Ryan Lawson

Jan 12-09





Man can never be free of control, for to be free of control is to be controlled by one self. I am a high school student with parents and grand parents who own their own guns and I believe that if a person wants to have a gun then let him have one, after a thorough background check. If the government stops guns from being sold to the average citizen, the only thing that would do is create more crime, and it would take the guns out of the hands of the people who are willing to go through the process of the background check and getting a gun license. What you aren’t doing is taking the guns out of the hands of the people who buy them illegally. Therefore, taking the guns off the market will cause more deaths because people won’t be able to defend themselves against the criminals that buy the guns illegally.

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, a no-compromise pro-gun lobbying organization that supports the rights of gun owners guaranteed by the Second Amendment, hosts GAO's weekly radio program Live Fire he said, “…in what was otherwise not a particularly good decision that came down in the 19th century, the court ruled in Cruikshank that rights do not originate from the government having established them, but that rights--such as the right to be armed as stated in the Second Amendment--predated the existence of the American Republic and its Constitution. All the Constitution is doing is observing their reality and endeavoring to protect rights, because that's the way God made us.” I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Pratt, the government does not give us our rights it just protects them, and if the government takes them away from us then the government should be abolished for taking our God given rights.

The funny thing is, every time that a concealed carry law is introduced in a state or is being considered for loosening up the laws, an anti-gunner always says that guns are too dangerous and that they are going to lead to road rage and the deaths of innocents, it never has happened. In fact, people who have concealed carry permits are the ones who commit the fewest crimes of any in the population this includes police and ministers. They should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in their churches so they can respond the way the volunteer security guard did at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs who was able to respond and stop Matthew Murray, before he was able to kill hundreds of people.

Many people have analyzed who gets shot to death, and it turns out that most of the time criminals kill other criminals, and large numbers of criminals are killed each year by gun wielding crime victims. It’s fairly rare for a responsible gun wielding citizen to be killed by an attacker or to shoot a bystander. In almost 97 percent of the defensive gun uses in America , which probably happen roughly two million times a year, nobody's killed, and nobody's wounded.

Some people claim that AK-47-type rifles are being used more and more in American street fights. I have to admit that this is becoming more of a problem, but I have to remind everybody that those guns were obtained illegally. It would be impossible to stop all illegal gun sales in the United States but if congress passes more gun control laws they will be causing the death of more innocents than there are now with the current laws. Let the citizens have some free will, let the individual decide if he or she has a gun, but don’t take the guns from the people.


this is my opinion just wanting to see if any one feels the same as me.

Gun controls laws dramatically lesson the number of home accidents and fatal crimes of passion (involving guns). They don't lesson the number of gang related gun crimes as dramatically as they could, but as most of those guns are obtained in methods that circumvent control in any case it's a non issue.

the only thing that would do is create more crime

I've never seen a statistic that supports this in any but the most vaguely circumstantial way, and I've done a lot of looking. I've also been in a ton of these debates and they devolve into ad hominem and bunk statistical analysis almost immediately. They also tend to be based upon poorly thought out and overly involved logical arguments (such as the argument that fewer guns causes more gun crime).

I'll be in some other thread while that all goes down.

Well we dont have guns and get along just fine- we did have the legal right to have guns till 2 massacres in 80s and 90s made us go WTF and guns were for the most part banned.

Maybe its cos we dont have a codified constitution giving us the right to have them, maybe we are just sheep that do whatever our political overlords tell us...who knows

i also think its that the poloticians think the citizens arent smart enough to do the responsible thing and they think they have to be our nanny and watch every thing we do because they are paranoid that their citizens will overthow them.

I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc.

Because they are fun, and it is hard to hunt deer (to eat, not for sport) with a fork. They shouldn't be fun, but they are. I watched the Matrix and I know this.

whatwhat wrote:I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

sps? Society of Physics Students?

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc.

Because they are fun, and it is hard to hunt deer (to eat, not for sport) with a fork. They shouldn't be fun, but they are. I watched the Matrix and I know this.

whatwhat wrote:I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

sps? Society of Physics Students?

Considering you find the use of guns "fun" I'd prefer not to reveal the def. of SPS for lack of interest in the ensuing argument.

I'm a gun owner, and an NRA member. In fact, it is probably the only area of politics that I get involved in whatsoever, and certainly the only area where I have any common cause with the American right anymore.

The thing is for all the talk about it, as far as I can tell, it doesn't weigh on the collective consciousness of this nation as much as the activists on either side would have you believe. Even the NRA admits this. For all the 20 or so telephone calls I got prior to the presidential election, the endless mailings requesting just a little more money, and the general fear mongering, the latest issue of American Rifleman has a column talking about "major victories" in elections. This is one issue, mind you, after trying to proclaim Obama the antithesis of all things 2nd amendment. What it gets down to is exactly what they're saying....there are a lot of Republican seats that went to Democrats who are either pro-2nd or just dont have those issues as a priority. Incidentally, somewhat beside the point, but the NRA, like most lobbying organizations, publishes a list of their preferred candidates in elections. Fully a third of the Tennessee politicians running for state legislative office they mentioned were Democrats. In other words, life goes on, and in all probability nothing is going to change concerning this issue.

If you want to know why I feel the way I do, it probably has to do with the fact that I enjoy shooting as a hobby. Firearms are one of the few things in our disposable society that are still designed to last indefinitely when properly cared for. There are plenty of firearms made in the 19th century that are perfectly safe to fire with modern ammunition, and others that can be safely fired using black powder cartridges ( there is a niche market for this by the way). I find autoloading firearms to be fascinating machines. Unlike many shooters, I truly enjoy breaking down my guns and cleaning them. I have an interest in mechanical devices like this in general. I like perfection, and striving to get ever more precise with my shooting.

I'm also an ardent individualist. I've always resented anyone telling me what I can do, with whom, and when.

Hey Ryan, just out of curiosity, was that a high school essay of yours that you’ve copied here. It was very good structurally, although with a slight tendency to rant rather than argue.

Anyhow, just as heads up as to how this thread can be expected to go, some people will make reasoned, moderate arguments that disagree with yours. You and other pro-gun people will make reasoned, moderate arguments in reply. Then someone, whether pro-gun or not, will come in and make a far more extreme statement (saying that people only want to ban guns because they’re afraid, or they only need guns because they’re penis substitutes or something else that’s similarly ridiculous). Then there’ll be a long argument, and at the end of it everyone will have the exact same opinion they had at the beginning.

And for the record, I think guns are great fun. I’ve been shooting on a few occasions and would like to go again. Given the number of studies performed by both sides on gun control, it’s interesting to note how little evidence there is either way that guns increase or decrease the crime rate. Rather, there seems to be little effect. I find it frustrating that so much political capital is spent by both sides on the gun debate, when it could be spent on building systems and methods of lowering violent crime.

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc.

Because they are fun, and it is hard to hunt deer (to eat, not for sport) with a fork. They shouldn't be fun, but they are. I watched the Matrix and I know this.

whatwhat wrote:I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

sps? Society of Physics Students?

Considering you find the use of guns "fun" I'd prefer not to reveal the def. of SPS for lack of interest in the ensuing argument.

Well, why don't you enlighten the rest of us.

I've told you why.

whatwhat wrote:OK!

Yah, that is the only reason that people of many different backgrounds, from all walks of life, would choose to participate in the shooting or gun collecting hobby. I had no idea life could be this simple and straightforward. Thanks.

Did I say it was "the only reason"?

gamefreak wrote:i also think its that the poloticians think the citizens arent smart enough to do the responsible thing and they think they have to be our nanny and watch every thing we do because they are paranoid that their citizens will overthow them.

OK, uh, that is pretty crazy, and kind of diminishes everything you’ve said previously.

Are you suggesting there is a real chance of gun owners in the US overthrowing their government. Are you then saying that this chance is perceived by politicians as being high enough that it affects policy?

And are you or your family purchasing guns with the intent of one day overthrowing government?

whatwhat wrote:I've told you why.

Alright, moving on to someone who has something serious to contribute.

sebster wrote:

gamefreak wrote:i also think its that the poloticians think the citizens arent smart enough to do the responsible thing and they think they have to be our nanny and watch every thing we do because they are paranoid that their citizens will overthow them.

OK, uh, that is pretty crazy, and kind of diminishes everything you’ve said previously.

Are you suggesting there is a real chance of gun owners in the US overthrowing their government. Are you then saying that this chance is perceived by politicians as being high enough that it affects policy?

And are you or your family purchasing guns with the intent of one day overthrowing government?

I think that is symbolic Sebster, it is a matter of trust, not paranoia.

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've told you why.

Alright, moving on to someone who has something serious to contribute.

It is serious. Why else would someone feel 'empowered' or have fun by using, what is, an instrument of death?

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've told you why.

Alright, moving on to someone who has something serious to contribute.

It is serious. Why else would someone feel 'empowered' or have fun by using, what is, an instrument of death?

I think I tried to explain that in my post. I never mentioned empowerment, that is your wording.

Grignard wrote:I think I tried to explain that in my post. I never mentioned empowerment, that is your wording.

If you mean the bellow, I can't see how you did really. And I know you didin't use that word, hence the ' instead of ". But it is a word used in this argument a lot.

Grignard wrote:If you want to know why I feel the way I do, it probably has to do with the fact that I enjoy shooting as a hobby. Firearms are one of the few things in our disposable society that are still designed to last indefinitely when properly cared for. There are plenty of firearms made in the 19th century that are perfectly safe to fire with modern ammunition, and others that can be safely fired using black powder cartridges ( there is a niche market for this by the way). I find autoloading firearms to be fascinating machines. Unlike many shooters, I truly enjoy breaking down my guns and cleaning them. I have an interest in mechanical devices like this in general. I like perfection, and striving to get ever more precise with my shooting.

Grignard wrote:Yah, that is the only reason that people of many different backgrounds, from all walks of life, would choose to participate in the shooting or gun collecting hobby. I had no idea life could be this simple and straightforward. Thanks.

Well, I hate to say I said this exact thing would happen. In fact, that’s not true, I quite like saying it.

“Then someone, whether pro-gun or not, will come in and make a far more extreme statement (saying that people only want to ban guns because they’re afraid, or they only need guns because they’re penis substitutes or something else that’s similarly ridiculous)”

So everyone who drives a car has a small penis. Or uses forks.

A car is for transport, a fork is for eating. A gun is for?

sebster wrote:Well, I hate to say I said this exact thing would happen. In fact, that’s not true, I quite like saying it.

“Then someone, whether pro-gun or not, will come in and make a far more extreme statement (saying that people only want to ban guns because they’re afraid, or they only need guns because they’re penis substitutes or something else that’s similarly ridiculous)”

To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:I think I tried to explain that in my post. I never mentioned empowerment, that is your wording.

If you mean the bellow, I can't see how you did really. And I know you didin't use that word, hence the ' instead of ". But it is a word used in this argument a lot.

Grignard wrote:If you want to know why I feel the way I do, it probably has to do with the fact that I enjoy shooting as a hobby. Firearms are one of the few things in our disposable society that are still designed to last indefinitely when properly cared for. There are plenty of firearms made in the 19th century that are perfectly safe to fire with modern ammunition, and others that can be safely fired using black powder cartridges ( there is a niche market for this by the way). I find autoloading firearms to be fascinating machines. Unlike many shooters, I truly enjoy breaking down my guns and cleaning them. I have an interest in mechanical devices like this in general. I like perfection, and striving to get ever more precise with my shooting.

I thought I was telling people why it is fun. I said I enjoyed possessing something that is a durable, valuable, tool, rather than another thing that is produced, wasted, and thrown away. I find the act of trying to get the most accuracy possible to be pleasing. I'm also a hunter, well, a pretty half assed hunter, but I've been successful once or twice. I'm not trying to generalize my experiences to any one else, I'm just explaining to you what I feel is "fun".

Grignard wrote:I think that is symbolic Sebster, it is a matter of trust, not paranoia.

Do you find it strange that the same people who will argue for guns as a means to keep government in control will discredit and write off civil rights activists like the ACLU at every possible opportunity?

I thought I was telling people why it is fun. I said I enjoyed possessing something that is a durable, valuable, tool, rather than another thing that is produced, wasted, and thrown away. I find the act of trying to get the most accuracy possible to be pleasing. I'm also a hunter, well, a pretty half assed hunter, but I've been successful once or twice. I'm not trying to generalize my experiences to any one else, I'm just explaining to you what I feel is "fun".

A screwdriver is a "durable, valuable tool" what makes you like guns more than screwdrivers?

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

Not really. Do you feel the same about competition archery? It is, after all, the use of a weapon where the only purpose is dealing death.

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:I think that is symbolic Sebster, it is a matter of trust, not paranoia.

Do you find it strange that the same people who will argue for guns as a means to keep government in control will discredit and write off civil rights activists like the ACLU at every possible opportunity?

You know, I agree with you here Sebster. It is frustrating for me. I'm not trying to open a separate argument here, I'm trying to draw an analogy, so bear with it. I personally find abortion distasteful, but I find myself leaning toward pro-choice. My reasoning is that I'm sure there are women out there who feel just as passionately about keeping the government from interfering with her reproductive health as I do about my possession of weapons.

A brain is for thinking.

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

Not really. Do you feel the same about competition archery? It is, after all, the use of a weapon who's only purpose is dealing death.

I'm referring more to some people's apparant 'love of guns' rather than their use in competition, that may have not been clear in my earlier comments i do admit. There are some, many in America, who don't have any intention of using their gun for sport or hunting and own one simply for the empowerment they feel by owning it. The same thing can be applied to shooting ranges, when I was in america last I saw adverts offering an hour in a range with an assault rifle, wtf is the point of that if it's not for people who have a strange admiration for guns?

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

And I used the Matrix as a reference for guns being fun and it made you act like a gakker, so you shouldn't be surprised when you less obvious and more poorly convinced humor gets a similar negative reaction.

whatwhat wrote:

I thought I was telling people why it is fun. I said I enjoyed possessing something that is a durable, valuable, tool, rather than another thing that is produced, wasted, and thrown away. I find the act of trying to get the most accuracy possible to be pleasing. I'm also a hunter, well, a pretty half assed hunter, but I've been successful once or twice. I'm not trying to generalize my experiences to any one else, I'm just explaining to you what I feel is "fun".

A screwdriver is a "durable, valuable tool" what makes you like guns more than screwdrivers?

I like screwdrivers too. What is your point? I didn't choose to be fascinated with miniatures...I got exposed to miniature landscapes and figures when I was three years old and it sort of stuck with me. I don't know where the firearms thing came from, I've always been into it, even before I could legally purchase a firearm. When I was young, very young, I drew a series of exploded diagrams of hypothetical firearms. Of course, my designs wouldn't actually work, but the point is it is something I find interesting. You're saying you don't like the idea that I get pleasure from using weapons. You apparently just don't like weapons, and that is ok. We're arguing about separate things.

whatwhat wrote:

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

Not really. Do you feel the same about competition archery? It is, after all, the use of a weapon who's only purpose is dealing death.

I'm referring more to some people's apparant 'love of guns' rather than their use in competition, that may have not been clear in my earlier comments i do admit. There are some, many in America, who don't have any intention of using their gun for sport or hunting and own one simply for the empowerment they feel by owning it. The same thing can be applied to shooting ranges, when I was in america last I saw adverts offering an hour in a range with an assault rifle, wtf is the point of that if it's not for people who have a strange admiration for guns?

So you are the moral judge now of what is excessive love of guns that will INEVITABLY lead to violence and what is competition. I was going to ask you how you feel about your Olympic shooters, but that will get me no where I see. You're just like someone criticizing who I should or should not have sex with on religious grounds, which I don't share.

whatwhat wrote:
To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

You do realize that the natural consequence of your argument is that all attempts at possession are manifestations of low self esteem? And that, as a result, anyone who is not satisfied with their present existence must be intrinsically unable to appreciate their current worth.

I think whatwhat is missing a very, very valuable point.

Criminals will always have guns. Murderers will always have guns. So why in the hell would you opt to cripple yourself by allowing laws to be passed that take away your right to defend yourself, just because you think that guns themselves cause violence?

Guns don't cause violence. People's minds and their ideals cause violence. Guns just change the nature of the beast.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

And I used the Matrix as a reference for guns being fun and it made you act like a gakker, so you shouldn't be surprised when you less obvious and more poorly convinced humor gets a similar negative reaction.

lol wasn't surprised at all, why do you think I posted it?

Grignard wrote:I like screwdrivers too. What is your point? I didn't choose to be fascinated with miniatures...I got exposed to miniature landscapes and figures when I was three years old and it sort of stuck with me. I don't know where the firearms thing came from, I've always been into it, even before I could legally purchase a firearm. When I was young, very young, I drew a series of exploded diagrams of hypothetical firearms. Of course, my designs wouldn't actually work, but the point is it is something I find interesting. You're saying you don't like the idea that I get pleasure from using weapons. You apparently just don't like weapons, and that is ok. We're arguing about separate things.

It's not about me not likeing weapons. It's about what a persons admiration and fun in using firearms seems to suggest. Maybe your right, maybe it's a cultural thing, in which case, that is the root of your problems and ironing that out needs to go hand in hand with getting rid of the guns.

Grignard wrote:So you are the moral judge now of what is excessive love of guns that will INEVITABLY lead to violence and what is competition. I was going to ask you how you feel about your Olympic shooters, but that will get me no where I see. You're just like someone criticizing who I should or should not have sex with on religious grounds, which I don't share.

How does that work?

Chrysaor686 wrote:I think whatwhat is missing a very, very valuable point.

Criminals will always have guns. Murderers will always have guns. So why in the hell would you opt to cripple yourself by allowing laws to be passed that take away your right to defend yourself, just because you think that guns themselves cause violence?

Guns don't cause violence. People's minds and their ideals cause violence. Guns just change the nature of the beast.

whatwhat wrote: maybe it's a cultural thing, in which case, that is the root of your problems and ironing that out needs to go hand in hand with getting rid of the guns.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

You do realize that the natural consequence of your argument is that all attempts at possession are manifestations of low self esteem? And that, as a result, anyone who is not satisfied with their present existence must be intrinsically unable to appreciate their current worth.

whether it is or is not about a low self esteem, no one seems to be disagreeing that many americans have a love and admiration for firearms. That is what needs to be removed from your country in order to solve your problem, not guns themselves (although that would be a logical afterthought). That, ultimately, is my point.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:I like screwdrivers too. What is your point? I didn't choose to be fascinated with miniatures...I got exposed to miniature landscapes and figures when I was three years old and it sort of stuck with me. I don't know where the firearms thing came from, I've always been into it, even before I could legally purchase a firearm. When I was young, very young, I drew a series of exploded diagrams of hypothetical firearms. Of course, my designs wouldn't actually work, but the point is it is something I find interesting. You're saying you don't like the idea that I get pleasure from using weapons. You apparently just don't like weapons, and that is ok. We're arguing about separate things.

It's not about me not likeing weapons. It's about what a persons admiration and fun in using firearms seems to suggest. Maybe your right, maybe it's a cultural thing, in which case, that is the root of your problems and ironing that out needs to go hand in hand with getting rid of the guns.

What are you trying to get across here. For once, I'm not trying to be a jerk, as is my nature, I'm trying to explain why people aren't taking you seriously. You're making sweeping generalizations. What problems are you speaking of and why are you making the jump to assuming the cause of ALL of whatever problems exist is the fact that some people enjoy shooting.

Grignard wrote:You know, I agree with you here Sebster. It is frustrating for me. I'm not trying to open a separate argument here, I'm trying to draw an analogy, so bear with it. I personally find abortion distasteful, but I find myself leaning toward pro-choice. My reasoning is that I'm sure there are women out there who feel just as passionately about keeping the government from interfering with her reproductive health as I do about my possession of weapons.

Fair enough. To open the idea out a little, it isn't just about single issues such as abortion or gun control, but about keeping govt accountable across the board. That can't be done by stockpiling guns, but it can be done by maintaining strict reporting requirements, requiring proper process is followed, all kinds of unsexy stuff like that.

whatwhat wrote:I'm referring more to some people's apparant 'love of guns' rather than their use in competition, that may have not been clear in my earlier comments i do admit. There are some, many in America, who don't have any intention of using their gun for sport or hunting and own one simply for the empowerment they feel by owning it. The same thing can be applied to shooting ranges, when I was in america last I saw adverts offering an hour in a range with an assault rifle, wtf is the point of that if it's not for people who have a strange admiration for guns?

Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

sebster wrote:Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

I didn't extend it to all gun owners. But I would say it is a significantly greater number in america than other countries.

whatwhat wrote:

sebster wrote:Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

I didn't extend it to all gun owners. But I would say it is a significantly greater number in america than other countries.

On what basis would you say that? And if so, you still haven't really said anything yet.

Do you really think you can 'iron out' criminality and violence by changing culture?

Do you really think that the most violent of human beings are actually affected more by culture than by their own intrinsic mind?

And do you honestly think you can 'get rid' of guns? If you answer yes to that last one, that's just ignorant. There are far too many guns in the wrong hands to be able to 'get rid' of even half of them. and as Grignard has mentioned, guns last for a very, very long time.

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

sebster wrote:Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

I didn't extend it to all gun owners. But I would say it is a significantly greater number in america than other countries.

On what basis would you say that? And if so, you still haven't really said anything yet.

On the basis that I don't see many people in my country wanting to join a gun club, own a gun, go to a shooting range etc. etc. Whereas I do in yours.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Do you really think you can 'iron out' criminality and violence by changing culture?

absolutely i do. (not completely, a perfect world is impossible.)

Do you really think that the most violent of human beings are actually affected more by culture than by their own intrinsic mind?

yup, no one is born evil.

And do you honestly think you can 'get rid' of guns? If you answer yes to that last one, that's just ignorant. There are far too many guns in the wrong hands to be able to 'get rid' of even half of them. and as Grignard has mentioned, guns last for a very, very long time.

No. Of course not. Did i say that once?

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

sebster wrote:Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

I didn't extend it to all gun owners. But I would say it is a significantly greater number in america than other countries.

On what basis would you say that? And if so, you still haven't really said anything yet.

On the basis that I don't see many people in my country wanting to join a gun club, own a gun, go to a shooting range etc. etc. Whereas I do in yours.

You might very well be right. Doesn't matter, that is completely anecdotal and doesn't necessarily mean anything at all even if true.

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Do you really think you can 'iron out' criminality and violence by changing culture?

absolutely i do. (not completely, a perfect world is impossible.)

Do you really think that the most violent of human beings are actually affected more by culture than by their own intrinsic mind?

yup, no one is born evil.

And do you honestly think you can 'get rid' of guns? If you answer yes to that last one, that's just ignorant. There are far too many guns in the wrong hands to be able to 'get rid' of even half of them. and as Grignard has mentioned, guns last for a very, very long time.

No. Of course not. Did i say that once?

You share that opinion with a lot of people, and I hypothesize that comes from the Judeo-Christian concept of redemption. That is just a theory of mine, nothing more. In other words, you're making a nature versus nurture argument. I happen to disagree with you. I think that things are the way they are, and you don't really have any control over it. Like I said, I didn't chose to be interested in what I am interested in, it just happened. You can do all you can, but the fact is you're going to have a certain body type, and a certain brain, etc. Now there is evidence to support either side of that argument, but the bald statement that no one is born evil is opinion, not fact. Furthermore you'd have to define evil.

I seriously suggest you read up on Criminal Psychology.

I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. If anything, placing a taboo on something sparks more interest in the subject anyway.

I don't see you ranting against people with obsessions with other 'instruments of violence', even if it isn't as big of a 'problem'.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I think whatwhat is missing a very, very valuable point.

Criminals will always have guns. Murderers will always have guns. So why in the hell would you opt to cripple yourself by allowing laws to be passed that take away your right to defend yourself, just because you think that guns themselves cause violence?

Guns don't cause violence. People's minds and their ideals cause violence. Guns just change the nature of the beast.

I think whatwhat is missing a few very valuable points, but in this case you're missing a few as well.

The majority of guns used in crime, particularly handguns, were originally legally purchased. It is far simpler for criminals to get their hands on guns if they're freely available to the general population.

Grignard wrote:You might very well be right. Doesn't matter, that is completely anecdotal and doesn't necessarily mean anything at all even if true.

Well it does mean something if it's true, of course it does. But yeh it's not hard evidence I admit.

Grignard wrote:You share that opinion with a lot of people, and I hypothesize that comes from the Judeo-Christian concept of redemption. That is just a theory of mine, nothing more. In other words, you're making a nature versus nurture argument. I happen to disagree with you. I think that things are the way they are, and you don't really have any control over it. Like I said, I didn't chose to be interested in what I am interested in, it just happened. You can do all you can, but the fact is you're going to have a certain body type, and a certain brain, etc. Now there is evidence to support either side of that argument, but the bald statement that no one is born evil is opinion, not fact. Furthermore you'd have to define evil.

Well how then do you explain why some cultures have less or more problems than others? Or did your god decide africa was going to be full of genocidal war mongerors before they were even born?

Chrysaor686 wrote:I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. .

Really? I suggest suicide. + there are more suttle ways to change culture without dictating a society does not have a right to hold an interest in something. Why do you think the vietnemese eat dogs and the english find that disgusting for example, its not because we were told not to find dogs tasty.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:You might very well be right. Doesn't matter, that is completely anecdotal and doesn't necessarily mean anything at all even if true.

Well it does mean something if it's true, of course it does. But yeh it's not hard evidence I admit.

Grignard wrote:You share that opinion with a lot of people, and I hypothesize that comes from the Judeo-Christian concept of redemption. That is just a theory of mine, nothing more. In other words, you're making a nature versus nurture argument. I happen to disagree with you. I think that things are the way they are, and you don't really have any control over it. Like I said, I didn't chose to be interested in what I am interested in, it just happened. You can do all you can, but the fact is you're going to have a certain body type, and a certain brain, etc. Now there is evidence to support either side of that argument, but the bald statement that no one is born evil is opinion, not fact. Furthermore you'd have to define evil.

Well how then do you explain why some cultures have less or more problems than others? Or did your god decide africa was going to be full of genocidal war mongerors before they were even born?

What? Whose God? What does Africa have to do with anything? How are you defining problems? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Furthermore I resent you suggesting my determinism has a religious basis. In fact, I believe it is my nihilism in a large part that makes me feel that way, and no, I don't believe that is good. But my personal issues have nothing to do with what you're saying making no sense at all.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Do you really think you can 'iron out' criminality and violence by changing culture?

Do you really think that the most violent of human beings are actually affected more by culture than by their own intrinsic mind?

If culture isn't a primary factor why does the murder rate vary so much between countries? Are Americans inherently four times as murderous as Australians?

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. .

Really? I suggest suicide.

I don't even know what to say here. I'm not normally one to yell "trolling" but if that isn't it, I dont know what is.

sebster wrote:The majority of guns used in crime, particularly handguns, were originally legally purchased. It is far simpler for criminals to get their hands on guns if they're freely available to the general population.

I understand that perfectly well. But now that criminals DO have legally purchased guns, leaving the common citizen without the right to legally purchase and carry a weapon isn't going to help them out very much, is it?

People will always have access to illegal weapons, but leaving the person who doesn't care to violate the law out of the equation is going to do a lot more harm than good.

whatwhat wrote:
whether it is or is not about a low self esteem, no one seems to be disagreeing that many americans have a love and admiration for firearms. That is what needs to be removed from your country in order to solve your problem, not guns themselves (although that would be a logical afterthought). That, ultimately, is my point.

But you've made no convincing argument that a love of firearms translates to increased gun crime, so you've not actually made a point at all.

sebster wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Do you really think you can 'iron out' criminality and violence by changing culture?

Do you really think that the most violent of human beings are actually affected more by culture than by their own intrinsic mind?

If culture isn't a primary factor why does the murder rate vary so much between countries? Are Americans inherently four times as murderous as Australians?

I think culture is a factor, I just believe that nature is the largest determinant. Perhaps you're talking about tendencies that are present in all populations but express themselves differently due to different pressures or living conditions. I don't know, it is a belief of mine, not something I have evidence for.

Grignard wrote:

What? Whose God? What does Africa have to do with anything? How are you defining problems? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Furthermore I resent you suggesting my determinism has a religious basis. In fact, I believe it is my nihilism in a large part that makes me feel that way, and no, I don't believe that is good. But my personal issues have nothing to do with what you're saying making no sense at all.

Whether you resent it or not it stil makes sense. You said basicly that were all born that way, so I asked you why then there are mor problems in some places (for eaxmple, africa) than others if that is the case. Are more people born evil there than in your country?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
whether it is or is not about a low self esteem, no one seems to be disagreeing that many americans have a love and admiration for firearms. That is what needs to be removed from your country in order to solve your problem, not guns themselves (although that would be a logical afterthought). That, ultimately, is my point.

But you've made no convincing argument that a love of firearms translates to increased gun crime, so you've not actually made a point at all.

Fair one. But I could. For example it is legal to hold fireamrs in other countries where guncrime isn't half the problem it is in the US.

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. .

Really? I suggest suicide.

I don't even know what to say here. I'm not normally one to yell "trolling" but if that isn't it, I dont know what is.

FYI, it's sarcasm.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
People will always have access to illegal weapons, but leaving the person who doesn't care to violate the law out of the equation is going to do a lot more harm than good.

That's highly debatable. There is a fine line between crime, and justice. And the vigilante does not normally fall on the side of the latter.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I understand that perfectly well. But now that criminals DO have legally purchased guns, leaving the common citizen without the right to legally purchase and carry a weapon isn't going to help them out very much, is it?

People will always have access to illegal weapons, but leaving the person who doesn't care to violate the law out of the equation is going to do a lot more harm than good.

Then how do you explain the order or magnitude difference between the use of firearms in criminal activity in Australia compared to the US. While it is impossible to stop any criminal getting a gun, doesn't an increased number of guns in general make it easier for criminals to access them?

I'm not even arguing for more gun control (the US has plenty, the primary difference between it and other countries is in enforcement of those laws and culture). But I am arguing against this idea that there's too many guns out there, all the bad guys can get them so the only answer is to arm up and sleep with a shotgun under the bed.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:Well how then do you explain why some cultures have less or more problems than others? Or did your god decide africa was going to be full of genocidal war mongerors before they were even born?

What? Whose God? What does Africa have to do with anything? How are you defining problems? This doesn't make any sense at all.

Furthermore I resent you suggesting my determinism has a religious basis. In fact, I believe it is my nihilism in a large part that makes me feel that way, and no, I don't believe that is good. But my personal issues have nothing to do with what you're saying making no sense at all.

whatwhat wrote:
Whether you resent it or not it stil makes sense. You said basicly that were all born that way, so I asked you why then there are mor problems in some places (for eaxmple, africa) than others if that is the case. Are more people born evil there than in your country?

I was speaking of individuals, not nations or continents. Again, I mentioned several times that my belief is exactly that, a belief. Furthermore, you're trying to steer the argument in a direction that has nothing to do with your original point.

whatwhat wrote:
Fair one. But I could. For example it is legal to hold fireamrs in other countries where guncrime isn't half the problem it is in the US.

Which also requires that you posit that there is no similar gun culture in those other nations. That would be a difficult task on the best of days.

dogma wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
People will always have access to illegal weapons, but leaving the person who doesn't care to violate the law out of the equation is going to do a lot more harm than good.

That's highly debatable. There is a fine line between crime, and justice. And the vigilante does not normally fall on the side of the latter.

I don't share your belief on the rule of law there Dogma. Come to think about it, this goes back to a culture issue.

Grignard wrote:I think culture is a factor, I just believe that nature is the largest determinant. Perhaps you're talking about tendencies that are present in all populations but express themselves differently due to different pressures or living conditions. I don't know, it is a belief of mine, not something I have evidence for.

And I tend to assume the opposite, and look to environment first. Exactly where one factor or the other is strongest is a whole other argument, but even if nature is the larger determinant, its hard to argue that you can't improve things like violent crime by changing the situations that tend to create violent criminals.

And that that is almost certainly going to be a lot more effective strategy than than everyone buying guns.

I never said that culture doesn't help to create violence, I only said that changing culture will not get rid of violence, because it's an intrinsic nature present in human beings in general.

The most violent of all human beings will always find ways to express that violence, be it with or without guns. And I feel more comfortable with them.

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. .

Really? I suggest suicide.

I'm not sure telling another board member to kill themselves is very thoughtful.

whatwhat wrote:I believe it is my nihilism

Are you sure that means what you think it does? I ask becuase everything else you have said is not a nihilistic perspective.

Finally:

Grignard wrote:Whether you resent it or not it stil makes sense. You said basicly that were all born that way, so I asked you why then there are mor problems in some places (for eaxmple, africa) than others if that is the case. Are more people born evil there than in your country?

I was speaking of individuals, not nations or continents. Again, I mentioned several times that my belief is exactly that, a belief. Furthermore, you're trying to steer the argument in a direction that has nothing to do with your original point.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I never said that culture doesn't help to create violence, I only said that changing culture will not get rid of violence, because it's an intrinsic nature present in human beings in general.

The most violent of all human beings will always find ways to express that violence, be it with or without guns. And I feel more comfortable with them.

You know, that is something I've thought a lot about. It is tricky to find actual evidence to support or refute that view. For instance, I read that some anthropologists found a Neanderthal skeleton with evidence of damage to the bones from a spearpoint. Now, the immediate assumption is to think of violence. However, as anyone who hunts knows, accidents are always a risk when you're using weapons to kill something, whether an animal or another human being. It could very well be evidence of a prehistoric hunting accident, not prehistoric violence. I find it interesting though that chimpanzees have been observed to form organized groups for the apparent purpose of killing other chimpanzees. Of course, chimps are bright enough to have culture, which complicates things.

whatwhat wrote:If that's my fault I apologise.

Yes, it is. Apology is unnecessary.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Fair one. But I could. For example it is legal to hold fireamrs in other countries where guncrime isn't half the problem it is in the US.

Which also requires that you posit that there is no similar gun culture in those other nations. That would be a difficult task on the best of days.

Again good point, but I have heard references in the past which I can dig up. I know that means s**** all to you, granted, but never the less, tis.

Grignard wrote:I was speaking of individuals, not nations or continents. Again, I mentioned several times that my belief is exactly that, a belief. Furthermore, you're trying to steer the argument in a direction that has nothing to do with your original point.

A nation is made up of individuals is it not? And no I am not, my point was you have an element of gun love culture in your country which, I believe to be fueled by a lack of self esteem in some people. MY point is that by changing this culture you can change your problems with gun crime. Dogma actually correctly stated I haven't given any examples of why the gun love culture leads to gun crime, I gave the example of other countries, such as canada, where firearms are illegal and gun crime is not so much a problem. Whther I'm right or not Dogma has at least grasped what I'm on about, I feel like im having to explain myself to you time and time again, If that's my fault I apologise.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Fair one. But I could. For example it is legal to hold fireamrs in other countries where guncrime isn't half the problem it is in the US.

Which also requires that you posit that there is no similar gun culture in those other nations. That would be a difficult task on the best of days.

Again good point, but I have heard references in the past which I can dig up. I know that means s**** all to you, granted, but never the less, tis.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I never said that culture doesn't help to create violence, I only said that changing culture will not get rid of violence, because it's an intrinsic nature present in human beings in general.

The most violent of all human beings will always find ways to express that violence, be it with or without guns. And I feel more comfortable with them.

Then I simply and bluntly, disagree.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I believe it is my nihilism

Are you sure that means what you think it does? I ask becuase everything else you have said is not a nihilistic perspective.

Probs cause you misquoted me with grignards words ey.

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I believe it is my nihilism

Are you sure that means what you think it does? I ask becuase everything else you have said is not a nihilistic perspective.

Probs cause you misquoted me ey.

No, those are the exact words you used.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I believe it is my nihilism

Are you sure that means what you think it does? I ask becuase everything else you have said is not a nihilistic perspective.

Probs cause you misquoted me ey.

No, those are the exact words you used.

Nope , again those are grignards words...

Grignard wrote:Furthermore I resent you suggesting my determinism has a religious basis. In fact, I believe it is my nihilism in a large part that makes me feel that way, and no, I don't believe that is good. But my personal issues have nothing to do with what you're saying making no sense at all.

Grignard wrote:[Thats just passive aggressive. I'm really getting tired of playing the trolling game with you. My patience with this has worn thin, and it was never much there to begin with.

Ok then dismiss my arguments on the basis of "trolling." Get real.

Again, I suggest taking up criminal psychology, at least to give weight to the theory that violence is a natural part of being human.

The fact that violence is used (by some) in relieving sexual tension proves that violence is natural well enough for me, at least as much as your libido is natural.

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

I'm getting real. I decided that you didn't have anything worthwhile to contribute at this point.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Again, I suggest taking up criminal psychology, at least to give weight to the theory that violence is a natural part of being human.

The fact that violence is used (by some) in relieving sexual tension proves that violence is natural well enough for me, at least as much as your libido is natural.

Whether it is or it isn't. Theres still enough evidence to say a large part of violence in society is influenced through peoples circumstances and therefore culture. So it's logical to suggest changeing culture changes attitudes towards gun crime is it not?

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

I'm getting real. I decided that you didn't have anything worthwhile to contribute at this point.

I've decided that you've just taken a personal dislike to me and are simply dismissing any point I give as nonsensical. but don't worry, I wont be responding you any longer.

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Again, I suggest taking up criminal psychology, at least to give weight to the theory that violence is a natural part of being human.

The fact that violence is used (by some) in relieving sexual tension proves that violence is natural well enough for me, at least as much as your libido is natural.

Whether it is or it isn't. Theres still enough evidence to say a large part of violence in society is influenced through peoples circumstances and therefore culture. So it's logical to suggest changeing culture changes attitudes towards gun crime is it not?

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

I'm getting real. I decided that you didn't have anything worthwhile to contribute at this point.

I've decided that you've just taken a personal dislike to me and are simply dismissing any point I give as nonsensical. but don't worry, I wont be responding you any longer.

You open up with something that many people would find insulting, then simply decide not to respond when people make an honest effort to figure out what you're saying and open dialog with you?

Grignard wrote:You open up with something that many people would find insulting, then simply decide not to respond when people make an honest effort to figure out what you're saying and open dialog with you?

Actually Iv'e responded to you and tried to reiterate my point plenty of times, mainly to you, as other people seem to get where I am coming from. I admit at times I may have been a bit uncouth and sarcastic but that's just the way I am, you can't use that to discredit me.

Again I'm not going to respond to you any longer as blaring trigger happy unnecessary shouts of "trolling" only gets threads locked, so I'm going to stop you from doing it by simply ending my participation. I think I have enough belief in my own arguments that I don't have to get the last word in, so feel free...

whatwhat wrote:Whether it is or it isn't. Theres still enough evidence to say a large part of violence in society is influenced through peoples circumstances and therefore culture. So it's logical to suggest changeing culture changes attitudes towards gun crime is it not?

Again, I never said that changing culture wouldn't change the amount of violence that takes place, I just said that you cannot "fix" something that takes place naturally, no matter how eutopian the society.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:You open up with something that many people would find insulting, then simply decide not to respond when people make an honest effort to figure out what you're saying and open dialog with you?

Actually Iv'e responded to you and tried to reiterate my point plenty of times, mainly to you, as other people seem to get where I am coming from. I admit at times I may have been a bit uncouth and sarcastic but that's just the way I am, you can't use that to discredit me.

Again I'm not going to respond to you any longer as blaring trigger happy unnecessary shouts of "trolling" only gets threads locked, so I'm going to stop you from doing it by simply ending my participation. I think I have enough belief in my own arguments that I don't have to get the last word in, so feel free...

Alright, thanks I will.

Velsharoon wrote:So everyone who drives a car has a small penis. Or uses forks.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:To be fair, yes, my argument was deliberately humorous and OTT. Just swap my earlier SPS drop with 'a low self esteem' and maybe you might be able to take it more seriously.

And I used the Matrix as a reference for guns being fun and it made you act like a gakker, so you shouldn't be surprised when you less obvious and more poorly convinced humor gets a similar negative reaction.

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I'm referring more to some people's apparant 'love of guns' rather than their use in competition, that may have not been clear in my earlier comments i do admit. There are some, many in America, who don't have any intention of using their gun for sport or hunting and own one simply for the empowerment they feel by owning it. The same thing can be applied to shooting ranges, when I was in america last I saw adverts offering an hour in a range with an assault rifle, wtf is the point of that if it's not for people who have a strange admiration for guns?

Because it'd be great fun. In Russia if you pay enough you can sit in an old armoured vehicle and let rip with a 30mm autocannon. It's something I really want to do.

And I agree that there is a fetishisation of guns, to the point where people believe guns really are saving lives everyday and are needed to keep government in check. But extending that fetishisation to almost all gun owners as you have isn't accurate or helpful.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:I have no interest in living in a society which dictates what I have the right to hold interest in. .

Really? I suggest suicide.

I'm not sure telling another board member to kill themselves is very thoughtful.

whatwhat wrote:I believe it is my nihilism

Are you sure that means what you think it does? I ask becuase everything else you have said is not a nihilistic perspective.

Apparently I'm not the only person who has taken exception to your comments, or has even had trouble understanding what you're saying at any given time. So I'm left wondering whether it is a case of douchebaggery or mis-communication.

Boy, this thread went places in 4 hours didn't it?

@whatwhat- Your presumption of an ignorant low self-esteem gun love comes accross as intellectual elitism.

Did you ever consider the American love affair with the gun stems from the roots of the creation of this Nation. The Minute Man Militia. Citizen Army fights off proffessional mercenaries and wins their freedom from oppressive uncaring overlords. Guns are a part of the american culture just as dissing the French is to the English. The right to own guns is a physical tie to the history of this nation.

As you respond can you answer a question? Does the government work for the people or do the people work for the government?


@ Sebster- How sure are you on the gun violence ratios?
You read these extreme numerical differences but the gap closes considerably when you start checking international homicide totals vs gun crimes. It seems that americans use guns to kill whereas other countries get a little more creative or Medieval if you prefer.

And this still doesn't take into account the difference in investigation techniques and missing person resolution rates. It's too easy for one side or the other to massage the statistical results just by propagandizing the question.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster- How sure are you on the gun violence ratios?
You read these extreme numerical differences but the gap closes considerably when you start checking international homicide totals vs gun crimes. It seems that americans use guns to kill whereas other countries get a little more creative or Medieval if you prefer.

I didn't cite a figure for gun violence. I just made a reference to the US being much higher than comparative nations, and left it at that as it's hardly a contentious point.

I did make a reference to overall murder rates, drawn from this link;

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

Yes, it's wiki but wiki is pretty solid when it comes to lists of publically available data. Can look it up elsewhere if you really insist, its not in dispute.

Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country.

If you limit it to purely firearms murder it gets even more extreme - but like you rightly point out that's largely the result of the US using guns where a person in a country with less guns might use something else to do it. What matters is the underlying figure, murders per capita, listed above.

And this still doesn't take into account the difference in investigation techniques and missing person resolution rates. It's too easy for one side or the other to massage the statistical results just by propagandizing the question.

There is no way procedural methods can account for the scale of that discrepancy.

I know this can be a touchy subject but it should be possible to make conversation without insulting each other.

There is some okay discussion occurring so I'm going to leave the thread open for now to see if people can recover their civility and continue with the actual discourse instead of the insults.

So please, stay on topic and cease the insults.

What I'd guess, and it is a guess, is that America's high murder rate stems from the fact it has far larger problems with urban poverty than any of the other countries mentioned, and has less welfare and healthcare available to the poor. Just my tuppence.

Your claim to the 4 time difference got me to checking. When I searched based on gun crimes the nubers were as you stated if albiet a little dated. When I changed the search criteria to International murder rates the number dropped to 2.5:1. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita. That is a significant drop with just one change in the search criteria.

My argument isn't that there is no crime. Its that there has been no fully scientific study that embraces all of the variables. I feel that, until that occurs, using ratios and stats is not a valid point for use in the debate.



Edited for sentence structure

Greebynog actually brings up a very good point, especially since Africa has been cited as one of the more "homocidal locations", and Africa has extreme problems with poverty.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to coincide.

The high murder rate is due to tourists coming to America and complaining about all the guns.

RLMAO, Deadshane thats priceless.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Greebynog actually brings up a very good point, especially since Africa has been cited as one of the more "homocidal locations", and Africa has extreme problems with poverty.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to coincide.

Absolutely, economic levels don't just match up from nation to nation, but also within nations. Poorer areas will have much higher murder rates than wealthier areas. There's other factors as well, drugs and general crime, police efficiency and the likelihood of catching the criminal (but interestingly enough not the harshness of the penalty) and economic opportunities (different to income levels... the chance of getting a job vs how much you get paid for it).

And well, I do like to say I told you so but this was my point back on the first page of the thread. So much time spent arguing about guns, and so little time spent discussing the things that really impact violent crime.

focusedfire wrote:Your claim to the 4 time difference got me to checking. When I searched based on gun crimes the nubers were as you stated if albiet a little dated. When I changed the search criteria to International murder rates the number dropped to 2.5:1. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita. That is a significant drop with just one change in the search criteria.

I was comparing the US and Australia, and according to that study the difference is 2.8. That's still a massive difference.

My argument isn't that there is no crime. Its that there has been no fully scientific study that embraces all of the variables. I feel that, until that occurs, using ratios and stats is not a valid point for use in the debate.

That's absolutely ridiculous. No set of stats will ever be absolutely complete, and account for every variable in an indisputable manner. It is an impossible standard to meet. But stats can still be used as an indicative tool, to be discussed and considered as part of an overall argument.

I was upset when I first looked into this thread. I initially thought it was going to be 3 pages of people discussing the best stances (weaver, isoseles), fastest ways to reload (two ships pass in the night), proper way to pull the trigger (smooth flat back press), ect....

Gun Control (gun, kun-trol)noun-The act of maintaining control of your weapon while shooting people that dont think you should have it.

And yet you casually dismiss a drop of 4.5:1 to 2.8:1 Thats about a 40ish percent drop just changing one paradigm.

I have a feeling that while we agree to some point(You actually have engaged in the sporting use of firearms and it didn't turn you into a murderer), we will differ on this drastically in other areas because of completely differing life philosophies.

The kicker that gets to me is that pro-gun individuals aren't trying to require everyone to own a gun, whereas the anti-gun groups aren't as considerate

If we are going to pretend that correlative evidence proves anything then there are two factors outside gun laws to blame:

As discussed before, one is poverty levels. More violence in poor/uneducated areas, like Africa, parts of the Middle East, Compton...

The other is racial/religious homogeneity. Where folks have obvious differences in these areas, they generally find reasons to kill each other...

Seriously, about gun control....sort of off the subject but a point I like to make whenever people who disagree with gun ownership start talking.

I used to be ALL FOR IT. I was against privatly owned weapons here in America (ACTUAL hunting weapons excluded) and just thought it would be safer with less weapons on the street if that would at all be a consequence of taking away certain american rights.


....Then I got a job in Law Enforcement, and finally held a pistol and shotgun for the first time in my life (noticing I had a natural affinity for them quite Ironically, top shooting marks in my class). At first I was afraid of them, holding them gingerly and worrying about what I was doing...eventually I got used to them and came to a realisation.

The only difference between a pistol and a hammer (of the toolbox variety) is the mechanism. They are both simply tools, CAPABLE of doing grevious bodily damage, but neither item is really any more than a tool. Guns are tools no more, no less.

Guns really DONT kill people, any more than hammers do. People wielding either item will kill people. Take away my gun, and I'm likely to pick up a hammer out of the garage to kill you with.

I sincerely doubt that new gun regulations in America will do much to alleviate the murder issues. You see, we Americans are f*cked up like that. We're going to kill each other...if not with guns, with hammers. Take away guns and you've still got kids in gangs, still have jealous crazy wives with cheating husbands, still have crazy parents that will find some way of hurting their children....

Take away the guns, and the violence will remain. A very small percentage of all handgun incidents result in fatalities anyway so I really doubt that handguns would have an impact on the statistics above. Easier and more for sure to bash someones head in with a hammer. Then we'll have a new thread started...

"American hammer control issues"


...a note on statistics, you know statistically, when you consider all the stars, solar systems and planets out there, then consider how much life we've discovered...statistically we dont exist...so why NOT shoot each other?

focusedfire wrote:And yet you casually dismiss a drop of 4.5:1 to 2.8:1 Thats about a 40ish percent drop just changing one paradigm.

I have a feeling that while we agree to some point(You actually have engaged in the sporting use of firearms and it didn't turn you into a murderer), we will differ on this drastically in other areas because of completely differing life philosophies.

The kicker that gets to me is that pro-gun individuals aren't trying to require everyone to own a gun, whereas the anti-gun groups aren't as considerate

I'm not casually dismissing anything. Depending on the year and the studies involved a 40% difference isn't out of the question. So you could probably say the multiple between the US and Australia is between 2.8 and 4.5 times. Even at the low end there, 2.8 times the murders is a massive difference. Think about how many people that is, out of a population of 300 million. Using your figures that's 12800 people killed every year compared to 4500 if you killed people at the Australian rate. That's 8,300 people every year, more than two world trade centres every year.

So you know, people can pretend that's not true. or they can look at what's really causing the issue. Or they can keep on arguing about gun control as though that has anything to do with anything.

I'm a strong believer in gun control.

And by "gun control", I mean controlling one's gun so that he bullets go where you want, when you want.

As a law-abiding citizen I won't accept any limitiations on my right to own or bear firearms of any type. If I want to carry a concealable machine gun loaded with armor-piercing dum-dums, and mil-spec body armor, that's *my* business.

Constitutionally-protected firearms should be held to the same standard as speech, and prior restraint by the government should not be permitted unless the state can show reasonable cause *and* imminent danger to the public at large.

That is all.

Deadshane1 wrote:Guns really DONT kill people,

Bull.

Guns load their own bullets, release their own safeties, aim themselves at people, and release their own triggers with homicidal results.

All by themselves.

You didn't know that?

Shame on you!


That's why it takes a very strong man, woman, or child to safely operate a gun!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

As a law-abiding citizen I won't accept any limitiations on my right to own or bear firearms of any type. If I want to carry a concealable machine gun loaded with armor-piercing dum-dums, and mil-spec body armor, that's *my* business.

.

Question is, however, what exactly 'IS' your business having to be armed to the teeth thusly? As a Law enforcement officer it would be my duty to detain you and make your choice in acouterments very inconvenient while I check the validity of any licenses/ID you have.

Bit extreme that.

(in reality, I think 'I' should be the only one carrying a gun....thats fair.)

John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that? It sounds like hell.

I much prefer it here, you can run away from a knife.

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that? It sounds like hell.

I much prefer it here, you can run away from a knife.

What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

@ sebster-Thing is, your declaring the low end limit on data that has such a large variation that these numbers have no credibility as Empirical evidence. To top it off, The rates of variance reduce even further when viewed by region. 6.6 in the us to europes 5.4.

Yes, I agree there are underlying reasons that need to be examined. To me the question is, in human history, is a .0057% murder rate really that horrific? Or, are we going through an artificial socially engineered low that if tinkered with any more might break the system and throw us back into a state of barbarism? Yes, there may be room for improvement. But, Will that improvement break the tenuous balance that we as a species have obtained?

I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I believe in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.


edited for spelling

focusedfire wrote:
I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I beleive in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.

Man thats hot....I gotta remember that idea.

Darwinian doesn't apply to humans...

Any pussy can fire a gun and kill someone.

focusedfire wrote:@ sebster-Thing is, your declaring the low end limit on data that has such a large variation that these numbers have no credibility as Empirical evidence. To top it off, The rates of variance reduce even further when viewed by region. 6.6 in the us to europes 5.4.

If you pick two collections of data and are willing to dismiss a relative difference a variance of 40%, you’ll end up dismissing most studies, and relying on personal bias to form your opinions of the world. That’s a bad thing.

Instead you should take stats as they are, prone to some level of systemic error, prone to random fluctuations, and prone to cherrypicking, but an excellent tool for understanding broad social trends.

Yes, I agree there are underlying reasons that need to be examined. To me the question is, in human history, is a .0057% murder rate really that horrific?

Yeah, people getting murdered is horrific. By the maths I showed you above, the difference was about 8,000 people a year. More than two World Trade Centres. Most people consider that was pretty horrific, so it seems a short jump to claim that yeah, having that many more people killed every year is horrific.

Or, are we going through an artificial socially engineered low that if tinkered with any more might break the system and throw us back into a state of barbarism? Yes, there may be room for improvement. But, Will that improvement break the tenuous balance that we as a species have obtained?

No, none of that is plausible. We’re making steady progress as we become wealthier and more educated, and expand opportunities to a greater percentage of the population. If we continue to do that, the murder rate will drop further. But some places have managed to lower it more than others. It makes sense to look at the differences between those places.

I, personally, am a ruthless Darwinian. I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous. Same goes for most of the hot topic issues. I believe in expecting more responsibility out of the masses rather than less.

I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

I kind of look at the murder rate statistics like this:

World average = 7.6 (2004)

Americas = 16.2 (2004)

North America = 6.6 (wow, we're doing well, and we still have Mexico... which was 11+ in 2004, now 25+ due to unrestricted drug war / drug-fueled civil war)

USA = 5.6 (+/- 0.1 measurement / reporting error)

After this, there are basically no comparable populations in the remainder of the list.


To get a valid comparison with Australia with it's population of a mere 20 MILLION, one might compare with, say, Southern California alone (California is 38 million total). Or for an easier comparison, one can either use the state of Texas or New York. Let's use New York, as the total population and geographic isolation are somewhat more comparable (i.e. they don't have huge influx of illegals walking in - illegals need to boat or fly in).

New York = 4.2 (2007, consistent decline)

Of course, if I start with 15M Americans in the the Northeastern pocket, it's a whopping 2.4, due to a comparable level population homogeneity and class ...


OTOH, if we focus on the murder capital, Washington, D.C., or Detroit (both 40+), then the number looks something like Iraq. Or current-day Gaza...

There's nothing like economic collapse in an urban environment to drive murder rates sky-high.


Imagine that!

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Darwinian doesn't apply to humans...

Ever seen an idiot on a motorcycle go screaming past you on the Freeway when you're going 60mph already in medium traffic? Ever seen him wrapped around a lightpost or taking a dirtnap under an 18 wheeler a mile down the road? Didnt think so. It most certainly DOES apply to humans.

Any pussy can fire a gun and kill someone.

This statement doesnt really say anything.

It does actually, with more access to gun means it's more easily for people to kill others.

I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

Gang related shootings, killings that would've never happened if participants hadnt been involved with drugs, ect....

Not all "murders" are perpetrated on people who had no say in the matter.

Ghetto_Fight wrote:It does actually, with more access to gun means it's more easily for people to kill others.

Not that this is even close to what you said before, but your statement is EXTREMELY simplistic and not necessarily true.

All "more access to guns" means, is that "there is more access to guns"....nothing more.

As I pointed out before, if someone wants to kill someone else bad enough, likely that they'll find a way to do it, whether or not they can obtain a firearm.

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.
____

Deadshane1 wrote:What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

To be fair, I've moved from metro DC (the murder capital of the US), to metro Detroit (a very close second), to metro Los Angeles (a bit farther down on the list). Hardly a day goes by in any of these places without a murder. So, yeah, I'll be forgiven if I have a somewhat different take on self-defense and gun control. One of these days, I'll move out of the top 10 murder cities in the US, I swear!

True. I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Greebynog wrote:John, do you I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.
____

Deadshane1 wrote:What you call hell...he calls home.

...and he eats things that would make a billygoat puke.

To be fair, I've moved from metro DC (the murder capital of the US), to metro Detroit (a very close second), to metro Los Angeles (a bit farther down on the list). Hardly a day goes by in any of these places without a murder. So, yeah, I'll be forgiven if I have a somewhat different take on self-defense and gun control. One of these days, I'll move out of the top 10 murder cities in the US, I swear!

True. I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

Wanna babysit my GF's cat? Bonapetite!

focusedfire wrote:I feel you want safer drivers, mount a bayonet on the steering wheel pointing right at the heart. No one will tailgate, they'll all wear their safety belts, drive the speed limit,and be very courteous.

Piss me off, and I'll get in front of you, then back into you...

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm Cantonese, and we eat *everything*. I'm talking about the full range of organ "meats", the full range of shellfish, and damn near anything that you can ferment. *Real* delicacies. Tasty!

Wanna babysit my GF's cat? Bonapetite!

Would I have to shoot it with a gun?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Greebynog wrote:John, do you? I can understand you'd like the right to do that, but do you really want every other bugger in the country walking round like that?

If they're all law-abiding citizens, I could hardly care less what they do.

If they were all law abiding citizens, this wouldn't be an issue.

Deadshane1 wrote:I was upset when I first looked into this thread. I initially thought it was going to be 3 pages of people discussing the best stances (weaver, isoseles), fastest ways to reload (two ships pass in the night), proper way to pull the trigger (smooth flat back press), ect....

Gun Control (gun, kun-trol)noun-The act of maintaining control of your weapon while shooting people that dont think you should have it.

This might be a better board for you, for this topic Deadshane (jeez that sentence came off as clunky as Frankenstein's monster walking didn't it?)

http://www.texaschlforum.com/

Greebynog wrote:
If they were all law abiding citizens, this wouldn't be an issue.

Alright, there are going to be violent people out there, and you're not always going to be able to catch them proactively. I still don't feel that I should be restricted because of that.

Deadshane1 wrote:The high murder rate is due to tourists coming to America and complaining about all the guns.

lol thats probably about 25% of the murders in new york and 30% of the murders in atlanta

and wow... i had no idea that this thread would take off like this wow

and yes this is another report i had to wite but not the one on immigration.

i dont really rant, i more like point out the reasons that i think that guns should be allowed to stay on the market.

but i am the most aggressive debator on the school debate team

Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

Envy89 wrote:Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

In Texas you would be considered a gun grabbing left winger with only seven! I'll shoot 500 rounds in a light afternoon...

Envy89 wrote:Number of guns I own, 7.

Number of rounds I have at my house, over 500

Number of people I have killed, 0.

I might have 500 .22 at any time, and I might have a box of rounds for my hunting rifle, because I only go through 10 or so per season, but I rarely have that much ammunition. Shooting has gotten really expensive, really it always has been. A box or two of .357 or .38 is about all I'll go through at a time. I have a little .25 auto but for some reason that is more expensive than a lot of the larger calibers, I suppose because they don't make as much of it, but I don't really know.

How much does a gun cost anyhow then ? On average anyway.

And bullets etc etc too.

I believe (in certain states) anyway you have to have a license to hunt etc too, I assume that costs $s as well.

Bunk statistical analysis: Check
Mobius strip like trains of logic: Check
Ad Hominem: Check
Boasting about ones "size": Check
Inferring gun ownership is a self esteem thing: Check



Oh gun control thread, it's as if you're trying to be exactly what I said you were in response #1.

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc. I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

reds8n wrote:How much does a gun cost anyhow then ? On average anyway.

And bullets etc etc too.

I believe (in certain states) anyway you have to have a license to hunt etc too, I assume that costs $s as well.

Firearms are expensive. As far as handguns, you can buy a cheap little .25 auto for 90 bucks, but I wouldn't shoot it. Like most things I believe that to some extent you get what you pay for. My .22 target pistol was abou 300$ if I recall correctly. I personally believe that anyone who is interested in learning to shoot should buy a .22, as you can get a box of 500 rounds for 10$, which will allow you to actually practice. But as far as handguns, that is pretty typical for a decent pistol without any bells and whistles. Something high end like one of Kimber's 1911 .45s will set you back 1500$, easy. Large caliber pistol rounds are very expensive, though you can often buy in bulk and save money. There are different types of ammunition of course, but I'd say a box of 50 .38s would be 15$ if you bought a single box.

Rifles can vary a great deal, and like anything else, you can spend as much money as you like, but the fact is a perfectly fine rifle for deer hunting can be purchased for 300 dollars, new. Rifle ammuntion is another story. For deer I use a 130 gr .270 Winchester ballistic silvertip. If nothing else the round looks wicked as hell, its a lubricated bullet bullet with a plastic tip, and the lubricating coating is black, so you've got these silver cases with these black bullets in them, very odd looking. I think they're about 50 or 60 cents a pop, so you need to make them count. Of course you have to sight in with the round you're going to hunt with. I was recommended those rounds by a friend. Do you need ammunition like that to hunt with? Not really. Do they give you a better chance of dropping the animal cleanly? Both the data and my personal experience says yes.

Also, when you say "bullets" keep in mind that you can buy bullets, powder, and brass and load your own ammuntion. You can save money in the long run that way, but that is a hobby in itself.

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.




The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

Cheers.

I had no idea there would be such variance in the costs of them, but I guess if you think about it it makes sense. Like anything else you get budget lines and premium products.

To clarify : what is the difference between bullets and ammunition then ? Oh, might as well make sure whilst I have your ear : when you say .22, .45 etc etc, what measurement exactly is that ?

ShumaGorath wrote:

The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.




The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

I don't know if I agree with that. Look how much damage partisans did in WWII to both sides.

However, I'm not making that argument in reference to 2nd amendment as, assuming someone even wanted to do that, history shows that to be a brutal, horrible manner of making war. In fact, I really wish people would stop making that argument. I believe that it is a matter of government trusting its citizens, rather than a threat of unrest. I also don't think it is universally true in history. Most important, the argument just isn't that effective. What people don't understand is that nice polite city folk hear "overthrow" or "rebellion", they don't think freedom, they think unrest and riot in the streets. This is particularly true in Europe where they have actual experience with this. It frightens people, it isn't an argument we should be using.

reds8n wrote:Cheers.

I had no idea there would be such variance in the costs of them, but I guess if you think about it it makes sense. Like anything else you get budget lines and premium products.

To clarify : what is the difference between bullets and ammunition then ? Oh, might as well make sure whilst I have your ear : when you say .22, .45 etc etc, what measurement exactly is that ?

Oh gosh, that is a whole subject in and of itself. Firearms nomenclature is rife with all sorts of oddness. First off, in the U.S., we use calibers. .22 is a bullet that is .22 inches in diameter. This gets complicated as sometimes it is the diameter of the *cartridge*, not the bullet. That is the case with the .38 Special. A .38 special will chamber and fire in a .357 Magnum revolver ( NOT the other way around, but most guns are designed to be idiot proof and will prevent you chambering a .357 in a .38 by virute of the difference in the length of the cartridge). Rifles typically use three digits while handguns use two, but that is not the case all the time, as seen in the .357, which is a handgun round, but like any handgun round, there is nothing stopping someone from making a rifle that will fire that round. In fact, .44 Magnum ( designed as a handgun cartridge) is a popular rifle chambering now. Other oddballs include the very popular .30-06. The 06 refers to 1906, which is a date, which I don't recall the significance of. The British are even more confusing as they sometimes mix metric and english units.

The NATO designation makes sense to me. For instance, you hear about 9mm all the time. 9mm usually refers to the 9x19mm parabellum, probably the most common automatic handgun cartridge in the world. That is 9mm diameter by 19mm long. However, 9mm is very common, and there is the 9mm short ( aka kurz) known as the .380 ACP in the US. Then there is the 9mm long which is designed to behave exactly like 9x19 but comply with local laws that forbid possession of "military" calibers ( I think France used to do this, and I think Mexico does). Then there is the 9mm Makarov, which is a Russian round. .38 Super automatic is also 9mm I believe.

The bullet is the actual projectile that is fired from the weapon. The case holds the bullet, powder, and primer ( cases are usually made of brass). The combined system is a cartridge. Shotgun ammo is typically called shells. Incidentally, shotguns are measured by gauges, which is the number of barrel size lead balls that would weigh a pound. Therefore, the 20ga shotgun is a smaller diameter shell than a 12ga shotgun. The british used to make gauge rifles for African game that were 4ga. Thats big.

Good anticipation with the shotgun answer btw

I think from previous discussions I've had it's been the cartridge vs. bullet thing that has thrown me.

So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then. But you can get caseless ammo right ? I assume that is a bit more specialst ?

I would have thought making ones own ammo would have been both awkward and dangerous yes ? Also--primer ?

Aside from the different manufacturers and "needs" why is there such a variety of sizes and calibres then ? I would have thought by now we pretty much would have perfected he science behind it all one way or another. I guess a lot of it comes down just to peoples personal preferences maybe ?

EDIT : cheers for the Q & A btw !

sebster wrote:If you pick two collections of data and are willing to dismiss a relative difference a variance of 40%, you’ll end up dismissing most studies, and relying on personal bias to form your opinions of the world. That’s a bad thing.

Its not a bias to look at 2 non scientific statistics and say they shouldn't be used as empirical evidence. It really bothers me how accumalated data automatically passes for science without the study to properly support such. This isn't personal bias. Its whats happening.
It starts with certain things are required to be reported. Someone then takes those numbers and runs a ratio analysis. Suddenly we have a "study" saying one thing or the other. Yet, none of the rules of scientific reaserch were followed. There was no central oversite. No attempt to standardize the form of report. No attempt to understand cultural differences in what is considered murder. No standardization of investigative techniques (may be some basic level but not enough to be considered scientifically valid). With out a consistent paradigm for the study and without any actual studying there is no science.

sebster wrote:Instead you should take stats as they are, prone to some level of systemic error, prone to random fluctuations, and prone to cherrypicking, but an excellent tool for understanding broad social trends.

That would require for me to accept the statistics as scientifically valid studies which I just went over. All these statistics prove is that, yes, murder does happen and that there "appears" to be variation.

sebster wrote:Yeah, people getting murdered is horrific. By the maths I showed you above, the difference was about 8,000 people a year. More than two World Trade Centres. Most people consider that was pretty horrific, so it seems a short jump to claim that yeah, having that many more people killed every year is horrific.

Oh, nice one. Pull out the World trade Centers, cry 9/11, and the world,especially americans, will jump to your cause. Btw, its more like 3 time the WTC death toll. Nice subtle use of an emotional issue in support of your side of the debate.

Having said that, yes, murder is horrific. So are killer tsunamis, 8.+earthquakes, catagory 5 hurricanes, and the worst natural disaster of them all humanity. On purely philosophical levels I wonder, "How long we will cling to the idea of the sancitity of life?". I hold that our most reveered morals are purely situational at best. How valuable is human life in a world of 6 billion of mostly well fed people? Then, how valuable is that life in a world of 12 billion starving individuals? Yes, the act of murder is still horrific. But the rates can be viewed as acceptable when on a larger historical perspective. I admit to concern about man having circumvented the natural process of maintaining a balanced population. That we will grow unchecked until the morals we hold dear will have to be sacrificed on the alter of necessity.

Looking forward and at the world that surrounds us makes it hard for me to accept the irrevocable sanctity of human life. When, even, our government has such a casual attitude toward the issue itself. Used to be better a guilty man goes free before we kill an innocent. Whether that was ever fully practiced I don't know but its what we were taught. Now that thought process has change to so if an innocent dies to keep the rest of us safe.
My stance on this issue stems from the words of Benjamin Franklin,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." To me this means that in a free society, we accept that there will always be threats on some level and it a part of the price for living within this system.

sebster wrote:No, none of that is plausible. We’re making steady progress as we become wealthier and more educated, and expand opportunities to a greater percentage of the population. If we continue to do that, the murder rate will drop further. But some places have managed to lower it more than others. It makes sense to look at the differences between those places.

There's a problem with this solution. It requires a system of continual expansion. That is neither realistic or sustainable. I'm looking for a more natural solution. Something that balances with mankind no matter what his conditions. Problem is that that solution will probably be viewed as unacceptable because it allows for the fact that a free society will inevitably have a few idiots or sick individuals that will perpetrate these crimes.

sebster wrote:I’m not really sure what the ‘responsibility to not get murdered’ is.

@both sebster and ghetto- Responsibility to not get murdered is to not do stupid things. Interviews with incarcerated offenders show there is usually a targeting process. The more complacent people become, the safer everyone feels, the less aware of their surroundings they become, are the things these criminals are looking for. Then there is just stupid life decisions to consider(choosing to join a criminal organization). Don't wave large sums of money in an impoverished area unless you want to be robbed. Don't be a part of a violent gang unless you're willing to be shot. Don't automatically assume that everywhere you go is safe, its what criminals are looking for. Don't always put your safety in someone else hands, they probably don't care as much about your life as you do. I've got enough to do watching out for my own life, family, and friends. Don't make me responsible for watching out for you also. Its down right inconsiderate.

Yes innocent individuals die all the time. I just propose that these numbers would be somewhat lower with the application of a little common sense in our day to day lives.


Edited for spelling

reds8n wrote:Good anticipation with the shotgun answer btw

I think from previous discussions I've had it's been the cartridge vs. bullet thing that has thrown me.

So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then. But you can get caseless ammo right ? I assume that is a bit more specialst ?

I would have thought making ones own ammo would have been both awkward and dangerous yes ? Also--primer ?

Aside from the different manufacturers and "needs" why is there such a variety of sizes and calibres then ? I would have thought by now we pretty much would have perfected he science behind it all one way or another. I guess a lot of it comes down just to peoples personal preferences maybe ?

EDIT : cheers for the Q & A btw !

Sure, no problem, I enjoy talking about firearms as much as I do minatures, especially when it isn't a debate about legality. Yes, the case, or brass, is ejected from an automatic firearm when it shoots. Not revolvers though, that is an older mechanism. You fire all the rounds the pop the cylinder out and dump the brass. Caseless would be a wonderful boon to all the soldiers out there who have to hump around loads of ammunition, but it is something they're still working on. Such a round would, ideally, just produce gasses when fired. But it is a really cool idea.

Reloading, as it is called, is not as dangerous as it sounds. I don't do it, but I've read about it. Modern smokeless powder isn't like old fasioned black powder. Not only is it smokeless, but it won't detonate from, say, a static spark or something. Reloading is in itself fairly safe, the real danger is if you aren't concentrating and you load a cartridge twice. Say, if you get up to answer your door and forget which one in a row you're on. Modern firearms are unlikely to explode even in that case, but you're talking about something that could range from A. Suprising and embarassing at the range to B. A ruined firearm and possible injury.

Primers are the little round things in the bottom of cartridges that the mechanism of the gun strikes ( with the firing pin, or some similar setup) which ignites the propellant ( smokeless powder ).

It being called a revolver presumably as the bit that holds the bullets revolves to bring the next shot up yes ? Like in all the old Cagney movies etc etc ?

And in an automatic the bullets are "pushed" up from the magazine ( or is it a clip ?) automatically yes ?

I've no idea where I got the thought we had/have caseless ammo already... too much sci-fi clearly.

How do the different types of bullet work then ? Again I think I know but nice to get the facts.

reds8n,

You are correct on the revolver, and how the auto works.

As to caselees ammunition, its been around for a long while. The military has some rifles for special ops but hasn't switched over completely because of cost. It will happen sooner if copper and brass keep going up in price though.

reds8n wrote:So the brass casing bit is what we see spilled out on the floor after firing in films etc then.

Yes. If you don't use caseless, you could attach a brass catcher - then it won't go all over the floor...

Again that makes sense I guess.

So with caseless ammo it's all kind of built into one shell or projectile then is it ?

What is a semi automatic ?

And again, why the huge number of different calibre weapons ? I assume there are optimum sizes for killing/wounding a man/deer/elephant or just for target shooting .

A semi and automatic are confusing nomenclatures. Originally an automatic was a gun capable of full auto-fire(like a machinegun) and a semi-auto was a gun that auto loaded but fired only one round at a time. Somewhere along the way semi-auto pistols started to be calle automatics. I don't know specificaly when though.


Yes, you are correct. Different calibers for different uses. Just happens that you use the same rounds or calibers to bring down both a deer and a man.

I see. I suppose that's just another symptom of the fall of society.

So I assume all the different makes/manufacturers are essentially just variations on a theme.Like car manufacturers yes ? As in different people prefer different..err....."breeds" .. or types of gun because of weight, accuracy etc etc right ?

Or like wargame systems.

I take it then that with regards to top end products-- military grade I would hazard- there's not really that much difference as such between a machine gun made by company X and one by company Y.

AFAIK there hasn't been any huge leap or advancement in fireamr technology that has given one maker a big edge?

last I read seemed to suggest that electronic firing guns seemed to be the next move forward.

reds8n wrote:Again that makes sense I guess.

So with caseless ammo it's all kind of built into one shell or projectile then is it ?

What is a semi automatic ?

And again, why the huge number of different calibre weapons ? I assume there are optimum sizes for killing/wounding a man/deer/elephant or just for target shooting .

Yah, different calibres made for different purposes. Also different bullets in the same caliber for different purposes. The military uses fully jacketed bullets ( a lead bullet jacketed in copper ) because of certain international treaties and tactical purposes. While in the state of Tennessee, it is illegal to hunt with an FMJ for the same reasons the military uses them. Military bullets, oddly enough, are designed to wound, not kill, and the theory is that you'd end up with a lot of wounded game that would just crawl off somewhere and die. I have been told, though it could just be BS, that the round used in US infantry rifles ( NATO version of the .223 remington) has a bullet that conforms to international law but is designed to become unstable when it penetrates something and begin to pitch and yaw, thus causing more injury.

There is a huge difference between guns in terms of how "effective", accurate, reliable, and user-friendly they are. That is why people will pay more for certain weapons over others.

Actually, there is quite a large difference in grade and quality of materials used in the manufacture of the weapons.

Some makes come out of the factory just downright unsafe. Older Ithaca shotguns have a problem with slam-firing when you throw the pump forward.

You can research online and find the higher quality manufacturers. You generally see the price reflected in the quality and additional safety features offered.

Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

reds8n wrote:Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

Yah, I think you probably get diminishing returns as the price goes up. I'm sure a 30,000$ british double is a fine gun, but you can get an above average bird gun for 1500 bucks. And there are some things that are just silly, IMHO. For instance, the Desert Eagle that you may have heard from in video games ( CS comes immediately to mind ) starts at 1500 last I checked, and they have a gold plated version. They have a long barrled version that would probably be a good hunting gun, considering that it can come chambered in .50 AE. Otherwise, and I appologize to anyone who owns one, I think they're kind of silly. I is a big, oversized gun. I also would have trouble shooting it because like most autos the magazine fits in the grips, which are wide to accomodate the revolver type ammuntion it uses. I have fairly small hands for a man, so I probably couldn't hold it properly.

I've hunted small game with my shotgun, but it has been a long time since i've done that. In fact, I haven't even shot my shotgun in years. I want to try sporting clays, which is a shooting game that is sort of like trap or skeet, but they have a wider variety of targets. The rifle I pretty much just use for hunting, though I can tell you I absolutely love putting 3 rounds in a target touching each other at 100 yards. That is an expense thing there. I'm really a handgun guy, and I shoot more .22LR than anything else by far. Thats just targets, I don't hunt anything with that one. The entire reason I shoot that one, other than the pleasureable feel of it, is money. A box of 500 .22s, like I said, is cheap, and I can go to the range at the WMA, which is free. I would say that last year I spent a couple hundred bucks on it, at most. That is probably a lot less than your average shooter.

"Pure stopping power" generally means a bigger bullet:
- higher recoil forces (more ammo jams)
- more muzzle jump (worse shot-to-shot accuracy)
- larger magazine (requires bigger hands to hold)
- heavier gun (more tiring to carry and aim)
- larger gun (harder to conceal)

There are a lot of tradeoffs.

That said, people will typically get .45 ACP (proven man-stoppers), 9x19mm (more shots), or .40 S&W (split the difference) for defensive use.

Each has their own adherents and proponents. It's primarily religious at this point.

reds8n wrote:Hmmm.


I can understand how there can and would be huge performance differences between the aforementioned $90 and the $1500 gun, but would there really be that much difference bewteen 2 $1000 guns by different companies ?
I assume you get different types or builds-- some designed for accuracy, others pure stopping power etc etc, but I would have thought that there would be an optimum build so to speak.

But then again that ignores the human component of course.

So what do yu gents own and shoot then ? And (roughly) how much a year do you spend on the hobby then ?

As Obama's potential AG is on the record supporting gun bans and believes such are fully constitutional, I'll plead the Fifth.

I've seen people blow $500 or more in a year shooting (not including weapon purchases).

JohnHwangDD wrote:"Pure stopping power" generally means a bigger bullet:
- higher recoil forces (more ammo jams)
- more muzzle jump (worse shot-to-shot accuracy)
- larger magazine (requires bigger hands to hold)
- heavier gun (more tiring to carry and aim)
- larger gun (harder to conceal)

There are a lot of tradeoffs.

That said, people will typically get .45 ACP (proven man-stoppers), 9x19mm (more shots), or .40 S&W (split the difference) for defensive use.

Each has their own adherents and proponents. It's primarily religious at this point.

Shotguns are excellent in that regard as well. It imparts the most energy into the target.

Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

@Fraz, amen to that. Tho they take the stopping power problems I covered above to 11!

currently, i "own" and shoot an M-16A4, and an M2 MG..
lookgin for a Smith and Wesson 1911 (if i can find an antique one, id prefer it)or, the aformentioned "silly" gun, the desert eagle... having fired both pistols previously, i know exactly what im getting for the money. just a slight update on the DE, ive seen them on their website for about 1200 now, but thats your standard nickel plating, no fancy-pants finishes on it type weapon.

reds8n wrote:Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

many states require some form of gun cabinet or gun closet to store weapons, especially if you have children in the house (basically its a large safe, with special racks built in for the purpose of storing guns)

personally, growing up, we never EVER had guns locked up in a cabinet... both my brother and i were taught the proper way to handle a gun, and we never once had the urge to mess with them unless it was to grab them for a trip to the range, or if we were cleaning them after the range.

i for one dont name my weapons (well, my 50 MG has a name, but we'll not discuss that ) but, i am sure that there are people who have a name for every weapon they own, and their car/truck/mode of transportation...

Why those particular ones for you then ? Or do they just "fit" you ?



From memory I believe you are in the forces Mr. Ferrae, what do make of the weapons the Americans are armed with ? And/or the other nations.

Apologies if you're not.

@Ensis - If you *really* want a M1911, you better hurry... Colt just released a replica line of 1911 and 1911A1

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/1911WWI.asp

Personally, I'm not fond of the idea that ever trigger pull is going to cause a hammer bite...

reds8n wrote:Why those particular ones for you then ? Or do they just "fit" you ?



From memory I believe you are in the forces Mr. Ferrae, what do make of the weapons the Americans are armed with ? And/or the other nations.

Apologies if you're not.

i should start off with the easy one for me. this is purely my own opinion here, so you can completely ignore it if ya want.. i think that the M-2 .50 Cal machine gun is the best weapon of its type in the world... there's a reason that every unit in the US Army has used this weapon in every theater of war since WW2.

the M-16 family of weapons (including all the updates eg. M-16A2, A3, and A4) are crap. pure and simple... yeah, theres the whole congressional thing, the manuals that all say that its a precision instrument, and how you can be more accurate at range, blah blah blah... fact of the matter for me is that because of its configuration, length and overall design, it doesnt work... for one, its prone to jamming, especially if you have an A1 or A3 model (dunno what it is with them odd numbers) and with the length of the 16s, its very clumsy in urban environments.

the AK-47 family of weapons, while not as accurate are generally "better" than the M-16. There are numerous stories told to me by vietnam vets about how they capture/killed some vietcong and confiscated weapons that were crammed full of mud and whatnot, that still fired perfectly. it can fire even if its all rusted up... basically, so long as the breech is clear, it will fire the round. the biggest complaint by most is the weight of the ammo, as it uses the 7.62mm round.

Im not familiar with too many other nation's arms, however the limited use of the Hechler and Koch (sp.?) weapons ive had, they are a much better weapon all around than the M-16s

thank you.

You mean one of these yes ? Seems strange to think that the same basic weapon has been used for so long. I guess if it aint broke etc etc.

I've heard similar stories about the Ak eapons, but I am surprised at what you say about the M16 family. I know a few serving soldiers and they pretty much all say they'd prefer to use what the septics are armed with. Of course that might be more of a comment on what the Brits are armed with ...

reds8n wrote:Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

I considered naming my .44 Brunhilde, but then I thought that would be a little creepy .

I store my firearms boxed in a closet. I don't have any children nor do I regularly recieve guests who have them. I don't keep a loaded handgun on me though I have no problem with doing so, I just don't feel the need to do so. I have considered getting a permit but have never gotten around to getting it. Incidentally, most of the people I know who "tote a Roscoe" are doing it sans permit. I'm not advocating that, I'm just mentioning it as a fact.

I know my mother was pretty much around loaded firearms constantly as a child, same with her siblings, and they never had any problems. I however, believe I would invest in a gun safe or at least a locking cabinet if I had children, I'm just too paranoid not too.

The manufacturers just make what people will buy, like any manufacturer. I'd say the pissing contest was amongst your hand cannon fanatics and cartridge wildcatters. The .44 Mag probably was the most powerful handgun cartridge in the world at one time. Again, "most powerful" really only has any meaning when limiting your definition of "powerful" to muzzle energy and only considering cartridges designed for handguns. A few companies make specialized ( typically single shot ) handguns that chamber rifle rounds like the .308 and .270, for hunting, metallic silhouette, etc. I'd say by the definition mentioned the current most powerful is the .50 S&W mag, although there is a .460 Smith that has a flatter trajectory and plenty of energy. But I guess in every industry there is always someone who wants to make the next bigger sexier thing, and someone will buy it. So yes.

For what it is worth, I will admit the DEagle is cool. It is one of the few gas-operated automatic pistols out there, or at least that is what I understand. I hear the recoil with the .50 AE is not nearly as bad as you expect, if for no other reason the weight of the gun.

reds8n wrote:thank you.

You mean one of these yes ? Seems strange to think that the same basic weapon has been used for so long. I guess if it aint broke etc etc.

I've heard similar stories about the Ak eapons, but I am surprised at what you say about the M16 family. I know a few serving soldiers and they pretty much all say they'd prefer to use what the septics are armed with. Of course that might be more of a comment on what the Brits are armed with ...

Also remember the military is conservative by nature. You have to be, I guess, when you're talking about the lives of men.

What are the Brits armed with anyway, the FN FAL?

I did wonder about the whole storage thing. For what it's worth for your personal situation that seems more than adequate. I would also go for some form of lockable storage if the younglings were involved.

I'm no expert--- that shocked you I'm sure -- but the Brits are mainly armed with the SA80.

All the guys I know hate it and say it is a liability. It's old but you'll get the gist of the problems here.

Some of the issues have since been "fixed".... apparently, but my friends still complain about it not working correctly in sandy and/or hot areas. Which given current (and likely) deployments is, as I'm sure you can see, a bit bit of a rum do, as we might say.

My friends tell me the ... err.... small flaw mentioned in the article-- the bit about it going off when dropped !! -- still occurs, and basically they say you almost have to clean the bastard after every magazine/burst of fire.

All of my friends say they'd much rather be armed with the American weapons and gear.

With the exception of your soldiers underwear strangely enough, but there's certain military aspects I'm more than happy to leava as a mystery.

reds8n wrote: I did wonder about the whole storage thing. For what it's worth for your personal situation that seems more than adequate. I would also go for some form of lockable storage if the younglings were involved.

I'm no expert--- that shocked you I'm sure -- but the Brits are mainly armed with the SA80.

All the guys I know hate it and say it is a liability. It's old but you'll get the gist of the problems here.

Some of the issues have since been "fixed".... apparently, but my friends still complain about it not working correctly in sandy and/or hot areas. Which given current (and likely) deployments is, as I'm sure you can see, a bit bit of a rum do, as we might say.

My friends tell me the ... err.... small flaw mentioned in the article-- the bit about it going off when dropped !! -- still occurs, and basically they say you almost have to clean the bastard after every magazine/burst of fire.

All of my friends say they'd much rather be armed with the American weapons and gear.

With the exception of your soldiers underwear strangely enough, but there's certain military aspects I'm more than happy to leava as a mystery.

It looks cool, I'll give you that. I still think Steyr has some neat guns.

ChaosDave wrote:
The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

If the government has become a tyranny, then what exactly do you think a little piece of paper is going to do?

the AK-47 family of weapons, while not as accurate are generally "better" than the M-16. There are numerous stories told to me by vietnam vets about how they capture/killed some vietcong and confiscated weapons that were crammed full of mud and whatnot, that still fired perfectly. it can fire even if its all rusted up... basically, so long as the breech is clear, it will fire the round. the biggest complaint by most is the weight of the ammo, as it uses the 7.62mm round.

They jam more often (but oddly, not that much in actual combat), but are easier to maintain and transport as the weight of the gun itself is roughly half that of an Ak model (typically) and the ammunition is considerably lighter. It is also more accurate, easier to fire in useful bursts, and is vastly superior in urban conflict zones where the added penetration of the 7.62 round is a liability.

A lighter more accurate gun firing lighter ammunition. This means less ammunition is expended wastefully and less effort is used in carrying similar amounts of ammo. It means that the firer can fire more accurately longer in combat, and it's one of the reasons why since its adoption it has such a disproportionate kill ratio against AK wielding combatants. All the AK is good for is insurrections and poorly equipped militaries. It's cheap, it's great at killing civilians (7.62 passes through car doors but nothing armored), it's fantastically easy to fix, and it doesn't require much service. For the US military the M16 is the superior weapon due to the more easily available repair, and the care with which the guns are treated. The AKs only advantage in a first class military is it's penetration vs body armor, but even that is kind of a stretch given modern CQB tactics (wherein any carbine is vastly superior anyway).



Anyway, this is a my dad can beat up your dad fight. Neither gun is the best infantry rifle in the world. Both are just overly prevalent, and the US is too full of idiots to spend the money on anything better (also the M models are awesome at shooting dudes in shirts which is all we really fight any more).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.

First it wasn't just about the country being able to defend itself. Congress created the Continental Army just after the outbreak of the war, which was the first professional army and not a civilian militia. Clearly they knew that there could and would be a federal force for defending the country and not just civilian militias. Secondly they knew how government can become tyrannical, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to have so many checks and balances and restrictions placed upon it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

I don't know, when was the last time we had a tyrannical government in the US? When that happens I fully expect Americans to exercise that right.

I don't know, when was the last time we had a tyrannical government in the US?

I dunno, ask one of the slaves.

Congress created the Continental Army just after the outbreak of the war, which was the first professional army and not a civilian militia. Clearly they knew that there could and would be a federal force for defending the country and not just civilian militias.

What they likely didn't see was the new method of warfare that would occur long after their deaths. Do you honestly think that an armed civilian militia could possibly hope to put a dent in the institution of american government? Back when the only difference between a militia and a military was training it was quite conceivable, militias would have the vast numeric superiority that could easily overcome better trained military loyalists. Except thats not true any more, militias don't have armor, air, anti armor weaponry, industrial support, or the logistics to maintain any sort of fighting force. In the face of the US military civilian armed revolt would be stamped out almost immediately. Especially if they threw off the kid gloves. The best a US insurgency could hope for is a protracted and bloody conflict that wears down the governments will to fight on.

It's what you see in dozens of countries including Iraq around the world. Not to mention the fracturous nature of internal conflict, it's very doubtful any sort of unified resistance could be created. This isn't a neat book, in real life that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the military then you lose, and if you have the military then you win. Either way they would be bringing the guns (better ones then the crap scrounged off ebay).

Right to bear arms doesn't do a whole lot when it comes to bringing down the government anymore. No matter how awesome you think your modified ar15 is some guy with a 70 million dollar attack helicopter is going to shoot you.

ShumaGorath wrote:
What they likely didn't see was the new method of warfare that would occur long after their deaths. Do you honestly think that an armed civilian militia could possibly hope to put a dent in the institution of american government? Back when the only difference between a militia and a military was training it was quite conceivable, militias would have the vast numeric superiority that could easily overcome better trained military loyalists. Except thats not true any more, militias don't have armor, air, anti armor weaponry, industrial support, or the logistics to maintain any sort of fighting force. In the face of the US military civilian armed revolt would be stamped out almost immediately. Especially if they threw off the kid gloves. The best a US insurgency could hope for is a protracted and bloody conflict that wears down the governments will to fight on.

You assume that the military wouldn't split or fracture with the factions. There is actually precedence that it would split given an internal US conflict. In such a situation insurgents would actually play a significant role.

It's what you see in dozens of countries including Iraq around the world. Not to mention the fracturous nature of internal conflict, it's very doubtful any sort of unified resistance could be created. This isn't a neat book, in real life that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the military then you lose, and if you have the military then you win. Either way they would be bringing the guns (better ones then the crap scrounged off ebay).

Well according to many of your liberal brethren Iraq was a failure. Our military had some difficulty with insurgents, how much trouble would something 10 times the size be for it the US is actually more than 10 times the population, not to mention area of Iraq. I suspect it would be a hell of a lot more difficult than Iraqi insurgents ever even dreamed of.

Right to bear arms doesn't do a whole lot when it comes to bringing down the government anymore. No matter how awesome you think your modified ar15 is some guy with a 70 million dollar attack helicopter is going to shoot you.

Again you assume a stead fast loyalty of the military, something I don't think you would get with a Tyrannical government in the US. Also 70 million dollar attack helicopters get shot down all the time with 100 dollar RPGs or LAWs or even stingers. Just ask the Russians about insurgents when they ran away from Afghanistan.

So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

Ya know that forgotten ammendment. Better known as the 3rd. There's a reason it immediately follows the second ammendment.

Hmmm, a military of about a million and not all are combat oriented verses how many gun owners. Reminds me of South Africa or Little Big Horn

Well according to many of your liberal brethren

So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

...


Are you that robot at the end of fallout 3?

ChaosDave wrote:
...with 100 dollar RPGs or LAWs or even stingers.

That is a ridiculously backwards progression.

ChaosDave wrote:
Just ask the Russians about insurgents when they ran away from Afghanistan.

The fact that the Afghanis were backed directly by the US government doesn't interest you?

ChaosDave wrote:
So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

I don't think that was the point. Rather, I think the point was that, even if we have the right to bear arms, it doesn't matter in the context of anything that deals with reality in respect to the possibility of revolt.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I kind of look at the murder rate statistics like this:

World average = 7.6 (2004)

Americas = 16.2 (2004)

North America = 6.6 (wow, we're doing well, and we still have Mexico... which was 11+ in 2004, now 25+ due to unrestricted drug war / drug-fueled civil war)

USA = 5.6 (+/- 0.1 measurement / reporting error)

After this, there are basically no comparable populations in the remainder of the list.

That's about the most deliberately wrong headed silliness I've seen on the internet. To limit comparisons to region and ignore similar economic and social areas... well.

To get a valid comparison with Australia with it's population of a mere 20 MILLION, one might compare with, say, Southern California alone (California is 38 million total). Or for an easier comparison, one can either use the state of Texas or New York. Let's use New York, as the total population and geographic isolation are somewhat more comparable (i.e. they don't have huge influx of illegals walking in - illegals need to boat or fly in).

The murder rates are per capita. While population density has some effect, size of population is entirely irrelevant. You know this, or at least you should. Please stop this silliness, John.

There's nothing like economic collapse in an urban environment to drive murder rates sky-high.

Imagine that!

Why are you pretending you're the first to bring up economic factors in affecting the murder rate? Have you been reading this thread. Do you even understand the conversation that going on here?

focusedfire wrote:Its not a bias to look at 2 non scientific statistics and say they shouldn't be used as empirical evidence. It really bothers me how accumalated data automatically passes for science without the study to properly support such. This isn't personal bias. Its whats happening.
It starts with certain things are required to be reported. Someone then takes those numbers and runs a ratio analysis. Suddenly we have a "study" saying one thing or the other. Yet, none of the rules of scientific reaserch were followed. There was no central oversite. No attempt to standardize the form of report. No attempt to understand cultural differences in what is considered murder. No standardization of investigative techniques (may be some basic level but not enough to be considered scientifically valid). With out a consistent paradigm for the study and without any actual studying there is no science.

Are you suggesting the US doesn't have more murders per capita than other developed nations? The stats can produce variations but the conclusion is the same every time, the US has more murders per capita than other developed nations. From there, it's seems important to me to figure out why. Seems a lot more important than playing around with the numbers to produce small variations and try to deny the fairly obvious major point.

That would require for me to accept the statistics as scientifically valid studies which I just went over. All these statistics prove is that, yes, murder does happen and that there "appears" to be variation.

Of course there's variation, and yes it's significant.

Oh, nice one. Pull out the World trade Centers, cry 9/11, and the world,especially americans, will jump to your cause. Btw, its more like 3 time the WTC death toll. Nice subtle use of an emotional issue in support of your side of the debate.

It's a measure of scale. People can see numbers in the thousand, and trick themselves into thinking that that's no big in a country of 300 million. It helps to bring it into scale by comparing it to something like 9/11. Probably was a little politically loaded, so I apologise for that. Don't know what else gives the same scale though.

Having said that, yes, murder is horrific. So are killer tsunamis, 8.+earthquakes, catagory 5 hurricanes, and the worst natural disaster of them all humanity. On purely philosophical levels I wonder, "How long we will cling to the idea of the sancitity of life?". I hold that our most reveered morals are purely situational at best. How valuable is human life in a world of 6 billion of mostly well fed people? Then, how valuable is that life in a world of 12 billion starving individuals? Yes, the act of murder is still horrific. But the rates can be viewed as acceptable when on a larger historical perspective. I admit to concern about man having circumvented the natural process of maintaining a balanced population. That we will grow unchecked until the morals we hold dear will have to be sacrificed on the alter of necessity.

Human life is valuable because that's all each of us. You can make hypothetical arguments all day long, until its you or your sister or whoever's life at stake. Then the importance of human life becomes very clear. From there you just make intuitive leap that everyone murdered had a life they valued as much as you value your own, a family like your own, and the tragedy becomes clear.

Looking forward and at the world that surrounds us makes it hard for me to accept the irrevocable sanctity of human life. When, even, our government has such a casual attitude toward the issue itself. Used to be better a guilty man goes free before we kill an innocent. Whether that was ever fully practiced I don't know but its what we were taught. Now that thought process has change to so if an innocent dies to keep the rest of us safe.
My stance on this issue stems from the words of Benjamin Franklin,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." To me this means that in a free society, we accept that there will always be threats on some level and it a part of the price for living within this system.

I think you've assumed I'm arguing for gun control. I'm not. I'm arguing for a real look at the causes of violent crime, and saying guns aren't it.

There's a problem with this solution. It requires a system of continual expansion. That is neither realistic or sustainable. I'm looking for a more natural solution. Something that balances with mankind no matter what his conditions. Problem is that that solution will probably be viewed as unacceptable because it allows for the fact that a free society will inevitably have a few idiots or sick individuals that will perpetrate these crimes.

No, I'm not. I'm looking to make improvement as each improvement is possible. There will always be killings, but each killing stopped is a person saved.

@both sebster and ghetto- Responsibility to not get murdered is to not do stupid things. Interviews with incarcerated offenders show there is usually a targeting process. The more complacent people become, the safer everyone feels, the less aware of their surroundings they become, are the things these criminals are looking for. Then there is just stupid life decisions to consider(choosing to join a criminal organization). Don't wave large sums of money in an impoverished area unless you want to be robbed. Don't be a part of a violent gang unless you're willing to be shot. Don't automatically assume that everywhere you go is safe, its what criminals are looking for. Don't always put your safety in someone else hands, they probably don't care as much about your life as you do. I've got enough to do watching out for my own life, family, and friends. Don't make me responsible for watching out for you also. Its down right inconsiderate.

I'm not arguing people get to be irresponsible. I'm not sure where you got that from. I am saying there are factors beyond the victim and the murderer. This seems almost a truism. Yet the obvious conclusion, 'do stuff about those factors' seems very contraversial.

If you paid attention, I was narrowing scope to see how the US was doing within our corner of the world: Americas -> N.Am -> US. The numbers show that the US is outperforming most of the rest of the Americas. So, for our size and diversity, the US is a pretty good place.

The notion that per-capita numbers have any meaning when not looking at the total population size is pretty foolish. You simply cannot rationally or fairly compare a small country like Oz with a vastly larger country like the USA, because the fundamental drivers scale differently. It'd be like me comparing Oz with Hong Kong (pop. ~7M; <1 murder per 10k people) and then wondering why Oz is such a horrible, crime-filled place of filthy gwailo/abo scum descended from the worst brigs and prisons of the British Empire... :S

The smaller the population, the easier it is to get a particuarlly good (or bad) "average" result, as the larger the population, the more likely it reverts toward the mean. That is why Oz will necessarily be worse than HK.

@ Sebster, will reply later. Dakka update just ate my carefully crafted reply and sweety is telling me its time to sleep.

@Reds8n, yes the wiki link you provided is my sweet beauty

i love her, and she takes care of me in return.


@most everyone bickering about numbers and scales, and proportions, per capita and all that good stuff... please keep in mind where the numbers come from, as many groups will skew numbers to show a result in favor of their cause. eg. a group who wants privately owned guns banned in the US, will show only evidence that supports their desire to ban firearms.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you paid attention, I was narrowing scope to see how the US was doing within our corner of the world: Americas -> N.Am -> US. The numbers show that the US is outperforming most of the rest of the Americas. So, for our size and diversity, the US is a pretty good place.

The US is a wonderful place, I want to go there in the near future. But it kills a lot more people than other developed countries.

The notion that per-capita numbers have any meaning when not looking at the total population size is pretty foolish. You simply cannot rationally or fairly compare a small country like Oz with a vastly larger country like the USA, because the fundamental drivers scale differently. It'd be like me comparing Oz with Hong Kong (pop. ~7M; <1 murder per 10k people) and then wondering why Oz is such a horrible, crime-filled place of filthy gwailo/abo scum descended from the worst brigs and prisons of the British Empire... :S

No, they don't. The fundamental drivers related to size are things both our countries have, such as large cities, are things both countries. And yes, and if I'd picked a single country as an outlier that would be different. I didn't. Australia is not an outlier, its about par with other Western nations.

Meanwhile, as the product of some truly obtuse thinking that that the primary factor to be considered was region. This led you to compare the US with a country famous for grossly corrupt law enforecement, low GDP per capita, poor income distribution, and chronic drug gang problems. Not surprisingly US murder rates looked quite good compared to Mexico.

The smaller the population, the easier it is to get a particuarlly good (or bad) "average" result, as the larger the population, the more likely it reverts toward the mean. That is why Oz will necessarily be worse than HK.

You haven't been reading the thread? I knew it. I had already made this comment;
"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

These are developed countries, that the US can be reasonably compared to. I've now listed eight developed countries, and only one of them isn't doubled by the US. Six are trebled by the US rate.

The US has a much higher murder rate than other developed countries. This is a thing that can't be argued.

"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

Australia: 21,468,700
France: 65,073,482
Japan: 127,433,494

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

Germany: 82,060,000
Poland: 38,116,000
Spain: 46,157,822
Canada: 33,525,000

United States: United States: 306,165,000 (woohoo, number three and climbing!)

If we are going to talk numbers we should also look at the overall population differences as well.

K, due to my awful english, i hope what i want to say didnt come out wrong lol.

IMO, gun usage increases exponentially . The more normal citzen , police has, the more the criminals will have.

They'll always out gun us, so the question is , do you perfer 1 mil criminals with weapon or 100,000 of them with weapon.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster, will reply later. Dakka update just ate my carefully crafted reply and sweety is telling me its time to sleep.

My sympathies. I hate it when that happens.

Ahtman wrote:

"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

Australia: 21,468,700
France: 65,073,482
Japan: 127,433,494

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

Germany: 82,060,000
Poland: 38,116,000
Spain: 46,157,822
Canada: 33,525,000

United States: United States: 306,165,000 (woohoo, number three and climbing!)

If we are going to talk numbers we should also look at the overall population differences as well.

The figures given were per capita. There is no relationship between population and murder rates once you're accounting at a per capita level. Otherwise Germany and Japan, the two highest would also have high murder rates... except they're the two lowest.

It just isn't a thing that can be debated. Is anyone here actually trying to say the US doesn't have a higher murder rate than other developed nations?

I never said your figures weren't per capita. I never said they were invalid or useless. I never said that the figures invalidated your argument. I never argued one way or the other. I just said that they may help in the overall discussion.

LunaHound wrote:K, due to my awful english, i hope what i want to say didnt come out wrong lol.

IMO, gun usage increases exponentially . The more normal citzen , police has, the more the criminals will have.

They'll always out gun us, so the question is , do you perfer 1 mil criminals with weapon or 100,000 of them with weapon.

the thing with most US gun laws, is that they're designed to allow law abiding citizens access to firearms. the problem is, most criminals get their firearms through illegal means ie, they stole them from another citizen.

no matter how many laws you pass to control firearms, there are those who will go around those laws and acquire them anyhow. it is my firm belief that gun control laws, at least in the US, should only be so far as to govern the licensing of them. most times, if you wish to buy a gun, there is a cursory background check done on you... so if you have a long history of mental illness, or violent crimes on your record, you probably arent going to get one through conventional means...whereas if you straight up ban firearms, you will effectively remove a large barrier that prevents many would-be robbers from breaking into a home.

You see I don't have a problem with people owning guns as such. I can especially understand it if you hunt or need one for your job. And at the end of the day what.. 98 ? 99 % of people who own them don't cause problems and it seems churlish to me to deprive people-- innocent people-- from something that they enjoy if they don't directly harm others. I can see how simple target shooting can appeal to people, or even like Mr. Grignard mentioned you just might enjoy the engineering or the technical aspects. That don't float my boat, but neither do lots of things.

And I think it's worth just pointing out there is gun control n the USA already-- licenses etc etc-- it's really just a question of the amount you have or should have really rather than a strict case of yes or no.

What I do find odd is the lack-- AFAIK, feel free to correct me here-- of any actual proficiency or testing that is required before you can buy and use a gun. Cars are often used as an example of something else that can be used to kill people-- somewhat disingenuously as that's not their primary function. And it's obvious that you have to have a basic level of skill and proficiency before you let people drive around as they are a danger not only to themselves but others. It just seems batshiot crazy that you don't have something similar for firearms, where the risk is almost entirely for other people.

I appreciate the argument is skewed as it is mentioned in the Constitution-- exactly how and to what level, the RAW and RAI is best left I think. We've gone over it several times and let's be honest, much better minds than us have to equally stalemated positions. But if it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution do people think that they would still be legal ?

Just to clarify or head off the most obvious "counters". Yes, I know that if guns were banned next week/whenever law abiding citizens would, criminals wouldn't.. blood on the streets... yadda yadda... too many to enforce etc etc.

Most people I've discussed this with-- and I'd say most people here-- seem to accept that some form of gun control ( even if it is the level you have already) is needed and works, I always just find it curious exactly how partisan the divide seems to be. But I've noticed from your last few elections and laws etc the country as a whole often really seems as if it is almost two entirely opposed factions with almost no middle or common ground at all. Is this right or is that a distorted perception skewed by internet and media coverage ?

Ahtman wrote:I never said your figures weren't per capita. I never said they were invalid or useless. I never said that the figures invalidated your argument. I never argued one way or the other. I just said that they may help in the overall discussion.

Fair enough, I probably jumped the gun. It's just... have you ever said something fairly straightforward and then sat there for a day while people misinterpret it or come up with some really silly arguments?

reds8n wrote:Most people I've discussed this with-- and I'd say most people here-- seem to accept that some form of gun control ( even if it is the level you have already) is needed and works, I always just find it curious exactly how partisan the divide seems to be. But I've noticed from your last few elections and laws etc the country as a whole often really seems as if it is almost two entirely opposed factions with almost no middle or common ground at all. Is this right or is that a distorted perception skewed by internet and media coverage ?

Yeah, this is kind of what I've been trying to get at. There's folk that believe that guns are just penis substitutes that turn folk into murderers. There's folk that believe guns are the absolute and only defence against the horde of psychopaths waiting to break in and the best defence against government going bad. Both views need a reality check.

@Reds8n:
You do have a point with the lack of training prior to buying a gun.

Our government counters this however, buy makeing people go through a (In my opinion) pretty good training course (at least in the state of Idaho) prior to getting a Concealed Carry Permit.

Im sure this varies from state to state, but from my life experiences from around here, most people know how to shoot a gun by the age of 6 (.22 cal) and by the age of 12 or 13 are activally our hunting and shooting with loved ones.

Around these parts, its common place to see people walking around packing heat. Now mind you its not cause were redneck white boys looking for a fight. Its not cause were all part of some ultra Militia looking to overthrow the government at any moment. Its not becuase were afraid that at any moment Russians are going to come dropping out of the sky like in Red Dawn either.

I do not believe that anyone can pinpoint exactly why we do what we do. Some could say thats its been a way of life for us since most of the towns around here started as Western Mining/logging towns.

Others can say that its tradition, where father would teach his son to shoot/hunt, then his son ect ect.

Guns have never killed anyone in the history of the world. People have killed people each and every time. Guns have just been a means to a end. Even if America banned every gun in the nation, Stores would still be robbed and people would be murdered... Only instead of being robbed at gunpoint or shot you would be robbed at Knifepoint and stabbed.... or something else.

I do not feel that America needs any more restrictions on any type of firearm that what is already in place.
In fact, I feel that the Importation of Machine guns for civilian use should be lifted. Keep the current checks and balances in place for legal use, just allow kits to be imported to bring the overinflated price down.

So Im sure the first thing im going to hear is something along the lines of......
"You must be Crazy! Why on gods green earth would you want a machine gun?? Think of the Law Enforcement nightmare that it would cause!!"

Yes, I have though of this and no im not crazy. If people honestly think that Legal Machine guns are being used today in shootings and robberies then they need to turn off the TV cause its just not that way.

A vast majority of shootings that involve a Full Auto gun are Semi autos that have been illegally modified into full auto. Reason being, if you spend $30,000+ on a gun, your not going to be very willing to just throw it away. Plus the mountain of paperwork behind each and every Class 3 would make it very easy to track down.

Right now you can legally make blanks for Full auto bolts (UNCUT) for just dollers. All you have to do is print it out, glue it on and cut on the dotted lines when the time comes.

(Please note.... its legal to own both the blank and the blueprint, but as soon as you make 1 cut it instantly becomes illegal without a Class 2.)

Id write more, but this is long enough lol.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc.

Because they are fun, and it is hard to hunt deer (to eat, not for sport) with a fork. They shouldn't be fun, but they are. I watched the Matrix and I know this.

whatwhat wrote:I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

sps? Society of Physics Students?

Google is your best friend.

Eh, as an American I don't mind. I don't own a gun mind you; nor will I probably ever own one. Anyway though, I don't know that I'd be too affected if guns were outlawed (then again I live in one of the safest cities in the US) but perhaps others would?

The other problem is that America is a lot different from Britain. Americans are just, eh...different in how we're brought up. It'd be too much of a culture shock to change which is the problem and I think that we'd go downhill.

It's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

**sigh**

If you want criminals to stay away, get a dog.

Generally criminals avoid houses with dogs (even child abusers - I read this from a proper university study, not the Internet, so you know).

Hunting Rifles - Keep them unloaded and locked up until hunting season.

handguns - you're more likely to hurt yourself if you have a handgun, because a criminal may take your gun and shoot you in the middle of you attempt to stop them.

Military-grade weapons - illegal. luckily. If you aren't a soldier or in switzerland (each adult male recieves one because of compulsory military, and they keep them in their homes. They have a low crime rate mainly because each house almost always has a gun in it - unlike most countries.) , keep away from these.

You may insult me or say I have no idea what i'm talking about, but I'll just ignore you.

Ungulateman:
Actually Military grade weapons are not illegal here in the states. Just really hard to get ahold of and cost a small fortune in cash.

http://www.autoweapons.com/home.html

http://www.nfasales.com/Weapons%20Page.htm

Just two sites of many
Not trying to start anything.

jp400 is pretty well correct...

"military grade" weapons arent illegal (M1911 anyone???)

i used to own an old Mauser 98k, prior to myself joining the army (parents didnt want to store it, and couldnt very well take it with me)

there ARE however restrictions on "assault weapons" which have to meet certain criteria. These also arent illegal, just much more heavily restricted and regulated. if memory serves me correctly, an assault weapon, is one which has any 2 of a small number of features, such as bayonet stud, the type of sight it used on the front, and rate of fire... so technically my "other" rifle, a Thompson Center .54 black powder, muzzle loading rifle, was technically an assault rifle, because of the sight, and its bayonet stud.

whatwhat wrote:

Grignard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've told you why.

Alright, moving on to someone who has something serious to contribute.

It is serious. Why else would someone feel 'empowered' or have fun by using, what is, an instrument of death?

Idiot.

Anyway, if I get a gun I want a Ak-47 It's a revolutionary weapon.

Good luck with that. The price of AK's have gone through the roof in the last three months, as have all similar rifles. Ammo is scarce as well. Went to Academy and then Wally world (Walmart) both were out of 9mms and .45 ACP. Even .22 LR was down to the dregs. Many people are worried that rifles will be made illegal, clips over a few rounds will be made illegal, and taxes on a per bullet basis will be put in place at the federal level.

hehe yup... i think that they finialy got it through thier head that they arnt gonna be able to ban the guns.

so now they will just tax the piss out of ammo. making hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, and plinking even more expensive.

9mm is still inexpensive. a box of 50 for 10 - 12 bucks. But 7.62 x .39 is crazy, picked up a box of remmington brass (i know... brass is pricy) 20 rounds for $17....... that isent even a full mag. i just need to get myself to our pawn shop and pick up all the wolf i can.

Ghetto_fight - you can get a WASR-10 for around $400 from century arms. get in touch with your local gun shop and have him order one for ya.

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

huh..... 80% more likely to be used for defence then to take a life.


on a more interesting note. arnt more human lives lost to smoking each year then to guns?? why dont we ban that.

and lets take a look at abortion. how many human lives are lost each year in america to that?? more then are lost to gun violence i think. lets ban that.

after all... if protecting human life is the REAL goal hear. there should be no question in banning the above 2

That smoking argument is ridiculous, the people who die from smoking choose to smoke. Most people don't choose to get shot in the face.

gamefreak wrote:i also think its that the poloticians think the citizens arent smart enough to do the responsible thing and they think they have to be our nanny and watch every thing we do because they are paranoid that their citizens will overthow them.

I agree that having a nanny state is a bad thing, but in all fairness, most 'average citizens' *aren't* smart enough to do the responsible thing. Unfortunately most people dont think things through at all. A lot of human beings unfortunately have knee-jerk, reactionary responses to things they dislike, often involving violence. Giving people the right to own a gun just makes this a bigger problem.


just my 2 cents.

Greebynog wrote:That smoking argument is ridiculous, the people who die from smoking choose to smoke. Most people don't choose to get shot in the face.

actually, id say that most deaths involving guns are gang related violence... and last time i checked you choose to be in a gang. for the ones that arent gang violence, ya probably didnt choose very good friends (the guy that dick cheney shot, anyone?)

Yeah, I cant believe how pricy ammo and guns have gone up in the last few months. I bought a Russian Milled Ak47 about 2 years ago for roughly $450. Now they are going for almost 1-2k.

Its sick.

Thank god I reload my own ammunition on top of that.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually, id say that most deaths involving guns are gang related violence... and last time i checked you choose to be in a gang. for the ones that arent gang violence, ya probably didnt choose very good friends (the guy that dick cheney shot, anyone?)

Could you at least pretend to back that up with some kind of information.

Envy89 wrote:on a more interesting note. arnt more human lives lost to smoking each year then to guns?? why dont we ban that.

and lets take a look at abortion. how many human lives are lost each year in america to that?? more then are lost to gun violence i think. lets ban that.

after all... if protecting human life is the REAL goal hear. there should be no question in banning the above 2

It’s not an interesting note. It’s a silly, silly note.

Smoking is regulated. Cigarettes can’t be sold to children. There are high taxes. This is much the same as guns.

Abortion is entirely different. A lot of people don’t think a collection of cells is the same thing as a living, breathing human. While this is disputed, it is a wholly different argument to gun control. Pretending otherwise is silly.

Cigarettes cant be sold to kids? Are you sure about that one? I remember buying them for my dad when I was around 10.

Not in Oz, they can't.

We have a whole "if unsure, ask for ID" policy for it too.

So kids just get grownups to do it. If the seller (is particularly law-abiding) thinks or suspects (or even sees/hears the kids do it) that the grownup is getting them for kids, they can refuse to sell to them.

jp400 wrote:Cigarettes cant be sold to kids? Are you sure about that one? I remember buying them for my dad when I was around 10.

I had assumed there were age restrictions on cigarettes in the US, same as here.

So a 10 year old can buy cigarettes in the US for himself?

chromedog wrote:Not in Oz, they can't.

We have a whole "if unsure, ask for ID" policy for it too.

So kids just get grownups to do it. If the seller (is particularly law-abiding) thinks or suspects (or even sees/hears the kids do it) that the grownup is getting them for kids, they can refuse to sell to them.

Or you just go to the right Korean deli. Every kid that smokes knows at least two that'll sell you cigarettes even if you're in school uniform.

sebster wrote:

jp400 wrote:Cigarettes cant be sold to kids? Are you sure about that one? I remember buying them for my dad when I was around 10.

I had assumed there were age restrictions on cigarettes in the US, same as here.

So a 10 year old can buy cigarettes in the US for himself?

Oh age restrictions apply. Just proving the point that even if rules are in place, that people can get passed them.

jp400 wrote:

sebster wrote:Oh age restrictions apply. Just proving the point that even if rules are in place, that people can get passed them.

No argument here, and the parallels to the gun debate are strong. One of the odd things about the gun debate is that people are always arguing about new laws, when it seems far simpler to start properly enforcing the ones already in place.

I agree that generally it is absurd to use nukes etc as an example.

....But.... beyond the wealth of all private citizens ? That I would say isn't true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a nuclear capable Bill gates/Ted Turner/Murdoch/Trump/bogeyman of your choice would be a good thing.

I'd also agree that many of the laws seem quite odd in where they draw the line and there is no doubt room for refinement. But all laws are a bit odd-- you can't drink when you are 20 years 364 days old but can the very next day, you are over the alcohol limit at X amount etc etc.

Not that I want to defend poorly thought out and implemented legislation, but you're not claiming that as something might be awkward to define or not please everyone it shouldn't be done or attempted are you ?

reds8n wrote:I agree that generally it is absurd to use nukes etc as an example.

....But.... beyond the wealth of all private citizens ? That I would say isn't true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a nuclear capable Bill gates/Ted Turner/Murdoch/Trump/bogeyman of your choice would be a good thing.

I'd also agree that many of the laws seem quite odd in where they draw the line and there is no doubt room for refinement. But all laws are a bit odd-- you can't drink when you are 20 years 364 days old but can the very next day, you are over the alcohol limit at X amount etc etc.

Not that I want to defend poorly thought out and implemented legislation, but you're not claiming that as something might be awkward to define or not please everyone it shouldn't be done or attempted are you ?

No, not exactly. Sure, what makes 18 the magic number for the line between adulthood and childhood? Nothing, it is arbitrary, but clearly children should not be expected to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, most people would agree with that I think. Obviously we wouldn't want to please criminals with our gun laws, no? I think we have these reasonable laws in place already though. In the US you have to be 21 to own a pistol, 18 for a long arm. Felons cannot purchase guns ( though I personally think that the individual nature of a persons crimes should be taken into account, and there should be a 10 year forgivness, but I dont make the laws). I don't think that laws restricting types or classes of weapons are right.

I think there is definitely something to be said about enforcement of existing laws, but i do think there are cases where you could go further.

Take the guy here for example. Would you not say that there would be a case for him losing his gun ownership privileges -- even if only for X amount of time and/or until he passed some form of competency test-- as he has proven by his actions that he clearly doesn't know how to handle guns safely.

BTW " 18 for a long arm."--- this mean rifle I assume ?

Yes long guns refers to rifles, carbines, shotguns, and TOW missile systems...

Edit: agreed, stupid people shouldn't 1) breed; 2) be allowed the use of firearms, chainsaws, or internal combustion engines-unless recorded on reality TV.

I can kind of see the age limit on hand guns. It is much easier to hide one to rob a store with.

But still. The idea that at 18 you can buy a 50 cal military grade sniper rifle (Funds permitting), but not a .22 single shot boot pistol is funny

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Any pussy can pull a trigger

Really? I had no idea... the things human anatomy can do is just amazing. Can you see that at a Vegas show or is it the kind of thing you have to Bangkok for?

Grignard wrote:Not getting that one.

Another thing I'd like to address that hasn't been tackled yet is that an argument has been made for gun control by using an absurd example to make a point...namely, using an extremely powerful and indiscriminate weapon as an example to illustrate the point that the government has to exercise control over individuals to protect the colletive. A good example is someone who says, " Well, you wouldn't want individuals owning, say, tactical nuclear warheads, would you? Therefore I say that you have to have *some* regulation of private ownership of arms." The obvious problem with this is that it is completely unnecessary to make any regulations of that sort at all? The sort of weapons used to illustrate that point, such as MBTs and nuclear warheads, are far beyond the resources of any private citizen to acquire and maintain. Therefore, I say, what is the point in a law that says I can't own a supersonic fighter-bomber or what not?

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

I bring this up because you can't simultaneously claim that using the 2nd amendment as a means of holding the government in check is silly and then a few minutes later use extremely powerful weapon systems as examples of why the government should regulate private ownership of weapons. If you need to regulate weapons of that sort, then obviously weapons ownership is indeed a threat to the government. If you claim that armed citizens are impotent against an army equipped with modern weapon systems, then you can't really use multimillion dollar weapon systems as examples. You can't have it both ways.

You've got the argument around the wrong way. You can't maintain that guns are needed to defend against government, and that large scale weapons are beyond the reach of the general population.

Not that the guns to keep government in line argument works in the slightest anyway. It relies on this comic book idea of a government 'turning evil', when truth is tyranical governments maintain the support of the majority of the population. Even if such a rebellion occurs, organisation and secrecy are far harder to achieve than accessing small arms.

Guns simply have nothing to do with maintaining decent government.

Another gripe I have is that these laws don't seem to be consistent, and they also seem to be made by people who know very little about guns. A good example is that for a long time, magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds were banned. Actually, you could possess them or purchase them for that matter, as long as they were manufactured prior to the passage of this law. In other words, the law didn't do anything at all but artificially limit the supply, therefore the cost, of these "hi-cap" magazines. So I have to be wealthy to have 18 rounds in my glock, and if I'm not the government only trusts me with 10 at a time???

The gun laws you have are the result of bizarre compromise between hardened anti-gun and hardened pro-gun people. They make no sense. If both sides could come to the table and look towards addressing the issue in a real, substantive way, you'd get laws that are less intrusive and more effective. That doesn't seem likely though, everyone is so extreme.

The difference between the ages for pistols and rifles, is that related to the wait for pistols/handguns --cooling off period or something was/is it ?-- and the "fact" that you can walk out with a rifle straight away ?

assuming that is still/was ever the case anyway.

hear in IL.

when you turn 18 you can buy rifels, shotguns, carbines ect ect... basicaly everything but pistols.

when your 21 you can go buy a pistol.

i know for the long guns you walk in, put some money down on it. they do a back ground check and you can come in and pick it up 24 hours later.

i think for handguns there is a 3 day wait.

reds8n wrote:The difference between the ages for pistols and rifles, is that related to the wait for pistols/handguns --cooling off period or something was/is it ?-- and the "fact" that you can walk out with a rifle straight away ?

assuming that is still/was ever the case anyway.

In both Tennessee and Colorado ( states where I have purchased guns ) there is no waiting period. If they make a call to whomever in that particular state is responsible for this sort of thing, and you come back clean, you pay your money and you walk out with the gun, long or handgun. It is no different than purchasing a plasma TV or miniatures or whatever, except with weapons it is reasonable to want to check if you're on the up and up, so to speak. If I'm not breaking the law, then there shouldn't be a wait for something I have a right to have.

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:Not getting that one.

Another thing I'd like to address that hasn't been tackled yet is that an argument has been made for gun control by using an absurd example to make a point...namely, using an extremely powerful and indiscriminate weapon as an example to illustrate the point that the government has to exercise control over individuals to protect the colletive. A good example is someone who says, " Well, you wouldn't want individuals owning, say, tactical nuclear warheads, would you? Therefore I say that you have to have *some* regulation of private ownership of arms." The obvious problem with this is that it is completely unnecessary to make any regulations of that sort at all? The sort of weapons used to illustrate that point, such as MBTs and nuclear warheads, are far beyond the resources of any private citizen to acquire and maintain. Therefore, I say, what is the point in a law that says I can't own a supersonic fighter-bomber or what not?

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

No one had a problem educating me to make explosives then trusting me not to blow up your house. So no, not really.

You've got the argument around the wrong way. You can't maintain that guns are needed to defend against government, and that large scale weapons are beyond the reach of the general population.

Not that the guns to keep government in line argument works in the slightest anyway. It relies on this comic book idea of a government 'turning evil', when truth is tyranical governments maintain the support of the majority of the population. Even if such a rebellion occurs, organisation and secrecy are far harder to achieve than accessing small arms.

Guns simply have nothing to do with maintaining decent government.

sebster wrote:

You're taking a deliberately extreme example and taking it at face value. Instead of a tactical nuke, think instead of commercially available explosives. Do you really want the ability to demolish a building to be unregulated.

actually, the "ability to demolish buildings" is already regulated. If you take the courses, have the licenses, and are generally clean, you can purchase things like dynamite from small, explosives dealers. That said, however generally speaking, taking those courses generally means that you have a job or otherwise income generating lifestyle that may require the use of such items, ie. farmers sometimes use it for stump clearing in fields, demolitions companies, for obvious reasons.

of course, there are ways around said regulations and laws.. anyone who has seen or read Fight Club will know a few ways of making decent explosives.

The point is, that by tracking the names of individuals with licenses, whether its firearms, explosives, or vehicles, tends to make some things in the law enforcement side easier when things go wrong.

(my bold)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

WHouse stops pending Bush regulations for review
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.

"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.

The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.

Midnight regulations have been heavily used by recent former presidents, including the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George H. W. Bush, and most recently, the Republican George W. Bush.

Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks and prohibiting medical facilities from receiving federal money for discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse to assist with abortions or dispense contraceptives based on religious grounds.

Federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major regulatory changes become law, so some presidents try to publish new major regulations to ensure they go into effect before the new president's inauguration on January 20.

They stopped ALL the legislation though right ?


.... and why would you need a concealed wepaon in a National Park anyway ?

1. Some of the areas encompass hundreds of square miles-you're literally by yourself. Edit: I should note Reds8n we're not talking like city parks here, but large undeveloped forested or arid areas. The Fed Gov is the largest landholder in the western US.

2. Forgetting mountain lions, bears, etc. I'd be worried about the people. I came across some "interesting" characters when I used to hike the forest/mountain area above LA. Mt. Baldy also had some interesting people on occasion.

reds8n wrote:They stopped ALL the legislation though right ?


.... and why would you need a concealed wepaon in a National Park anyway ?

I'm lukewarm on that one too, because of poaching issues. Furthermore, I wouldn't trust any handgun I could pack in and actually be light enough for backpacking to stop a bear, for instance. I believe you'd be much better off avoiding the situation or using a pepper based repellent, which you're less likely to miss with, and is also useful against people.

The problem is that the law is not consistent. It is a little odd you can get a concealed carry permit for the state in question, but you can't carry it into the park.

Thank you Mr. Frazzled, I know that-- we've seen Yogi Bear.

I can see how it might be awkward if you meet people who are a bit ...."odd. The sort of wierdo who might carry a concealed gun for example.

..But-- and correct me if I'm wrong here-- would you not be allowed to carry hunting rifles/similar anyway then ?

No. no hunting rifles. I am not a hunter, but don't think you can hunt on federal lands (freely admit I might be wrong).

I'm not concerned with bears, but would be concerned with mountain lions. They do attack people in the west and I've actually come across one (well a bear too but the bear didn't bug me-the cat could have been a problem).

Again, its the people. Lots of pot growing on federal lands and you could stumble on that. As noted I've stumbled on interesting folks in the past but won't say more on that on the intranets.

Of course, nothing gets your heart going like hearing male gators in front of you, then to the side of you, then behind you...

Hmm,
I know around here people do it all the time in the parks when camping due to the fact of hostile wildlife.

I know for myself, that I would much rather have almost any gun over pepper spray. Just for the fact that ive seen people spray into the wind and nail themselfs in the process of useing it. (not as bad as the victems, but still)

So I guess what im saying is that im FOR CCW in parks.

Off topic.....
Anyone hear any new info on the right to carry on College Grounds?