dhansen Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 To early to add any clever comments........... S.D. Allows Bikers to Carry Weapons By JOE KAFKA Associated Press Writer PIERRE, S.D. - A recent shooting spree between motorcycle gangs in Custer State Park has authorities on edge as they patrol the often heavily armed bikers who carry their weapons legally. "We're all kind of nervous," said Capt. Kevin Joffer, district commander of the Highway Patrol at Sioux Falls. "You wonder if maybe something else will come out of this, which potentially could happen." South Dakota law allows people with permits to carry concealed weapons nearly everywhere except bars, courthouses and the Capitol. Violators face up to one year in jail and $2,000 fines. Motorcycle gang members carrying concealed handguns are stopped daily during the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, which draws throngs of bikers and others to the Black Hills each August, Joffer said. Nearly all those stopped have the necessary permits that allow them to carry hidden handguns, he added. Statistics so far during rally week, which began Monday, seem to bear that out. Although several hundred thousand bikers have converged on Sturgis, just 11 people have been arrested for concealed weapons violations, said Capt. Randy Hartley, Highway Patrol district commander at Rapid City. Authorities have arrested two men affiliated with the Hells Angels for opening fire on several Outlaws at Legion Lake Resort on Tuesday. Five Outlaws were struck by bullets and one of them suffered an undisclosed injury. Authorities said they would not be surprised by retaliation. Joffer said a state trooper stopped 10 or so Outlaws motorcycle gang members Thursday night on Interstate 90 near Plankinton because of traffic violations. Backup officers were called only because of the large number of vehicles that were stopped, he said. "One of my sergeants discovered very early on that they were heavily armed, which means probably everybody was armed. There were no problems. They were all polite to him. He did call for some additional backup just to have there because he had multiple people stopped." Joffer said some of the Outlaws were given traffic tickets, but all of the bikers had permits to carry concealed weapons and they were allowed to continue their trip to Sturgis. Those who carry hidden handguns must have their permits in possession. People do not need permits to carry concealed weapons on their own property or property they rent. In exchange for the same consideration, South Dakota honors concealed weapons permits with 16 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
Guest ratchethack Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 PIERRE, S.D. - A recent shooting spree between motorcycle gangs in Custer State Park has authorities on edge as they patrol the often heavily armed bikers who carry their weapons legally. "We're all kind of nervous," said Capt. Kevin Joffer, district commander of the Highway Patrol at Sioux Falls. "You wonder if maybe something else will come out of this, which potentially could happen." Cap'n Joffer may well be nervous. If I were a Highway Patrol doing his job, I would be too. I'd say it literally goes with the territory. But I'd be a lot MORE nervous if I had to deal with the same biker crowd, knowing that by law, all law-abiding bikers were forced to be unarmed and only the lawbreakers were armed. I can tell you this for certain -- If I were to attend such a rally as Sturgis (decidedly NOT my cup o' tea ) -- I'd be lots LESS nervous about my personal safety as a rider, armed or not armed, if I knew that concealed carry permits and guns were in the possession of law-abiding riders. The more there are, the safer I'd be. As the most credible scientific evidence has proven by the key operating principle at work time after time again (for any population of law-abiding Citizens, more guns in the hands of the law abiding = less crime), the overall crime level at Sturgis is substantially reduced by legal concealed carry, despite how "counter-intuitive" this may seem to the uninformed, the uneducated, and the gullible.
Martin Barrett Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 Cap'n Joffer may well be nervous. If I were a Highway Patrol doing his job, I would be too. I'd say it literally goes with the territory. But I'd be a lot MORE nervous if I had to deal with the same biker crowd, knowing that by law, all law-abiding bikers were forced to be unarmed and only the lawbreakers were armed. But these were armed lawbreakers! OKay it was probably only traffic citations, but it brings the question at what point do intentionaly break the law. There is the old maxim "guideance of wisemen, obediance of fools". I don't think theres anyone here who would honestly say they've never deliberatly broken the law. It will undoubtably be speeding and we will contest that it was safe to do so and wasn't in a built up area etc.. so would stay a misdemeanor and not a felony of dangerous driving ( Okay I'm trying to mix American and English terms to try and get maximum clarity) And I know one day I might come unstuck profesionaly through a bit to generous a right hand. Hope it won't be too serious that once it's finished hitting the fan it's no deeper than my neck. I understanding what you're saying about it acts as a calming deterant. But if you look at another set of figures - Prison populations and taking that there might be some parity in prison sentance to crime levels it's got to do a lot of crime reduction. As a former patroling officer you never knew what a simple traffic stop might reveal. I've turned over a couple of lads who were about to do an armed blag at a sub post office and had a sawn off shot gun down by the transmission tunnel. Luckily when we pulled up they were , driver out the car and front passenger, we knew they were very suspicious and gave them no chance to do anything. Had we arrived 5 minutes later they might have been running out the post office having do the job, and who knows what would have happened. But Mr Average doesn't want to be treated as if he could be an armed felon when he's pulled. If general possesion was allowed thats what we'd have to do, it would change the whole face of British policing. I don't know how the PSNI (Northern Ireland) or our European counterparts do, they're armed but the Public aren't. Yes there are occasions where unarmed officers get shot trying to stop major armed criminals - terrorists and big money drugs mainly, but it's not Mr Average who'se just been pulled for DIC (drink driving) and can suddenly see his job and therefore his house and family going down the pan and be spurred in to drastic illconcieved action, at least he won't be armed. In my little bit of the world I'm happy that guns aren't quite so prevalent. There is no easy answers and people will always get hurt and say if the opposite was in force it wouldn't have happened. You see it with seat belt and helmets. But I must admit it seems there is a lot more restrictions happening and the basis is getting sketchier.
Guest ratchethack Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 Nice post, Martin. I always respect the hard-earned point of view of any Law Enforcement Officer on this subject. Well, almost always. . . . . As you would know very well -- they come in all stripes & flavors.
Martin Barrett Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 Nice post, Martin. I always respect the hard-earned point of view of any Law Enforcement Officer on this subject. Well, almost always. . . . . As you would know very well -- they come in all stripes & flavors. Thank you, It's like all these things in the majority of occasions 99.9% etc it's needless, there in the possesion of sensible people, who've undergone training and have a sensible atitude and are perfectly safe and accidents are unlikely (thou occasionaly do happen - D ick Chaney springs to mind where does he stand on licencing? it wasn't a cynical political manover to restrict shotguns was it? ) It only takes one incident - in the UK Hungerford and Dunblane (Okay thats 2) to promote draconian measures - banning of Semi automatics and Handguns respectively, as both shooters were lawfully licenced (not sure if allready mentioned on this thread) Typical knee jerk legislation, legislate in a hurry and amend at liesure (though these were done more succesfully than most probably as it's easier to do a total ban than make an offence fit a set of circumstances) The home defence issue is quite interesting, we have very strict self defence guidelines. A long time ago I had involvement in a burglary at a Public House where one of the intuders was shot, I'd rather not mention details of that publicly as there is no statue of limitations on serious crimes, but natural justice was served well and so was the more regular type. But over here we also have the Tony Martin case which polarised opion especialy when looking at the surviving burglar. Martins apparent downfall was that he hit him in the back as fleeing the scene. Whilst having sympathy with the house holder the repeat victim of these thieving scum, the investigating officer obviously did a fully proffesional job ( I suppose has to be a first - or so it seems from the newspapers and other unsatisfied victims/relatives - can't really win ( good job we don't elect our police chiefs)) I'm sure your rules are similar, just know what the rules of engagement are and the correct responses are, hopefully the forensics will agree with your account. Whilst we have so much in common UK and US we're really quite different in alot of respects, and it's to easy to forget that. My experiance and outlook as a small county on the edge of London police officer, will be different to that of my collegues, in even in my force area and definatly those in big cities and even more rural areas, it probably has even less relevance to the US. I can see where both you and Dave are coming from, luckily I don't need to decide who is right. It's just like work, gather the facts and present them to a "wiser man than I" How they can bedeclared wise when they dress up in wigs, gowns and stockings but thats the British (esp English) for you. The two firearms incidents I've mentioned involvement in are not the only ones I've been involved in by a long way, perhaps all is not quite as rosey here as I've been making out
Guest ratchethack Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 For those who can't be bothered reading anything other than the carefully prepared sound bytes of media propagandists, please do not barge this thread with complaints about lengthy posts. Last I knew, this was a free Public Forum. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Don't you find it magnificently liberating to know that you're free to ignore this post entirely? For those who seem to be so habitually inclinded, may I encourage you to save the effort of your complaint. Posting a complaint about something you're not interested in is usually more effort than reading, but you wouldn't know, would you? If you don't read, are unable to read, or y'er just not interested, you may now click over to the Hooters thread. Presumably you will be much happier there. I figure if I can so easily avoid your posts, it ought to be just as easy for you to avoid mine. Now then! For those with a sincere interest in the subject under discussion, I offer the following without further comment: Please ref. thumbnail bio of the author following the article. Gun Control: The Australian Experiment by Howard Nemerov Wednesday, June 23, 2004 One of the foundations of scientific research is the ability to prove or disprove a theory by seeing if one can reproduce the results of one experiment when using the same methods in another experiment. In my last article, we looked at crime trends in the United Kingdom after the gun ban enacted in 1997. (1) Australia enacted a similar ban in 1996. Like the UK, Australia is an Island country, English speaking, and has a bicameral parliament similar to the UK, and even recognizes the Queen of the United Kingdom as the official head of state. (2) This makes Australia similar enough to our form of government and culture to also be included in our litmus test to see what would happen in the United States if we enacted civilian disarmament here. Following in Britain’s Footsteps As with Britain, Australia invoked massive gun control following a mass murder, where a mentally ill man used firearms to commit the crime. The government reacted by effectively banning all semi-automatic firearms. One could apply for a license to own a weapon, but had to show ''a legitimate purpose and fitness of character ('genuine reason and need for owning, possessing or using a firearm'), conform to stringent safe storage requirements, and undertake safety training if a new licensee.'' (3) Statistical Record As with the UK study, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For this purpose, we can examine statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as compiled and reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). It is interesting to note that the AIC has many ''stakeholders'' from the Australian national and state governments. (4) Here are some key findings about Australian crime trends for the period of 1995 (pre-ban) to 2001 (post-ban) (5): ''The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.'' ''In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people—the highest recorded since 1995.'' ''The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.'' Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported (7) by the population figures. (8,9). (Negative trends are in parentheses.) Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%) Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%) Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%) Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%) (10) It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia, proving that when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless. As with England, women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power. Homicide: AUS – 1.8 US – 5.6 Assault: AUS – 779 US – 319 Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32 Robbery: AUS – 136 US – 146 Mirroring England’s demonstration of John Lott’s principle of the substitution effect, we find that reverse substitution is also in effect in Australia: since victims are unarmed, criminals will not expend the extra effort to plan burglary. (6) ''The rate of unlawful entry has remained relatively stable since 1995, with a small decrease recorded in 2001.'' The one exception to the substitution principle is that crimes against business has increased, as the ''rate of other theft (including shoplifting) has increased by 32% since 1995.'' This excludes motor vehicle theft, which ''has remained stable since 1995.'' Compare this with the 20% drop in property crime in the USA. To summarize, we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society. Conclusion ''It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust . On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.'' – Federalist Papers, Number 1, Alexander Hamilton. We are a world at war, where concepts can manifest as improvement in the general welfare of all, or as holocaust. Just as the criminal justifies robbery, rape, and murder out of selfish necessity and expedience, groups of individuals can justify destruction and death through their imagined superiority due to differences in philosophy, culture, religion, or variations in skin pigmentation. It starts with the belief that others are essentially stupid, bad, or not trustworthy, and not worthy of being treated with respect and decency, resulting in tyranny and genocide. Many individuals believe in their own manifest unworthiness. They are overwhelmed with the choices freedom offers, and prefer the apparent safety of slavery. When offered freedom from choice by a government that says they will provide safety by taking responsibility for making all those terrifying choices, this is too tempting an offer to ignore. The fact that history teaches a consistent lesson about this process is subsumed by the delusional belief that ''this time it will be different.'' Of course, even this part of choice happens only if people study history. When government controls public education, history can be ignored, or revised to create the fantasy world that suits the desired outcome, making it even easier to shepherd people into the only apparent choice available. The reality of history shows how this works, always ending with a ruling elite controlling 99% of all wealth and power. Arrayed against these forces of darkness are those who believe that most people are essentially good; that most people, if allowed to pursue their life goals in an atmosphere of liberty, will create goodness which benefits society. They understand that with freedom of choice goes responsibility, and do not flinch from this reality. They understand that they may fail in some undertakings, but rather than considering themselves failures, they learn from experience, consider setbacks challenges rather than obstacles, and persist until they prevail. When they band together to create a country, it is founded on the belief of liberty and justice for all, and manifests an economy that is the dynamo for, and envy of, the rest of the world; such is our country. Self-defense is a heavy choice. For the weak-willed, it is too much to undertake, and they prefer not only that government take on that responsibility, but that it do so even for those who are willing to assume personal responsibility for their choice. Thus, we have supporters of gun control. Those in government who offer the promise--not ever based in reality--of defending us from predators are the ones who wish to repeat history and become the next ruling elite, themselves becoming the dominant predators. Indeed, if you take a life in self-defense, you will be judged, though not necessarily to the negative side of the ledger, so to speak. It takes character, courage, and skill, but most of all, it takes reverence for life, for if you are unwilling to assume responsibility for your life, you have no life. English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ''All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.'' Again, we are faced with a choice, against which the future of this country is balanced. Do nothing about gun control, and we become subjects, as the people of England and Australia are discovering they still are. Then we progress from subjects to peasants, to serfs, to slaves, finally free from the oft-painful necessity of choice. In America, the choice is still yours, and remember: not choosing, or not acting on that choice, is a choice for tyranny, a choice to sell your children into slavery. Choose liberty, and act by calling your Congressional representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms to let the Assault Weapons ban sunset, the first step in rolling back victimless crime laws that have benefited nobody but those who crave power. Footnotes (1) What Gun Controllers Don’t Want You to Know http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=7862 (2) The Australian Government Structure, Alan Quartly, Pagewise, 2002. http://me.essortment.com/australiangover_rbpt.htm (3) Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns, Reuter and Mouzos, 2002. http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/reu...n%20chapter.pdf (4) Australian Institute of Criminology Online Action Plan, May, 2002, page 1. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/publi...UNPAN003990.pdf (5) Australian Crime Facts and Figures 2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, November, 2002, page 7. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2002.pdf (6) Ibid, page 8. (7) Ibid, page 5. About the Writer: Howard Nemerov began doing his own research into gun control when he recognized that the media was full of distortions and half truths. He publishes with ChronWatch and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He is currently working on his first book, "Gun Control: Fear or Fact," which deconstructs and explains the gun control agenda and its arguments, debunking each one with a statistic-rich analysis. This is the handbook for when you want to talk to others about gun control . Howard receives e-mail at HNemerov [at symbol] netvista.net.
dlaing Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 I'd be lots LESS nervous about my personal safety as a rider, armed or not armed, if I knew that concealed carry permits and guns were in the possession of law-abiding riders. Did I read that right? You are for gun permits? ME TOOO!!!!
dlaing Posted August 12, 2006 Posted August 12, 2006 Did I read that right? You are for gun permits? ME TOOO!!!! ''What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?'' – Thomas Jefferson ''Congress by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people?'' – Patrick Henry
dlaing Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=73...p;q=guns+morons
Martin Barrett Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=73...p;q=guns+morons That's the 1%er I was talking about (accidental) at least not the homocidal maniac. I wonder what happened to the round? (nb I've got no sound - so audio is lost on me)
Guest golden goose Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 Sometimes its good to add a little chlorine to the gene pool.....................
badmotogoozer Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Let me make one correction to a very unfortunate and very common, very uneducated statement that has been made back in post #63. It was said there and repeated later that the only purpose for a handgun is homicide. I'm Baaaaack! If you read post #63 (which I posted) you will see that you have misquoted me again. I said the only purpose for a handgun is to kill people. I said nothing about homicide. In all your posts you have said nothing that counters this. Bill has been the only one who has answered any of my questions "on point". Thanks again Bill! What other designed purpose is there for a handgun?? Please tell me. Kill people, practise killing people, or threatening to kill people (criminal, military or police). I see no other uses. With the exception of competition shooting (which does not require the gun to be in the home - it can live in the gun safe at the range) I see no real reason to have one in the house with family. Bill has made points here, which I find disturbing about American views on their safety, but I can understand knowing both what transpired on 9/11 and in New Orleans. I am not saying that the police should not have guns. I am not saying that there is no place in society for a handgun. My point is only that the very real downsides to having a handgun in the house far outweigh the potential pros. I am very sorry that the current state of your country leads to fear in your own home. The fact that you have spent serious time practising getting your gun from your bed at lightning speed speaks volumes of how real you percieve the threat to be. I hope that you never have the need to shoot at anything but human shaped silhouettes on paper. Rj
mike wilson Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Statistical Record As with the UK study, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For this purpose, we can examine statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as compiled and reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). It is interesting to note that the AIC has many ''stakeholders'' from the Australian national and state governments. (4) Here are some key findings about Australian crime trends for the period of 1995 (pre-ban) to 2001 (post-ban) (5): ''The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.'' ''In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people—the highest recorded since 1995.'' ''The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.'' Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported (7) by the population figures. (8,9). (Negative trends are in parentheses.) Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%) Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%) Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%) Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%) (10) It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia, proving that when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless. As with England, women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power. Homicide: AUS – 1.8 US – 5.6 Assault: AUS – 779 US – 319 Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32 Robbery: AUS – 136 US – 146 Mirroring England’s demonstration of John Lott’s principle of the substitution effect, we find that reverse substitution is also in effect in Australia: since victims are unarmed, criminals will not expend the extra effort to plan burglary. (6) ''The rate of unlawful entry has remained relatively stable since 1995, with a small decrease recorded in 2001.'' The one exception to the substitution principle is that crimes against business has increased, as the ''rate of other theft (including shoplifting) has increased by 32% since 1995.'' This excludes motor vehicle theft, which ''has remained stable since 1995.'' Compare this with the 20% drop in property crime in the USA. To summarize, we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society. This is utter twaddle. Statistics _prove_ nothing. They are a means to examine hypotheses. The difference in figures could equally be said to be due to immigration, change of alcohol licencing laws (when did the "six o'clock swill" finish?) or some other cultural change during the observation period. There is absolutely no proof that gun laws had anything to do with it. A question: since it is a "given" that, in a controlled society only the ciminal will have guns, why is the rate of burglary not changing? They have less to be scared of, now. Criminals are too lazy to plan them? Bollocks. More likely, given that burglary has the lowest rate of detection, fewer people are bothering to report tham. Howard Nemerov began doing his own research into gun control when he recognized that the media was full of distortions and half truths. Well, when it was full of someone else's distortions and half truths, anyway. Maybe he's happier now that his own are in place.
Guest ratchethack Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 If you read post #63 (which I posted) you will see that you have misquoted me again. I said the only purpose for a handgun is to kill people. I said nothing about homicide. In all your posts you have said nothing that counters this. Ryan! It's been so long since we last enjoyed our wonderful little chats. But if you still can't make any better sense of what y'er responding to than this, Ryan -- just do us both a favor and skip it. I'm not gonna make the time for this kind of foolishness again. If I may make a few suggestions: 1. In order to've misquoted you, for starters, I would have to've quoted you. 2. Please look up the word "homicide" in a dictionary and read my Aug 3 post again. Next, if y'er still interested in challenging something I said, please make an attempt to understand what I actually said first. Then, try as hard as you can to understand exactly what it is about what I said that y'er challenging, and by all means give it another go.
Recommended Posts