Guns- Putting it in perspective in my real world.

My responses in blue.
imp said:
"I live in Sydney, the capital of drive by shootings at houses. Rarely does an innocent get hit although they don't seem to have any honour with regard to each others families."

(Posted elsewhere by Warrigal)

You mean that houses are being shot at by folks passing in cars? Yes, that's about the size of it. That's a warning. Sometimes one of the crims gets shot in their driveway or getting out of their car. That's a turf war. Not so long ago one was shot at the local park/playground. That's an outrage because children play there.

Those shooters are, then, guilty of several firearms violations, are they not? Possession, first, discharge of a firearm within a municipality, wanton disregard for public safety, etc. Oh you betcha, and that is probably the least of the charges that the police will hang on them when they identify and catch them.

Where do those folks obtain their guns? imp Probably from the bikies who are the most common source of illegally imported guns.
Click to expand...
 

BobF said:
It is in the courts and if found guilty they should lose their business and do some resting in the jail too. If not guilty, that is hard to believe it would happen. But it is up to the courts to determine.
Click to expand...
It's a civil court case, Bob. I wouldn't think that there would be any jail time, just monetary damages.
 
Ameriscot said:
It is a truly paranoid society. People who don't have guns are deemed idiots and potential victims. It's not like this in the UK either. I never worry. We don't even lock our doors half the time.
Click to expand...

Ameriscot, Shalimar - We get it. You hate the United States. Fine, that's your prerogative. :shrug: It's just as well that neither or you live here.
 

Warrigal said:
It's a civil court case, Bob. I wouldn't think that there would be any jail time, just monetary damages.
Click to expand...

News to me that civil court don't do jail time. That court lady in Kentucky was jailed for not following court rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

[h=3]United States[/h] Under the United States jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into direct or indirect and civil or criminal. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of a judge; civil contempt is "coercive and remedial" as opposed to punitive. In the United States, relevant statutes include 18 U.S.C. §§ 401–403 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.[SUP][15][/SUP]

  1. Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
  2. Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.
Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required.
...............................

So in some cases jail can be for civil problems.
 
Really, AC? I recall occasions when you certainly were not reticent in expressing opinions regarding the Canadians. Not our government, which is fair game, but us as a people. Hmmm. One might think you did not like us.
 
[h=1]The Culture of Guns and Misinformation[/h]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/guns-misinformation_b_2553021.html

- Snip -

The recent string of mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the second deadliest attack by a single shooter in U.S. history, have put gun control at the forefront of the national dialog. Unfortunately, there is no issue more bogged down by falsity. The situation is especially complicated because one side is decidedly more powerful than the other; the NRA outspends the entire gun control lobby by a ratio of 9.5-to-1. Through lobbying they've even managed to end federal funding for firearms research. For these reasons the internet contains a virtual echo chamber of pro gun websites claiming that gun laws do not work; that more guns lead to lower crime rates as indicated by research from Professor Gary Kleck and author of More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott Jr. These sites claim that such laws have no effect because statistics indicate that the 1994 assault weapons ban had little impact on gun violence as assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, and because "Chicago/Detroit is more violent than Houston." Chicago's gun laws are stricter than Houston's and Michigan's gun laws are stricter than Texas', depending on which argument is said. What's more, the pro gun echo chamber asserts, "legal gun owners are not the people committing crimes."

These arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Peer review has refuted both Kleck and Lott's research. Multiple studies including several by Harvard University found they both overestimate of defensive gun use. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) confirmed these findings and discovered that recreation is the most commonly cited reason for owning a gun. Would that not make guns just like any other recreational vice that has the potential to be destructive? Studies also indicate a direct correlation between high gun ownership and high levels of violence. The Washington Post revealed that since the late 1970s violent crime has been declining with gun ownership. Mother Jones, the independent investigative journal found that the number of mass shootings has increased, most dramatically since 2007. The majority of the guns used in these shootings have been legally purchased which speaks volumes about America's "responsible gun owners."

- Snip -

So how does one measure? There are a few ways. One is to look at violence by region. Another is to see how the U.S. ranks when compared to all of Europe. These statistics paint a picture: The South has the most guns per capita and the loosest laws. It is by far the most violent region in the country. Moreover, the U.S. has the loosest gun laws in the first world, the highest number of guns per capita, and the highest rates of gun violence, boasting 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the past half century. Another fact to consider is that three of the recent shootings, including Sandy Hook were committed with an AR-15 rifle which was illegal under the now expired '94 Assault Weapons Ban. It is also worth noting the extremely low number of automatic weapons used in crimes as automatic weapons are highly regulated.

Of course, today one can simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence, claim conspiracy, and still be taken seriously. Gun rights advocates are prime examples of the power of cognitive dissonance. Kleck himself responded to criticisms of his research by claiming that all his academic critics letting personal bias cloud their interpretation of the numbers. Similar claims have been repeated countless times by gun rights advocates nationwide, including conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, who accuse the media of having an anti-gun agenda. There are even those who claim that Sandy Hook was a staged event by the government and the media to take away the guns.

- Snip -

 
You are mistaken AC. There is no hatred of the United States. People like myself and others simply cannot understand the mindset that relies on carrying a gun for personal safety. There are places in this world where people don't feel the need to lock our doors because the risk of not doing so is minimal.

Personally, I refuse to live in fear and I also refuse to live by the gun. I also reject the label 'sheeple' as if I am some kind of prey waiting to be harvested.

In my world 'stand your ground' means drawing myself up to my full height of 5'1", glaring at someone full in the face and refusing to yield on a matter of principle. It has nothing to do with killing someone who might be wanting to steal my TV.

Why do we continue to post on this subject? Well, in my case it is because there are so many posts that seem blind to the problem that the US is struggling with - the number and frequency of multiple shootings and other instances of avoidable deaths by gunfire. To us, both the problem and the cause are blindingly obvious - it is the fact that there are just too many firearms in America and there is so little control over who gets their hands on them and what they do with them. Also we cannot understand the mindset that believes that the only way to protect children in the schools is to arm the school teachers. This is so alien to our societies that I for one am unable to remain silent when I hear this people advocating such dystopia.

Surely you don't subscribe to turning teachers into armed body guards? Can't you see that this is a symptom of a society that is losing it's way?

I've visited America and Canada and I didn't feel unsafe anywhere. Everyone we came across was civil and helpful whether we were in a big city or driving through some lonelier regions in some western states. I loved everything that I saw and experienced and I certainly don't hate the United States. If I didn't feel warmly towards your country I would write you off and disengage.
 
Shalimar said:
Really, AC? I recall occasions when you certainly were not reticent in expressing opinions regarding the Canadians. Not our government, which is fair game, but us as a people. Hmmm. One might think you did not like us.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes but AC will see that differently. It's okay to bash every other country, just not her country. There are few people she likes anyway.
 
Warrigal said:
You are mistaken AC. There is no hatred of the United States. People like myself and others simply cannot understand the mindset that relies on carrying a gun for personal safety. There are places in this world where people don't feel the need to lock our doors because the risk of not doing so is minimal.

Personally, I refuse to live in fear and I also refuse to live by the gun. I also reject the label 'sheeple' as if I am some kind of prey waiting to be harvested.

In my world 'stand your ground' means drawing myself up to my full height of 5'1", glaring at someone full in the face and refusing to yield on a matter of principle. It has nothing to do with killing someone who might be wanting to steal my TV.

Why do we continue to post on this subject? Well, in my case it is because there are so many posts that seem blind to the problem that the US is struggling with - the number and frequency of multiple shootings and other instances of avoidable deaths by gunfire. To us, both the problem and the cause are blindingly obvious - it is the fact that there are just too many firearms in America and there is so little control over who gets their hands on them and what they do with them. Also we cannot understand the mindset that believes that the only way to protect children in the schools is to arm the school teachers. This is so alien to our societies that I for one am unable to remain silent when I hear this people advocating such dystopia.

Surely you don't subscribe to turning teachers into armed body guards? Can't you see that this is a symptom of a society that is losing it's way?

I've visited America and Canada and I didn't feel unsafe anywhere. Everyone we came across was civil and helpful whether we were in a big city or driving through some lonelier regions in some western states. I loved everything that I saw and experienced and I certainly don't hate the United States. If I didn't feel warmly towards your country I would write you off and disengage.
Click to expand...

Well said, Warrigal!
 
Annie, if I did not care about the welfare of the American people, I would be silent, rather than set myself up for censure on this forum. I am deeply saddened by the events taking place across the border. Good people should not be forced to live this way.
 
My house doesn't have an alarm system and I often forget to lock the door at night. It has a tendency to not latch too well so I *try* not to forget. One morning I found it wide open. Burglars would have been afraid to enter probably---figuring it was a booby trap. I did have someone put a key in the lock and try to open it once late on a Saturday night. That was a little frightening at the moment, but by morning I figured it was someone who had a little too much hard cider and went to the wrong house. If anyone actually ever broke in, I'd probably be more careful from then on, but it hasn't happened yet.
 
I don't have a gun. For those that don't want a gun, don't buy a gun. As long as our rate of gun incidents is dropping we are doing OK. So far, most of the gun incidents were from mental problems, not from rational folks with their registered arms.

It seems that many of our gun incidents, robberies, gang shootings, and others, are done by the criminal elements that will never stop shooting and killing, just like those house shooters in Australia. They use stolen or otherwise gotten weapons.

So this major drive by some gun haters is not going to change a thing at all. It is the US Constitution that needs to be changed. Not enough persons or legislators interested in doing that. If does not matter if you are citizen or visitor to this US discussion. It will not get changed till the legislature gets interested in it and until enough voters agree, there won't be enough legislatures elected.

This is truly an overworked discussion and not gaining any real gains in the public. But of course it is fun to call those uninterested in this anti gun nonsense to be stupid, ignorant, crazy, and all the other hateful word that some love to use.
 
Last edited:
No Intent of "Stirring" the Soup

"It has nothing to do with killing someone who might be wanting to steal my TV"

Those of us who have thought through the possibility of a violent confrontation, and studied the intricacies of self defense know that theft cannot be dealt with lethally.


"Can't you see that this is a symptom of a society that is losing it's way?"

No doubt about it! However, while an entire country's society is at stake, statistics taken from elsewhere regarding violence fail to address the intangible factor of cultural difference, basic mores, which are at work. Thus, I cannot yield away from my own stance of never relinquishing my right to defend myself or my loved ones, by using the best tools at hand.


"If I didn't feel warmly towards your country I would write you off and disengage."

I truly believe you here. Evidence enough has shone through the arguments and my own hard-headedness, that you are always capable of weighing the issues carefully. imp


 
One of the main attractions of this forum for me is getting the views of people outside of my own country, whether approving or disapproving. So call 'em as you see 'em. Please! I wish we had more countries represented here.
Having lived in the US for 82 years, I have never witnessed a gun incident or had a friend or family member become a victim.
Still; looking at a number of seemingly untouchable cultural attitudes here, it is my considered opinion that taken as a whole, we are nuts!
 
Warrigal said:
Each country and society is nuts in uniquely different ways.

After the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, this is our most famous regatta - the Henley on Todd held annually in Alice Springs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWC6jxbNGzc
Click to expand...

:jumelles: Thanks Warri. I enjoyed that. I have always enjoyed the Australian sense of humor. Loved Paul Hogan. Love this. I'll take this kind of nuttiness anytime. Definitely the type of humor that went on in our family over the years.
 
Underock1 said:
:jumelles: Thanks Warri. I enjoyed that. I have always enjoyed the Australian sense of humor. Loved Paul Hogan. Love this. I'll take this kind of nuttiness anytime. Definitely the type of humor that went on in our family over the years.
Click to expand...

I did think it might be time to wind this thread up on a lighter note but given that we are now up to 12 pages it might not be so easy to let it go.

For those who have the stomach for it, I have started a new related topic. https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...neration-that-has-Never-Known-a-Mass-Shooting
 
BobF said:
News to me that civil court don't do jail time. That court lady in Kentucky was jailed for not following court rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

United States

Under the United States jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into direct or indirect and civil or criminal. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of a judge; civil contempt is "coercive and remedial" as opposed to punitive. In the United States, relevant statutes include 18 U.S.C. §§ 401–403 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.[SUP][15][/SUP]

  1. Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
  2. Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.
Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required.
...............................

So in some cases jail can be for civil problems.
Click to expand...

Only for contempt. The clerk was jailed for her contempt of court. Courts in the US cannot order jail time or "fines" in response to civil litigation. They can only award damages or order someone to do something like repair something or replace something or quit doing something.

I also note that the rules you quote above are Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and only hold true in federal courts. State Rules of Civil Procedure vary from state to state.
 
"Each country and society is nuts"......

Warri, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing your use of this phrase, and got to wondering: did you "adopt" it from elsewhere in the thread for use here, or is such usage general over there? It's an old, old phrase here in America, having several somewhat differing connotations. Usually, it equates to "somewhat imbalanced", or "uniquely different", sometimes it infers reference to the fruit of trees:

At one critical junction in history, Leo Szilard, the first physicist to see the possibility of fission chain reactions and hence practical nuclear weapons, was trying to persuade Enrico Fermi to take the issue seriously, in the company of a more prestigious friend, Isidor Rabi:I said to him: "Did you talk to Fermi?" Rabi said, "Yes, I did." I said, "What did Fermi say?" Rabi said, "Fermi said 'Nuts!'" So I said, "Why did he say 'Nuts!'?" and Rabi said, "Well, I don't know, but he is in and we can ask him." So we went over to Fermi's office, and Rabi said to Fermi, "Look, Fermi, I told you what Szilard thought and you said ‘Nuts!' and Szilard wants to know why you said ‘Nuts!'" So Fermi said, "Well… there is the remote possibility that neutrons may be emitted in the fission of uranium and then of course perhaps a chain reaction can be made." Rabi said, "What do you mean by ‘remote possibility'?" and Fermi said, "Well, ten per cent." Rabi said, "Ten per cent is not a remote possibility if it means that we may die of it. If I have pneumonia and the doctor tells me that there is a remote possibility that I might die, and it's ten percent, I get excited about it." (Quoted in 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes.)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top