A pirate attempted to stop my bus in an old caddy

[fe2_o3]

Greg ... Did he want to steal your bus or just get you to hit him for the insurance. Mind set...Buses are expensive...Rich people have good insurance. ...Cable

[compedgemarine]

I just watched a show on reconstucting accidents and one of them involved an RV who claimed he stopped short because of a car pulling in front of him and hitting the brakes. the RV stopped and barely bumped the car but a lady behind him couldnt stop and the school bus behind her couldnt stop. the car in the middle was squashed bad and caught fire killing her and her son. as soon as the fire erupted the front car took off and disapeared. when they finally caught the guy they found he had been targeting RV's and high end coaches as they have the most insurance and or the most to lose and may just pay out cash to avoid the claims. this guy saw the fire and figured the police were going to come for sure so he didnt hang around. now he is hanging out at a prison for 20+ years for manslaughter. according to the stats it is very common in California although they say it is increasing in some other areas.
steve

[bobofthenorth]

It seems unlikely that some guy in a beater caddy with no plates was trying to run an insurance scam. 

[ktmossman]

Gun control laws have NEVER prevented a criminal from acquiring a gun as, apparent by their occupation, they do not care about laws.  The only thing gun control laws do is make sure there are easy victims for the predators to prey on.  I am just waiting for of the victims of one of these school or workplace shootings to file a massive lawsuit against those who prevented them from adequately defending themselves.

I heard an interesting perspective the other day:  When the nutcase that attacked the VT campus was standing in that room with a group of defenseless students lined up against the wall, working his way down the line shooting each of them in the head, if you had the opportunity to snap your fingers and instantly and magically place a gun in the hand of one of those students (who knew how to use it), would you?

[Jeremy]

Wow - lots of activitiy since my post this morning. I'm actually hugely impressed by the fact a number of people have obviously done quite a bit research and reading before replying; I suspect if I'd made my original 'uncivilised' implication on most US-based discussion boards I would be drowning in personal insults by now, or worse. Given the volume of replies and the obvious passion expressed I suspect there may be something rather Freudian about the attitude of middle-aged men to the loss of their guns!

Whilst I simply cannot buy the whole 'more guns make you safer' arguement I'm not about to go head-to-head with any of the assertions that have been made because I do recognise that I am in many ways unqualified to do so - there's the whole culture and background thing to start with, plus the fact that from what I've gathered in the past I'm a generation younger than the majority of the people on this board, which I'm sure make a big difference to attitudes on this kind of topic. Added to that is the fact that I've no experience of serving in the police or military, and have never known anyone who has been involved in any kind of violent crime. I guess my opinions are somewhat acedemic, and thus perhaps of little value to some of you.

Of all the comments made, I think it was Dallas' that struck me most as I realised I have no idea when it was that widespread gun ownership was outlawed in the UK. Whilst I obviously regard unarmed citizens as a good thing rather than a sign of weakness as Dallas believes, I'm sure it didn't seem so at the time to those British citizens who had their guns taken away; no doubt they all made the same anguished protestations that have been repeated today. I don't know how long ago that was, though, which doesn't reflect well on my knowledge of British history.

From an anthropological perspective the world undoubtably is slowly getting more civilised, even though there may be backward steps at times, such as the invention of chemical weapons or the election of George Bush. Looking back in time, the Incas and Aztecs thought they were civilised, but they also thought it was ok to make human sacrifices. The ancient Romans were convinced they were civilised, but thought nothing of throwing Christians to the lions. Britain obviously has a very long history, and in amongst inventing democracy, freeing the slaves and giving women the vote the Britiain decided to disarm it's citizenary. America obviously has a much shorter history and has done things in a different order - obviously same-sex mariages are seen as a much bigger priority than abolishing the death penalty or preventing kids from killing their classmates - but don't worry, you'll get there in time.

(Note: the previous sentence was written with tongue-in-cheek. Don't get upset).

Ok, being serious again, I do believe that in time laws will be passed to drastically reduce gun ownership in America, and I also believe that even the most fanatic NRA member knows deep down that it is the right thing to do. I understand that it's an immense cultural change and that millions of people will kick and scream that it's against the constitutional right to arm bears and all that, but it will happen at some point in the next few decades, simply because that is the way societies entropy and the world advances.

It is absolutely the case that criminals will always seek weapons with which to do criminal things - this of course happens in Britain just as much as anywhere else. The point of my original comment about being scared of every citizen having access to a gun is absolutely genuine though - personally I'd far rather take the risk of getting caught up with gangsters robbing a bank than know that all my mild-mannered neighbours have got guns in their houses, just waiting to be used in a rampage when said neighbours get fired from their jobs, or find their wives having affairs, or the gun is found by the neighbours' disturbed son and get taken to school to sort out his classmates, or to the local convienence store when he needs some drug money.

Bad things can will happen with guns bought for good reasons, and those people who bought the gun for good reasons can display scarey attitudes as well - such as flipping straight into a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mindset when a black guy in an old car tries to get him to stop his bus

Jeremy

[cody]

Jeremy, I respectfully disagree with most of what you said, I didn't realize that a monarchy had invented democracy, it's quite possible but somewhat controvercial that a democracy could involve a king or a queen.  I also wonder if the criminals lined up to turn in their weapons when the government ordered them to do so.  Another valid point that was brought up was the degree of per capita crime in england, seems to be quite a bit of it for a country that has evolved to that point, I have many friends in england and they seem to feel that crime is very high and are feeling a level of frustration at the inability of the police to actively react to a crime in progress because they seem to be the only unarmed participants on the scene.

[Jeremy]

Strictly speaking I think the ancient Greeks are generally credited with having invented democracy, but Britain had the first properly constituted Parliament, the model of which is now used worldwide. The monarcy is head of state, which isn't a political post and therefore not in conflict. In reality of course the monarcy has no meaningful power at all and is just a device for extracting money from American and Japanese tourists.

I can't comment on the per capita crime figures you mention of course because I've no idea as to their source or voracity. Statistics can created to support any view you wish to create, but having having to resort to this approach is usually a sure sign of having already lost the arguement on principles. More importantly in this case, it also demonstrates that you've completely missed the point I was making.

What would actually be interesting is whether anyone can find any news stories, research studies or any other references suggesting that the British people want the right to bear arms, or that our police should do so. That should keep you Googling for a while

Jeremy

[Barn Owl]

I am such a strong believer I don't where to start and when to stop. I'll jump into the ring. Most already know how I feel about this anyways.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the best arguments for guns I've read. Makes a logical argument without the use of the 2nd amendment:


Why the gun is civilization.


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should Christians have guns?

http://www.geocities.com/mikearion/christiansandguns.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

U.S. Supreme Court
Braswell V. Braswell, 410S.E.2D 897, 901 (NC 1991)
"Fundamental Principle of American Law that a Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to ANY individual citizen, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals".

Meaning - individuals have no right to police protection under the federal Constitution. The police exist ONLY to perform the general duties of (a) deterring crime and (b) investigating a crime AFTER one has been committed. Each individual is legally required to defend themselves and their families.
The reason for the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.



Quotes from those who wrote the Constitution;

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson -1785
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun". Patrick Henry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials". -
George Mason, June 16, 1788
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Virginia Constitution - Article 1, Section 13
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and
to individuals."
- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - JESUS - Luke 22;36


Source:

http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/editorials/discuss_mondays_editorials_31.html

[Lin]

I was wondering.  Do you think that the presence of a monarchy, even the vestiges of one, implies the tendency of a population to be subjugated?  Why would a modern country give honor in any way to the offspring of what amounts to a criminal dynasty? Shouldn't these parasites be forced to return their ill gotten wealth and told to go out and work?  The concept of royalty and nobility is certainly merely the product of brutish force.  Why would the people of England continue to treat Lizzy Windsor as if she were even a particularly decent person, forget about something special?

[cody]

Wow, that kind of harsh, even in our country we have tourist attractions, we have the grand canyon, the statue of liberty, paris hilton, etc. I have no problem with the english having the queen. lol

[Dreamscape]

Everyone has their own opinion on everything!

I am so happy to have choices living in the great USA.

When our founding fathers many years ago, drafted what they thought was a great way to govern. Taken of course from what was learned from the monarchy in England.

I have no problem with the brits living the way they do, that is their choice. And that choice has been around for a very long time.

No country has a perfect plan. But the way this country was formed was based on experience from other cultures. It's pretty good, but far from perfect. Man has limits on what he is able to accomplish on this earth. But when we leave here to go to a better place, it will then be perfect.

"That's all I have to say about that."

Smiles to my friends across the pond.

Paul

[Green-Hornet]

American Policeman...."Stop or I'll shoot!"
British Policeman........"Halt or I shall say Halt again!"

[kyle4501]

"Bad things can will happen with guns bought for good reasons, . . . "

If that is your basis for taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it is a very small step to:
- Knives can hurt people, so outlaw all knives.
- same for hammers, axes, chainsaws, ball bats, golf clubs, etc.
- what about cars & buses? Since they pose a threat if misused, they too must be outlawed.


Stop & think!
Punish the cause, NOT the symptom!

When they passed a concealed carry law in FL, the carjackings almost completely stopped when the thugs realized there was a good chance they would get shot for trying such & so they went back to stealing stuff when the owner wasn't around.

I don't carry for many reasons, but I do like knowing that I could if I wanted to.

If some idiot wants to start shooting, I believe the possibility of concealed weapons is a bigger deterrant that the cops showing up after a call is made.

[Hi yo silver]

Great post, Laryn.  I couldn't agree more!

Dennis

[Kristinsgrandpa]

Barn Owl, I'll buy you a drink, of your choice, on our first meeting.

Ed