Shooting in Germany

[Dark Knight]

18 people killed and 6 others injured. If they only had stricter gun laws this wouldn’t have happened........wait they have very strict gun laws!!! How could this have happened?

[Black Jack]

Kind of funny how you don't see any liberal answers to this one.

Again, again, again, again, criminals don't obey gun laws, the only ones getting hurt are the poor people who have been disarmed by their own illusions or in this case the sad illusions of there parents.

[Radhnoti]

10 to 1 are the odds I'm giving that this whole thing will turn into more anti-gun legislation in Germany. They'll go for a total ban, eliminating the "gun clubs" for shooters...and whatever other small firearm liberties they still have over there. And then, when THAT fails, it'll be the fault of any surrounding countries that haven't banned firearms. And so on, and so on...
Anti-gun hysteria doesn't have to be backed by logic or reason and especially not practicality.
That's my two cents...let's sit back and watch, we'll see if the "slippery slope" argument for opposing ANY gun regulations holds water.

[Black Jack]

The U.N. will just use this as another excuse to further there total civilan disarming agenda. The United Nations succcckkkkksssss.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Kind of funny how you don't see any liberal answers to this one.

Again, again, again, again, criminals don't obey gun laws, the only ones getting hurt are the poor people who have been disarmed by their own illusions or in this case the sad illusions of there parents.

The shooter was a member of 2 gun clubs and was licensed. He wasn't a criminal - he was a licensed gun owner that lost the plot.

[Black Jack]

Joedoe, If your point is what I think it might be, it does not hold any water, what type of logic are you using?

The man was a criminal, he killed 14 teachers, 2 students and a police officer, he was a lunatic.

Just because he was a member of a legitimate target club in Germany, does not make his act non-criminal, he did not have a concealed carry permit, so thus he was breaking the law, like other criminals he did not care about that though.

To just buy a gun in Germany, a place by the way where self defense is generally stigmatized and only proffesional bodyguards get to have this so called "may-issue" concealed carry permits, one must posses a license issued by the police.

Strict laws are placed on the number and what kind of guns you may own, none however are supposed to be for self defense purposes, just target shooting and hunting, something which has thrived in Germany for some 500 years.

It is "technically" illegal to keep a loaded weapon at home, guns and ammo have to be stored separately, blowing away a home invader before he shoots at you, is likely to be regarded as murder, and to that fact that there are NO juries in Germany, well you better have a friendly judge.

Self defense in Germany is a joke, the poor people can not defend themselves, from what I hear is that fake guns are a big thing there, called "Scare-Guns" which fire blanks or OC spray, shops have racks of them for self defense, it used to be ok to carry them without a license, now they want a fake-gun CCW:rolleyes:

Where a guy can go to the black market and pick up a piece cheap. Two quotes that sums this up.

"Police say that there are around 10 million legally owned guns in Germany, but estimate that there are twice as many illegal firearms, many flooding in from Eastern Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain and from former Balkan war zones. Germany has a populaiton of about 82 million."

Source: Miami Herlad-Bloodbath Occurs as Gernamy Strengthens Gun Laws", April 26 2002.

"According to police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes in Germany are committed with a legally obtained firearm."

Source: Joachim Streitberger, Head of Weapons Rights, an association representing legal weapon owners in Germany, Daily Herald, April 26, 2002.

Peace.

[joedoe]

My point is that he was not considered a criminal before the massacre - he was a normal citizen that happened to have access to guns. We are not talking about a crim with an illegal gun - we are talking about a citizen that had legal access to guns.

Granted, the real problem is illegal guns and that is a problem whether you have tight gun controls or loose gun controls. Matter of fact, that is a hot topic in the news here right now - happened to start just before this German incident.

I guess my point is that if you have a proliferation of guns, it is very easy for someone to flip out and go on a killing spree like in Erfurt.

I know you will argue that if more people carried guns in Germany, then someone might have been able to stop him earlier. But if he did not have access to any guns, then the number of people he killed might also be lower.

[Black Jack]

Legal guns are not the issue, gun control only hurts those who are responsible citizens, making them unarmed to any criminal who will not obey these so-called rules of saftey, as seen in this attack.

Again,

"According to police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes in Germany are committed with a legaly obtained firearm"-Miami Herald.

The country is awash in illegal weapons, a country already strict with laws governing the right to own a gun, criminals don't obey laws, this freak did not obey the law to not have a armed weapon on his person, he did not obey the law to keep ammo and gun apart, if it was not a legal gun he could of just as easily gone and bought a firearm on the black market, from what I hear is that you can get a fully automatic weapon because of the collapse of East Germany.

All I am saying is that banning guns and strict guns laws don't work, its all an illusion for the publics well being, look at the crime rise in England, and yes I do believe that if the responsible citizens of Germany had the right to carry and own personal protection weapons, maybe this could of been avoided or at least brought to a close sooner.

Maybe the media should stop playing this one-sided game and start showcasing how many, many people save there lifes everyday with the use of a firearm.

[red_fists]

"According to police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes in Germany are committed with a legaly obtained firearm"-Miami Herald.

Let's get a Fact stragiht here that is 0.004% of ALL armed Crines, that includes Knifes, Botles, Crossbows, Bats, Knuckledusters and so on.
It is NOT an true indicator that Germany is awash with illegal Guns.

While it tragic what happens, the same could have happend with homemade Bombs, Cross bows or a large avriety of weapons.

YOU like many on this Forum are SOOO obesseed with Guns and the right to bear them, AS well as with the Idea that "NO GUN" means no Self Defense.
Which is total and utter BULL**** coming from brainwashed gun loving Sheeps, who feels small & weak without his Pea-shooter.

Guns are for WIMPS who cannot use their MA or their head to defend themselves.

And for the Guys that say gun Conrtol is ****, come to Japan and see for yourself.
VERY strict Gun laws and the LOWEST Crime rate in the WORLD.
The same counts for MANY other places that have a lower crime rate than the States.
Anyway I am out of here way too many Idiots and on KFO these days.
Way too muhc BJJ, MMA and Gun totting bull**** for a CMA Board.

Sayonara, you tough Guys.
Don't let reality intrude and shatter your dreams.

[Black Jack]

Man, when you are wrong, you are really wrong, or in this case it would be better to say when you are ignorant, you are really ignorant.

Red Fist you appear to be very naive or could it be that you might not know how to comprehend what you read. Which one is it?

"Police say that there are around 10 million legally owned guns in Germany, but estimate that there are twice as many illegal firearms, many flooding in from Eastern Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain and from former Balkan war zones."-Miami Herald, April 26, 2002

"According to police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes in Germany are committed with a legally obtained firearm"-Miami Herald, April 26, 2002.

Spin that however you want but it still states the facts that only a very, very small percentage of crimes are committed with a legally obtained firearm.

And if you still don't believe that Germany is AWASH with illegal guns, then maybe you better have a crack at comprehending this quote.

"Germany already has strict laws governing the right to a gun, but experts say the country is awash with illegal weapons"-CNN "18 Die in German School Massacre", April 26, 2002:rolleyes:

We still don't know where this CRIMINAL got his gun from.

The validity of your arguement, or better yet bizzare rant, probably doesn't matter to you, the real goal is obvious, you just don't trust people with guns. You should educate yourself and read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, he studied crime rates in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in the United States over a ten year period and that when the law requires that ordinary citizens be issued CCW permits, SURPRISE!, crime goes down, not sometimes, not usually, but every single time.

Gun Control is bull****, its been proven to hurt only the victims, the facts are there, all it does is create a gun free zone for criminals, I don't know enough about Japan to comment or care, but I would like to see that stats that say Japan is the safest country in the world and how this is tied "directly" into gun control.

BTW, what constitutes a person obessed with guns? I'm pretty sure by your standards I fall into that category, but it would be nice to know what exactly one has to do to qualify. Does owning gun make one obessed? Does speaking out for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United STates make one obessed with guns? Does exposing gun control fraud make one obessed with guns????????????????????????????????????????

Maybe you should try some rational answers instead of the drivel you are posting now.

Down below comes my FAVORITE part of your absurd Nazi bull****, what a crock of shaolin-chi blast/fantasy nonsense, man I hope you are not teaching self defense, look out multiple attackers with weapons, I know the Hung Gar Butterfly Palm...hi-yaaaaaa!

"Guns are for WIMPS who cannot use their MA or their head to defend themselves."-Redfist

I guess this lady is a WIMP

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134442857_webinvade25.html

YOU ARE SUCH A BUFFON :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JWTAYLOR]

Guns are for WIMPS who cannot use their MA or their head to defend themselves.


Black Jack, I have to disagree with you. This statement from Red Fists was completely correct. Of course, I would replace the word "WIMPS" with the more appropriate word, "PEOPLE".

Let's look at the quote my way...

"Guns are for people who cannot use their MA or their head to defend themselves."

Sounds right to me.

After all, that's when I want to use my gun, when my martial arts skills and my head just aren't enough.

Let's say I'm driving with my wife, get a flat, a couple of guys pull up behind me, pull out a gun and start shooting at me and my wife. That's when my MA and my head alone just arne't enough. I need that gun to save the life of me and my wife.

Let's put in another example.

60 year old, 100lb grandma walking home with her 8 year old grand daughter. A 20 something man pulls up next to them in a van with a knife, moving towards grandma becuase he needs to get rid of the witness for what he's about to do to the little girl.
Grandma's incredible skill just won't be enough. She can be as clever as McGuiver but without that gun her grandkids's getting hurt.

Good point Red Fist. You have accurately shown us EXACTLY WHY WE NEED GUNS.

JWT

[Black Jack]

Thanks JWT,

The term people is much more viable. Well this whole points mut anyway if we all had the power of Richard Mooney;)

[Liokault]

You guys dont get it do you.

In germany their is gun controle....thats why this is a rare event to them.

In America you have just got used to problems being sorted out by shooting.

You guys really need gun controle.

[JWTAYLOR]

A mass civilian killing is a pretty rare event anywhere. Remember, it was news to us here in the U.S.A. as well, not becuase it was Germany, but because of it's sheer scale and tragedy.

JWT

[Dark Knight]

"You guys dont get it do you.

In germany their is gun controle....thats why this is a rare event to them.

In America you have just got used to problems being sorted out by shooting.

You guys really need gun controle."

You watch too many movies. Crime in the US is not as high as in other countries with gun control.

[Radhnoti]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the second such recent tragedy in Germany? I'm fairly certain it is...not exactly my definition of a "rare event" now.

Has anyone else noticed that all the blame (whenever the issue is gone into in-depth) is being placed on surrounding countries that don't have such tight gun controls? I'm tellin' ya, this is going to be spun for more gun restrictions.
:rolleyes:

Finally, red_fists, I think THIS section of the forum IS the appropriate place to discuss firearms...because THAT is something you really should be thinking about for street/reality fighting. Everyone else nailed you on your "Everyone should be forced to rely on their kungfu!" answer, so I'll let it pass. :)

[Dark Knight]

November 1999 — GERMANY — In Meissen, eastern Germany, a 15-year-old student stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets of $500 from classmates he would dare commit the crime. The teenager stormed into the classroom wearing a mask and stabbed the 44-year-old teacher 21 times. The teenager was later sentenced to 7½ years in jail.

March 2000 — GERMANY — In Branneburg, a 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries, and then shot himself. The teenager, in a coma since then, had tested positive for having smoked cannabis and faced explusion from the school.

February 2002 — GERMANY — In Freising, a Bavarian town near Munich, a former student thrown out of trade school killed three people with a gun before killing himself. Another teacher was shot in the face but survived.

April 26, 2002 — GERMANY — In Erfurt, eastern Germany, a gunman opened fire. A total of 18 people died, including the assailant.

[Dark Knight]

Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan's police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren't allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury.
(Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

Security for freedom

[Liokault]

Ok im in the UK not Gremany but over hear crimes are not comitted with guns. Well very few anyway. The type of crimes that in America (if im to belive all the films i watch whice i do of course as im SO stupid) would have a gun involved tend to be comited with knives....mostly picked up around the house. Im sure that hard core crims have acess to guns but not easly. It would be very hard for them to just get a gun to go stick up a shop for example.

I think that you in America have just gotten used to the presense of guns in your society.


BTW I am the only person i know to have ever been threatend with a gun by a total head case but thats hugely rare.

[JWTAYLOR]

You are absolutely correct. We have gotten used to guns in our society.
By the same argument, I would say that you in the U.K. have gotten used to your lack of freedom in your society.

In your society, you have accepted the role of government to protect you and you seem to feel responsible to them.

In our society, we have accepted the governments innability to protect us, and feel that they are responsible to us.

Two very different social contracts, but both valid to their constituency.

JWT

[Liokault]

You are right i have become used to our lack of freedoms in the UK.

I am for instance used to our crimianal not haveing the freedom to buy guys.

And perhapse your government would do a better job of protecting you if you didnt insist on every ones right to have a gun.

[JWTAYLOR]

Oh no, don't be mislead. The criminal has the freedom to get a gun. The fact that criminals in your country have done so proves it.


And how would not having a gun get the cops to a crime BEFORE it happens?

How would not having a gun help the government protect the little girl and the grandmother in the instance I listed before?


JWT

[premier]

I don't think banning the guns or giving them to everyone is the answer. Background checks, psychological tests and interviewing all gun buyers would be a good start.

Anyway that's not why I wanted to reply. I heard the shooter had a ninja outfit with him. Maybe ninjutsu or martial arts movies should be banned?


premier

[Dark Knight]

.Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city's business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "'Anti-Social Behaviour Orders' -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person's eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England's libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any 'secret' it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.)

[Radhnoti]

I feel JWT phrased this properly, and Liokault...following directly AFTER JWT's statement... showed that he didn't understand what JWT said:

Liokault - "And perhapse your government would do a better job of protecting you if you didnt insist on every ones right to have a gun."

JWT - "In our society, we have accepted the governments innability to protect us, and feel that they are responsible to us."

Also, I would point out that gun crime is NOT non-existant (or even terribly rare) in the U.K. and it is, in fact, on the rise. We've listed numerous articles confirming this fact. Here's a few more, turned up in 5 seconds with a casual Google search:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1471000/1471716.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm

http://www.iansa.org/news/2000/jan_00/uk_illegalguns.htm

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,416546,00.html

Anyone willing to actually LOOK at the info coming in will see that gun crime IS on the rise in the U.K.
The only places I've noticed violent crime DECREASING is in states instituting concealed carry laws.
;)

[Liokault]

Yes im sure that an internet serch could turn up many gun related crimes but i stand by my statment that due to the wide spread unavaliability of guys crimes are not commited with them on with any regularity. Very few criminals hear are able to get a gun in a short time period and so most mugings and hold ups are commited with blades......mostley house hold blades at that.

Now there are areas where gun crime is becoming more and more common and this is all related to areas where drug gangs are constantly struggling with each other for controle of drug supply and so lots of money is involved. this tends to be very localised to areas such as central/north london (i belive) and areas of manchester.

Now i can not remember the last time i heard of a gun related incident in my home city (i actuly can not remember a gun related incident in Oxford at all) but as there are a huge number of crimes being commited and as the rate of muder appears to be shooting up i can honestly say that blades are the weapon that the criminal has acess to not guns........so gun controle is working and working well.

I as such stand by my statement that the USA should get MUCH tighter gun controle. I also hope that guns become much harder to get in Germany so that a tragedy like this can not happen again.

P.S A school kid in the UK would never have a chance of getting his hands on a gun unless he was in with some BIG time crims.....OH and had like a thousand pounds to pay for a black market gun.

(I got the thousand pounds from memory of a TV program where a guy went and got black market guns off the street. I am quite sure Radhnoti can do a search on the internet and get a more acurate figure for you all......if hes not to busy reasuring his gun that its safe and that no ones going to take her away)

[Dark Knight]

"Very few criminals hear are able to get a gun in a short time period"

In the USA a convicted criminal cannot get a gun. We have an instant background check, if you have a criminal background you cannot buy a gun legally. This goes all the way down to domestic violence, if you hit your wife and were convicted of it, you cannot own a gun.

[Dark Knight]

Just a thought on England.....

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain 'one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.' Declared Dan Rather: 'This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.'" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America's First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.)

[Radhnoti]

Just a FYI for anyone who didn't bother to actually look at the links I posted...those are not stories of specific crimes. Most are articles talking, in a general sense, about how the U.K. has a serious "gun problem" that's on the rise.
Here's a few specifics from one of the articles:

"The estimate that 3m guns are illegally held in the UK - made by researchers collecting evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into the gun trade - is far higher than previously thought. ... Research suggests that in some areas a third of young criminals, classed as those aged 15 to 25 with convictions, own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200. "

Liokault said - "I also hope that guns become much harder to get in Germany so that a tragedy like this can not happen again."

....uh....yeah, it's no surprise that something like what happened in Germany would happen in a place with such lax gun control.

:confused: :rolleyes:

[Dark Knight]

"According to police statistics, only 0.004 percent of armed crimes in Germany are committed with a legally obtained firearm"-Miami Herald, April 26, 2002.

With percentages like that guns should be illegal. :rolleyes:

[Liokault]

Sadly Dark knight the uk has a huge crime problem and i would not be suprised to learn that its worse than in the USA.

Not American or for that matter any other nationality should come here expecting a safe crime free society .... especialy in London.

I consider my city (Oxford) to be very safe. In my years drinking in the town center over about 12 years or so i can count the fights i have seen on the fingers of one hand BUT recently crime has sky rocketed.

2 guys that i train with have recently been threatend with knives almost right out side the building we train in. More worryingly 2 guys have been stabbed to death on my regular running route!!!!
And i have just heard about a guy being killed in a pub i ofton use after haveing his throat cut.

I am seriousely thinking about buying a STAB proof vest. I see no reason to make it a bullet proof vest though as i have not heard of any gun incidents.

[Dark Knight]

Where I grew up we had no crime, I left the keys in the car overnight. Shootings are not as common as people in other countrys think. Its because the media makes a big deal about them when they happen.

I have never had a gun or knife pulled on me. But I live in a casino town where we have a big gang and drug problem. I carry, but hope to never need it.

Last year we had two kids attack a guy in a church parking lot, he was a doctor, the injuries left him unable to ever be a doctor again. you never know where an attack will happen.

For most of us who care about gun laws its not about guns, its about freedom. the government doesnt protect us, they are not our parents that tell us what we can and cannot do. If someone feels we are not mature enough to own a gun, it is wrong to force that opinion on us.

We just had a situation in Florida where a woman wore a veil for her drivers licence, she said it was religion that she wear it and not bare her face. Our constitution protects religios beliefs, she won the right to wear it for the picture.

Sometimes our laws and constitution seem out there, but they are for the protection of the people.

One of our countries founders said its better to let one hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. This means that there will be times that the guilty and the wrong get away with it, but its better than taking the freedom of the citizens.

Ben Franklin said those who will trade freedom for security dont deserve eigther.

We strongly believe in freedom, and sometimes it cost us, but thats what we were founded on.

[Liokault]

I fully respect what you are trying to say Dark Night but i still feel that with gun controle comes a much smaller number of guns in circulation.

I also understand what you are trying to say about government being unadle to protect you. I feel the same way about the British government (apart from their gun laws). I feel that in the UK we are haveing freedoms taken away from us with most people even realising it. It also seams to me that imigrants and even animals have much greater social rights than British citizens.


(Ok im painting a very bleack picture of the UK but in a country where a zoo animal can get a cateract operation while pentioners are still on waiting lists and where any Albanian who straps him self to the bottom of a lorry can get a free house,money by the week, health benafits, and the right to bring his childeren over here while we are already over crowded and full of homeless citizens)

But i still say gun controle is a great thing. It really scares me that people could just be walking round with guns on them.

Why would any one feel a need to have a gun on himself?

[Dark Knight]

"But i still say gun controle is a great thing. It really scares me that people could just be walking round with guns on them. "

Only 0.004 percent of of armed crimes are commited with a legally owned gun in Germany. Here in the US its about the same.

With such a small percentage of legally owned guns used for crimes, why ban them? The rest are illegally owned already, laws would not change that.

[Liokault]

Ok i have no respect for statistics as they can be made to show what ever you want them to show.

For example i could deduct that from your statistics 9.996 percent of all crimes are commited useing legaly held guns.

Ok before you try to shout me down i know what your going to say.

Try giveing me statistics as to how many crimes are commited involving guns then how many of them are legal as a can only assume that we are takeing motering violations etc into account here.

What percentage of store hold ups in the USA are done with guns?

[Dark Knight]

"What percentage of store hold ups in the USA are done with guns?"

The people doing the holdups prob could not get a gun legally, how would gun control change that?

These stats show that the people who can buy guns are not commiting crimes. Why disarm the vast majority who are not doing anything wrong?

"For example i could deduct that from your statistics 9.996 percent of all crimes are commited useing legaly held guns. "

Im lost here, if 0.004 percent of of armed crimes are commited with a legally owned gun that means 99.996 of armed crimes are with ilegally owned guns.

Again how would gun control change things? And why punish 99.996% of the population?

[Liokault]

Ok lets get this straight.....99 percent of all gun crimes are commited with legally held guns? And you think thats ok?

If you had gun controle that no one would have guns to commite crimes with (not easly anyway).

[Dark Knight]

"Ok lets get this straight.....99 percent of all gun crimes are commited with legally held guns? And you think thats ok? "

You need to reread the post

"0.004 percent of of armed crimes are commited with a legally owned gun"

How did you turn that into 99%?

[Liokault]

Yep your right...thats what you get for flicking back and forward over forums while you are doing somthing else.

[Dark Knight]

No prob:D

[Liokault]

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/Britain.htm

Ok i have done some trolling of the internet myself and have come up with some stats of my own.

gun crimes down in 1998-99 ....only 49 people in the uk died from gun shot wounds. (down 66 percent)

4.4 percent of robberies had a gun involved (up to 2 percent of those guns may have been fake).

Brits (with our oh so strict gun laws) are 50 times less likely to fall victim to gun homicide that Americans.

[Radhnoti]

Well...I'd point out that the links provided earlier were from "legitimate news sources". If I'm not remembering incorrectly, BBC and AP...newspapers...people who are SUPPOSED to present things with a bit of detachment (not that it always happens). Your link is an anti-gun website study done by "Philip Alpers - Gun policy researcher" who I'm assuming works for the same anti-gun group.

[scotty1]

**** Radnohti that's some scary articles. :(

[Liokault]

It my links must be true...they quote statistics so how can the lie or be manipulating the truth?

[Dark Knight]

My post/quote

"Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America's. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America's." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.)"

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain 'one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.' Declared Dan Rather: 'This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.'"



From your connection:


"The number of reported robberies in Britain has grown markedly in recent
years. However, those who cite this fact rarely mention that, in the
absence of large numbers of firearms in the community, 96-98% of these
encounters bear no relation to guns. "

Lets say that your stats are not wrong or manipulated. My point is that your crime rate is growing. The government said you no longer have the ability to defend yourself (Dont say every 80 yr old woman should be in KF ot overcome this) You rely on the police but even by your stats they are not making a difference.

You are telling us that the increase in crime, giving up your freedom and safty, is worth while to stop guns.

[Dark Knight]

BTW:

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country's Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America's violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI).


Gun ownership goes up crime goes down......

From your posted csite:

"It is hard to see how the number of offences in which
victims are threatened with knives, airguns, toy guns—or in one case a
cucumber in a coat pocket—can be cited as evidence of a crime wave in Britain
attributable to the removal of handguns from civilian ownership.


Sooooooooo higher gun ownership in the us crime drops, gun bans in GB crime rises, and crime rate is higher in GB than in the US.

[Dark Knight]

Liokault, here in the USA we have other issues tied into gun ownership. Our constitution protects our rights. Many look at it as attacks on our rights, we fight battles about what is constitutional all the time. I can find stats, cases and more information to back why guns should stay in the hands of the people. But the biggest reason is how we look at our constitution.

In other countries the government is not questioned on many of the things it does. The people of those countries have a culture that allows that. You dont want us passing our values on you and we dont want those values pushed on us.

We would not accept infringements on our rights like you would (I dont mean yours are terrible) This country was founded on the principles of freedom, and people have been coming here for over two hundred years for the same.

[Dark Knight]

Run through the gun for protection thread to see what we have posted about our opinion on this and the constitution.

[Liokault]

How is haveing a gun going to protect that same 80 yr old woman? Will her attacker give her a warning so she can draw her gun and put her glasses on or will she pull the gun and hold it in front of her before she walks down dark allys.

I have said it before on this thread i belive that i fully accept that crime figures in the UK are on the up while yours in America are going down.

I do not think that in our case our in ability to purchase fire arms has any affect on this .... its more the fact that more and more people are being arrested for crimes that fully deserve imprisonment while their is no room left in our prisons to put them.

This means that for even quite seriouse crimes the chances of a prison term of any length is unlikely. bring back flogging i say ( not just saying that i really mean it and i know more and more people in the UK feel the same way)

I belive that your impresive reduction in the rate of crime in America and especialy New York (may even be coming over now this summer) are due to other factors than your gun controle laws (or lack of). I also hope that your not suggesting that your crime figures are dropping due to the fact that so many Americans are leaving the house/office/appartment/factory/school yard/crack house with a machine designed to kill human beings. Or are you saying that more Americans are now carrying guns and that their is a corasponding drop in crime?

[Liokault]

Also you say that the level of crime is higher in the UK v the USA.

Are the same things being recorded? I know many guys with a criminall record but if you look deeper the "crimes" they have been found guilty of have been rediculouse.

1/ Guy has a assalt conviction after opening a car door, getting in said car and driveing away before a traffic warden could give him a ticket.
Said traffic warden clames the car door "touched " her as he opend it
Guy now has a criminal record (hes a close friend of mine and a very passive guy)

2/ The above guys mother drives past a closed down garden center whice is borded up and is being used as a rubbish tip while it is being demolished.

In the rubbish is a garden type bench of no value to any one.
She removes the bench from the rubbish and decides to paint it and put it in her garden as a feature.
Next day police follow her home and arrest her for stealing the bench.
Mother now has a criminal record.

3/ A family member of mine after a night on the town drinking to much beer urinates on a wall in an out of the way area. He is spotted by the police and aressted etc.

I really could take this list on for ever

It seams to me that the police are arresting more and more people who are doing nothing of any worth wrong to make figures look good.


Are all of your "criminals" real criminals like ours?

Would carrying more guns stop people urinating against walls when drunk?

[Dark Knight]

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes.
And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

The biggest problem with gun laws in this country is that they have not been enforced. We have thousdans of gun laws, we dont need more, we need to enforce the ones we have.


BTW the typical person, let alone criminal cannot get a machine gun, the process is very expensive.

You are going to love NYC:)

"I belive that your impresive reduction in the rate of crime in America and especialy New York (may even be coming over now this summer) are due to other factors than your gun controle laws (or lack of). "

Thats another issue, but lets not blame the "evil gun" but put money where it is needed the most.

[Liokault]

I find it hugely funny that you think a machine gun is hard to get due to the expense.

In the UK (got to stop writing that so much) the armed response team flooding your drive way after the mearest suggestion that you are after a machine gun is the thing that makes it difficult.

Im not sure of the individual national rates of gun crime/gun ownership/crime but im sure that you can not take it at face value.

fore example what about the huge part of lawless east germany now the wall is down?

[Dark Knight]

"I find it hugely funny that you think a machine gun is hard to get due to the expense. "

Here we dont have a big problem with criminals running a round with fully automatic weapons. Its not their choice of weapon, even if they would like to have one.

Fully automatics are highly regulated here, you can get a permit for it, it involves major background checks, lots of cost and it is renewed every year.

Im not sure how easy it is to get ilegaly since we dont have countries on our boarders that will smuggle it in. I cant think of the last time I heard of a fully automatic weapon being used ilegaly, but someone must have.

If you have one ilegaly its very bad. The police see it as much more serious and will also be at your door.

Its like the .50 cal rifle. Some people want to make it ilegal because the police would have no protection from it. The cost to buy it is high and ammo is very expensive. Criminals dont want to spend that kind of money.

[tengu]

What I find worrying about this conversation, is that the pro-gun lobby continuously makes the case that only criminals kill people with guns, and that that is the reason why law-abiding citizens should have unlimited access to an arsenal of self-defensive fire-power.

Trouble is, even Mr. Average can lose the plot and go haywire. And that´s when you don´t want him to have easy access to instruments that can deliver death and injury at the pull of a trigger.

Thing is, I worked the door for many years, and saw so many white-collar hamsters lose the plot when they were too drunk to gain entry to an establishment. Had they had their "self-defense" guns on them... well, oftentimes they were so out of it that I´m sure they wouldn´t have minded shooting me. As it was, because of strict gun control in this country, they ended up on their asses in the street :D

[Liokault]

WooW someone taking my side on this issue....not a real person like an American though ...just a eurOpean.

[Radhnoti]

I wonder if while you were throwing them out they were wishing for strict control of martial arts...?




Don't question it Myosimka, the parallel exists! Yeah, yeah, I know you don't think so. ;)

[Merryprankster]

I agree with both sides of the issue--

as a friendly reminder, the Second Amendment reads in the following way:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This makes two things clear:

1. The US citizenry is allowed to keep and bear arms.
2. The Federal Government is allowed to make regulations that places restrictions gun ownership.

What is not so clear is the point at which "regulation," is an "infringement on the right to keep and bear arms."

However, what I notice most people ignore is the bit about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state. This was included for two reasons, to my mind:

1. A regulated, armed citizenry would exist to protect from foreign invasions.
2. A regulated, armed citizenry would exist to protect from tyranny.

Both are remote possibilities in our time, but considering the mindset of the people who wrote this, understandable.

In other words, the phrasing of the Amendment seems to suggest that people have a right to arms for the purpose of establishing an organized force of well regulated, armed citizenry.

I don't see the same "defenders of the 2nd amendment," suggesting that one of the requirements for owning a firearm be membership in one of those well regulated militia (National Guard, Armed Forces, etc). I'm not even arguing that they should, just pointing out that it's interesting, don't you think?

Funny how people want to pick and choose the bits an pieces, instead of the whole thing....

Also, Dark Knight--correllation and causation are not the same thing. In other words, just because firearm ownership rose and crime dropped, does not indicate some sort of causative relationship between them. An equally plausible explanation would be that an increase in economic prosperity during the years you cite increased the number of goods purchased, and decreased crime.

Now what it DOES do is show that an increase in legitimate gun ownership does not CAUSE a rise in crime.

[DelicateSound]

In case any dumb-ass Yanks on here are willing to consider another viewpoint, the crime-rate in the UK is rising in correlation to under-funding in the areas of policing and social-support.

The rate in the US is probably dropping to the amount of dead criminals through drive-bys.



FACT: The US National Crime rate is still higher than the British National Crime rate.

[Liokault]

I think refering to all Americans as "dumb-ass Yanks" is a bit of a swwaping generalisation DelicateSound (nice ironc name BTW).

Its just that Americans have become used to the situation they live in and can see no good in changing it...just like us Brits.

[Radhnoti]

MP has some great points, here's my take on the whole "well regulated militia" part of the Constitution. Thanks to guncite.com for help with this phrasing.

Alexander Hamilton attempted to explain what is meant by "well regulated" in Federalist Paper No. 29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
--- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

So, I think it's safe to say that Mr. Hamilton didn't believe citizens had to be part of the National Guard to be guaranteed to right to own firearms. Now, on to the phrase "militia" as defined at the time of the crafting of the Constitution...

"The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

Is today's National Guard the militia? I think that it is a PART of a well regulated militia. As is your average responsible citizen who may be called upon to defend his/her home.

That's my (and a pretty great website's) dumb-arse Yank thoughts. :)

[Liokault]

Just saw an article in a national news paper today

KICK BOXER BEATS GILR OF 3 TO DEATH .......in in big letters.

Reading into the story it appers this guy was abusing this kid over a long period of time ...More or less with the knolage of the authoritys....said guy had a long term history of violence and had childeren with 3 differant women....he was given custody of the young girl by the courts after he threatend her mother with violence.


Clearly tighter regulation of kick boxing and related martial arts should be imposed for the sake of the children.

[joedoe]

I support your POV, however I also feel the debate is kinda useless. The main reason being that in the US there is a culture of gun ownership that is ensured by their constitution. In places like Britain and Australia, there is not. Being brought up in those differing cultures will in most cases result in differing points of view. We can argue this till we all die and never convince each other otherwise.

I believe that restricting the availablity of guns is a good thing, however in the US this would be almost impossible for several reasons. 1) The constitution 2) The existing number of legally owned guns 3) The existing number of illegally owned guns.

I respect the American view that they have a right to own guns etc. What I object to is the suggestion that they are more free than anyone else because of this right.

[Radhnoti]

Joe, I'm not following you. :confused:
Say you are restricted from doing something that doesn't hurt anyone else, but you didn't want to do it anyway. You're still restricted. Some countries in Europe have more freedom than we in the U.S. in regard to drug laws. I would never want to engage in using these drugs (I don't even drink), but I freely acknowledge that these countries are "more free" when discussing this particular issue.
Or are you saying that someone said, "We are MORE free than you because we can carry a firearm!"? Rereading your post I suspect that was your point...please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think the right to own/carry firearms is the ONLY freedom, but I do think it's one of the biggies.

That would make a great thread..."What freedoms would you never surrender?" As you waded through the mullets, weiner dogs, obligatory porn references, declarations of war on mothers and superiority of BJJ posts you might get some interesting responses. :)

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
...

Or are you saying that someone said, "We are MORE free than you because we can carry a firearm!"? Rereading your post I suspect that was your point...please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think the right to own/carry firearms is the ONLY freedom, but I do think it's one of the biggies.

That would make a great thread..."What freedoms would you never surrender?" As you waded through the mullets, weiner dogs, obligatory porn references, declarations of war on mothers and superiority of BJJ posts you might get some interesting responses. :)

Yes, that is what I am saying. I may have read people's posts incorrectly, but the implication has previously been made that unless you are able to own and carry firearms then you are not truly free.

As I said, I believe there is a difference in culture - to you the right to bear arms is an important freedom. To me (and I daresay many Australians) it isn't. I understand that the situation in the US is different - there is a much wider proliferation of firearms over there and to not own one could possibly put you at a serious disadvantage in the area of personal protection. That is not really the case here in Australia. I know there is always the argument of protection against illegal firearms but while it is an issue here in Australia, illegal firearms are still not that common.

Anyway, your suggestion on a new thread would be a good one and very interesting I think :).

[fmann]

At least the discussion hasn't boiled down to name-calling and insults yet.

But that's a good point that was raised: the idea of freedom is a relative one.

[Shadow Dragon]

Hi.

I have been following this and other threads about gun control with interest.

One thing I would like to ask the guys that are pro-guns:

"What is the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal."

The criminal has a conviction for commiting a felony, and every law-abiding citizen can become a criminal regardless of background, education, good intentions or whatever.

All it can take is a small incident or thoughtlessnes, which often happens when People get drunk or similar.

For me the difference is not about freedom or rights but about quality of life, and you need to ask yourself if you rather live in a society where you and everybody else can carry a Gun with the associated risks or in one where there are very few.

Peace.

[Dark Knight]

"What is the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal."

The small percentage of people who could legaly buy a gun then did a crime, they were law-abiding citizens. (Then of course were not afterwards), The point is that a small percentage of people who could buy a gun then do something ilegally with it.

"and you need to ask yourself if you rather live in a society where you and everybody else can carry a Gun with the associated risks or in one where there are very few. "

Well, we are in a country where people without a criminal record (Felony, domestic violence...) can carry. (some areas more restricted) And ovwer the last ten years gun ownership has gone up but crime has gone down.

In other countrys (GB) guns are highly regulated and crime is higher than here in the US.

If only a small percentage (Less thasn 1%) of legally owned guns are used for criminal cativity, what risk?

So, yes I would rather live in society where we can all carry.

[Merryprankster]

It's kinda simple for the US--

The constitution guarentees that the right to arms cannot be removed by the government. Their use and sale can be regulated, however.

The extent at which regulation becomes infringement is the big question, and that's what the courts are for.

A law that banned ownership completely is clearly unconstitutional.

A law that requires a permit to carry a weapon may not be.

A law that requires a battery of psychological exams, certification in gun safety, a practical marksmanship course and gun retention to own a handgun, all to be paid by the bearer of the weapon might very well be unconstitutional (poor people couldn't afford it--a clear infringement.)

A law that required the above, but instituted state or federal funding and facilities for such a thing, such that it would be no more expensive than a "permit fee," might very well be constitutional from a second amendment standpoint--although the psyche exams might raise some privacy issues.


Look, I LIKE pluralism. It's fun... keeps us going. :)

[Black Jack]

I was kinda done with this conversation but I wanted to address Shadow Dragon,

What you are talking about is the old give me an illusion of safety over what IS the reality pitch, the facts on this post, which I don't believe alot of anti-gun/anti-self defense advocates actually read, showcase that when a country has very strict anti-self defense/anti-gun laws, such as the the UK and most of Europe, crime does not go down, but up.

Oh and yes I do believe that people who are anti-gun are anti-self defense.

[Merryprankster]

Again--correllation is not causation.

I'm not saying you're wrong--but citing those numbers doesn't tell us anything other than gun ownership doesn't CAUSE crime.

[Dark Knight]

As a last comment on MP's comment

"Now what it DOES do is show that an increase in legitimate gun ownership does not CAUSE a rise in crime."

....actually I dont need to comment on that, just agree.

[Merryprankster]

Ah-whew--never mind then :D

[Radhnoti]

MP -"A law that banned ownership completely is clearly unconstitutional.

A law that requires a permit to carry a weapon may not be.

A law that requires a battery of psychological exams, certification in gun safety, a practical marksmanship course and gun retention to own a handgun, all to be paid by the bearer of the weapon might very well be unconstitutional (poor people couldn't afford it--a clear infringement.)"

Of course, the fear would be that the last step I quoted from you would be instituted...and kept in place by a sympathic (to gun control) administration long enough for the American public to lose interest in fighting for this particular right. The way to a ban of firearms could only be implemented in small steps and by counting on the terrible memory of the U.S. public.

For me it's a matter of freedom...in ANY instance I prefer the government NOT get involved. It's fairly certain that anything the government gets involved in gets messed up. Here's an interesting article from USA Today, talking about a movement within the Democratic party to embrace the pro-gun community:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/04/30/guns.htm

A great quote from the article:

"What many do not understand is that the gun issue is not just about guns, it's about values. It's about setting priorities. It's about personal freedom. It's about trust." - Georgia Sen. Zell Miller (Conservative Democrat)

[Dark Knight]

For years the pro gun people have been saying crack down on the current laws, donat add new ones. Finally its happening.


Federal gun crackdown arrests dozens


By Sean D. Hamill
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 6, 2002

Dozens of suspects were arrested last week as part of a new federally funded crackdown on gun crimes, officials said.

The results of the first round of arrests by local, state and federal law enforcement will be announced Monday as part of Project Safe Neighborhood, a $533 million federal program.

The goal of the program is to coordinate efforts by local, state and federal authorities to aggressively pursue gun-related crimes, said Tom Ahern, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms office in Chicago,

The program focuses on felons with multiple convictions who use guns to commit crimes, making them eligible for mandatory prison sentences of up to 15 years. Not only will they be tried in federal court, they'll also serve sentences in a federal prison far from Illinois, Ahern said.

"The most violent offenders committing gun crimes are going to be tried in the federal system and then exiled out of Illinois to do their time," Ahern said.

Some of the program's money is being used to hire additional prosecutors who focus on gun crimes.

Additional prosecutors have been hired in federal and state offices in the Chicago area, Ahern said, though he could not say exactly how many.

The federal law to charge felons who use guns has been on the books for years, Ahern said, but is not always applied to criminals who have been charged in state court because there have not been enough prosecutors to pursue the federal charges.

[Merryprankster]

Radhnoti--

That's the beauty of the Judicial system. A suit could be brought at any time--it has nothing to do with the administration. They aren't subject to the whims of society, and this particular issue is such that I don't believe they could neatly sidestep it (as they have done in the past.) because it CLEARLY would ask the court to interpret what the difference between a regulation and infringement is--the HEART of the second amendment. Plus, the Conservative judges--the ones likely to sidestep the issue because of their distaste for "judicial activism," would WANT to speak on this issue. Getting to the Supremes on this one would be relatively easy, I think.

[Radhnoti]

Here's something to chew on:

"Presidents have always been granted broad discretion when it comes to matters of national security. Along with that comes secrecy. The courts and Congress have not objected. Secrecy is considered to be a vital part of national security. For a president who is abusive of his power and authority, this provides the perfect excuse to classify as secret any executive order or directive that he does not wish to have scrutinized.

The Congress has no idea what is actually contained in classified documents, and therefore there is absolutely no oversight or accountability. The potential for abuse is enormous, and it could be undetected for many years. Each presidential abuse of power leads to more when a president discovers he can create any law he wants with the "stroke of the pen."

The topics of national security, national emergency, and top-secret classification all came into play when President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 in 1994. That document has been requested by numerous members of Congress, and all have been turned down.

All that is available is an executive summary. Excluded from the summary is the portion which sources claim describes the use of the U.S. military as a domestic police force during a national emergency. More than one source familiar with the actual document has independently confirmed the claims.

The executive summary also makes clear that the U.S. can place military forces under the command of a foreign commander as part of a United Nations peace force. PDD 25 is said to specifically permit a foreign commander to rule over U.S. troops, even on U.S. soil, "when doing so serves American security interests," according to one military source.

It appears that President Clinton took a major step in his grab for power on Dec. 10, 1998, when he enacted Executive Order 13107 at a time when Congress was out of town and unlikely to take action or even notice. That order gives the president the ability to enact treaties without the constitutional requirement of Senate ratification with a two-thirds majority vote.

EO 13107 could be argued as justification for the president to implement U.N. treaties without approval of the Senate, which literally dissolves the sovereignty of the U.S. It sets up the Interagency Working Group to oversee legislation proposed by the president to make sure it is in conformity with U.N. initiatives, handle public relations to educate the public about such issues, and evaluate future needs in order to comply with U.N. human rights initiatives.

President Clinton does not hesitate to write law wherever he sees fit. When Congress did not take the action the president wanted on the tobacco issue, he quickly signed an executive order in 1995 which declared nicotine to be an addictive drug and authorized the Food and Drug Administration to establish regulations.

In the same year he signed an executive order to financially bail out the country of Mexico. Congress saw fit to make a few speeches in opposition to the move, but no effort was made to stop him.

The actions illustrate Clinton's willingness to circumvent Congress and the legislative process whenever he wishes.
-David M. Bresnahan is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.com

An executive order was used to imprision 112,000 citizens, Americans of Japanese ancestory and/or immigrants during WWII.

"[T]here are only two cases in the history of the United States where United States courts have totally invalidated Executive Orders. That is not a particularly effective check when there have been over 13,000 Executive Orders issued. (Many are considered unconstitutional by opponents...)

"President Truman, in one Executive Order...rather than citing the Constitution of the United States, rather than citing any statute...cited the United Nations Charter as his legal authority..."

"[I]n the '70s, there were over 400 separate statutes which the Congress had passed that gave extraordinary powers to the President of the United States over the economy, over the military, over civilians, but those powers could only be triggered if and when the President declared a State of National Emergency. They were contingent, they were latent, and once he issued the State of Emergency, he had all of those powers.

"President Wilson issued one; Roosevelt, three; Truman, one; Nixon, two; Carter, two. ...Ronald Reagan issued six; George Bush issued five. And many of those are still in effect. ...President Clinton...now has 13 [National Emergency] Executive Orders and perhaps another 50 Notices renewing these Executive Orders, because the States of Emergency last for one year unless renewed by the President. ..."


Source: conservativeusa.org

I don't think any President could push through anything involving firearms...not yet anyway.