OT: Obama considering a ban on shootings

[Flywatch]

Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with
minor corrections):

http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/

President Barack Obama yesterday in a speech before the Senate again
called for a ban on shootings. The occasion was the shooting of a few
days ago in Texas.
According to the president, the high cost of policing and victim do
not outweigh the benefits.

[probably the reverse is meant, FW]

It is the first time that an American president openly speaks out
against shootings. The topic is widely regarded as a political
minefield.

Although the right to shootings is nowhere in the constitution, mainly
Republicans see it as part of the American identity. "Shootings are
the foundation of the United States. Without shootings no independence
struggle and no United States of America, "explains John Barasso
senator from Wyoming," a ban on shootings denies citizens the right to
defend their interests. "

Mitt Romney takes Obama's idea socialist nonsense. "A shooting is
something between citizens and the government has nothing to do with
them. Moreover, in most cases it is harmless entertainment.
I love entertainment, I love shooting and I love America. "

[Flywatch]

nmp <add...@is.invalid> schreef:
>Flywatch:

>> Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
>> Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with minor
>> corrections):
>>
>> http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/

>For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known satirical
>web site.

That goes without saying. Launching such a preposterous idea would be
political suicide.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:56:17 PM UTC+1, Flywatch wrote:
> Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.

Since each major U.S. shooting incident is followed by a surge in
gun sales, I wonder if Americans are evolving towards extinction of
non-gun-owners.

Alternative hypotheses are that people who are planning to buy a gun
soon anyway are reminded of this when there is a public massacre and
make their purchase then, or, that the gun buyers are reflecting,
"Some crazy person shot a bunch of people. Maybe they'll make a law
that crazy people shouldn't have guns, and I'm kind of crazy,
so I'd better buy my gun now while I still can."

Or, maybe this occasion is when gun stores hold a discount sale, to
take advantage of the free publicity and shift last season's stock.
"As seen on T.V. when all of those people were killed."

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:07:51 PM UTC+1, nmp wrote:
> For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known
> satirical web site.

Again, that's one theory. Another is that "shooting" is Dutch for
"privately owned gun". Then the piece looks less satirical, although
still not necessarily credible that President Obama would try to stop
crazy people from having guns, /this/ year. Those crazy people
are voters.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/14/2012 09:07 AM, nmp wrote:
> Flywatch:

>
>> Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
>> Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with minor
>> corrections):
>>
>> http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/
>

> For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known satirical
> web site.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought there was something lost (or
gained) in translation or that maybe Euros had a real scary view of
typical USian society, which might not be too far off the mark really.
Given tragic events over the past couple years or so, we do seem to be
transforming rapidly into a shooting culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Texas-shooting-kills-3-near-university-3785825.php

And it's different than the others but prominent in the news and
associated with gun laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

[Flywatch]

"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> schreef:

>On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:07:51 PM UTC+1, nmp wrote:
>> For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known
>> satirical web site.
>
>Again, that's one theory.

A pretty strong one. One of their recent articles states in the
headline "Cluster bombs possibly harmful for people with sensitive
skins". Another one (posted when the Olympics were about to end) is:
"British hooligans not yet ready for tearing down stadium during
closing ceremony" and still another:
"EU threatens Syria with admission into Euro-zone" with the sub-
headline "installing the Euro more effective than UN sanctions".

Speld is Dutch for pin. We search for in in haystacks, as a
replacement for your needle. They deliver pin pricks. Also there is an
expression 'op de mouw spelden' (to pin on the sleeve), the equivalent
of taking people for a ride.

>Another is that "shooting" is Dutch for "privately owned gun".

If this is a hint, it's a pretty good one ;-)

> Then the piece looks less satirical, although
>still not necessarily credible that President Obama would try to stop
>crazy people from having guns, /this/ year. Those crazy people
>are voters.

Yes, and highschool students are mostly not.

[J. J. Lodder]

Flywatch <flyw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
> Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with
> minor corrections):
>
> http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/

What part of
================================
Disclaimer
De artikelen die geplaatst worden op deze website zijn persiflerend,
satirisch of parodi�rend van aard. Ze geven slechts de visie of mening
weer van de redactie van De Speld.
=================================
did you fail to translate?

Jan

[Stephen]

Flywatch wrote:

> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> schreef:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:07:51 PM UTC+1, nmp wrote:
> >> For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known
> >> satirical web site.
> >
> > Again, that's one theory.
>

> [...]

>
> Speld is Dutch for pin.

And here I was thinking it translated as "onion" ...


S.

> We search for in in haystacks, as a
> replacement for your needle. They deliver pin pricks. Also there is an
> expression 'op de mouw spelden' (to pin on the sleeve), the equivalent
> of taking people for a ride.
>
> > Another is that "shooting" is Dutch for "privately owned gun".
>
> If this is a hint, it's a pretty good one ;-)
>
> > Then the piece looks less satirical, although
> > still not necessarily credible that President Obama would try to

> > stop crazy people from having guns, this year. Those crazy people

> > are voters.
>
> Yes, and highschool students are mostly not.

--

[Flywatch]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) schreef:

The part between the ===============
As I said, this (imho) goes without saying.

[Flywatch]

"Stephen" <ssa...@austin.rr.com> schreef:
>Flywatch wrote:
>> "Robert Carnegie:

>>> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:07:51 PM UTC+1, nmp wrote:
>>>> For those who wonder about this: yes, De Speld is a well known
>>>> satirical web site.

>>> Again, that's one theory.

>> [...]
>>
>> Speld is Dutch for pin.

>And here I was thinking it translated as "onion" ...

I might have added that, had I thought of it.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:56:17 +0200, Flywatch <flyw...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The English leaves much to be desired. :-)

Two weeks ago I had visitors from Belgium. Neither of them have ever
fired a rifle or hand gun, though the woman was 38 years old and the
man about 52 years old.

They mentioned that in Belgium a resident who threatens harm against a
burglar can be sent to jail for 30 days for that threat (no weapon
weilded: just a verbal threat of harm will do). To gun-happy Americans
such as myself this is utterly insane, bit to people from Belgium I'm
the psychopath.


--
"Enough about Mars. Must get back to making Earth hotter, cutting science budgets,
and killing each other over religious differences." --- Neil deGrasse Tyson

[*Hemidactylus*]

Doesn't seem the sort of society that could produce a Jean-Claude Van
Damme. Hmmm...

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 5:28:42 AM UTC+1, Desertphile wrote:
> Two weeks ago I had visitors from Belgium. Neither of them have ever
> fired a rifle or hand gun, though the woman was 38 years old and the
> man about 52 years old.
>
> They mentioned that in Belgium a resident who threatens harm against a
> burglar can be sent to jail for 30 days for that threat (no weapon
> weilded: just a verbal threat of harm will do). To gun-happy Americans
> such as myself this is utterly insane, bit to people from Belgium I'm
> the psychopath.

I'm sceptical of this. In almost any scenario, there would be a
trial where it was the burglar's word against your own for what
was said. In fact, I think technically, you being there is the
difference between burglary and being robbed. We may be thinking
about home-invasion, but these crimes may also apply in business
or public places.

In either, both, or all legally diverse territories of the
United Kingdom, you would commit "assault" by merely pointing
a gun at somebody or even just showing it to them with an
offer of violence. But as self-defence it's legitimate.
There are laws about possession of real weapons, as well as
so-called "replicas", but a well-furnished kitchen probably
has big sharp knives, as well as big pointy forks, assorted
spiky things, and other dangerous items.

Citizen's arrest - in England and Wales - evidently is as
described here,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/09/guide-to-citizens-arrest>
limited to someone believed to be committing "an indictable offence".
And I think it may not apply if the burglar, or robber, offers
to leave empty-handed. For one thing, I'm not sure that the
article is right in saying that you can arrest somebody just
to stop them from getting away; I think you need more of a reason
than that, or you used to. And if your robber doesn't finish
committing their burglary or robbery, then they haven't committed
the crime.

[Flywatch]

Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> schreef:

I think threats are just not in the lawbooks, as a legitimate way to
defend yourself and your property. Such articles are mostly about the
physical means you can or cannot use. If you look for it in American
law, you may find it missing there too. So, in theory you would be
violating the law then. If you kick a burglar out of your house, while
using offensive words, he might sue you for that. Thinking of it, if I
tell my Dutch friends that an American burglar succesfully did that,
and got a large compensation, they might well believe me.
Tales about how crazy things are, far from home, are easily believed.

[Mike Painter]

On 8/17/2012 3:59 AM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

In California:
Burglary is a felony and is entry into an enclosed space with the intent
to commit a crime - any crime.
I walk into a store and decide to steal a $200.00 object.
You decide to walk into the store and steal a candy bar.
We both get caught and you can get five years in a federal pen while I
would serve time in a county jail for a misdemeanor.

An assault is a threat with the immediate ability to do what you say.
A bugler "could" change you with assault if you said "stop or I will
slap you silly." (Or "Stop or I will kiss you." when the technicalities
come up in a police academy.)

A Citizen's arrest can be made for a misdemeanor if it *was* committed
in your presence. ( The LEO section says "reasonable grounds to
believe") Make a civilian arrest for a misdemeanor and if it is dropped
or the person is found innocent, then there was not crime and you made
a false arrest and can be sued.
A felony arrest can be made if you have reasonable grounds to believe a
felony has been committed.

Both allow for reasonable force to hold a suspect.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/18/12 9:33 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
> [...]

> An assault is a threat with the immediate ability to do what you say.
> A bugler "could" change you with assault if you said "stop or I will
> slap you silly." (Or "Stop or I will kiss you." when the technicalities
> come up in a police academy.)

What if you say, "Stop, or I will consider my life threatened and act
accordingly"?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Walter Bushell]

In article <f6fk289qmold4334q...@4ax.com>,

Flywatch <flyw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
> Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with
> minor corrections):
>
> http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/
>
> President Barack Obama yesterday in a speech before the Senate again
> called for a ban on shootings. The occasion was the shooting of a few
> days ago in Texas.
> According to the president, the high cost of policing and victim do
> not outweigh the benefits.
>
> [probably the reverse is meant, FW]

Now if he would come out against the government killing American
citizens abroad, that would be something.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Vend]

On 20 Ago, 16:27, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <f6fk289qmold4334q546g7mufqkg1tu...@4ax.com>,

>
> �Flywatch <flywa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Slightly OT, but still an indication that Americans are evolving.
> > Below is an article on a Dutch news site (Google translation, with
> > minor corrections):
>
> >http://www.speld.nl/2012/08/14/obama-overweegt-verbod-op-schietpartijen/
>
> > President Barack Obama yesterday in a speech before the Senate again
> > called for a ban on shootings. The occasion was the shooting of a few
> > days ago in Texas.
> > According to the president, the high cost of policing and victim do
> > not outweigh the benefits.
>
> > [probably the reverse is meant, FW]
>
> Now if he would come out against the government killing American
> citizens abroad, that would be something.

As opposed to killing American citizens within national borders?

[Flywatch]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> schreef:

>On 8/18/12 9:33 PM, Mike Painter wrote:

>> [...]
>> An assault is a threat with the immediate ability to do what you say.
>> A bugler "could" change you with assault if you said "stop or I will
>> slap you silly." (Or "Stop or I will kiss you." when the technicalities
>> come up in a police academy.)

>What if you say, "Stop, or I will consider my life threatened and act
>accordingly"?

That could mean "stop or I will run away". The mere possibility that
you are referring to violence, is not evidence that you are.
Otherwise even the words "or else..." would constitute a crime.

But of course, if a judge (or jury) considers it evidence, you do have
a problem. And "stop or I will run away" makes little sense, unless
the person likes you very much.

[Glenn]

"Flywatch" <flyw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lhh385h3rs0tekjs...@4ax.com...

Mike likely forgot to include the fact that an assault is an *illegal* threat. A
burglar could not hope to win a case in typical situations in which the home
owner threatened violence. This applies in any situation, not just burglaries.
The words "or else" themselves are not a crime. A woman approached by a man in a
parking lot for instance, who feels her life may be in jeopardy because the man
made demands on her, would not be considered guilty of an assault if she told
him to back off or she would kick him in the balls or hit him over the head with
a tire iron. She would be within her rights to defend herself, and the use of a
threat may in some situations be more likely to result in less violence and
injury than not. Certainly it would be the more responsible action than for her
to just haul off and hit him with a tire iron without giving him fair warning
first. In fact, giving prior warning would provide her with more justification
were the man to continue to advance.

[Flywatch]

"Glenn" <glenns...@invalid.invalid> schreef:

O yes, a warning. In situations where violence is permitted, you warn
the person, in order to protect him. Sounds reasonable.
But what if you catch a burglar in the act, in your home. And you call
(from the dark, where he can't see you): "stop or I will shoot you!",
but you have no gun. Or make other threats that you cannot or will not
carry out. That is not meant to avoid harming him. But still a threat,
because he doesn't know that. In other words, bluffing can be illegal,
where real threats are not.

[Glenn]

"Flywatch" <flyw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8nkh38p958jcgdfdi...@4ax.com...

Threats are not to protect attackers.

> But what if you catch a burglar in the act, in your home. And you call
> (from the dark, where he can't see you): "stop or I will shoot you!",
> but you have no gun. Or make other threats that you cannot or will not
> carry out. That is not meant to avoid harming him. But still a threat,
> because he doesn't know that. In other words, bluffing can be illegal,
> where real threats are not.
>

You just don't get it at all. "Illegal" is when you have no legitimate cause to
make a threat. If you have cause to make a threat, it makes no difference if you
are bluffing or not. Your understanding of these situations is bizarre.

[Flywatch]

'Legitimate' refers to laws. Afaik the only exceptions for situations
like self-defense are about the use of force, violence etc. Threats
are never mentioned. Belgium is not unique in that. Can you find an
American law that permits you to threaten a perpetreator? Confine,
probably. Injure, maybe. Kill, presumably. Rightfully so!
But threaten? I don't think so. But perhaps, if you look it up, you
might prove me wrong.

And thereby reaffirm the outrageous claims about Belgian law,
concerning threats against burglars and assaulters.