Criminalizing the posession of firearms

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Split from here because the subject deserves its own thread.

-umop ap!sdn

Someone forgot that when you criminalise possession of firearms,
only criminals will have firearms...

And the cops, the military, hunters, sportsmen, and anybody
who can demonstrate a legitimate need to have a firearm.

But this might be one of those topics better left untouched. :wink:

[Lonewulf]

"Self Defence", and defence of family and home, isn't a legitimate need?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

What is self-defence.

A couple of years ago a (unarmed) Japanese exchange student
in the US walked up to a private home to ask for directions.
He was shot and killed by the proprietor.
This man was not prosecuted.

Must be a cultural thing.
Nobody ever waved a gun in my face, and I like to keep it that way.

[Lonewulf]

What is self-defence.

A couple of years ago a (unarmed) Japanese exchange student
in the US walked up to a private home to ask for directions.
He was shot and killed by the proprietor.
This man was not prosecuted.

What does that have to do with anything? The man was in the wrong, and should have been prosecuted. That does not mean we should ban weapons for self defence altogether. You're saying, "Here's an extreme case -- Guns evil! Ban them!"

Must be a cultural thing.
Nobody ever waved a gun in my face, and I like to keep it that way.

And if someone waves a gun in my face, I'd like to have a gun so that I have a chance to survive.

Ban handguns, and the only ones with their hands on guns would be criminals. They still would be able to obtain them.

[Мастер]

But this might be one of those topics better left untouched. :wink:

A little too late for that, wouldn't you say?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Ban handguns, and the only ones with their hands on guns would be criminals.
They still would be able to obtain them.

And the cops, the military, hunters, sportsmen, and anybody
who can demonstrate a legitimate need to have a firearm.

Personally I blame Belgium.

[umop ap!sdn]

I'm curious, if a cop or a sportsman used a gun to defend his/her home, in a jurisdiction where posession of firearms is criminalized, are there situations where, all else being equal, that person would be in more hot water than if, say, they used a knife?

[pmcolt]

A couple of years ago a (unarmed) Japanese exchange student
in the US walked up to a private home to ask for directions.
He was shot and killed by the proprietor.
This man was not prosecuted.

The closest thing I can remember to this is the Yoshihiro Hattori case back in 1992. The shooter was prosecuted, but found not guilty in criminal court. He was later found civilly liable for over $650,000.

The incident was unfortunate, but was justifiable under Louisiana law (and would probably be justifiable under my own state's laws as well). The Japanese exchange student and a friend were looking for a Halloween party. They transposed some digits in the address, and approached the wrong house. When no one answered the front door, they entered the house via the carport door, and apparently mistook the homeowner pointing a .44 magnum at them and shouting "freeze" as an invitation to enter, at which point the homeowner fatally shot the student.

[Мастер]

Personally I blame Belgium.

Always a good idea.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

A couple of years ago a (unarmed) Japanese exchange student
in the US walked up to a private home to ask for directions.
He was shot and killed by the proprietor.
This man was not prosecuted.

The closest thing I can remember to this is the Yoshihiro Hattori case back in 1992. The shooter was prosecuted, but found not guilty in criminal court. He was later found civilly liable for over $650,000.

The incident was unfortunate, but was justifiable under Louisiana law (and would probably be justifiable under my own state's laws as well). The Japanese exchange student and a friend were looking for a Halloween party. They transposed some digits in the address, and approached the wrong house. When no one answered the front door, they entered the house via the carport door, and apparently mistook the homeowner pointing a .44 magnum at them and shouting "freeze" as an invitation to enter, at which point the homeowner fatally shot the student.

14 years ago, I must be getting old.

This caused a lot of headlines the world over.
Confirming pre-conceptions on how wacky those Americans are. ;)

Under Dutch law, the use of lethal force at a person who does not present
an imminent and otherwise unavoidable threat to life or limb would
definitely be considered a homicide.
Whether the victim was intruding or not is immaterial.
You certainly do not have the 'right' to use what ever amount of violence
you feel like against people that violate your property.
Pointing a deadly weapon at somebody would in itself constitute a
threat with a crime against life, also a felony.
This law also covers verbal threats.

We take violence very serious.

[Philip]

And the cops, the military, hunters, sportsmen, and anybody who can demonstrate a legitimate need to have a firearm.

Ah, but in the UK only the firearms units of the police (SWAT equivalents) are armed. The Army don't get to take their weapons home, and hunting is a much smaller activity than in the US. The restrictions on hunting/match rifles are draconian, and therefore the ranges went out of business. Handguns are illegal, following an atrocity in Dunblane in Scotland. Some nutter went into a primary school and killed kids, and the governments kneejerk reaction was to ban handguns. All legally owned handguns (all of which had been ballistically tested, so were very rarely used in crime) were confiscated, but unsurprisingly the illegally held weapons weren't handed in. I live in one of the highest gun crime areas of the UK, gun battles don't always make the news anymore. Fortunately, no-one can shoot straight so injuries are kept to a minimum.
I grew up in the Belfast area of Northern Ireland, where because of the number of guns, crime was actually very low (not counting terrorism, of course.)

Must be a cultural thing.
Nobody ever waved a gun in my face, and I like to keep it that way.

I lived in Venlo for a while, and while I agree that there was no gun crime I had knives pulled on me a number of times. It was less than fun.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Personally I blame Belgium.

Always a good idea.

The problem with Belgium is its liberal gun laws.
Most citizens can just buy a gun.
Foreigners can't, but they can purchase parts and ammo.
Enough parts makes a whole gun.

German law is also lacks.
I could drive over there and legally buy an alarm pistol and take it home (illegal).
Look-a-like weapons are banned under the Dutch Weapons and Munitions Act.
This includes toys. The reason for this is that they can be use to threaten
people with, thus mimicking the primary function of firearms.

It might be best if such laws were harmonised in Schengenland,
but that's not going to happen.

[Lonewulf]

I'm curious, if a cop or a sportsman used a gun to defend his/her home, in a jurisdiction where posession of firearms is criminalized, are there situations where, all else being equal, that person would be in more hot water than if, say, they used a knife?

A man kills his family with an axe, and it barely makes a blip on national headlines. A man kills another man in self defence with a pistol, and it makes national headlines, and vigilantes try to make his life miserable.

Apparently, making the tool different makes all the difference, not in how the tool actually is used.

[Bandit]

I'm curious, if a cop or a sportsman used a gun to defend his/her home, in a jurisdiction where posession of firearms is criminalized, are there situations where, all else being equal, that person would be in more hot water than if, say, they used a knife?

A man kills his family with an axe, and it barely makes a blip on national headlines. A man kills another man in self defence with a pistol, and it makes national headlines, and vigilantes try to make his life miserable.

Apparently, making the tool different makes all the difference, not in how the tool actually is used.

Very good point.

[Мастер]

It might be best if such laws were harmonised in Schengenland,
but that's not going to happen.

I assume your preference is that such harmonisation would result in something similar to the Dutch law rather than the Belgian law...

[pmcolt]

Under Dutch law, the use of lethal force at a person who does not present
an imminent and otherwise unavoidable threat to life or limb would
definitely be considered a homicide.
Whether the victim was intruding or not is immaterial.
You certainly do not have the 'right' to use what ever amount of violence
you feel like against people that violate your property.
Pointing a deadly weapon at somebody would in itself constitute a
threat with a crime against life, also a felony.
This law also covers verbal threats.

We take violence very serious.

As do we. (In fact, the intentional killing of a person would always be a homicide. A killing in self-defense would simply be ruled justifiable.)

I'm not familiar with Louisiana law, but had this occurred in North Carolina, the outcome would likely have been the same.

In NC, deadly force may be used to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. There is generally a duty to attempt retreat before using lethal force, unless the victim is on his own property, or the victim cannot reasonably retreat without exposing himself to further danger.

Had he shot an individual simply for tresspassing, he would've been in deep legal trouble, and likely would've been convicted of second degree murder.

Had he unnecessarily pointed his gun at the individuals, this would've been assault with a deadly weapon.

Had he unnecessarily pointed his gun at the individuals, and then shouted "I'll kill you," there would've been a communicating threats charge thrown in with the ADW charge.

But, the homeowner answered his door, to find two people on his property, after dark, in a semi-private carport. One of them rushed toward him, in disguise (Halloween), with an object in his hand that may have been a weapon. He ignored (from the homeowner's perspective) a verbal command to stop.

At this point, the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life, and the shooting was justifiable. And the jury in his criminal trial came to the same conclusion after only three hours of deliberation.

[Lonewulf]

Here's the main question:

Does that make this the fault of the gun? Or the people involved?

Would the banning of firearms really "solve" all these kinds of situations?

And what if the man really were a trespasser with a weapon in his hand, charging the man?

These are important questions.

[Dragon Star]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

[Lonewulf]

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Guns don't kill people, I do.

[Мастер]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

And the cops, the military, hunters, sportsmen, and anybody who can demonstrate a legitimate need to have a firearm.

Ah, but in the UK only the firearms units of the police (SWAT equivalents) are armed...

I was merely pointing out the factual incorrectness of the original statement.
It's a political slogan. And those always need qualifiers.
I also think it's an oxymoron.
If you 'criminalise' handguns, everybody with a handgun will be a criminal. D'oh.

I grew up in the Belfast area of Northern Ireland, where because of the number of guns, crime was actually very low (not counting terrorism, of course.)

(Emphasis mine.)
Do you know this for a fact.
Statistics have become quite suspect in this debate, politicised as they are.
But is stands to reason that spur of the moment violence, most of the cases,
are less likely to turn deadly if there aren't any deadly weapons around.

Must be a cultural thing.
Nobody ever waved a gun in my face, and I like to keep it that way.

I lived in Venlo for a while, and while I agree that there was no gun crime I had knives pulled on me a number of times. It was less than fun.

And you didn't get shot. ;)
FWIW, stilettos, bludgeons, brass knuckles, pepper-spray and similar, are banned too.
(Category I, no licence will, or can, be issued.)
Bringing a knife or baseball bat to a fight will get it classified as an illegal weapon too.
Spot checks in clubbing districts are common, and apparently necessary.
It is one of the reasons I prefer living in a small town.

A man kills his family with an axe, and it barely makes a blip on national headlines.

That's odd. One would expect that in a country where tens of thousands of people each year are killed by firearms (without much being thought about it), a good axe-murder would get some attention.

It might be best if such laws were harmonised in Schengenland,
but that's not going to happen.

I assume your preference is that such harmonisation would result in something similar to the Dutch law rather than the Belgian law...

I would.

Last year there were two homicides in my home town. (Possibly a record.)
In one case a man walking his dog after dark was stabbed by a homeless person for no apparent reason.
In the other, a disturbed 18 year old man shot his mother's divorce lawyer with his father's hand gun.
Originally legally acquired by his father, who is a German resident.

... At this point, the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life, and the shooting was justifiable.

Sounds a lot more reasonable.
But without the gun nobody would have gotten hurt.

Does that make this the fault of the gun? Or the people involved?

The point is avoiding such events from happening in the first place.

Would the banning of firearms really "solve" all these kinds of situations?

Some of them.

And what if the man really were a trespasser with a weapon in his hand, charging the man?

Then the shootist anticipation would possibly have saved his live.
But how likely is that?
If somebody was really out to kill you they wouldn't do it like that, now would they.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Yet an other NRA-meme.

It is often people with guns that kill people.

How reliable are guns as defensive weapons?

[pmcolt]

It's a nightmare replying to a post with so many quotes by so many different people, so my apologies if I misattribute something.

And you didn't get shot. :wink:
FWIW, stilettos, bludgeons, brass knuckles, pepper-spray and similar, are banned too.
(Category I, no licence will, or can, be issued.)

Pepper spray? All right, my state has similar legislation against carrying "any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon," but pepper spray? A less-lethal defensive tool that's compact and effective enough that college-aged women are actively encouraged to carry it in their purses to ward off attackers? This I cannot understand.

(And I'd rather be shot (at) by a common mugger than stabbed. Many criminals have bad aim and use second-rate small-caliber weapons, and I feel better about my odds of surviving a grazing .38 wound in a scuffle with the guy than I do about surviving a slash to the throat or a stab in the chest with even a modest 3" blade.)

That's odd. One would expect that in a country where tens of thousands of people each year are killed by firearms (without much being thought about it), a good axe-murder would get some attention.

Tens of thousands killed by firearms? According to the FBI's uniform crime report, the total number of firearm-related murders for the past several years has been under 10,000. I suppose you could add in suicides, but there are plenty of other equally convenient ways of offing onself.

... At this point, the homeowner was reasonably in fear for his life, and the shooting was justifiable.

Sounds a lot more reasonable.
But without the gun nobody would have gotten hurt.

Considering that the family thought they were being attacked, and sought out a weapon in advance for their protection, it's more likely that the headline would've been "Japanese Exchange Student Beaten Dead with Baseball Bat" or "Exchange Student Fatally Stabbed in Mistaken Home Invasion". Still a far cry from no one getting hurt.

How reliable are guns as defensive weapons?

It's hard to find decent numbers, since nearly all sources are biased one way or another. Estimates for the number of times firearms are used in self-defense annually range from 100,000 at the low end, to 2.5 million at the high end. Most of these usages end the crime without any shots being fired.

If you're asking about physical reliability, my personal carry weapon of choice is a Glock 21 loaded with 230-grain Federal Hydra-shok .45 caliber JHP ammunition. I've probably fired over 3000 practice rounds through it so far with only 2 failures; one attributable to the practice ammo, the other a failure to feed caused by a stiff magazine spring. I have little doubt that it's reliable. God-willing, I'll never have to find out how effective it is. I can't vouch for the reliability of other models of weapons or ammo loads.

[umop ap!sdn]

I have to say HD you raise some good points. :) pmcolt can address them better than I can, but, I wanted to clarify...

If you 'criminalise' handguns, everybody with a handgun will be a criminal. D'oh.

What is meant is that honest law abiding citizens will no longer have them to defend themselves from the law breakers who sneak around with them anyway.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Yet an other NRA-meme.

It is often people with guns that kill people.

It is a meme but I think it does make a valid point. :) Whether with guns, knives, axes, it is still a person using the weapon that is responsible for the damage done.

[Lonewulf]

No matter how criminalized firearms can be, there will always be someone that has the will, or the way, to sneak them into the country. Or make their own, if need be.

And I thought that 9/11 was a significant example of how guns aren't the only things you can use...

Also, there is evidence that using a knife is more likely to put someone into a "red rage". People with guns are far less likely to, for they are distant and viewing their target from a distance. But a man with a knife that charges in and starts stabbing, runs the risk of falling further into rage, and doesn't stop stabbing for a while...

A significant amount of people survive being shot. Being stabbed multiple times is a bit harder.

Also, one other thing: A common gun around criminals (because of lack of high cost) are guns like .22 and .25 pistols. They are very easy to survive from, even if you don't want to get hit by them.

[Dragon Star]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

Bullets don't kill people, the wound does. :P

But seriously, just as Lonewulf says, if guns are made illegal, there will still be a extremely large black market waiting for it, so what do you do when someone breaks into your house and he has a gun and you don't?

I will tell you, your fucked.