7926
Post by: youbedead
I find it very odd that 90% of my gaming group have concealed carry permits, and every single one of them
is apparently a damn expert on every type of firearm out there.
So is this just a oddity or is every person who plays 40K a gun nut.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
Everyone in my group owns atleast one firearm and knows how to use them, and a couple of us know about weapons other than those we own for one reason or another. I was born into a gun savy family and learned that way, even still I've had a gun no no, which you learn from real fast, though thats not reliant to the discussion.
Due to many of the people that play the game living in Great Britain or somewhere in the EU I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that not everyone that plays 40k is a gun nut.
11542
Post by: Elric of Grans
I thought it was just that all Yanks are gun-nuts. That is how it looks to the rest of the world at least.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
Not quite true, a couple friends of mine aren't gun nuts, nor do they play Warhammer or 40k for that matter.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
as far as i know no one in my group has fire arms, may be a colonial thing that means you carry guns
10086
Post by: Neconilis
We're all cowboys too, us Americans will kill a man just for thinking to look at us cross-eyed. Or maybe we're just like everyone else in the world but our country still lets us own 'some' firearms, albeit with ever increasing restrictions.
To answer your question though, now that I think about it I and 2 of my friends that I game with own guns. Nothing we carry with us though. But living in MA that wouldn't happen even if we wanted to.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
If paintball guns count, um, I've got about 20 guns.
I intend to get a pistol one of these days when I can talk my wife into it.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Reaver83 wrote:as far as i know no one in my group has fire arms, may be a colonial thing that means you carry guns
I also do not know a single person with a firearm.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
I think I'm the only person with a gun permit at my FLGS, but it gives me an excuse to push the bigger people around (I'm fairly short compared to most boys my age). I just reach into my wallet and meaningfully fiddle with my permit card.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
we got a few people in my shop with carry permits, myself included. i own a few rifles, an assault rifle and a few pistols, including a Glock that is my carry piece.
7189
Post by: MrGiggles
Most people in my group are aware of firearms in terms of generally what does what. I'm a bit of a history buff, so I've a little more background on some of the older weapons. In all honesty though, the only folks I've run into who I'd call really knowledgeable are the players who work in military or law enforcement occupations. Even then, those folks are too busy painting and playing with their little army men to be real gun nuts.
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
I have loads of guns... toy ones... in 28mm scale... attached to what my Granny used to call "little soldiers".
14793
Post by: karnaeya
None of my gaming friends have guns. But some of my workfriends do. Not me though Im all about peace and love.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Well, in Arizona, you can open carry without a permit, so most of my friends own guns; fewer carry, and fewer still have permits. At both the FLGS's I worked at allowed carry in the store, but it was concealed only. (Even if you don't have a permit you're allowed to conceal if the the store owner(s) allow it.)
5070
Post by: dr vompire
Reaver83 wrote:as far as i know no one in my group has fire arms, may be a colonial thing that means you carry guns
Ad, Army Dave is in the Army, I asume he has some access to maybe some sort of spud gun or something, other than that no.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Well, around where I live pretty much everyone has a couple of rifles or a shotgun. But where I play, the closest city to my house, no one there has any guns that I know of.
23
Post by: djones520
I don't know about to many people in my group. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment though. Hate living in Illinois. I own 2 firearms right now, and I'll be picking up a third this summer.
23
Post by: djones520
And why am I not suprised that none of the British posters in here own firearms. Don't you guys have to sell your 1st child to get a permit or something?
818
Post by: Sincity
djones520 wrote:And why am I not suprised that none of the British posters in here own firearms. Don't you guys have to sell your 1st child to get a permit or something?
I understood it to be they have to sponsor two spy-cams (which are never aimed at terrorists) , have the firearm broken down into two or more parts , kept in separate locked boxes in separate bank vault. The keys must be kept in a third bank vault that only the comun.. err government has permission to open. They then must pay a 15% VAT for the good buggering their masters are giving them. Bullets however are out of the question.
I find this question to be extremely offensive. As if owning or knowing about guns is "nutty".
9269
Post by: RabbiTucker
With the exception of those who are active millitary or law enforcement, people I play 40K with usually don't own firearms. Of those who do, I would not categorize them as "gun nuts."
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
I, for one, am quite the sports-shooting fan. I do not, however, support the legality of automatic weapons. Those are military-issue for a reason; they're designed to kill lots of people very quickly. If America didn't legalise automatics, it would be a lot better off. We don't need this 'A man has a right to own a gun' bs. By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
But what happens when the police come after you? Your gonna need that Ass Rifle when you have to Rambo on their ass. Seriously though if you own an Assault rifle it should be for shooting range only and be kept at the range under lock and key. In Canada it takes a special permit that is much harder to acquire than a regular gun license and once you have it it must be kept in a locked safe when not on range. (I believe that includes travelling to and from the range as well.)
818
Post by: Sincity
I'm OK with Aussies and Knooks not having firearms , your funeral. However , in the USA , we DO have the right to own and carry arms. It's no BS boys. The government cannot take that from us , only we the people can do that. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. If the people ever want to do that , then I will abide by their will. It will not happen , in my life time , in America though.
In my group we have two active members in the armed forces and two police officers. I play with a group of about 20+. Four of us (that I know of) have concealed carry permits plus the officers. No one has ever been injured on gamming nights.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
I own a S&W .40 ACP for home defense along with a Remington 12 guage, a winchester .306, and a .22 rifle for hunting/varmint shooting. The long guns are all in the cabinet. The .40 ACP is kept close at hand in the bedroom locked and loaded. An empty/disassembled gun is a worthless gun - especially at 3 am when someone is in the hallway.
As a note, I'm in The US Army and there are no children in the house. When deployed I carry an M9 berretta 9 mil and an M4A2 with ACOG and surefire light.
I don't consider myself a gun nut. I simply consider myself an upstanding US citizen who is committed to defending his rights, his family, his home, and his country. Oh, I do not have a concealed carry permit simply because I haven't gotten around to getting one.
23
Post by: djones520
Sincity wrote:I'm OK with Aussies and Knooks not having firearms , your funeral. However , in the USA , we DO have the right to own and carry arms. It's no BS boys. The government cannot take that from us , only we the people can do that. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. If the people ever want to do that , then I will abide by their will. It will not happen , in my life time , in America though.
In my group we have two active members in the armed forces and two police officers. I play with a group of about 20+. Four of us (that I know of) have concealed carry permits plus the officers. No one has ever been injured on gamming nights.
It's not quite that hard. Take a look at Illinois. I've got to get the states permission to possess firearms. And it's about a 6 month process IF you have a clean record.
818
Post by: Sincity
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As a note, I'm in The US Army and there are no children in the house. When deployed I carry an M9 berretta 9 mil and an M4A2 with ACOG and surefire light.
Thank you for your service Sarge from a retired E7 in the Army Airborne.
818
Post by: Sincity
djones520 wrote:It's not quite that hard. Take a look at Illinois. I've got to get the states permission to possess firearms. And it's about a 6 month process IF you have a clean record.
Well , look at the bright side , Chicago is on the terrorist hit list , one of these days there are going to be a lot less libs in your state. Change the law then.
But you are correct , The Constitution is only protection from federal law. However it is held by the supreme court that THE Constitution over rides state constitutions when the two are in conflict.
23
Post by: djones520
Sincity wrote:djones520 wrote:It's not quite that hard. Take a look at Illinois. I've got to get the states permission to possess firearms. And it's about a 6 month process IF you have a clean record.
Well , look at the bright side , Chicago is on the terrorist hit list , one of these days there are going to be a lot less libs in your state. Change the law then.
But you are correct , The Constitution is only protection from federal law. However it is held by the supreme court that THE Constitution over rides state constitutions when the two are in conflict.
Just wish someone would take the effort up here. I'm not an Illinois state resident. I claim Michigan as home. Just stationed here.
14676
Post by: LiterateWolf
youbedead wrote:I find it very odd that 90% of my gaming group have concealed carry permits, and every single one of them
is apparently a damn expert on every type of firearm out there.
So is this just a oddity or is every person who plays 40K a gun nut.
I am offended by the use of "gun nut". In the USA, citizens have the right to bear arms. Doing so doesn't make one crazy as long as no laws are broken. Nothing wrong having a firearm for practice at a range and personal defense. Please, don't call gun owners nuts just for exercising our Constitutional rights.
To answer your question, in my 40k group, we either own a firearm or 4 with knowledge to use them safely or have the knowledge but not the gun. Gun rentals in my town are very high so some of us are out of practice.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Sincity wrote:I understood it to be they have to sponsor two spy-cams (which are never aimed at terrorists) , have the firearm broken down into two or more parts , kept in separate locked boxes in separate bank vault. The keys must be kept in a third bank vault that only the comun.. err government has permission to open. They then must pay a 15% VAT for the good buggering their masters are giving them. Bullets however are out of the question.
Strange, I assumed they just threw you in jail for even asking. Why would anyone but a terrorist (or I guess a cowboy, lolz) want a gun anyway? 
4977
Post by: jp400
Cheese Elemental wrote:I, for one, am quite the sports-shooting fan. I do not, however, support the legality of automatic weapons. Those are military-issue for a reason; they're designed to kill lots of people very quickly. If America didn't legalise automatics, it would be a lot better off. We don't need this 'A man has a right to own a gun' bs. By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
Ok stop right there........ Dont talk about what you dont know.
Its plain as day that you think America is like what you see in Hollywood Movies. Very few crimes in america are commited with a Full auto firearm. Of those only a tiny fraction are commited with a LEGAL Full Auto Firearm. Most are illegal conversions built on either stolen firearms or illegal kits. Banning firearms isnt going to solve this problem, only proper enforcement of current laws will have any real impact on the bad guys. We already have a very large amount of firearm laws in this country.. so many in fact that its hard to enforce them. Adding more laws isnt going to help anyone.
Also America never legalized Automatics. They were in this country as soon as they were invented. Hell you used to be able to go to the drug store and buy a Thompson SMG with a drum mag for under $50. Our country only stopped the import of them for private use in the hopes that some day they would phase out.
I own more then 30+ firearms at this very moment, but that number changes from month to month. I am currently working my way through the red tape to hopefully one day become a Class 2 manufacturer and Class 3 Dealer. Yes that means I want to legally buy, sell, and build full auto firearms and destructive devices for other people who can legally own/use such things in both commercial and private sales.
What really gets me is how all you people without american flags next to your name seem to think that America is exactly like what some bad Hollywood movies depict. I hate to break your little cush bubble, but we cant buy Assault Rifles off the shelf at any gun show table or store. We are not all running around with a Six shooter on our hip forming lynch mobs and possies, and We are not driveing around shooting Chicago Typewriters out our car windows screaming "Cant Catch me Coppers See!"
Its sad that your government is so overcontrolling that you cant go outside and enjoy a fine sunny sunday afternoon shooting with some friends at pop cans or rodents with firearms. Its not our fault that at some point in time you all bent over backwards and didnt put up a fight while they took some of your freedoms away. So why dont you drop the whole "America is the wild west" attitude and accept the fact that this is our way of life and a majority of us enjoy it this way.
Judgeing by some of the tones of posters in here Im not the only American thats sick and tired of your oversees views of us. Sorry our country is so fethed up... I guess next time we wont bail you all out when some new dictator comes around and tries to enslave your countries. Or better yet, I guess we can stop sending you all trillions of dollers in Free Aid every year to bail you out from some disaster or another. Next time Call Russia or France.
14357
Post by: spartanghost
I know one person that i play with owns a few firearms, but the general consensus in the great white north is that they're not really needed by the average joe. You can get them, and i greatly enjoy range shooting, but I don't have one simply for the lack of necessity. Why would I need to carry a loaded gun in public? All it does is intimidate people, which isn't something i want to do.
5534
Post by: dogma
jp400 wrote:
Its sad that your government is so overcontrolling that you cant go outside and enjoy a fine sunny sunday afternoon shooting with some friends at pop cans or rodents with firearms. Its not our fault that at some point in time you all bent over backwards and didnt put up a fight while they took some of your freedoms away. So why dont you drop the whole "America is the wild west" attitude and accept the fact that this is our way of life and a majority of us enjoy it this way.
I doubt anyone here is unwilling to accept the present state of American culture. They might not like it, but that's an issue which is separate from acceptance.
jp400 wrote:
Judgeing by some of the tones of posters in here Im not the only American thats sick and tired of your oversees views of us. Sorry our country is so fethed up... I guess next time we wont bail you all out when some new dictator comes around and tries to enslave your countries. Or better yet, I guess we can stop sending you all trillions of dollers in Free Aid every year to bail you out from some disaster or another. Next time Call Russia or France.
The US doesn't send aid to any of the nations represented on Dakka.
11440
Post by: Todosi
Cheese Elemental wrote:I, for one, am quite the sports-shooting fan. I do not, however, support the legality of automatic weapons. Those are military-issue for a reason; they're designed to kill lots of people very quickly. If America didn't legalise automatics, it would be a lot better off. We don't need this 'A man has a right to own a gun' bs. By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
I'm glad you enjoy your shooting sports. Just for your information, fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1935. So do all us "Yanks" a favor and don't spout off about what you know little about.
Also FYI, "Assault Weapons" are not necessarily fully automatic. In my own state, "The people's Republic of Kalifornia" the "banned Assault Weapons" is an arbitrary list of weapons that the State deems too dangerous.
And as for your last comment...keep it to yourself. I don't enforce my will on what kind of car you drive, or house you buy or stocks you invest in. So please don't tell others what personal property they should or should not buy.
Can ya tell I'm an armorer by trade?
Back on the original topic, In my gaming group, there are three of about 8 people that own and actively shoot. Three of us (the armorers) are probably safe to call gun nuts.
With respect to all,
Todosi
7991
Post by: Grunt13
Does owning a gun make you a gun nut? I have a dog, am a dog nut as well?
I have a fire extinguisher, several first aid kits, a car emergency kit in my truck, and a 9mm pistol. I also have coyotes living nearby.
I almost never wear my gun unless I am going to the shooting range. But if I am ever injured by an armed attacker in a designated no firearm area like a college for example, I will be part of the inevitable class action suit.
Guns in the hands of responsible, moral citizens makes for a safer environment. My brother lives in Arizona, which is a big firearm state. A lot of people have guns and it is one of the safest states in America in terms of violet crime or invasion of property.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
I didn't say firearms are banned in Oz, just automatics and pump shotguns. We can still own .35 cal magnums and bolt-action rifles at least, so we'll be fine in the zombie apocalypse.
7991
Post by: Grunt13
Cheese Elemental wrote:I didn't say firearms are banned in Oz, just automatics and pump shotguns. We can still own .35 cal magnums and bolt-action rifles at least, so we'll be fine in the zombie apocalypse.
Make sure to arm yourself with a close combat weapon as well, they don't run out of ammo.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Surprisingly, Oz has no restrictions on deadly melee weapons. I own a shortsword, buckler, a katana, a medieval knight's helm, metal gauntlets and a mace, so if any hooligans step onto my lawn, I'll smash their fething balls.
11298
Post by: anticitizen013
I'm in the military and thus am trained on many different weapon systems, however I do not own any myself. Yet. I love shooting so I am most likely going to invest in a license and a firearm of some type in the future. As far as my gaming group goes... one of them was in the military at some point, and another is just joining now.
7991
Post by: Grunt13
Cheese Elemental wrote:Surprisingly, Oz has no restrictions on deadly melee weapons. I own a shortsword, buckler, a katana, a medieval knight's helm, metal gauntlets and a mace, so if any hooligans step onto my lawn, I'll smash their fething balls.
I wished CT was like that. It's illegal to own a lot of melee weapons here, I know that throwing knives are outlawed here - there was once a time where I thought it would be a cool trick to learn. I remember reading that at one time in California's history possession of an unregister firearm was a misdemeanor while owning a blow gun was a felony.
4977
Post by: jp400
The Republic Of Kalifornia has some strange laws indeed. I feel sorry for anyone who loves such things and lives within its republic lines....
14357
Post by: spartanghost
Cheese Elemental wrote:Surprisingly, Oz has no restrictions on deadly melee weapons. I own a shortsword, buckler, a katana, a medieval knight's helm, metal gauntlets and a mace, so if any hooligans step onto my lawn, I'll smash their fething balls.
No chainsword?
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Oh, an chehnsworrrd? Aren't we snooty? Well, let's see how your high-tech mumbo-jumo fares when I'm beating you to death with your own spine.
For the record, I forgot I own a pair of hookswords as well. Cost me a fortune.
14357
Post by: spartanghost
edit: Removing somehow delayed double post.
4977
Post by: jp400
Cheese Elemental wrote: Well, let's see how your high-tech mumbo-jumo fares when I'm beating you to death with your own spine.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
You wanna try firing that thing?
There's poison on the grip! You're already dead! HAHAHAHAHAHA! How are you gonna shoot me now?
4977
Post by: jp400
That thing is a Rem 870 12 guage shotgun. It hardly has any kick, espically with a quality Knox Stock.
How am I going to shoot you if your going for my spine?
The traditional way... one round at a time.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
I own 3 shotguns, and a semi automatic 7.62 SKS. I do volunteer at least once a month on a sunday pulling clay targets at my local trap and skeet club for the regulars and other folks that come by. There is a sherrif's deputy who is a regular in my gaming group. I'm sure at one or two others shoot too.
I'm happy to perpetuate the myth that America is still the Wild West in regards to firearms. It'll keep all of you scared foreigners off our soil!
4977
Post by: jp400
You know VermGho5t, thats a good point...
Forget everything ive said in this post!
Everyone here is running around with a full auto M-4 Carbine and .50 cals mounted to pickup trucks. The government issues us all Uzi's or Mac 10's on our 18th B-day and Mexico reallly is getting Military assault rifles and grenades from our gun shops and flea markets!
Stay off our Lawn!
WOLVERINES!
7926
Post by: youbedead
Grunt13 wrote:Cheese Elemental wrote:Surprisingly, Oz has no restrictions on deadly melee weapons. I own a shortsword, buckler, a katana, a medieval knight's helm, metal gauntlets and a mace, so if any hooligans step onto my lawn, I'll smash their fething balls.
I wished CT was like that. It's illegal to own a lot of melee weapons here, I know that throwing knives are outlawed here - there was once a time where I thought it would be a cool trick to learn. I remember reading that at one time in California's history possession of an unregister firearm was a misdemeanor while owning a blow gun was a felony.
Hey just use the russian technique, no special knives needed, and a hell of alot effective in combat.
2324
Post by: RandomX
I am a career military man (Cav Scout), and I have shot a LOT during the last 10 years. Professionally, that is. Personally, I have not shot once, outside a range. Which is how it should be. But if I hear shooting, or someone attacks me, well I got something for 'em.
I am a CC licence holder and a resident of the state of Texas, though I was born and raised in Arizona. I own weapons, and carry.
The 2nd Amendment is the single most important amendment that we have, in that it allows us to protect everything else given to us in that document, and to protect ourselves from tyrannical government.
And as others have mentioned, an armed society is a polite society.
And lastly, saying that guns kill people is like saying the spoon makes you fat. It all depends on the persons will to cause violence. If a person is deadset of causing harm to someone else, they will use whatever gets the job done easiest. Unfortunatly, that is firearms.
And for all of m passion for firearms....all of my armies are CC based.
14171
Post by: Gandair
No guns, but all of us have a history in melee weapons combat. Most of us still have our weapons, but I seem to be the only one who regularly goes to the combat practices anymore.
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
It's not guns that kill people, it's manoeuvres, as Izzard pointed out.
Personally I'm happy to live in the UK, and (given the low level of murders & firearms crimes in the UK), to not own a gun.
I agree that guns are inherently cool, and that when owned by responsible people, they're fine. I would feel quite responsible enough to own anything up to thermonuclear weaponry; in fact, I trust myself to wield power far more than I trust any governments.
1270
Post by: Osbad
In my view its not the owning of a firearm that makes you a nut. It is the relishing the prospect of using it on a human being. That latter is the nutty part. I'm sorry if I cause anyone on this board offence, but frankly in my book desiring such a thing is certifiable-level insanity!
11608
Post by: Mango
1. A firearm is a tool, nothing more.
2. A firearm is a mechanical device.
3. It uses a chemical propellant to push a lump of metal at high speed with some degree of accuracy.
That is what they are designed to do. The people are the problem, not the tools. I own 3 firearms. 1 Shotgun and two pistols. I am 36, I have owned a firearm since I was 12. Outside of the military, I have never fired a gun in anger. Any tool can be misused. Knives can kill a person. Yet just about everyone uses a knife. Most of us daily.
The right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected. Apparently the founding father's thought it was important enough to actually put it in the constitution. They put it in for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest, was that they knew the biggest check on an over reaching government was an armed populace.
On a side note, yes every country represented on dakka receives US aid. One of the reasons that European countries do not have to spend as much money on their militaries, is that the US subsidizes the cost by carrying the burden. It's called NATO. Since they don't spend money on the military, they can spend it on social programs.
7107
Post by: Tek
djones520 wrote:And why am I not suprised that none of the British posters in here own firearms. Don't you guys have to sell your 1st child to get a permit or something?
Sincity wrote:
I understood it to be they have to sponsor two spy-cams (which are never aimed at terrorists) , have the firearm broken down into two or more parts , kept in separate locked boxes in separate bank vault. The keys must be kept in a third bank vault that only the comun.. err government has permission to open. They then must pay a 15% VAT for the good buggering their masters are giving them. Bullets however are out of the question.
I had to look it up, so here's what Wiki has to say: Wikipedia wrote:All firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a firearm certificate (FAC) or a shotgun certificate.
Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[4] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.
A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except, optionally, where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range).
To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued.
Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.[5] Similarly, persons applying for licences with recent, serious mental health issues will also be refused a certificate.
Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a license is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.
The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.[6]
In addition, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 increased restrictions on the use, ownership, sale and manufacture of both airguns and imitation firearms.[7]
jp400 wrote:That thing is a Rem 870 12 guage shotgun. It hardly has any kick, espically with a quality Knox Stock. How am I going to shoot you if your going for my spine? The traditional way... one round at a time.
Are you aiming a gun at a cameraman? Isn't that a little unsafe? I think I've spoken about the cultural differences between our two nations before, and of course the notion of 'legal' firearms is alien to us Brits, and I doubt we'll ever be able to agree on it tbh. Personally I'm pretty scared of guns. I'm certain if I had one I'd be too tempted to fire it. All the fething time. Again, this is a social / cultural difference as were I born in Arizona for example, I would most likely view a gun in a similar manner to a can opener, or a gintrap. I think attacking one another with insults on one another's nations is pretty fething childish however; "We like it the way it is". That's what both parties are saying. You know what? Good. Gun owners would hate living in the UK. So it's a good job they don't. People who don't own guns would hate living in a country rife with firearms. By and large; they don't.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Im not much of a gunnut
Real gun: SA80 (gakky military issue :()
Airsoft: G3, M14, MP5-K, MP5-PDW, M4 carbine (list goes on, needless to say i love my airsoft guns )
Air rifles: about 9 or 10 old BSA rifles
221
Post by: Frazzled
Cheese Elemental wrote:I, for one, am quite the sports-shooting fan. I do not, however, support the legality of automatic weapons. Those are military-issue for a reason; they're designed to kill lots of people very quickly. If America didn't legalise automatics, it would be a lot better off. We don't need this 'A man has a right to own a gun' bs. By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
Don't have a clue do you? Automatic weapons-aka MACHINE GUNS-require a special license. Very few people have it.
It helps to have some knowledge of the actual topic before you type.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
youbedead wrote:I find it very odd that 90% of my gaming group have concealed carry permits, and every single one of them
is apparently a damn expert on every type of firearm out there.
So is this just a oddity or is every person who plays 40K a gun nut.
My group are as well, but I hardly find it nutty.
They are all police and military.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Cheese Elemental wrote:I, for one, am quite the sports-shooting fan. I do not, however, support the legality of automatic weapons. Those are military-issue for a reason; they're designed to kill lots of people very quickly. If America didn't legalise automatics, it would be a lot better off. We don't need this 'A man has a right to own a gun' bs. By all means own a gun, but you won't ever need an automatic weapon.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you have all of your information.
- Automatic weapons are not generally available. People have to have specail permits, pay the appropriate fees, and register thier purchases with alot of different departments. It isn't something that just any Joe Shmoe can do. It's difficult and costly.
- In America, being able to own weapons is one of the freedoms that people have. It goes along with having the right to work where you want to, or own property by just buying or paying for it. Some people can get excited when you start talking about what people are supposed to do, or Rights, or Freedoms. If someone really wants to have a conversation of that nature, I really don't think a gaming forum is the place for it.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
I live in Hackney, East London. So I'm never more than a few metres from an illegal firearm, right? 
Having said that, I have never even seen a gun that wasn't on a police officer or a soldier. Nobody I know owns a gun, much less in my gaming group.
djones520 wrote:I don't know about to many people in my group. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment though. Hate living in Illinois. I own 2 firearms right now, and I'll be picking up a third this summer.
jp400 wrote:What really gets me is how all you people without american flags next to your name seem to think that America is exactly like what some bad Hollywood movies depict. I hate to break your little cush bubble, but we cant buy Assault Rifles off the shelf at any gun show table or store. We are not all running around with a Six shooter on our hip forming lynch mobs and possies, and We are not driveing around shooting Chicago Typewriters out our car windows screaming "Cant Catch me Coppers See!"
It would be silly to assume that we all think everyone in America walks around with loaded guns in their pockets. However, a few people in this thread HAVE mentioned their 'carry' pieces.
The 2nd Amendment on the other hand is one of the greatest RAW vs RAI conflict in history, right?
The 2nd Amendment wrote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, RAW everyone in the US can have guns.
But, RAI everyone should also form themselves into an organised militia to use them, right?
If someone is a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, they should also be part a militia organisation? You know, a non-government controlled paramilitary force??? I have a sneaky feeling that's illegal even in the US...
Not running around forming posses? By the 2nd Amendment, you should be....
3806
Post by: Grot 6
ArbitorIan wrote:I live in Hackney, East London. So I'm never more than a few metres from an illegal firearm, right?
Having said that, I have never even seen a gun that wasn't on a police officer or a soldier. Nobody I know owns a gun, much less in my gaming group.
djones520 wrote:I don't know about to many people in my group. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment though. Hate living in Illinois. I own 2 firearms right now, and I'll be picking up a third this summer.
jp400 wrote:What really gets me is how all you people without american flags next to your name seem to think that America is exactly like what some bad Hollywood movies depict. I hate to break your little cush bubble, but we cant buy Assault Rifles off the shelf at any gun show table or store. We are not all running around with a Six shooter on our hip forming lynch mobs and possies, and We are not driveing around shooting Chicago Typewriters out our car windows screaming "Cant Catch me Coppers See!"
It would be silly to assume that we all think everyone in America walks around with loaded guns in their pockets. However, a few people in this thread HAVE mentioned their 'carry' pieces.
The 2nd Amendment on the other hand is one of the greatest RAW vs RAI conflict in history, right?
The 2nd Amendment wrote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, RAW everyone in the US can have guns.
But, RAI everyone should also form themselves into an organised militia to use them, right?
If someone is a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, they should also be part a militia organisation? You know, a non-government controlled paramilitary force??? I have a sneaky feeling that's illegal even in the US...
Not running around forming posses? By the 2nd Amendment, you should be....
Muh ha ha ha..... 
If you only knew... 
13452
Post by: Million
I think it's fair to say that, on a population level of individuals who play wargames, the propotion who have a positive opinion of firearms is relatively higher than in those who don't play wargames.
This probably means that the proportion of those for whom it's legal to own a firearm, play wargames and do own a firearm is relatively higher than the general population.
Maybe.
And as for the 'we saved your asses in dubya dubya too' chat - I lol'd. And they say stereotypes are wrong!
7991
Post by: Grunt13
ArbitorIan wrote:
The 2nd Amendment on the other hand is one of the greatest RAW vs RAI conflict in history, right?
No The 2nd amendment is just as clear as any other. People who don’t like guns just try to make the issue as turbid as possible and argue that they founding founders didn’t mean to write what they wrote. Its not like they descended from a saucer and drop the Constitution and bill of rights on the ground and disappeared into the sky. The bill of rights was one of the greatest accomplishments of their lives. If you want to know what they felt about the amendment read their journals, their statements to the press, or their documented commentary. And this was from a time period in which the common man could posses the same armaments as the federal army – if anything we could argue that by not allowing US citizens to own tanks, stealth fights, depleted uranium rounds, or RPGs our 2nd amendment rights are being violated. It would be as if a group that wanted to remove free speech was stating the 1st amendment was not written as intended, and that speech they disagree with should be outlawed, AND that the founding fathers would agree. 2nd Amendment “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Anyone could form a militia, you don’t need permission. If you have a bunch of buddies go form a militia if you like. Our founding fathers probably pictured a Red Dawn like situation, in which the common man would have to overthrow oppressors either foreign or domestic. Million wrote:I think it's fair to say that, on a population level of individuals who play wargames, the propotion who have a positive opinion of firearms is relatively higher than in those who don't play wargames.
This probably means that the proportion of those for whom it's legal to own a firearm, play wargames and do own a firearm is relatively higher than the general population.
I think the majority of Americas are in support of the 2nd amendment. You cannot take the media in American as a consensus for the country. While there are people who are very fearful and are negatively disposed towards guns there are also people of have similar reactions to dogs. I been to parties in which a guest made the host lock up his 30 pound terrier in his bedroom before entering his house, and I seen people get very nervous when an owner is walking their dog in a town park with or without a lease. In my area there is a place people have been letting their dogs go free and run around with other dogs in a field that which was donated by a wealthy woman for that express purpose. This has been the the standard practice for the last 30 years. One person, I repeat ONE person who decided to take her regular walks there filed a complaint that people where letting their dogs free and the town put up lease law signs and even assigned tickets. One vocal woman against hundreds of other people AND the expressed wishes of the departed woman who donated the park, and she won her way, now the park is relatively deserted because people take their dogs to other more distant dog-friendly parks, and the one woman that complained doesn’t walk there anymore simple because a handful of people still let their dogs go free (me included) and if I am ticketed I will eagerly argue my class in court. If you take this case and compare it to gun laws you can understand the similarity. Only one person who had a somewhat irrational attitude towards canines was able to have them removed from the field by law only have people violate the law by bringing their dogs there anyway. Not that I am eager to compare myself to a criminal who carries and unlicensed firearm or brings their gun into a gun free zone. But, I think you get the point.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
My current group, not so much.
My previous group was a gun-nutty as you're likely to find in the UK. Several shooters and a whole bunch of airsofters.
4977
Post by: jp400
ArbitorIan wrote:
If someone is a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, they should also be part a militia organisation? You know, a non-government controlled paramilitary force??? I have a sneaky feeling that's illegal even in the US...
I was part of an Elite Para-Military force.... the........ Eagle Scout!
Actually, It isnt. It is however watched like a hungry fat kid in a candy store by our government.
Check out the Michigan Militia for a very good example. (Mad respect for these guys, they prove that you can form a Militia and not be a bunch of psyco nutjobs living in bunkers fearing the government)
4437
Post by: Narlix
ArbitorIan wrote:
If someone is a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, they should also be part a militia organisation? You know, a non-government controlled paramilitary force??? I have a sneaky feeling that's illegal even in the US...
Actually it is legal, but they are normally just full to the brim with the nuttiest of nutters.
I own a number of guns, a MkII ruger target, an FNH 5.7, and a FNH PS90, I don't have my CC yet but its on the list. One of the nice things about living in South Carolina, take the safety class ( varies in length but the good ones are about 12 hours) pay the Fee and you have your CC. My group has 2 guys with CC's 4 other guys besides them and myself own guns. 3 of them are ex military.
I think really the Ssecond Amendment is there to protect the other Amendments, period. Goverment in general find it very difficult to deal with decent to well arm populace. I will back this though up with a Quote from the most important founding father.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
4977
Post by: jp400
@Tek: Its perfectly safe so long as you keep a level head and are not a total dumbarse. Also its not hard to make sure said firearm is unloaded for said photo op. In which case said firearm is as deadly as a heavy paperweight.
284
Post by: Augustus
My game group is 50% gun owners.
A day at the range for most of us is as fun as a day of gaming.
My game group is almost 50% military; reserves, guard, active and retired too. We have Navy, Marines, Army and AF too.
Almost 50% of my game group is over seas or in Washington now. I pray for their health of body and mind and their safe returns!
If you like playing wargames of any stripe, I suggest, learning about, and firing, real weapons can be most beneficially educational as well as entertaining. I think everyone should try it at least once, it is key in understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. Like any hobby, it is filled with people who have different reasons. For the curious, local gun clubs/ranges and stores rent pistols for the range and often have classes.
Learning to handle, operate and respect a firearm is part of what makes a complete adult in America. As much as learning to read, swim, drive or balance a checkbook. But not having to is also a part of the greatness of our nation.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
Well everyone pretty much but then again I'm in the army .
11806
Post by: assultmarine
i dont have a gun but i know a good bit about tanks and ww11 vechicles.
................go sherman v1
1457
Post by: M_Stress
gaming group: 11 persons
gun owner: 3
thats about 27%
Canada statistics (source: guncontrol.ca, 1998)
firearms in canada: 8.6 M
population: 30.2 M
that's about 28%
So, My gaming group is pretty normal, I suppose.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I own a double barrelled breach loading shotgun, technically. In that I bought it, and it was licenced to me for a while when I was younger. It lives with my uncles at home now, and one of them holds the licence. I used to use it for hunting, but I'm not much interested in shooting animals anymore, I'm happy enough watching them through binoculars.
So, probably not a gun nut. No one else in my group owns a gun as far as I know. Though we do call our arms "guns" and talk about "tickets to the gun show" *kisses biceps* a lot. So, that may be gun nutty.
I reckon some of the american posters could do with laying off the critisism of the UK and other nations if they are going to get all upset about a poor choice of words though. Glass houses, stones, all that.
4977
Post by: jp400
Da Boss wrote:
I reckon some of the american posters could do with laying off the critisism of the UK and other nations if they are going to get all upset about a poor choice of words though. Glass houses, stones, all that.
And I reckon that some of the Non-American Posters should Lay off with the US critisism and supposed "lack" of gun control... And posting about US laws and views that they have no real experiences with.
I think its funny that this is the first thread that the Americans have put our foot down and said enough is enough with the Anti-US Bull and people are looking at us like were off our rocker for doing so.
Shall I post links to past Us bashing threads from the Off Topic Section of Dakka?
Frazzled you know full well what im talking about, you have been in several of those threads yourself at the center of attack.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I could post links to bashing of other countries just as easily. I agree education is needed in these debates- I enjoy them for that reason! I've learned lots about america by arguing, being wrong and then getting corrected! It's great.
At the same time, there's a difference between debate and overblown taunting. I think what some posters were posting here falls into the category of taunting. I don't agree with it in the other threads when it happens, though it is possible I keep quieter there because I assume an american will stick up for the US.
5070
Post by: dr vompire
Mango wrote:1. A firearm is a tool, nothing more.
2. A firearm is a mechanical device.
3. It uses a chemical propellant to push a lump of metal at high speed with some degree of accuracy.
right first up, I'm very much of the Voltaire school of thought.
however, WTF re. the above.
why on earth would you require a tool to propel a lump of metal with a high degree of accuracy?, perhaps you're in desperate need to move a pile of small bits of metal to a point some distance away and don't want the tiresome task of moving them yourself?
or perhaps you need to make small holes in something a distance away, presumably for ventilation?
Guns are to kill and wound things, saying anything else is disengenuous, its like saying my car is mainly a tool for burning fossil fuels.
I can think of situations when having a tool to kill and maim things could be usefull, so man up and call a spade a fething shovel.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I am offended by the use of "gun nut". In the USA, citizens have the right to bear arms. Doing so doesn't make one crazy as long as no laws are broken. Nothing wrong having a firearm for practice at a range and personal defense. Please, don't call gun owners nuts just for exercising our Constitutional rights.
Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut Gun nut One person in my group owns a gun.
And I reckon that some of the Non-American Posters should Lay off with the US critisism and supposed "lack" of gun control... And posting about US laws and views that they have no real experiences with.
There are tonnes of gun laws in america and very little effective gun control. The laws are poorly implemented and the populace disregards them anyway. There is a lack of gun control in america.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
I think his intent was to show that a gun doesn't kill a person, a person kills a person. A gun isn't going to kill anyone without someone pulling the trigger.
5268
Post by: NO_SUCH_LUCK
My group started gaming with this English guy a few years ago after he emmigrated to the US.
We made him buy a glock.
As for me, I am a cowboy. I have a six-shooter, drink whiskey and punch cows, everyone in Texas does.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I think his intent was to show that a gun doesn't kill a person, a person kills a person. A gun isn't going to kill anyone without someone pulling the trigger.
Which goes without saying. Guns are just point and click single button devices designed to kill people. Just because the person choses doesn't mean when he makes his choice he should have a wonderous little pushbutton solution to the problem of other human life. I hate the saying "guns don't kill people".
5268
Post by: NO_SUCH_LUCK
This is my solution to the problem of human life.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:This is my solution to the problem of human life.
Guns don't kill people. Daleks do.
5268
Post by: NO_SUCH_LUCK
Hurr!
91
Post by: Hordini
Oh come now, Shuma. I know you've shot guns before. Actually hitting something is a bit more difficult than just "push-button."
There are plenty of other things that are legal and just as deadly. Cars for one. Yes, cars aren't built specifically for killing, but a lot more people die because of them than from guns. It's a good thing they haven't started designing cars for killing - then we might have a real problem.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Oh come now, Shuma. I know you've shot guns before. Actually hitting something is a bit more difficult than just "push-button."
Thats true in combat, not in murder. Generally civilian gun crime isn't against a moving target with any sort of cover. It's pretty rare for a 7/11 employee or a cheating wife to be in a situation where the party thats holding the gun will miss. It's not particularly hard to use a gun for the first time and hit something across the room from you.
There are plenty of other things that are legal and just as deadly. Cars for one. Yes, cars aren't built specifically for killing, but a lot more people die because of them than from guns. It's a good thing they haven't started designing cars for killing - then we might have a real problem.
They have those, but they are pretty expensive. I think they're called tanks .
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
I'm the only gun nut in my group. I guess it comes naturally after being in service to Uncle Sam. My gun-nutty-ness must have predated my service though, because I signed up to shoot the mortars. Biggest guns you can get and still fire them by hand!
23
Post by: djones520
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh come now, Shuma. I know you've shot guns before. Actually hitting something is a bit more difficult than just "push-button."
Thats true in combat, not in murder. Generally civilian gun crime isn't against a moving target with any sort of cover. It's pretty rare for a 7/11 employee or a cheating wife to be in a situation where the party thats holding the gun will miss. It's not particularly hard to use a gun for the first time and hit something across the room from you.
There are plenty of other things that are legal and just as deadly. Cars for one. Yes, cars aren't built specifically for killing, but a lot more people die because of them than from guns. It's a good thing they haven't started designing cars for killing - then we might have a real problem.
They have those, but they are pretty expensive. I think they're called tanks .
So I take it from some of your posts that you advocate stricter gun control laws. Tell me, how you'd go about making people who don't give a damn about them listen to them?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
So I take it from some of your posts that you advocate stricter gun control laws. Tell me, how you'd go about making people who don't give a damn about them listen to them?
I don't believe that half assing the laws really works. Either ban them or don't. Standardised psychological screening and much more strict punishment for selling guns unlawfully are about the best compromise I can really think of. I believe that more understandable bans like assault rifles, autoloading shotguns, and sub machine guns are also healthy for a civilian nation.
I would love to see all non hunting weapons banned entirely from the nation. Civilian militias are a joke and a liability in a major land invasion, and theres no way this populace is going to overthrow the government without the support of the military (meaning the weapons have little to do with it). Theres really just no reason to have them around other than sport and murder.
The big issue is that the are constitunionally lawful. And I don't expect that to ever change. Americans are in love with guns, so until the end of times they will hug them until someone they know gets shot then they will try and ban them. We'll always have crappy half assed gunlaws.
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
Here's a picture of a mortar similar to the one I manned.
Side bubble, side bubble, TNC!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Here's a picture of a mortar similar to the one I manned.
Side bubble, side bubble, TNC!
Theres a lot more flame coming out of that barrel then I would have expected. Those must be pretty dangerous to man.
91
Post by: Hordini
That looks like a nighttime photo. That's probably part of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd usually see that much of a muzzle-flash from a mortar during the daytime.
11608
Post by: Mango
Shuma,
Wether or not you are sick of hearing the phrase "guns don't kill people", it is still a true statement. A gun is an inanimate object. Unless acted upon by an outside force, it is incapable of killing someone.
A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to kill. Your point? It is still a tool. We are tool using animals. We design tools to make a specific task easier.
Before guns were invented people used different tools to kill people. After guns were invented, people still used different tools to kill people. Notice a trend? It is the people, not the tool.
Prisons are a good example. the inmates don't have firearms. Yet oddly enough, they still design tools to help them kill other prisoners.
Prisons are a prime example of gun control. Only the guards have weapons. How much of a say in the running of the prison do the prisoners have? When only one segment of a society has guns, they can control the rest, and thier is not much the unarmed group can do about it.
If a person wants to kill another person, they will. If every gun on the planet suddenly disapeared, guess what? People would still kill people.
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
Hordini wrote:That looks like a nighttime photo. That's probably part of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd usually see that much of a muzzle-flash from a mortar during the daytime.
Depends on the propellant you're using. Generally you're right, you don't see that much flame in the day, but you see a lot more smoke. Still, all the same, the concussion of the muzzleblast is pretty intense. On the next size mortar, the 120mm (usually mounted or towed) the loaders (that drop the rounds in the tube) have to switch out every 4 minutes or so. If they don't, the concussion can cause nose or ear bleeds. If you have a cold, this stuff really knocks loose the junk in your lungs!
I live in AK now, and most everybody up here knows about guns for hunting purposes. They don't really know statistical things, like FPS of a round, maximum effective range, or anything like that. I only know things like that because we were required to know them in the army for the weapons we used. I tend to compare all rifles to my old M16A4 I used (man that thing was long, I wished I had one of those slick M4A1s with the RIS and collapsible stock.) I do this just to get an idea of how a particular firearm will shoot or perform.
7991
Post by: Grunt13
ShumaGorath wrote:Civilian militias are a joke and a liability in a major land invasion, and theres no way this populace is going to overthrow the government without the support of the military (meaning the weapons have little to do with it). Theres really just no reason to have them around other than sport and murder.
A high offical in Japan’s army stated that one of the reasons Japan didn't engage in a land invasion was the "Every blade of grass would have a gun behind it" I would say that counts for something. Militias played key rules in every war fought on American soil. Simply dismissing them is rather obtuse. Like I said before guns in the hands of responsible citizens makes for a safer enviroment. I agree with you on one point and that is people of illegal sell guns should be harshly punished. I also think that they should be charged as accomplishes to whatever crime that was committed using that firearm. ShumaGorath wrote:
The big issue is that the are constitunionally lawful. And I don't expect that to ever change. Americans are in love with guns, so until the end of times they will hug them until someone they know gets shot then they will try and ban them. We'll always have crappy half assed gunlaws.
The right to maintain your own protection is a pretty big deal, the bill of rights was made so the new government would not overstep itself in become a tyrant in its own right. The 2nd amendment is something that is an established right the same as speech and religion. Besides how often are people rob or killed by people using a gun that was acquired legally?
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
Hey guys, maybe you should stop with the gun law debate. That is not what this topic is about.
7991
Post by: Grunt13
FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Hey guys, maybe you should stop with the gun law debate. That is not what this topic is about.
point taken sorry for going OT
14938
Post by: Orkestra
I find a lot of the 'pro-gun' propaganda to be absolutely ridiculous. 
First off, yes, a gun is a tool. It is specifically designed to kill people. We all agree on this.
Second, everyone only wants the people who should have guns to have guns (there is much debate on who 'should' have a gun, but we'll ignore that for a moment)
Finally, the more guns that you have, and the more available those guns are, the more likely it is that a gun will get into the wrong person's hands.
You cannot possibly argue that having more guns around means that everyone is safer. The inverse is true. I don't care how many gun toting maniacs have stopped some other person with a gun from doing something bad. That's not their job. If you want it to be your job, stop paying taxes and get rid of police officers.
Most crimes are committed with stolen or illegally purchased guns. You can state all of the anecdotal 'I lock up my guns' crap you want, but not everyone does, and guns are some of the most-stolen items in America. Break-ins just to raid someone's guns are frequent.
Speaking of break ins, did you know most happen during the day, when no one's home? Even in Canada where not everyone sleeps with a gun under their pillow, praying for someone to break in just so you can shoot them.
If it is illegal to own guns, then what happens? If guns can't be legally imported, then the only way to get guns into a country is through smuggling. If it is tougher for someone to get their hands on a gun, or steal one, then less crimes will be committed using guns. Sure, you can't stop everyone from getting their hands on a gun, but making it less simple would go a long way towards controlling the problem. The easier it is to get a gun, the more likely it is that people who want them for nefarious purposes will get them.
Why does one want a gun? To shoot and kill things. Period. If you want to shoot at targets, get a paintball gun.
Why do you want to kill things? Lots of reasons, but it basically boils down to self defense or harm. Less guns for 'self-defense', less guns to harm others, and less of a problem overall. How many guns intended for self-defense get used? And how many intended for harm get used? A LOT more. For every time you hear of a gun killing someone in self-defense there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of a gun user just plain killing someone.
Guns should be in the hands of A) The military and B) the police.
You worry about what if your government suddenly changes and you don't have any guns to protect yourselves, so you want to have guns and bombs there to protect yourselves? Then just take a look at the middle east, where a whole bunch of people who happen to have guns suddenly found their government changing without their consent, so their using their guns to fix their new problem. And guess what, America doesn't seem to like that much.
11303
Post by: thekingofdinner
the above poster has won at debating. discussion ovah!
also to all of you americans who keep guns for self defence, Be a man and use a hockey stick to smack those robbers the way we canadians do 
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Orkestra wrote:
You cannot possibly argue that having more guns around means that everyone is safer. The inverse is true.
This proves you wrong:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512f.asp wrote:
“Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard,” written by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and published in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy:
[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed....
Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety....
In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century....
A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime....
And here’s the icing on the cake: “[A] United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.” [Emphasis added]
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
Orkestra wrote:
Why does one want a gun? To shoot and kill things. Period. If you want to shoot at targets, get a paintball gun.
Why do you want to kill things? Lots of reasons, but it basically boils down to self defense or harm. Less guns for 'self-defense', less guns to harm others, and less of a problem overall. How many guns intended for self-defense get used? And how many intended for harm get used? A LOT more. For every time you hear of a gun killing someone in self-defense there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of a gun user just plain killing someone.
Guns should be in the hands of A) The military and B) the police.
Because it is my right, as an american to choose how I wish to have the ability to protect myself, or the potential in which I would wish to protect myself as a law-abiding citizen. If you cannot accept the FACT that a firearm is a tool, like any other tool made since "a tool" became a fething concept, get the feth out of this thread. Seriously. Why do I want to kill things? For conservation, because of tradition (I was raised with family activities such as duck, deer, pheasant, and grouse hunting, everyone in my family would go, even the dogs.), for being a responsible member of my American society and participating in these specific activities that my ancestors have done even before they arrived in north america. So I have the ability and responsibilty of being able to provide for my family and myself if need be. Grocery stores won't be around forever you know!
You seem to not be able to grasp that for an American citizen, if I am armed, if I have the chance, choice, and opportunity to protect those weaker, injusticed, or wronged, in a timely manner (because local, state, and federal government reaction times vary in terms of being able to come to the aid of their citizens) that I will be able to, if need be able to rely upon myself instead of others, aka the govt, in order to live a happy and independant life not afraid of other people and what they might do to me, because I am unable to protect myself and others.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
thekingofdinner wrote:the above poster has won at debating. discussion ovah!
also to all of you americans who keep guns for self defence, Be a man and use a hockey stick to smack those robbers the way we canadians do
Yeah, that's why we have Jesse Custer and John Wayne instead of.....uh whoever you have over there in canuck-land.
14938
Post by: Orkestra
Sure, great, people kill people. I'm 100% behind everyone on that. It takes conscious will to shoot someone, and it's not the gun's fault.
But people do want to shoot people with guns, and having guns makes it easier. Plains as day. You can't shoot someone with a gun that you don't have.
Hunting is perfectly okay with me. It's a great pastime, is useful and fun, and causes ridiculously few human deaths each year.
But what about your handguns? 'excuse me, I'm just taking my glock into the woods to shoot some rabbits'
Crimes committed with guns are most frequently done with handguns and other small arms. Which are completely useless aside from killing people, which you either want to do or you don't.
Not owning a gun won't make you helpless. Having fewer guns in the country actually empowers you. Less other people with guns means fewer people with the power to kill you efficiently. I'd say that makes your odds better, wouldn't you?
Also, I know that the Founding Fathers were brilliant and worked hard and did their best to make a set of rules that made sense for a country over a hundred years ago that had just finished fighting a war on their own soil. Naturally, when lack of a stable governmental system is a problem, they are concerned about the citizens. In a country that has been stable for over a century, though, there is no need to keep everyone armed to keep the bandits off of their land. The second amendment is outdated and useless in a place where there are TWO highly trained groups of professionals to use the guns. Things have changed a little since the time your constitution was written.
Maybe it's time for reform.
TLR version.
Other than hunting rifles, guns are there to kill people. Also, the second amendment was better when they wrote it.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
So, we ban guns. Big deal. The criminals ALREADY have them. So then the law abiding citizenry are the only people without guns. Good idea.
But just for a hypothetical let's say we do manage to get rid of all the non-governmental firearms in the country.... what then? We can't even keep people from crossing our borders illegally, do you really think that the drug smugglers and coyotes will truly NOT 'import' firearms too as soon as there's a big enough market for it? A ban will simply NOT work; The cat's out of the bag, so to speak.
Let's compare Vermont's crime per capita vs. California's shall we? (Vermont has almost NO gun control on the state level; You don't need any sort of liscence to carry in any fasion you want. California has some of the nation's strictest gun laws; Several NON 'assault' weapons are outright banned, most considered much safer than the ubiquitous 9mm round in terms of over penetration and target acquistion)
From this site: http://www.statemaster.com/state/VT-vermont/cri-crime
Vermont:
Arson deaths 0 [44th of 49]
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.6 [34th of 51]
Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 46.2 % [5th of 49]
Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 7.7 % [49th of 49]
Larceny-theft 10,493 [49th of 51]
Lynchings > Black 0 [39th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 1 [42nd of 44]
Lynchings > White 1 [42nd of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 586 [51st of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12 [48th of 51]
Property crime total 14,379 [49th of 51]
Robbery 110 [49th of 51]
Violent crime 852 [50th of 51]
California:
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.8 [30th of 51]
Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 18.9 % [44th of 49]
Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 16 % [44th of 49]
Lynchings > Black 2 [28th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 43 [21st of 44]
Lynchings > White 41 [13th of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 242,693 [1st of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 2,485 [1st of 51]
Property crime total 1,156,017 [1st of 51]
Robbery 70,968 [1st of 51]
Violent crime 194,120 [1st of 51]
So the death rate by firearms isvirtually identical, but ALL other crime is greater in California by leaps and bounds. (If I was prone to hyperbole, I would say 'an order of magnitude.)
So yes gun control works...... if you want a citizenry of victims.
4977
Post by: jp400
@ Orkestra:
Once again what you have written is so fethed up its nothing more then sad.
I have a bearskin rug in my living room that I killed with a .44 Magnum useing 240 Grn Jsp. So dont come in here and try to fething claim that handguns cant be used for hunting. Go out into the woods and hunt one down with a wheel gun THEN come back here and speak from experience.
I have used my Walther P99 to hunt and kill Rabbit in the past, and I use it to drive off Coyotes that try to get at my chickens.
Also just to drive the point you have missed home..... If you disarm a populace, you will NOT I say again NOT disarm the criminals. If you do this you actually make it easier for gang bangers and other criminals to prey on the general populace.
I highly suggest you read LordHats post above.
So the Amendments are outdated? Well I guess we can take out the 2nd.... and the right to assemble, and a fair trial, and free speach ect ect since they ALL were written over 200 years ago and are outdated as you claim.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
So the death rate by firearms isvirtually identical, but ALL other crime is greater in California by leaps and bounds. (If I was prone to hyperbole, I would say 'an order of magnitude.)
So yes gun control works...... if you want a citizenry of victims.
Cherry picked statistics were cherry picked! It's pretty easy to look good compared to a state with a sizeable border drug war and incredible gang problems. Neither of which are caused by guns but are made intensely more deadly with them. Because, y'know, Vermont.
I highly suggest you read LordHats post above.
If you want an intense amount of hyperbole and statistics wrangling.
So the Amendments are outdated? Well I guess we can take out the 2nd.... and the right to assemble, and a fair trial, and free speach ect ect since they ALL were written over 200 years ago and are outdated as you claim.
Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated. You just like loud noises, theres no real civil or national reason to own military issue weapons. As for your bear skin rug. I'm pretty sure it would have been safer and more effective to hunt the bear with an actual hunting weapon. Not a pistol (pistols being designed primarily for personal defense against other people, though in the same way that intercontinental missiles are "defense" against other nations).
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
Mattlov wrote:If paintball guns count, um, I've got about 20 guns.
I intend to get a pistol one of these days when I can talk my wife into it.
I thought the liberal gun haters made us call paintball guns 'paintball markers' because the word gun was so violent..
I wonder what they'd think of my old cap gun.. I suppose I'd have to call it a cap sounder.. lol
4977
Post by: jp400
LoL
Sadly you are correct.
When I worked for DZ paintball we actually had to start calling them "markers" cause moms would come into the store and as soon as we said "GUN" some would freak the feth out thinking that someone was going to shoot there kid....... literally.
@Shuma:
Yeah.... Ive got enough military exp to know that a small team of people can do an very large amount of damage with very little in the way of fancy toys. Its what I did during OIF 1&2.
And you are right.... No amount of 5.56 is going to take a tank out..... Unless you have a Silencer in a good hide and you take out the driver/operator. Not that hard... did it several times at NTC as Op4.
Plus any savy person can make a varity of simple household destructive devices that will stop a tank. Off the top of my head I can think of Molotoves, Thermite, HMX to include Nitro ect ect. All of which Joe Average with internet access can cook up in his kitchen.
And yes, Hunting with a rifle like my Kar98 or M1Garand would have been "safer".... but where is the thrill to safely kill something from 700meters away??? I guess everyone that bowhunts is missing out........
1309
Post by: Lordhat
I cherry picked RELEVANT stats..... if you want a more 'comparable' state... let's try my own state, Arizona, also a "state with a sizeable border drug war and incredible gang problems". (I admit our gang problems are quite as bad as CA's but they're not what you'd call moderate, either.) Our gunlaws are More restrictive than Vermont's (CCW required to carry concealed) but much less than California's (No specific weapons bans, and open carry without any permits).
Arson deaths 0 [38th of 49]
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 18 [5th of 51]
Forcible rape 1,941 [14th of 51]
Gun violence > % Gun 72.4 [4th of 50]
Gun violence > % Knife 10.8 [41st of 49]
Gun violence > % Other Weapons 16.9 [42nd of 50]
Gun violence > Number of homicides 414 [13th of 50]
Gun violence > Population 5,739,879 [18th of 50]
Hate Crimes > Disability related 1 [14th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Ethnicity related 38 [9th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Race related 52 [25th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Religion related 30 [14th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Sexual orientation related 28 [15th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Total number 149 [14th of 50]
Homicide > Total number of victims 445 [13th of 0]
Lynchings > Black 0 [44th of 44]
Lynchings > Black (per capita) 0 per 1 million people [44th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 31 [25th of 44]
Lynchings > Total (per capita) 5.219 per 1 million people [28th of 44]
Lynchings > White 31 [18th of 44]
Lynchings > White (per capita) 5.219 per 1 million people [23rd of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 54,849 [4th of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 465 [13th of 51]
Property crime total 285,370 [12th of 51]
Violent crime 30,916 [15th of 51]
There you go. I agree the region has a lot to do with crime (we get a LOT of felons fleeing CA warrants, and a lot citizens fleeing CA felons), but once again the correlation appears to be less restrictions on an armed populace = less crime of any nature.
Also, it seems that this site does not have the same statistic labels for every state; I believe a lot of the states have differing methods of recording crime.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
jp400 wrote:LoL
Sadly you are correct.
When I worked for DZ paintball we actually had to start calling them "markers" cause moms would come into the store and as soon as we said "GUN" some would freak the feth out thinking that someone was going to shoot there kid....... literally.
It's the same reason people were calling it swine flu, and apparently it's the liberal agenda to see it called something else to be PC (rather than the fact that theres no real reason to call it that and its a disengenuous association that gives people the wrong idea). It's not a left wing stance that things can't be called guns, and they call them markers because associating your business with adolescent gunplay is bad business. Idiotic nomenclature laws aren't a left wing thing, it's a right wing one on most major issues (war on "terror", "theory" of evolution, "axis" of "evil" etc).
There you go. I agree the region has a lot to do with crime (we get a LOT of felons fleeing CA warrants, and a lot citizens fleeing CA felons), but once again the correlation appears to be less restrictions on an armed populace = less crime of any nature.
Also, it seems that this site does not have the same statistic labels for every state; I believe a lot of the states have differing methods of recording crime.
Pull up drug use and gang related activity statistics. Also prison recidivism and immagrant crime. I think you'll find that it's not the gun laws but the major social issues caused by the immagrant poverty and high drug rates that cause the problems. Correlation does not equal causation and you're still cherry picking your statistics then giving a random cause. I could just as easily say that the more northern your state the less crime there is.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated.
Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments? For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Both from Thomas Jefferson
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Asmodai wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated.
Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments?
For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
The thing is, thats the same as fighting a foreign government. If peasant militias have no chance in hell against russia then they have an even smaller chance against the american military. Which has thousands of tanks, jets, nuclear subs, missiles, PROTOTYPE GOD DAMN POWER ARMOR, attack choppers, etc.
The only thing that will overthrow the US government is the democratic process or the military itself. The peasantry will just get itself shot.
14938
Post by: Orkestra
Wow, those statistics are incredibly useful to this discussion, oh wait.
Let's look at some of these statistics. I'll start with the absurd.
Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 7.7 % [49th of 49]
'other weapons' compared to what? I'm assuming that Vermont, (which you say has the least gun control) is being reported as having the lowest number of homicides committted with weapons other than guns and knives (the two usual forerunners for weapons) I'd be interested in seeing, you know, an actual gun violence statistic, which would be there because otherwise an 'other weapons' listing is ridiculous.
Next up:
Vermont: Property crime total 14,379 [49th of 51]
California: Property crime total 1,156,017 [1st of 51]
Don't get me wrong, but these happen to be straight up numbers, rather than per capita. Let's see here.... (from Wikipedia)
Vermont has a population of 608,827, ranking 49th of all 50 states
California is the most populous U.S. state. - the state is home to eight of the nation's fifty largest cities. - Population Total 36,756,666 (2008 est.)
Let's take out a calculator. California has a lovely 60 times the number of people. It's also well known that crime clusters in urban areas, which, as seen above, California has in spades. Also, the warmth of the state makes it home to a large vagrant and impoverished community, who can survive the winter with little to no shelter. Gun control is, clearly, the only factor.
And, another gem.
Vermont: Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.6 [34th of 51]
California: Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.8 [30th of 51]
In an actual fair comparison (per capita) California is very close to Vermont in number of actual gun deaths. Which is pretty impressive for a state with large urban areas, which are notably gang friendly.
Also, speaking of crime, did you know it tends to cluster around areas where wealth, property, and people accumulate? Like cities and ports?
Anyways, let's draw some more good conclusions from these statistics.
Vermont: Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 46.2 % [5th of 49]
California: Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 18.9 % [44th of 49]
Conclusion: The Vermont men like to take their guns (most are owned by men) and use them to kill the defenseless women.
Most gun owners are men. Presumably, California, with it's gun laws, has less men with firearms. Therefore, the number of women as victims goes down, because there is more equality in gun ownership.
(DISCLAIMER: I know that that is ludicrous. Just like the rest of his statistics.)
End result: Statistics =/= an argument without being used intelligently.
EDIT:
asmodai wrote:
Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments?
For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Both from Thomas Jefferson
So what you're saying is that in the US today there is still a real threat of the military and government both deciding that they have views completely different from the average american (the average american presumably the one filling the ranks of the nation's army) and deciding to oppress the entire country. Is that what you're saying? That A) it will happen and B) All of the members of the military would be totally behind sudden shifts to communism?
Be realistic, please.
4977
Post by: jp400
One thing your forgetting is that if the US was to have a civil war... do you honestly think that nobody in the armed forces is going to split and join the other side?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
jp400 wrote:One thing your forgetting is that if the US was to have a civil war... do you honestly think that nobody in the armed forces is going to split and join the other side?
In which case their civilian allies are going to have guns to spare. It's not byob war, and about the only thing peasant militias would be able to do on either side of the conflict is either join the military (as would likely occur to all the "militias") or shoot other civilian militias to death. Something that inevitably solves nothing. About the only thing civilian militias are good for in a time of crisis is to be a recruiting pool for the friendly military force (any civil war would be accompanied by a draft on both sides of the conflict). In which case their militia is again just a pointless formality.
466
Post by: skkipper
FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Here's a picture of a mortar similar to the one I manned.
Side bubble, side bubble, TNC!
if america had a right bear arms, I could get me a mortar or howitzer or even a decent rocket propelled grenade. but sadly very few people support my quest to become a heavily armed liberal. until that time I will remain just a gun toting liberal.
That being said if my opponent was carring during a game. I would ask his ass to leave the gun at home next time.
7632
Post by: Ghost in the Darkness
What I don't understand is how people think that if the government suddenly banned guns and made them illegal. Why people would even turn them in in the first place. I grew up in a hunting family, where we all know how to shoot guns, clean them, and gut the animals we kill, (which is then delivered to my mom to cook). I for one have 2 personal shotguns that my dad has given to me. 1 for hunting and 1 for target shooting. (They're old shotguns so the hunting one doesn't like light shells anymore) I also have access to the rest of our collection, which includes a whole heck of alot more shotguns as well as rifles, and plenty of BB guns from being a kid.
Most of my friends back home have at least fired a gun, and most of us grew up with BB guns shooting at cans and such in the backyard.
I for one am glad I have guns in my home. And I know for a fact if the government tried to make me turn in my guns I would hide them and refuse to turn them in.
6010
Post by: wittzo
We collect and we're enthusiastic about them, but we're not "nuts"..
Here in MS, we're allowed to carry loaded handguns in our cars. We have the castle doctrine where if someone gets into our house or car we can assume they mean to do bodily harm. If someone's attacking someone or committing a felony to ourselves, property, vehicle, or another person, we're allowed to use deadly force to stop them.
I used to own several rifles and handguns, but no assault rifles or Saturday night specials, they were semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and affordable handguns; I lost them in a boating accident.
A few of my friends have CCW's and carry concealed, because a bad guy can get to you before you get to your phone to call 911 and explain where you live and what's happening.
Cops are under no obligation to prevent or stop crimes or violence, they're here to catch the perpetrators and haul them to jail, after the crime is done.
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
And if you shoot someone unjustly, you're a perpetrator too.
13984
Post by: Captain Jack
Bah, mortars are a waste of time...anything with a bore of less than 120mm, or a muzzel velocity of less than 1000m/s is completely pointless  Hmmm coming from a military background, I still partake in shooting. Be it fun, as in airsoft, or shooting for a bit of game with permision I still use guns responsible (where my battered broken body will let me). So does that make me a Gun nut? In my old gaming group (I've moved south since) 9 out of 15 used to be interested in guns in one form or another. Mostly airsoft.
Guns are a tool, they exist whether we like it or not and there is a deep debate as to who should have the right/ability to hold them. That is best left to national debate, and each way of looking at the issue is correct for some group (I'm not advocating either way).
Btw, pistols are a great way to take out tanks  , that Plasticard armor is great on the M1. Chally has a great thing, called armored hatches and thick armor in general. Pistol away boys, and remember: If you ain't Cav, then you just ain't
60
Post by: yakface
Well this thread has (no surprise) gotten far off-track.
Locking now. . .
|
|
