that creates some problems for the gun banners in that it can’t debunk the standard of Professor Kleck & Gertz’s 1995 study either, but still admits DGU’s occur on page 10:

From their study: The only question is whether that fraction of occurrences is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) = 165,000 dgu’s (adjusted for 2008 population) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria) = 3 million dgu’s per year (2008 population level).

Ludwig & Cook have also created a failure in their logic in:

The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

Of course a respondent who replied they were not a victim because they had defended themselves by showing their weapon, thereby preventing the physical attack from occurring, that data was not considered by Ludwig & Cook., hence their survey value for DGU’s was affected and made artificially low down from the 1.5 million DGU they identified in their study.

Now the problem you have is that the 165,000 (adjusted for 2008 population) is not insignificant and is agreed upon by your anti gun professors of whom have been contracted to perform multiple studies for the anti gun organizations, but that is the minimum, not the maximum.

The next problem is that during their study, Ludwig and Cook reached that 1.5 million DGU’s BEFORE they used their illogic to arbitrarily remove valid data from the study. That is the same number that the Clinton administration agreed occurred on average every year in 1997.
Lets see, the best anti professors noted 1.5 million DGU, the Clinton Administration admitted that 1.5 million DGU’s occur every year, government data and reports point to over 1.5 million DGU’s per year, guess you have irrefutable data to prove otherwise?

We have so much evidenced that armed citizens do reduce the body count or prevent crimes, Pearl Mississippi teacher 1997, two Appalachian law students 2002, Colorado church 2008, Nebraska mall shooting 2008, Burger King Florida 2009, the Georgia college student in 2009 saving himself and 9 others, oh so many more.

Care to count how many concealed carry people shot people by accident, or how many successful DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) get reported, start the count for the last month at the web sites below!

Of course we have the following web sites
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=3/22/2010,
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogEntry.aspx?cid=25&id=2257

Shall we consider the what if games the anti gun crowd loves to play where "blood will run in the streets", here is what we consider a real risk.

ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 107 or 35 per year equals .0000044 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida's data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
it says the same thing for Texas if you look at the data.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician.

Physician is .064 or .14 /.0000044 = 14,000 to 31,818 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't the anti's crying to ban doctors?

Then lets go to the circumstantial evidence of reality. Of the 1.36 million reported violent crimes to the FBI UCR database in 2008, on 381,000 involved a firearm. Did every firearm involved incident result in a shot, no. Evidence from hospital databases and police data shows shots fired 8-15% of the time, otherwise there would be more than 9,424 murders with a firearm and around 70,000 reported injuries as all hospitals by law report treatment of gun fire injuries. Then on tope of that we have police data studieshttp://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm, http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf, http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf that clearly show the best hit ratio among police is 25%, kinda coincidental these numbers tie in with actual reported murders and injuries eh?

You comment on negative facts, but the logic failure you have is the same as the Ludwig & Cook report, because a physical attack didn't occur, you will dismiss that it even happened, utter illogic. The laws of probability dictate that all probable outcomes from an event occur in some fashion or repeatability. Above is the basis and founding based from government studies, organizations, medical etc... all not initiated or started by the NRA.

That is the logic and facts which our argument is based on, and which whenever the elitist anti gun promoters Helmke, Sugarman, Horowitz and MSM idiots are confronted with, they refuse to respond. The beginning of real discussion on any issue is the ability to communicate, so if the anti gun people refuse to acknowledge the actual real facts, what then is there to discuss and why should we even engage them in a discussion that only leads to pro gun advocates giving up more rights? That in a practiced negotiators reality is frankly stupid!

So I say to you, what amount of skull sweat does the Anti gun crowd wish to lose in refusing to acknowledge the good side of self defense and promoting more useless gun laws?

Oh yeah, here is our support for the uselessness of the current gun laws in the US.

Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968, where the US SUpreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don't have to follow the laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc.... Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons!

Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf
Brady Check report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source? We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows. Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 90% in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws.

Yeah, again amazing how we gun advocates always have the facts and the anti's only emotional plea's and a repeated mantra of pushing for the same repeated failures that don't stop or prevent violence.

Not enough of a data delug?

I mean shall we even describe the gun control experiments going on in Australia, Canada and England that began in 1997? England violent crime goes up from 445k reported to 1.4 mill in 2008, murders don't go down, firearms crimes up, Australia 30% increase, Canada stayed the same all at minimum 2 times the US Crime rate which has been going down for over 2 decades. Yeah we see how less guns equals more crimes. Oh darn, forgot to make sure that when you check their data, they count the same as we do, uh, they don't. Don't forget either that England only counts solved cases, so as not to scare their tourist trade off! This result is repeated wherever gun control is attempted.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/crime-statistics/index358e.html?version=6 Britain

www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics.aspx Australia

www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm Canada

Shall we now look at government studies that show gun control doesn't do anything to prevent violence, maybe you should start here with an FBI report from several years ago?

www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_1to3.pdf
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_4.pdf
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_5to6.pdf
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_7to8.pdf
www.americanfirearms.org/downloads/fbi_rc_9.pdf

You can go here and read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludgwig & Cook study noted, doesn't prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime, but then you have better data and facts than these experts who by chance, are anti gun, yeah, they are, sucks for the antis when their own study hurts their position, LOL! www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R2.

Why is it, that in many polls, support for outright gun control has fallen from a high of 54% in the early 1990's to less than 38% today? Maybe it is because the many lies, falsified statistics and half truths are getting old and people are actually learning the facts and seeing the results, or correction, the failures of gun control everywhere it is tried. The fact is, is this hill of lies and deceit what the anti gun advocates wish to die on!

[jazzhound]

28. Outstanding post, IO ---- welcome!

:thumbsup:

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Great !! Welcome to DU and to the gungeon. N/T

[truedelphi]

39. Switzerland is one of the most secure democracies on the face of the

Earth, in part because the Swiss are allowed to be armed.

Given the fascist tendencies displayed in almost all levels of the government currently, I think it is more important than ever to own a gun.

I did not feel this way until George W occupied the WH, and I don't feel any safer now.

[safeinOhio]

59. I'd be very happy with the gun laws in Switzerland here.

I don't think you would. Yes they are armed, but very strictly regulated on training, firearm storage, registration and sales.

[mjane]

55. It's not about need

It's a red herring.

I don't NEED fire insurance (it's less likely I'll need fire insurance than a gun) or NEED to know CPR.

[Kringle]

58. how tall are you? .nt

[SteveM]

69. Illogical straw man posed, here...

"The gun rights advocates on this board and others fail in establishing a prima facie argument on the value of carrying a concealed weapon. They have not established a primary assumption that stands up to logical scrutiny, namely that the presence of any weapon stops crime."

I have seen few in this forum who have said that "the presence of any weapon stops crime" as a matter of public policy. I have seen considerable examples of where guns have been displayed, announced and in a few cases even used to stop A CRIME IN PROGRESS. This is how the question of gun-use by law-abiding citizens has been addressed; it is eminently anecdotal. The presence or use of guns (or their perceived presence or use by criminals) may "stop crime" as a matter of public policy is as unproven as the notion that "more guns = more crime," an expression used repeatedly by gun-control advocates and some within the Democratic Party hierarchy. Perhaps in the future a model can be constructed whereby "more guns = less crime" can be proved, but as yet, there is none.

"...one cannot use logically the opposite example that 'some folks were shot up and none of the victims had a weapon.'" This is a matter of observation and reportage. I don't see the "logic" in it, one way or another.


"...they are a danger, either overtly or by omission of duty. I.E. they are more likely to shoot if they have a gun and they are more likely to have a gun taken away from them and used if they have a gun. Someone without a gun cannot do either of these acts."

Do you have any supportable date to support this, other than your own experience? I concede the last sentence.

"... until your arguments evolve to transcend this logical defect in your argument, then you will not convince them. Ask yourself how often you want to have this argument and how many hours of your life it has occupied, and then decide if you want to invest the skull sweat involved in improving. Is this the hill you want to die on?"

Since I do not see the logical defect (see above), then I don't see the dynamic of 'evolvement.' Personally, I doubt that the hard-core gun prohibitionist will be convinced of ANY sound logic, let alone data.

Rome was not built in a day, nor its hills dependent on your tenuous question of logic. My own purpose in this forum is to convince as many DU members as possible that the Second Amendment is an individual right which should not be infringed any more than, say, the First Amendment rights, and to create an atmosphere in which it will be possible to expunge the onerous prohibitionist language in the Democratic Party's platform; i.e., the so-called "assault weapons ban." (It should be clear to anyone within DU that gun-control has been hugely damaging to many Democratic Party candidates and office holders.) I am not too concerned about the audience of hard-bitten prohibitionists who will NEVER be "convinced" by ANY reasoning. I have other hills to climb.

[jazzhound]

7. All of the above, and so strong is the phrase *gun control reality distortion

field* that it deserves to to "acronymized" to GCRDF.

[X_Digger]

12. 5 hours and no response to the question in the OP? (from someone who has a 'threshold')

C'mon, has to be at least one drive-by unrec'er who's willing to speak up.

[Biker13]

13. K&R

[Glassunion]

14. The silence is deafening.

Almost 24 hours and not one reply from the pro gun control crowd.

Rec +1

[Callisto32]

15. That is because, somewhere...

...deep down in their rational brain, they know that their emotionally-driven hatred for an item that leads them to devalue human life is just flat wrong.

[rrneck]

16. How many

would find themselves on the upper half of both lists?

[X_Digger]

17. You mean how many who take such a position?

I'd bet that the inverse is a majority (ie, a majority of those in the upper half of the list would hold a position that it's 'acceptable' for them to protect themselves.)

For the rest who hold these ideas? No idea, since none have stepped up to explain why they feel that way.

[rrneck]

18. Yep. I shoulda been more clear. The silence speaks volumes. nt

[jody]

19. Apparently the anti-RKBA group values their lives less than the pro-RKBA group or even criminals. nt

[Glassunion]

20. Due to lack of response...

I "Lord of all I survey" declare the OP a 100% victory.

Way to go, give yourself a cookie...

[jazzhound]

21. +1 n/t

[X_Digger]

22. ...

:)

[Glassunion]

23. Ha! Brilliant!

[jazzhound]

24. Kicked as a reminder of the silence from the pro-control members. n/t

[shadowrider]

29. I'm still waiting for one to show up and answer the question

I may have several birthdays before that happens

[shadowrider]

30. I still can't believe not one, not one anti has posted on this thread

Perfect case of closing their ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA

You get the drift

[oneshooter]

32. Because they is skeert! n/t

[X_Digger]

33. *bump* still hoping for an answer. n/t

[Indy Lurker]

34. I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves NT

[jazzhound]

35. kick n/t

[X_Digger]

36. kick

Still waiting.

[X_Digger]

37. ...

Since new posters may not have seen this.

[HockeyMom]

38. I have protected myself without one

including once before my husband could get his gun and load it.

Little secret, pro gun people. You have a BRAIN, try using it.

[X_Digger]

40. Please address the question in the OP? n/t

[HockeyMom]

41. I have worked with mentally challenged adults

and emotionally disturbed pre teen boys. I have had them try to strangle me, stab me with a scissors, kick and knock me down, throw TV's and metal cabinets at me, etc., etc. Think I should be able to keep a gun in my car or on my person to defend myself? I have had them threaten to follow me home. Do I need a GUN?

Neither state, NY, or even lenient Florida, thinks so.

Edit: I even worked in a group home with 6 emotionally disturbed adult men overnights ALL ALONE. Just ME and them. Yeah, sometimes they even got up in the middle of the night and started fighting with each other, and I was in the middle of it. I had no weapons whatsoever. I TALKED them down and sent them back to bed.

I doubt any of you people would ever last one night in a job like that. Somebody would be DEAD.

[X_Digger]

42. Please, please answer the question posed in the OP.

I know it's uncomfortable, but you're the one who keeps asserting that X doesn't "need" a gun.

Who does? What is/are the criteria that makes that acceptable to you?

[HockeyMom]

43. I just DID

I worked in a dangerous JOB. Yeah, my life was in danger. No good enough????????

Law enforcement is my answer, if you really MUST.

[X_Digger]

44. So only cops. Thanks for finally giving a straight answer.

You're the first to do so.

You don't agree with those "who were in the diamond and banking industry who did"? (your quote from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=329938#329941)

eta: how do you feel about bank guards? armored car drivers? private bodyguards? Is this a line, and everything in the list above that point is kosher, or _just_ cops?

[HockeyMom]

45. No

My daughter works in Securty and is not armed. Answer your question?

[X_Digger]

46. No to which? (I edited my post.) n/t

[HockeyMom]

47. Everything you said

Law enforment is my only answer. As I pointed out, a lot of people actually in dangerous occupations (not to and from work), and are unarmed.

[X_Digger]

48. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[oneshooter]

49. Apparently she believes in a Police State. n/t

[mjane]

56. I know a cop in a small town back east

who chooses not to be armed. His choice. His dad is the chief, and his dad thinks it's ok. More power to him.

But I certainly think he has the right to carry. As should any NON-LEO (assuming they aren't convicted felon, etc.)

Actually, I think the felon thing is too broad a disqualifier. At the time of the founders, felonies were "real" felonies.

As govt. power has expanded, the list of crimes that qualify as felonies has grown. I don't think somebody who wrote one bad check on a closed account (a felony in my state) should be disqualified, for example.

[Euromutt]

50. Not wanting to speak for HockeyMom, but...

...I should point out that over in the other thread, she did place quote marks around the word "needed," indicating that she was not convinced that diamond brokers and bankers actually have a legitimate need to carry a firearm in public (or locations accessible to the public).

Assuming that my surmise is correct, I can actually muster a lot more respect for that attitude than the one that opines that only certain people--not coincidentally, those in charge of high-value material goods--have the right to defend themselves with lethal force. There's something fundamentally inconsistent about a legal system (and a gun control lobby) that says you can't legitimately use lethal force to protect property (and only grudgingly acknowledges that you might have a right to use lethal force in defense of life or limb) but then judges that people who have a need to possess or carry a firearm are those who are at elevated risk of having property stolen. The message that sends, to my mind, is that the issuing authority believes that it's permissible to kill to protect a briefcase of diamonds or bearer bonds, but not to protect the life of a loved one.

[spin]

51. Obviously, your background has prepared you on how to handle ...

many potentially dangerous situations.

Still you have to be aware that many people do not have your ability and experience. Also, while you might be able to defuse 95% of the situations in which an aggressive person confronts you or even attacks you, there are those times when all your verbal skills might fail to stop a threatening person who is hell bent on hurting you seriously or even killing you. Even if you have considerable martial arts training, an armed attacker is a very formidable opponent.

A firearm MAY enable you to survive. There are no guarantees but at least you have a chance assuming you are skilled with your weapon and able to reach it in time.

You stated:

"Think I should be able to keep a gun in my car or on my person to defend myself? I have had them threaten to follow me home. Do I need a GUN?

Neither state, NY, or even lenient Florida, thinks so."

You might not be aware of the fact but you can carry a loaded firearm in your car in Florida without a license.

Florida law does allow a citizen to transport a weapon in a private vehicle, even if that citizen DOES NOT HAVE a concealed weapon license. Note the following two key provisions in the law:

Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012." (Emphasis added.)

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access."
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

Also Florida has a concealed weapons permit program. If you meet the requirements and get the license, you can carry a weapon concealed on your person. There are limits on where you can legally carry your firearm. The cost of the license including the required training, background check, passport photo and fingerprinting is very reasonable. Since Florida is a "shall issue" state, you don't have to have the approval of your local law enforcement to get the license.

[mjane]

57. The whole "need" thing is a red herring

I don't know why people respond to it.

Laws aside, we don't NEED to wear seatbelts. Heck, if you had your own private racetrack, you wouldn't even be legally required to wear it.

We don't need fire insurance (assuming you own the home outright), or to know CPR, or to learn self defense skills, or to know how to swim, or...

[X_Digger]

52. kick. n/t

[jazzhound]

53. Just one pro-control response after four months.

Telling, to say the least.

[safeinOhio]

60. Your generalization goes pretty far.

"Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves with the most effective tools available, so my answer would be 'all of the above'. That would include criminals and the insane?
I am all for legal, responsible and well trained citizens to be able to carry a registered concealed handgun. Now people will come out of the woodwork to disagree with me. Yet, my position allows for the protection offered by a handgun to all of the above people that are not criminals or deemed insane. You leave out the one thing that is the cause of most violent gun crime. It is not the legal person with the handgun, it is the illegal ones.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[safeinOhio]

62. Many on your list

like politicians etc could be criminals or insane and your last line that includes "everyone".

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

64. I also didn't list those dishonorably discharged, or those with domestic abuse convictions, or..

.. substance abusers. Why?

Because that's not what this thread is about.

Does the fact that you didn't mention these people mean that you want to give them guns? Of course not.

Your transparent attempt to put words in my mouth failed.

Have any more nits to pick?

[cleanhippie]

65. Are you TRYING to be difficult here?

Whats your game, anyway?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

68. Exactly why is gun registration necessary?

Some quick research showed that the state of Ohio doesn't require handgun registration but some local cities might.

Florida also doesn't require firearm registration and has a long history of concealed carry. Between October 1, 1987 to August 31, 2010, only 168 concealed weapons permits have been rejected because of a crime involving a firearm committed after the license was issued.

Please explain to me how requiring the handgun of a person with a CCW to be registered would have improved this statistic.

[safeinOhio]

70. I'm not arguing for CCW guns only to be

registered. I would like to see all HANDGUNS registered. 90% of all violent crimes involve handguns. As it is now, handguns are easy to get in many states like Ohio and end up in Detroit, NY and DC. As a legal citizen to own and carry a handgun I would not consider it any problem for me to register all of my handguns. The registration process would make it more difficult to sell to a criminal and for the criminal to purchase and posses any handgun. It would help in the tracing of handguns used in crimes. People on this forum have sited Switzerland with it's low crime and high gun ownership as an example of low crimes and high ownership. They also have strict registration.
I am open to arguments against this, but I'm getting kind of tire of all the personal attacks against me for my suggestions. Feel free to argue without the personal attacks.

[PavePusher]

71. I still fail to understand how registration will hinder criminals....

who will merely ignore another law.

If you can come up with a reasonable explaination to connect these dots, I'd like to hear it.

[Katya Mullethov]

72. We put them all to work

Penciling in multiple forms and punching out tax stamps and collecting fees while insisting thye are not in fact taxes and throwing folders of paperwork out of a 5th floor window or whatever in the hell it is they do all day in Austin . It's called Jobs Creation .

[safeinOhio]

73. Easy example

Last year I purchased handgun at a garage sale. No questions, anyone, criminal or what ever could have done the same. I had to go to the police to run a trace on it to make sure it was not reported stolen or listed as used in a crime. I'm sure the same could be said for many handguns sold. By having a registration it would make it more difficult for a criminal to have purchased and use that gun or any other one sold by a private seller.

[safeinOhio]

74. While this may not

stop all illegal people from obtaining stolen guns, what do you suggest to hamper criminals from buying handguns from ads in the paper or from a legal, private owner?

[PavePusher]

75. Maybe I'm just being dense (I'm getting more coffee in a minute)...

but how will it make things more difficult for a criminal to purchase? Even if the gun is registered to the origonal owner, how do you make the criminal update the ownership history? How do you ensure the origonal owner does?

[safeinOhio]

76. If the handgun is registered

and changes hands, the legal owner that sold it illegally, without the buyer registering it at time of purchase would be breaking the law. Most legal gun owners I know follow the law. If there is no law, there is nothing to stop them from selling to anyone. Just like my example. It would also be good to have a part of the registration law to have any stolen or lost handgun reported to policed at once. If your handgun was stolen and traded hands several times, there is no way right now to trace it back to you or return it. This would also solve that problem. If your car is stolen, the police can notify you with in minutes by checking the serial # and matching it to the registration data base.
If registration is required at time of all purchases, the current owner will have to register in order to sell it. If the current owner wishes to get a CCW he or she will have to have registered handguns. If the owner ever wishes to take the weapon out of the house to a range, that person would be risking being caught with an unregistered handgun. If the owner ever needs to use the handgun in self defense, it'd better be registered. I see little problem in compliance with law abiding citizens like us. Others will be taking a risk.

[oneshooter]

102. If the Government decides that handguns are not needed

Then they are registered and easy to find!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Will your scheme include antiques and repops of muzzle loading revolvers and pistols?

[Katya Mullethov]

101. And you put them under " Essentials"

So when the taxpayers wont approve a bond issue or budget increase you can put these cats on the list of services you will have to cut .

"If I dont get what I want .....children ......and the criminaly insane will be able to buy firearms . "

[spin]

78. I don't remember ever launching a personal attack against you ...

I tend to avoid using personal attacks as a tactic as I personally feel that they reveal a lack of a good argument to back up your point in a discussion. In your particular case, I have been impressed by your posts on improving home security. Obviously, a firearm is a last choice to be used when all else fails and it's far better to spend money on improving your home security rather than paying an attorney to represent you in court.



I oppose registration for the following reasons.



1)Gun Registration doesn't appear to work.

If you watch the debate in Canada over their registration system for long guns you will see that a high percentage of citizens simply refused to register their weapons. The system was far more costly than anticipated and has solved few crimes.

Targeting the gun registry
Canadians have outlets to voice their opposition
Posted: 4/09/2010 1:00 AM

Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner's bill C-391, designed to eliminate the long-gun registry, has become an extraordinary political football. Most, if not all, hunters and law-abiding firearms owners ask the common-sense question, "Does the long-gun registry actually stop crime?" Those who support the registry often respond with emotion; "Well, if the many millions spent on the long-gun registry just save one life it will be worth it."

Common-sense Canadians reason more lives would be saved if the funds spent on the long-gun registry were put into dealing with the root causes of crime plus more effective policing.

Furthermore, common sense tells us only the law-abiding citizen will register his or her firearms while criminals will not. And the fact handguns have had to be registered in Canada since the 1930s has done nothing to diminish gun crime. The headline from a national newspaper on August 27, 2010, says it all: Gun violence erupts across Toronto over three nights. Gun registration sure works, eh?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/other/targeting-the-gun-registry-102210124.html

Canada set to repeal registration of hunting rifles, shotguns
4/6/2010 8:48:00 AM

After nearly 20 years, Canada appears poised to end one of its boldest experiments in gun control - the required registration of long guns, or shotguns and hunting rifles.

Last November, a bill to abolish the Long-Gun Registry, enacted in 1995 and gradually phased in through 2003, passed a second reading in the Canadian House of Commons by a tally of 164 to 137. It faces a third and final reading in that chamber later this year; prospects are good for passage in the Canadian Senate.

The bill would delete from federal law the obligation to register so-called nonrestricted firearms, though licensing requirements for long-gun owners to buy or possess firearms and to buy ammunition would remain in place.

The legislation would also require all registration information collected to date to be destroyed.

About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11192

If the relatively passive Canadians have problems with their system, what is the chance of it working in the states?




2)Even the Violence Policy Center (definitely a group that advocates draconian gun control) opposes gun registration.

What are the limitations of licensing and registration?

Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada's experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging. The government originally estimated that the cost of licensing Canada's three million gun owners and registering their seven million guns would be $185 million over five years including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million . But, by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system had already cost Canadian taxpayers $327 million and was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government's original forecast. The March announcement also revealed that although 270,000 valid licenses existed from the country's earlier gun control system, only 142,000 new licenses had been issued. Using these figures as a baseline for America's arsenal of 65 million handguns, the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering.

Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally.

***snip***

Advocates of licensing and registration often cite automobiles as an example of the value of licensing and registration: we register automobiles and license drivers, so why not guns? However, licensing and registration the primary purpose of which was to enforce a system of taxation had virtually no effect on automobile death and injury. It was not until the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration was established in the 1960s, and changes were forced in automobile design and the driving environment, that decreases were seen.

Finally, licensing and registration ignores the public health approach to reducing gun violence and disregards the lessons of consumer product safety by focusing on the user, and not on the manufacturer and the product itself.

In conclusion, licensing and registration can serve only as a supplement to regulation. But it can never substitute for comprehensive health and safety regulation of the gun industry.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm

3 Firearm registration leads to confiscation.

Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

[safeinOhio]

79. Most of the cases are for long guns

which I'm not for, for many reasons, some you have listed.

Some states now have handgun registration or at least purchase permits that do leave some record and at least a background check. None of those states have gone broke. Switzerland has strict registrations and have not gone broke and have a low rate of handgun violence.

Some how I doubt any federal confiscation of handguns. It would do them no good. Long guns are a different story in case of insurrection. Handguns would be useless against a squad of Marines or Black Hawks and on the federal scale, impossible to do. All of the confiscations that have taken place have been by states and local governments, a federal law would preclude those local governments from any such action, actually reducing the chances of government confiscation. Any way, handguns are used in a majority of street crime.


Yes, you never seem to resort to personal attacks. Others, not so much as you can see by all of the deletes. I have been quilty myself in response to other personal jabs at me. I am trying to use different tactics now that seem to work. I think we can all stick to the points brought up without personal attacks and labeling others. It cost nothing to be civil to others.

[spin]

82. Actually it may be a good thing that handguns are commonly used in street crime ...

the normal handgun that is popular with criminals and suitable for concealment, is nowhere as lethal as a rifle or a shotgun.

A .38 special revolver is often used in street crime but a solid hit from a 12 gauge shotgun using 00 buck is like getting hit with 9 .38 special rounds simultaneously. Note that a .38 caliber revolver normally only holds six rounds in the cylinder.

Buckshot is similar to but larger than birdshot, and was originally designed for hunting larger game, such as deer (hence the name). While the advent of new, more accurate slug technologies is making buckshot less attractive for hunting, it is still the most common choice for police, military, and home defense uses. Like birdshot, buckshot is described by pellet size, with larger numbers indicating smaller shot. From the smallest to the largest, buckshot sizes are: #4, (called "number four"), #1, 0 ("one-aught"), 00 ("double-aught"), 000 ("triple-aught") and 0000 ("four-aught"). A typical round for defensive use would be a 12 gauge 2 3/4" (7 cm) length 00 buck shell, which contains 9 pellets roughly 8.4 mm (.33 inch) in diameter, each comparable to a .38 Special bullet in damage potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#Ammunition

A sawed-off shotgun can be easily concealed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. And another: 4. It would instantly create a market for smuggled guns...

....a la Mexico or Jamaica.

[safeinOhio]

81. Does Switzerland have that problem?

I would think it would slow the illegal import of handguns. Can't sell them to legal buyers like you can now. Less market, fewer buyers, fewer imports.

[Euromutt]

84. No, but for other reasons

Switzerland is where the organized criminals of Europe stash their money. In return, they don't do their dirty work in Switzerland. By comparison, consider how the Bahamas and the Caymans are comparatively free of overt criminal activity... overt being the operative word.

Smart birds don't foul their own nests. Switzerland is a nest, the United States is not.

[safeinOhio]

86. On the other hand at the extreme

we have the example of Somalia. No government and no rules except for "free-market". How is that one working out?

[safeinOhio]

87. Lowest crime countries

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/hk-hong-kong/cri-crime

at least we have valid examples to pick from.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

anything the lowest 10 countries have in common?

[Euromutt]

97. Not being major transshipment points for drugs trafficking?

Because if the answer you wanted me to give concerned the stringency of their gun control laws compared to those of the United States', I would point out that most--probably all--of the top ten countries on that list also have tighter gun control laws than the United States.

[mjane]

100. But there are other differences

for example, occupied (or aggravated) burglaries are much rarer in Switzerland vs. the UK. Why? Because burglars are afraid of getting shot in Switzerland, not so much in England. Heck, England even provides iirc that the homeowner has a duty to RETREAT vs. using deadly force.

[Euromutt]

104. I'm not sure the UK, or parts of it, have a duty to retreat

The law, at least in England & Wales, allows you to use "reasonable force" in self-defense. The problem is that the members of the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary seem to be of the opinion almost to a man that any degree of force that does--or might--inflict injury on the assailant (i.e. anything that will actually stop the fucker) is ipso facto "unreasonable."

[mjane]

105. You are correct

I wasn't.

There is no specific duty to retreat in English law. The difference is that in US law the fact that one has NO duty to retreat is explicitly stated (in one's home) whereas in English law, given a choice, a choice NOT to retreat can be used against the homeowner as to whether the force they used against the intruder was reasonable.

my bad on that.

[Euromutt]

83. How many times have we pointed out Haynes v. United States?

See, the personal attacks on you aren't because you favor handgun registration, but because you refuse to acknowledge why it won't do what you'd like it to.

Haynes v. United States established that persons legally prohibited from possessing a firearm (e.g. convicted felons) could not be prosecuted and punished for failing to register any firearm they did possess, since requiring them to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Ergo, the only person who can be prosecuted and convicted for possessing an unregistered firearm is someone who wasn't legally prohibited from possessing the weapon in the first place. Swiss laws on registration are irrelevant, because Switzerland doesn't have Haynes v. United States as case law.

[safeinOhio]

85. United States v. Freed?

If registration on Federal level, a normal person would think a felon with an unregistered handgun was a crime, just as a hand grenade.

[X_Digger]

88. That's a mens rea case, not a 'felon-in-posession'. Fail. n/t

[Euromutt]

89. Wrong, on two counts

First, hand grenades are "destructive devices" under the National Firearms Act of 1934, while handguns are not. Following Haynes, Congress amended the NFA to require the transferor to provide the identifying information on the transferee, thereby side-stepping the 5th Amendment, but this only applies to items governed by the NFA (i.e. machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, explosives and other "destructive devices").

Second, insofar as I can make out, Freed was not legally prohibited from possessing an NFA-governed item, or any other firearm, which is why he could not invoke the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in failing to register the grenade(s).

That's exactly the ugly thing about registries in this country: the very people whom registries are supposed to hamper--those who are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm--are exempt from registration because that would constitute a requirement to self-incrimination, whereas people who are not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm can be prosecuted for failing to register it, because they aren't giving away the fact that they're illegally in possession of the firearm.

Tell me that that's not fucked up. I dare you.

[safeinOhio]

91. Yes that is, however

being in possession of an unregistered handgun would be a crime, just as being in possession of stolen property. That must be the reason FFL dealers don't call the cops when someone is denied. Still they can not make the purchase. I don't see how being exempt will allow possession or sale to or from. While the 5th prevents self incrimination, it does not allow one to break the law. Because I plead the 5th, it does not prevent conviction of a crime. It only saves me from testifying.

[X_Digger]

93. Being in possession of a handgun (for a felon) is a crime. However, the 'unregistered' part..

.. can't be held against them- doing so would make them incriminate themselves.

FFL dealers don't call the cops on an NICS rejection because it's a federal matter- one that the feds choose to not prosecute in 99% of the cases. The feds already have the information they need to successfully prosecute the case- there's no 'intentionally' or 'knowingly' language attached to the statutes governing signing a 4473.

[Euromutt]

94. The 5th does allow one to break the law, when the law requires that one incriminate oneself

The SCOTUS' ruling in Haynes decreed that you cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm if by doing so you would have incriminated yourself. If you're in illegal possession of a firearm to begin with, you cannot be punished for not telling the cops that you've got it, because that would be self-incrimination. You can be prosecuted for being in possession of an unregistered firearm if you weren't breaking in the law in any other respect, because then you wouldn't be incriminating yourself by registering it.

Compare it to knowingly being in possession of a stolen car; that's already a criminal offense. But if you're caught, you can't also be charged with failing to go down to the DMV to let them know you were the one who had the stolen car.

[safeinOhio]

95. good example

If the car was not registered, the cops would never have known it was stolen.

[Euromutt]

96. What an utter non sequitur

What purpose does the above assertion (which is incorrect, incidentally) serve except to divert attention from the topic at hand, which is about persons in unlawful possession of a firearm not being able to be held criminally liable for failing to register that firearm?

[Hoopla Phil]

106. Nope, the cops know it is stolen because it is reported as stolen.

If you get stopped and are in someone else's car the cops cannot presume you to be guilty of steeling it. As long as your DL and insurance etc, is in order they must let you go on your way. Being "registered" plays no part in it. "Registration" of cars is about $$$$ to the state/county, nothing more.

[mjane]

98. That is exactly right

and very well stated. Good job!

[mjane]

99. That's correct

And I note also that (and you state it correctly) the 5th prevents the state from compelling you to testify, but most states do not recognize that it prevents the state from compelling you to provide PHYSICAL/direct evidence. That's why the state can compel blood draws in certain types of collisions, etc.

[oneshooter]

90. Federal Law now prevents ANY federal registration of firearms. n/t

[safeinOhio]

92. Laws are made and repealed everyday.n/t

[oneshooter]

103. Please name one Federal gun control law that has been repealled.

[jazzhound]

107. kicking to provide pro-control advocates a chance to weigh in

[jazzhound]

108. kick NT

[jazzhound]

109. kick NT

[X_Digger]

110. *bump*

We have another person mentioning the 'justification to carry'.. love to get their opinion here.