Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Harry Dresden]

Local background checks help prevent criminals from getting guns. It's a fact. Criminals are lazy and stupid.

Chris.....sit down when i tell you this.....ready....98% OF CRIMMINALS DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY...HENCE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS....

 

[Chris]

Chris.....sit down when i tell you this.....ready....98% OF CRIMMINALS DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY...HENCE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS....

Sure they do.

Thousands of felons have been prevented from buying guns by background checks.

 

[Chris]

Federal-level background checks are used as the only level of background checks in 21 states. Seventeen states use state-level background checks in addition to the federal checks. Only 12 states rely on local-level background checks, which consult local law enforcement offices, such as a sheriff's department, in addition to the federal system. States that performed only federal-level checks saw a firearm suicide rate of 11.64 people per every 100,000 in the population. States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively.

A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks.

"As with suicides, the reduction in firearm homicide rates associated with local-level background checks, if confirmed, would also have an important impact on public health and economic outcomes," says Dr. Layde. "Assaults involving a firearm are more lethal and more costly for patients and hospital systems than non-gun assaults."

"This is the first study to analyze the effects of differences among states doing background checks for firearm purchase," explains Dr. Layde. "We hope that future research will evaluate the impact of changes in the background checking process that may emerge in the next few years."

The study was funded in part by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clare Guse, MS, co-authored the study. She is a Biostatistician II in the Injury Research Center and the Medical College Department of Family and Community Medicine.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

 

[Tech_Esq]

Who said guns are not useful if someone breaks in your house?

But guns should be regulated to keep bad guys from getting them.

Why do you want criminals to have guns?

Why are you so stupid that you believe regulation had something to do with whether criminals have guns?

Here's a news flash dumb ass, THEY ARE C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S IF THEY WANT GUNS THEY WILL STEAL THEM OR PURCHASE THEM ON THE BLACK MARKET. If you make guns too difficult to get, then you will have gun smugglers so the criminals can get the guns they need. So you will create vast industries of crime, all well armed with illegal arms.

Regulation only effects the law abiding. Why is this concept beyond you?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sure they do.

Thousands of felons have been prevented from buying guns by background checks.

So what you are saying is you are so dumb that you think that when the criminal went to K-mart and they said, "sorry you can't buy a gun," that was the end of it?

No, they went back to the block, got in touch with Steve, and had their new Glock by 5 o'clock.

 

[Bern80]

Local background checks help prevent criminals from getting guns. It's a fact. Criminals are lazy and stupid.

I would like to see evidence of this 'fact'. Because here is what would need to happen. First you would need to show me a citation showing how many people were denied guns due to failure to pass a background check. That part should be easy enough. But you need to get real Chris how many people even make the attempt obtain a firearm legally when they probably already know they're going to fail the background check?

Here's the hard part that you would be required to show because your premise is that background checks prevent violence. You would have to show of those denied, how many did it stop from commiting a violent act. You would also have to show that once denied, alternative illegal methods of obtaining a firearm didn't occur. I'll wait.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Local background checks help prevent criminals from getting guns. It's a fact. Criminals are lazy and stupid.

So you're saying that murderers, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, basically any type of cretin is law-abiding enough to get their guns legally, by buying them during a blue-light special at K-mart? lol, I suppose you think they register their guns too.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I dont know any liberals who want to take your gun away. Thats an invented boogey man.

ROFL... Well let me help ya out there... TM... Meet Hussein Obama..., John Kerry, Chuck Schuster, Bawney Fwank, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee...

Tyrannical Leftist horde; meet Truthmatters... an inveterate liar, just like you guys...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

must have been the shitty part of town.....nice selling point though....i bet who ever moves in will definitely want a gun.....

I think one could be held legally liable to SELL that house to someone WITHOUT BEING CERTAIN THAT THEY WERE WELL ARMED AND WEL LTRAINED IN THE USE OF THOSE FIREARMS...

Of course Chrissy would ask them to buy the house and live in that neighborhood and be known as the 'unarmed family'... But that's the nature of the dumbass... they're not known for the intellectual prowess.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Local background checks help prevent criminals from getting guns. It's a fact.

No, it's not a fact... it's an ad hoc conclusion, drawn from a fatally flawed calculation.

Criminals do not go through back ground checks when they buy guns; they buy guns from other criminals... DUMBASS!

All background checks do is to reduce the chance that a criminal will buy a gun through legal resources... Now the simple fact is, that background checks and waiting periods ONLY prevent LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from buying guns in a timely manner; guns with which they CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM GUN CARRYING CRIMINALS.

Criminals are lazy and stupid.

So you're a criminal?

Color me shocked...

 

[Diuretic]

Chris please answer me this.....how the hell is regulating guns,going to stop the bad guys from getting them?.....when you regulate guns,the only ones whose guns are being regulated, are the people you dont have to worry about....thats not going to stop any bad guy from getting whatever in the hell he wants.....

Harry, in the spirit of useful discourse I may be able to offer an idea or two - not mine, just a pointer to recent legislative amendments in my jurisdiction which are going to make the lives of criminals who choose to use firearms (and others who abuse the privilege - that's how it's viewed here - of owning a firearm).

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting point in the discussion. Well for what it's worth, here's mine.

Regulating firearms ownership/use etc is useful for minimising (not totally removing) the incidence of accidental harm and misuse among normal (as opposed to criminal) citizens. Of itself such regulation doesn't affect criminals who choose to use firearms as part of their criminal enterprise. Criminals will simply steal them, obtain them on the underground market or have them made for them by armourers/gunsmiths.

I know I've made this point before in USMB but like Johnny Appleseed I can't help myself.

If you want to attack criminal use of firearms then attack criminals.
If you want to minimise harm from the lawful ownership/use of firearms then you put in place legislation intended to do just that.

The issues are separate.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Harry, in the spirit of useful discourse I may be able to offer an idea or two - not mine, just a pointer to recent legislative amendments in my jurisdiction which are going to make the lives of criminals who choose to use firearms (and others who abuse the privilege - that's how it's viewed here - of owning a firearm).

Yes... and its always a good time to point out that the leftists in Australia, as well as in the UK do not 'view' there to be a 'right' to defend one's life or those within your sphere of influence with a firearm... Diur has expressed many times how his state looks dimly upon criminals who use guns... but what ya need to understand is that they've criminalized the use of a firearm in self defense.

Of course the best way to illustrate the idiocy is to look back upon the history of Australias tyrannical disarming of its citizenry...

Some dumbass murdered a group of people with a firearm... and the left used that attrocity where it was clear that Law abiding citizens were at risk of being gunned down by leftist radicals... THEY DISARMED THE LAW abiding.

But the idiocy is not limited to firearms... there are discussions of ridding the Aussies of Knives, swords, forks, spoons, baseball bats and on and on.

Beyond THAT the australian citizen that if found to have used ANY ITEM AS A WEAPON IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER... IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; the crime? OFFENSIVE FORCE... or some such idiocy; its pretty much a carbon copy of the feminized tyranny common to the UK...

The fact is that Australians and everyone else on earth HAS A RIGHT TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM... that the leftists in power in Australia refuse to protect that right, speaks only to the tyrannical traits of the left... and says precisely NOTHING about the right.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes... and its always a good time to point out that the leftists in Australia, as well as in the UK do not 'view' there to be a 'right' to defend one's life or those within your sphere of influence with a firearm... Diur has expressed many times how his state looks dimly upon criminals who use guns... but what ya need to understand is that they've criminalized the use of a firearm in self defense.

Of course the best way to illustrate the idiocy is to look back upon the history of Australias tyrannical disarming of its citizenry...

Some dumbass murdered a group of people with a firearm... and the left used that attrocity where it was clear that Law abiding citizens were at risk of being gunned down by leftist radicals... THEY DISARMED THE LAW abiding.

But the idiocy is not limited to firearms... there are discussions of ridding the Aussies of Knives, swords, forks, spoons, baseball bats and on and on.

Beyond THAT the australian citizen that if found to have used ANY ITEM AS A WEAPON IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER... IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; the crime? OFFENSIVE FORCE... or some such idiocy; its pretty much a carbon copy of the feminized tyranny common to the UK...

The fact is that Australians and everyone else on earth HAS A RIGHT TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM... that the leftists in power in Australia refuse to protect that right, speaks only to the tyrannical traits of the left... and says precisely NOTHING about the right.

You missed the briefing Pub but I'll give you a clue.


Yes... and its always a good time to point out that the leftists in Australia, as well as in the UK do not 'view' there to be a 'right' to defend one's life or those within your sphere of influence with a firearm... Diur has expressed many times how his state looks dimly upon criminals who use guns... but what ya need to understand is that they've criminalized the use of a firearm in self defense.

Wrong on an epic scale.

The laws in various jurisdictions in Australia base self defence on the English common law notion but have extended it considerably in some cases.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 15

15—Self defence

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and

(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist 1 .

(2) It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; but

(b) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist. 2

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person acts for a "defensive purpose if the person acts—

(a) in self defence or in defence of another; or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself, herself or another.

(4) However, if a person—

(a) resists another who is purporting to exercise a power of arrest or some other power of law enforcement; or

(b) resists another who is acting in response to an unlawful act against person or property committed by the person or to which the person is a party,

the person will not be taken to be acting for a defensive purpose unless the person genuinely believes, on reasonable grounds, that the other person is acting unlawfully.

(5) If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 15A

15A—Defence of property etc

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable—

(i) to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or

(ii) to prevent criminal trespass to land or premises, or to remove from land or premises a person who is committing a criminal trespass; or

(iii) to make or assist in the lawful arrest of an offender or alleged offender or a person who is unlawfully at large; and

(b) if the conduct resulted in death—the defendant did not intend to cause death nor did the defendant act recklessly realising that the conduct could result in death; and

(c) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist 1 .

(2) It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable—

(i) to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or

(ii) to prevent criminal trespass to land or premises, or to remove from land or premises a person who is committing a criminal trespass; or

(iii) to make or assist in the lawful arrest of an offender or alleged offender or a person who is unlawfully at large; and

(b) the defendant did not intend to cause death; but

(c) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist. 2

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person commits a criminal trespass if the person trespasses on land or premises—

(a) with the intention of committing an offence against a person or property (or both); or

(b) in circumstances where the trespass itself constitutes an offence or is an element of the offence.

(4)If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.


CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 15B

15B—Reasonable proportionality

A requirement under this Division that the defendant's conduct be (objectively) reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist does not imply that the force used by the defendant cannot exceed the force used against him or her.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 15C

15C—Requirement of reasonable proportionality not to apply in case of an innocent defence against home invasion

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a relevant defence would have been available to the defendant if the defendant's conduct had been (objectively) reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist (the "perceived threat ); and

(b) the victim was not a police officer acting in the course of his or her duties.

(2) In a case to which this section applies, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the relevant defence even though the defendant's conduct was not (objectively) reasonably proportionate to the perceived threat if the defendant establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the victim to be committing, or to have just committed, home invasion; and

(b) the defendant was not (at or before the time of the alleged offence) engaged in any criminal misconduct that might have given rise to the threat or perceived threat; and

(c) the defendant's mental faculties were not, at the time of the alleged offence, substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug.

(3) In this section—

"criminal misconduct" means conduct constituting an offence for which a penalty of imprisonment is prescribed;

"drug" means alcohol or any other substance that is capable (either alone or in combination with other substances) of influencing mental functioning;

"home invasion" means a serious criminal trespass committed in a place of residence;

"non-therapeutic"—consumption of a drug is to be considered non-therapeutic unless—

(a) the drug is prescribed by, and consumed in accordance with the directions of, a medical practitioner; or

(b) the drug is of a kind available, without prescription, from registered pharmacists, and is consumed for a purpose recommended by the manufacturer and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions;

"relevant defence" means a defence under section 15(1) or section 15A(1).

Of course the best way to illustrate the idiocy is to look back upon the history of Australias tyrannical disarming of its citizenry...

Some dumbass murdered a group of people with a firearm... and the left used that attrocity where it was clear that Law abiding citizens were at risk of being gunned down by leftist radicals... THEY DISARMED THE LAW abiding.



Wrong, again on an epic scale. I have already pointed out my view of the populist reaction of John Howard, our conservative Prime Minister on this. But even he wouldn't go so far as to disarm the nation. He did bring pressure on the States to prohibit certain firearms, yes, not all firearms. And even so, farmers are exempted from the prohibition of certain firearms. So it wasn't the Left, it was our very own right-winger who pulled this And we haven't been disarmed.

But the idiocy is not limited to firearms... there are discussions of ridding the Aussies of Knives, swords, forks, spoons, baseball bats and on and on.


I'm here at home just waiting for a visit from the police. They probably suspect I have knives and forks and spoons in my kitchen. In fact I'm getting paranoid just thinking about it. I wonder if I should bury them in the back yard?


Beyond THAT the australian citizen that if found to have used ANY ITEM AS A WEAPON IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER... IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; the crime? OFFENSIVE FORCE... or some such idiocy; its pretty much a carbon copy of the feminized tyranny common to the UK...


The carrying of offensive weapons in public without a reasonable excuse is prohibited in all jurisdictions. In our peaceful society that's how we like it. I can understand that you don't get it Pub because if I lived in a country with 16,929 persons murdered or victims of “nonnegligent manslaughter” per 100,000 people, I'd be carrying too.


The fact is that Australians and everyone else on earth HAS A RIGHT TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM... that the leftists in power in Australia refuse to protect that right, speaks only to the tyrannical traits of the left... and says precisely NOTHING about the right.

There is no “right” to own a firearm here, it's considered a privilege. But people can and do own firearms. Those are facts. In Australia this isn't a left v right debate. I know from your perspective it is but that's because the debate in the US has been framed, like so many other issues, in Left v Right rhetoric. That's not the case here. The right, left and centre of politics have combined to pass very useful firearms control legislation. Ironically for your stance it was right win government that pushed the states and territories (with centre/left and right governments) to adopt the stupid, populist bullshit policy of Howard in 1996.

So that's how it really is here. Now you can't say I haven't tried to inform you so if I read this bulllshit from you again don't blame me if I get cranky.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sure they do.

Thousands of felons have been prevented from buying guns by background checks.

Chris they fall under the 2% who are the lazy and stupid you mention.....you know the ones you see on that show i think its called "STUPIDIST CRIMMINALS" or something like that.....those are the guys you refer to....a felon with half ass intelligence is not going to try and get a gun legally....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Di.....question if i may....this CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT,is dated 1935.....has any of this been changed or amended in the time since then?....

 

[Chris]

Chris they fall under the 2% who are the lazy and stupid you mention.....you know the ones you see on that show i think its called "STUPIDIST CRIMMINALS" or something like that.....those are the guys you refer to....a felon with half ass intelligence is not going to try and get a gun legally....

Most criminals are stupid. That's why they are criminals.

Why do you want criminals to have guns?

 

[Bern80]

Most criminals are stupid. That's why they are criminals.

Why do you want criminals to have guns?

what kind of asanine question is that? This your rebuttal? that basically you're right because yiou respond with nothing more than criminals are dumb? Laughable. It is you who are being naive about thsi. I asked you to provide some data to back up your claim (that strict gun control prevents violent crime). I'm still waiting.

 

[Chris]

what kind of asanine question is that? This your rebuttal? that basically you're right because yiou respond with nothing more than criminals are dumb? Laughable. It is you who are being naive about thsi. I asked you to provide some data to back up your claim (that strict gun control prevents violent crime). I'm still waiting.

I have posted it many times.

State Rankings--Statistical Abstract of the United States--Violent Crime Per 100,000 Population - 2004

 

[Chris]

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com