SilverMK2 wrote:How dare you speak that way about Queenie!


This is to Mel - on my phone and it is a bit slow...

She a lizard, its true

Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Man drowned in shallow lake after firefighters 'not allowed' to rescue him

Charity shop worker died in Gosport, Hampshire, after rescuers said they could not enter water for health and safety reasons

Wednesday 22 February 2012 02.52 EST

A man who fell into a lake drowned after firefighters called to the scene said they could not enter the water if it was higher than ankle deep for health and safety reasons, an inquest has been told.

Simon Burgess, a 41-year-old charity shop worker died at Walpole Park, in Gosport, Hampshire, on 10 March. He is believed to have had an epileptic seizure either before or after falling into the water while feeding swans.

Witnesses raised the alarm, but the hearing was told on Tuesday that members of a fire crew refused to get to him because the water was more than ankle deep. Instead, they waited for a specialist water rescue team and Burgess was only taken out of the lake 28 minutes after the alarm was raised.

Gillian Hughes, 53, told the inquest, at Portsmouth coroners court, that she had phoned emergency services and urged them to rescue Burgess when they arrived. She said: "The firemen arrived with the police, and I said: 'He's only been there five or 10 minutes, so if you hurry you might save him.'

"He just said: 'We're not allowed', and I said: 'But that's your job.'

Hughes added: "I said to one of the firemen: Why don't you go in?' and he said they couldn't if the water was higher than ankle deep. I said: 'You're having a laugh'. He said: 'No, that's health and safety' – but I thought that was their job."

She said that another fire crew arrived and started walking around the lake, putting in a pole and measuring the depth but, by this time, Burgess had drifted from one side of the lake to the other.

Deborah Coles, the control room manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue, told the inquest that she took the call from Hughes at 12.17pm and, within a minute, had sent a fire appliance, a water rescue trained crew and a water support unit.

"Police, ambulance and coastguard were also sent as standard for a water rescue," she added. "The specialist teams are there to deal with water which is over half a boot in depth. At 12.20pm, the fire crew confirmed attendance and at 12.25 they told us a male was floating face down."

"The water support unit arrived at 12.31pm. At 12.46, we received a message requesting our press officer attend the scene. At 12.52, an update came in saying a male had been recovered, and at 12.58 he was taken to hospital."

Burgess was pronounced dead at 1.42pm after he was taken to hospital.

Dr Bret Lockyer, the speciality registrar of histopathology, told the inquest there were signs that Burgess had fallen into the lake because of an epileptic seizure.

Burgess was diagnosed with the condition in 1987, and had unsuccessful brain surgery to ease the seizures. Lockyer said: "If he had been taken out of the water after 10 minutes, there is a slim chance he could have been resuscitated.

"It seems he had a seizure either before or while he fell into the water."

The hearing continues.

SilverMK2 wrote:The 'defence' budget of America is out of line with the spending by pretty much any other developed nation, which really skews the money available for everything else, given the generally low american tax rates.

Mostly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png


The United States spends more money on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid individually then it does on the Military.

Yes, we spend more money on the military then other developed countries, but thats because our military is bigger. Its also engaged in active military conflicts, unlike other developed countries.

And of that Pie Chart, the only parts that can legally be changed without changes in the law is Military and Discretionary Spending.

Thats only 37% that the president can change in his budget reccomendations.


The Military has no money to cut. Cutting the Defense Budget will not even put a dent in the deficit. Only cutting mandatory spending(like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) or raising taxes will do anything to the budget deficit.

And compared to some other countries(especially some European countries) the US budget deficit as a % of GDP is not so bad. France, Italy, and Greece are drowning in Debt. They make the US look like frugal saints.

Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Please tell me this is a joke or wind up? Are you really telling me that you have no grasp whatsoever of the examples used?

Syria is a different place to the US. Nobody in the West, in their right mind, about from the US Citizens themselves, would ever think that you would be in such a position. Only US Citizens, who voted for their political leaders I'd like to point out, feel that they are one step away from a dictatorship. That you have to have one hand on a gun and one eye on the government. The bloody peasents in the UK have managed to shake up the establishment quite a few times over the years and are still fully able to if need be, you only have to look at the riots last year. Oddly enough we have some of the strictest gun laws in the West. You've had one war of Independance and one cilvil war in your brief history, wars that are actually on home soil and are basically political infighting. We've had numerous invasions, riots, rebellions and royalty infighting that you can shake a stick at, but none of us over here, look at our own government like you look at yours.

As to your second example, why do I bother? I would expect in that situation that someone who has access to a gun, even if they only fire 1hour a month, to be able to pull it and with confidence point it at a lunatic in this situation.

You are obviously choosing to ignore the whole point of "above your paygrade" actually means.

Wolfstan wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Please tell me this is a joke or wind up? Are you really telling me that you have no grasp whatsoever of the examples used?

Syria is a different place to the US. Nobody in the West, in their right mind, about from the US Citizens themselves, would ever think that you would be in such a position. Only US Citizens, who voted for their political leaders I'd like to point out, feel that they are one step away from a dictatorship. That you have to have one hand on a gun and one eye on the government. The bloody peasents in the UK have managed to shake up the establishment quite a few times over the years and are still fully able to if need be, you only have to look at the riots last year. Oddly enough we have some of the strictest gun laws in the West. You've had one war of Independance and one cilvil war in your brief history, wars that are actually on home soil and are basically political infighting. We've had numerous invasions, riots, rebellions and royalty infighting that you can shake a stick at, but none of us over here, look at our own government like you look at yours.

As to your second example, why do I bother? I would expect in that situation that someone who has access to a gun, even if they only fire 1hour a month, to be able to pull it and with confidence point it at a lunatic in this situation.

You are obviously choosing to ignore the whole point of "above your paygrade" actually means.

Im ignoring it because it is made out of an assumption. An erroneous assumption. An assumption that others blindly accept mediocrity. And an assumption that I dont know how to employ my weapons.

Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS? Much like the Americans received from the French in the AWI? Or the VC received from both China and the USSR? You still needed a populace willing to pull themselves from mediocrity, to rise above their "paygrade".

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

Mercenaries? Interesting. Stuff I read claimed active service SAS.

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

Mercenaries? Interesting. Stuff I read claimed active service SAS.

The stuff I read claimed they were contractors for a private security company that hires ex-special forces.
Apparently there are two different companies working there.

I'd find it unlikely that there would be active SAS in Syria and if there was that they would be in the news. That kind of stuff would be very hush hush...

Reports "allege" the involvement of both Uk and French special forces on the ground in "advisory" capacities with Qatari units providing more "robust" assistence.

Since November last year "conservative Islamic" fighters who've seen action in ( amongst other places) Iraq and Afghanistan have been arriving -- some airlifted apparently -- to "fight the good fight".

The USA has been somewhat more cautious, but of course they're involved. In April they admitted they were providing communications equipment and assistence in evading regime attacks.

The Telegraph reported that former terrorist turned Libyan rebel leader Abdulhakim Belhadj, now head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” after being sent there by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan president.

Belhadj is the former front man for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Belhadj was captured by the CIA in Malaysia in 2003 and extradited to Libya where Colonel Gaddafi had him imprisoned.

Belhadj is a committed jihadist who fought with the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that Belhadj’s LIFG fighters were the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq.

reds8n wrote:Reports "allege" the involvement of both Uk and French special forces on the ground in "advisory" capacities with Qatari units providing more "robust" assistence.

Since November last year "conservative Islamic" fighters who've seen action in ( amongst other places) Iraq and Afghanistan have been arriving -- some airlifted apparently -- to "fight the good fight".

The USA has been somewhat more cautious, but of course they're involved. In April they admitted they were providing communications equipment and assistence in evading regime attacks.

The Telegraph reported that former terrorist turned Libyan rebel leader Abdulhakim Belhadj, now head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” after being sent there by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan president.

Belhadj is the former front man for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Belhadj was captured by the CIA in Malaysia in 2003 and extradited to Libya where Colonel Gaddafi had him imprisoned.

Belhadj is a committed jihadist who fought with the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that Belhadj’s LIFG fighters were the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq.

Also reports of CIA up to their old game of providing arms and training. Oh the webs weaved. Most of the "Arab Spring" has been triggered by groups with ties to the Islamic Brotherhood. The West is stupidly playing with fire.

You know what happens when insane people get guns and then are told that you have an innate right to shoot some one on you property, this happens.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/florida-man-kills-door-to-door-salesman-i%E2%80%99ll-kill-anybody-that-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit

To some people here who might think I'm "insane" or living in my own little world. Fry the shooter. The salesman was not a danger to anyone nor was it a "legal" killing. That was murder plain in simple.

Roop’s neighbors described him as “the neighborhood crazy.” Roop has a concealed weapons permit and approximately 14 firearms.

Well, at least they didn't go for the "he was such a nice guy" lie.

Jihadin wrote:To some people here who might think I'm "insane" or living in my own little world. Fry the shooter. The salesman was not a danger to anyone nor was it a "legal" killing. That was murder plain in simple.

Not saying gun owners are insane but saying that the insane shouldn't be gun owners

Problem is he wasn't insane. He can't claim insanity. He did a deliberate "double tap". Notice the female police officer didn't get shot when she walked on his property

edit
sentence structure

Good to see the collective "independent thinkers" in agreement!

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

You need an assault weapon—

* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

* 2. for recreation.

* 3. to collect military small arms.

* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

* 6. for more fun plinking.

* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

* 18. to save time while shooting

* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

* 28. to defend your business.

* 29. to defend your home.

* 30. to defend your boat.

* 31. to defend your camp.

* 32. to defend your ranch.

* 33. to defend your farm.

* 34. to defend your family.

* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

* 36. as an investment.

* 37. as a military souvenir.

* 38. as a hedge against inflation.

* 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.

* 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)

* 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)

* 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)

* 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.

* 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.

* 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.

* 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.

* 47. to reject anti-gun bias.

* 48. to challenge “Big Brotherism”.

* 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.

* 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.

* 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to “salami” tactics.

* 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).

* 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)

* 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.

* 55. to familiarize yourself with your country’s military rifle.

* 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country’s military rifle.

* 57. because they are interesting.

* 58. to hang on your wall.

* 59. to shoot clay targets.

* 60. to shoot paper targets.

* 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.

* 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.

* 63. to exercise a natural right.

* 64. to exercise a civil right.

* 65. to exercise a fundamental right.

* 66. to exercise an inalienable right.

* 67. to exercise a human right.

* 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.

* 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.

* 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.

* 71. to avoid a “Tiananmen Square” in the U.S.

* 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.

* 73. to protect livestock from predators.

* 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.

* 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).

* 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.

* 77. to own a firearm with that “shoulder thingy that goes up.”

* 78. to own a “state-of-the-art” firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).

* 79. to own a “turn-of-the-century” firearm (e.g. Borchardt).

* 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).

* 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.

* 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.

* 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.

* 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.

* 85. to own a firearm which is banned.

* 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.

* 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).

* 88. to own a firearm that is a “work of art”.

* 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.

* 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use. * 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).

* 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.

* 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.

* 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.

* 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.

* 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.

* 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.

* 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).

* 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.

* 100.because you believe in freedom.

* 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual’s need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the country. That’s 100 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

My top chain of thought when this thread came up. When I was pulled over for speeding and I had my mini cases in back of my jeep. Police officer was nervous I can tell. He asked and I told him and then I showed him. Then we got into talking about 40K and models and then I I clued him about claiming it on taxes as medical expense since he was a bit on the same line of profession as I was.

Back on topic.
101 reasons....some are the same but different in wording

Spacemanvic wrote:101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

Oh this should be a good amount of fail.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

See the National and various State Guard units. That is a citizen soldier, your "well regulated militia" as it were.

And before you have an aneurysm, no, I am not advocating any form of gun control here. Just pointing out the facts.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 2. for recreation.

Too vague to count as a point.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 3. to collect military small arms.

You don't need the weapon to be capable of full-auto to collect it. Or even to be ABLE to shoot it at all. So sure, you can have your AK47, but its barrel is filled with concrete.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

Try sucking less next time instead.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

Doesn't count as an additional point.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 6. for more fun plinking.

If you have to fire full auto to plink, you're pathetic.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

Against a mob, a shotgun will do just fine.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

Shotgun.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

Bolt actions are better for marksmanship than assault rifles and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

This might count.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

Most of the time, civilians just get in the way.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

Aside from the fact that this is never going to happen (even Russia would have to be insane to really consider actually invading the USA), you're not gonna put one up on disciplined military soldiers.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

Nutjobs like you are more likely to be the ones trying to do the takeover.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

It needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

Donate money to charity.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

It needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 18. to save time while shooting

You're more dangerous to everyone around you than your target if you honestly think this way.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

Assault rifles are less reliable than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

Assault rifles suffer wear and tear more than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

Assault rifles are more expensive than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to manufacture than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to repair than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to maintain than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

Perhaps. But for what purpose?

Spacemanvic wrote:* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

Assault rifles are not more weather resistant than other kinds of weapons.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

Needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 28. to defend your business.
* 29. to defend your home.
* 30. to defend your boat.
* 31. to defend your camp.
* 32. to defend your ranch.
* 33. to defend your farm.
* 34. to defend your family.

A shotgun will work fine.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

You haven't ever fired a weapon, have you? Assault rifles do not have reduced recoil, especially when fired on full auto.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 36. as an investment.

Go invest in stocks or property.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 37. as a military souvenir.

Go take your dog tags.

Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Going back to the beginning of this thread, someone stated:

I'm a huge supporter of pro-gun legislation, but I do think that some more specific regulation is required.

Like the transfer of gun ownership. Should be done at a licensed dealer, so that the appropriate background checks are performed.

While this would not have much impact criminals selling firearms to other criminals, it would decrease the possibility of the lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to criminals.

I would also be supportive of a more thorough background check prior to issuing class 3 licenses, similar to the checks conducted when attempting to get a security clearance.

A lot of information can be learned about someone by asking their family, friends, and neighbors.

Transfers of firearms have to go through an FFL dealer (Federal Firearms Licensed). Fact of the matter is, you have to go through a thorough NICS check whenever you purchase a firearm. Even at gunshows (unless in some states where long guns (shotguns/hunting rifles) can be exchanged face to face provided both parties are residents of the same state), you have to go through a NICS check. Even when doing a FTF (Face To Face) transfer, its prudent to go through an FFL NICS check. If the gun is later involved in a crime, the last person associated with that serial number is tracked down and investigated as part of the crime committed. NICS checks against an FBI database which " check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials." http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

Every gun has a serial number. Serial numbers are recorded by the manufacturer, the retailer, the buyer, the insurer (if insured). Serial numbers are always associated with someone. If a firearm has had the serial number removed or defaced, it is an instant federal felony gun violation, 12 years minimum imprisonment.

To obtain a Class 3 NFA firearm (automatic weapons, SBR (short Barrelled Rifle), you go through a minimum 4-9 month wait, as investigations are conducted by the BATFE on local, state and federal levels. Even then you have to obtain the approval of the local law enforcement agency. And yes, interviews are conducted during the course of seeking a Class 3 stamp.


Someone else wrote:

Most Americans don't want to own a fully automatic weapon. A handgun for self defense, perhaps a short-barrel shotgun for home defense, or a hunting rifle for, well, hunting, and all of the above for practice shooting-- but an AK47 with full auto would be seen as excessive even here in Texas.

Most Americans prefer and own semi-automatics. The difference between semi-auto and FA (Full Auto) is that semi-autos fire one bullet per trigger pull. Full-auto fire until the trigger is no longer pulled, or the magazine runs dry. It is very hard to obtain an automatic weapon, as well as expensive to both purchase and feed one. It is nearly impossible to convert a semi-auto to FA, as well as a Federal Felony violation. The boys in black (BATFE) will pay you a visit.

Shotguns and pistols are the worst choice for home defense. Both suffer from over-penetration of sheetrock, some with enough force to penetrate 4 layers of sheetrock (and anyone behind that sheetrock) and in the case of a shotgun, slow rate of fire. In testing, something in 223 was preferable in both firecontrol (pistols are notoriously harder to shoot than rifles or shotguns ) as well as lack of over penetration. Contrary to movies and comic books, shotguns provide a very narrow cone of shot (pellets), so if you miss indoors, not only are you now deaf with a possibly ruptured eardrum (firing most firearms within an enclosed space will do that to you), but you now have to make a followup shot. Unlike movies, most people do not expire immediately upon being shot, and can still advance or attack you. Most police (and some handgun self defense classes) are trained to fire until the target is no longer "man shaped" ie crumpled to the ground. Gun self defense courses train you to fight using a gun.

He didn't get owned. Nice though Mel I give you that.

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

Melissia wrote: Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.

I know a *lot* of Americans who hold this view, and they aren't a bunch of right wing loonies. Most of the non-Republican gun owners I know are people who live in or near potentially rough neighborhoods, recognize that calling the police just means law enforcement shows up in time to draw a chalk outline around your corpse, and have no qualms (at least in theory) of being responsible for their own protection. This includes my 59-year-old mother who lives alone and keeps a .357 revolver in her bedroom. She's willing to upgrade to a shotgun as soon as I tell her what to buy.
These people may trust the government on healthcare and infrastructure, but trusting law enforcement to save you before a home invader kills/rapes you? No thanks.

SilverMK2 wrote:The 'defence' budget of America is out of line with the spending by pretty much any other developed nation, which really skews the money available for everything else, given the generally low american tax rates.

Azizonomics addresses this on his blog: http://azizonomics.com/2011/08/25/team-america-world-police/

Essentially, the US's huge defense spending has subsidized the global economy by providing the security necessary for inexpensive, safe trans-oceanic trade. This has enabled the rest of the world to cut their defense spending to the bone and blow all their money on social programs, which, as we've seen in Europe's case, has still manged to be such an unsustainable economic proposition that the Eurozone is about to go belly-up.

Spend even a fraction of the money spent on defence on healthcare and the armed forces would hardly notice thedifference, while everyone else would get free (at point of use) healthcare

Medicare/Medicaid FY2011: $835B
DoD, DoHS, Vet Affairs FY2011: $929B

So tossing, say, 5% of defense spending into the healthcare pot would not be some magical panacea, especially since we've already seen how just throwing endless stacks of money at a problem usually just results in massive corruption and waste.

More importantly.....why should everyone get free healthcare? The real purpose of healthcare is to maximize labor productivity (and, by extension, economic output) by minimizing the downtime caused by illnesses and injuries. People who are permanently out of the labor force (the elderly, those with severe mental handicaps, etc.) should not get healthcare because they are not national assets. That's what your social support network (family, friends, community) should be for.

Noble713 wrote:I know a *lot* of Americans who hold this view, and they aren't a bunch of right wing loonies. Most of the non-Republican gun owners I know are people who live in or near potentially rough neighborhoods, recognize that calling the police just means law enforcement shows up in time to draw a chalk outline around your corpse, and have no qualms (at least in theory) of being responsible for their own protection.

You are shifting the goalposts here because this has nothing to do with the utter nonsense and vile flamebait you vomited out before. Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

That was a copy-paste job, taken from a gun forum. I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever she brings up.

Exhalted Melissia

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

That was a copy-paste job, taken from a gun forum. I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever she brings up.

And that makes your point better how?
I'd understand that citizens of the US wants guns for self-defense and maybe competitions but a lot of those points are either NA, repeated or you don't need live guns for...

This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

Spacemanvic wrote:This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

The post itself says that...

Melissia wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

If you are in a situation where you are surrounded by 10 people that are going to attack you, especially with firearms, you've already lost initiative.

In this extraordinarily hypothetical situation, where there are ten people, versus you, and both parties are totally prepared for the combat, what would you want to have? I think any gun would do. Of those ten people, the one you are pointing a gun at is really not going to want his buddies to start shooting.

Guns are also a deterrent, though in the case of the colorado man, I don't think it would have mattered who had what. People were going to die. I wish there had been someone to shoot back, which I think is the problem. To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

I would promote a background check/psychological evaluation at the purchase of your first gun, and after that make it not difficult to get another gun, a better gun, or a conceal and carry permit. So it would be like a driver's license.

And all you can do is hope you make enoug hcover saves that you live until the police arrive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:I would promote a background check/psychological evaluation at the purchase of your first gun, and after that make it not difficult to get another gun, a better gun, or a conceal and carry permit. So it would be like a driver's license.

As long as the psychological evaluation was also something that had to be renewed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:This earlier post for instance:

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

That post is completely off-base. Possession of a sawn off shotgun is a felony. And the issues of penetration was already discussed.

If you bothered to read my post-- which you did not-- you would note that I already noted that.

OF course, expecting you to make logical, intelligent debate is like expecting a monkey in a suit to behave in a civil manner. Well, that's unfair to the monkey. He's sane.

Melissia wrote:You are shifting the goalposts here because this has nothing to do with the utter nonsense and vile flamebait you vomited out before. Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

1. I think you are confusing me with another poster. The post of mine you quoted is the first I've made in this thread so there is nothing that I've "vomited out before." Perhaps you should check your attitude at the door. It's not a healthy character trait.

2. More to the point, a desire to personally defend yourself goes hand-in-hand with a failure of trust in the other members of society. You don't TRUST the guy who knocks on your door at midnight asking to "use your phone because it's an emergency" to not rape, murder, and rob you. You don't TRUST the group of teens in the ghetto to not beat you up for walking through their turf wearing the wrong color. You don't TRUST the local government to live up to its promise to serve and protect.

Here in Okinawa no one is armed because everyone TRUSTS that other Okinawans will not commit senseless acts of random violence in public (the same trust is in no way extended to members of the American military). There's also virtually no public trash cans along the streets/sidewalks. Everyone TRUSTS that everyone else will police up their personal garbage (candy wrappers, plastic bags, empty cans, etc). accordingly....and they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:If you are in a situation where you are surrounded by 10 people that are going to attack you, especially with firearms, you've already lost initiative.

Then you'd best seize it....with a burst of 5.56

More to the point, a desire to personally defend yourself goes hand-in-hand with a failure of trust in the other members of society.

There's a difference between being naive and trusting other people . What you describe is being naive.

I wouldn't mind letting a guy use my cell phone to make a call. But arming myself first isn't distrust, it's prudence. I don't know who this guy is. He's probably perfectly normal, just lost his way and needs help. But, just in case he isn't morally upstanding, I'm armed.

Being prepared isn't the same as distrust. To make such an assertion is nonsense, and to claim that Americans don't trust anyone is probably just trolling by an ignorant foreigner.

xole wrote: To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

Honestly, I wonder what they'll do the first time a mass casualty shooting involves:

1. A homemade submachinegun.
2. A homemade assault weapon where the shooter drafted (or downloaded) CAD files and had individual parts sent to different machine shops nation/worldwide for manufacture.

What are they gonna do, ban machine tools and CAD software?

Noble713 wrote:

xole wrote: To me, crazy people who want guns are going to find a way to get guns.

Honestly, I wonder what they'll do the first time a mass casualty shooting involves:

1. A homemade submachinegun.
2. A homemade assault weapon where the shooter drafted (or downloaded) CAD files and had individual parts sent to different machine shops nation/worldwide for manufacture.

What are they gonna do, ban machine tools and CAD software?

Obviously not...
There's reasonable lengths to go to in order to stop gun violence and there are unreasonable lengths.
That is unreasonable.

Spacemanvic wrote:
101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”
Oh this should be a good amount of fail.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

See the National and various State Guard units. That is a citizen soldier, your "well regulated militia" as it were.

And before you have an aneurysm, no, I am not advocating any form of gun control here. Just pointing out the facts.

National Guards keeps alive that tradition. Look up US Volunteers because it can still go into effect

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 2. for recreation.

Too vague to count as a point.

To go out to a range and fire with your buddies and other weapon enthusists.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 3. to collect military small arms.

You don't need the weapon to be capable of full-auto to collect it. Or even to be ABLE to shoot it at all. So sure, you can have your AK47, but its barrel is filled with concrete.

No one is allowed a automatic (unless federaly license) filling a barrel with concrete makes that barrel no good. Can always buy another barrel. He's refering to semi assualt weapons

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

Try sucking less next time instead.

Never hunted have you.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

Doesn't count as an additional point.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 6. for more fun plinking.

If you have to fire full auto to plink, you're pathetic.

You ASSUME here. Semi assualt rifle

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Inexperience shows here on handling a weapon and situation

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

Against a mob, a shotgun will do just fine.

Inexperience again. How many rounds does a shotgun hold and do you really want that mob to be that close

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

Shotgun.

If in house and folding stock shotgun is good. Outside I really don't want the looters that close.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

Bolt actions are better for marksmanship than assault rifles and semi-automatics.

Inexperience again. You have to reaquire the sight picture wasting time. Semi Assualt rifles

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

This might count.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

Most of the time, civilians just get in the way.

Agree if inexperience in a shooting match. Most citizen never been under fire before.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

Aside from the fact that this is never going to happen (even Russia would have to be insane to really consider actually invading the USA), you're not gonna put one up on disciplined military soldiers.

wrong...so wrong. Insurgent is living proof. Also if anyone does invade the US we have a crap load of "snipers" against them. US Military will not always be the dominate force in the world and "crap happens"


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

Nutjobs like you are more likely to be the ones trying to do the takeover.

He's prior military. He will be called back up if a armed insurrection against the US gov't takes place. Ease up on the name calling.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

It needs no help from you.

supply and demand

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

Donate money to charity.

Some perfer not to donate to charity

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

It needs no help from you.

His money as countless others will continue the evolution of fire arms.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 18. to save time while shooting

You're more dangerous to everyone around you than your target if you honestly think this way.

You ASSUME again that a human is the target

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

Assault rifles are less reliable than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Wrong. Totally wrong. Its how you maintain your weapons.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

Assault rifles suffer wear and tear more than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

True but again it comes down to how you maintain your weapon


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

Assault rifles are more expensive than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Depends on the bolt action or semi auto weapon your buying. You need to look further into this on prices

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to manufacture than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Seriously? Think we're way past handmade weapons to mold injection

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to repair than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Can't compare. Depends on the part that breaks and how much a weapon smith charges. Common break. The fire pin on all

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to maintain than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Kept my weapon pretty clean in the desert. Goes to how well you maintain your weapons


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

Perhaps. But for what purpose?

hunting, defense, to name a few


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

Assault rifles are not more weather resistant than other kinds of weapons.

agreed. Also how well you maintain your weapon

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

Needs no help from you.

Misread this? P90 seems nifty as all get go


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 28. to defend your business.
* 29. to defend your home.
* 30. to defend your boat.
* 31. to defend your camp.
* 32. to defend your ranch.
* 33. to defend your farm.
* 34. to defend your family.

A shotgun will work fine.

Enclosed spaces yes for a shotgun. Drawback is how many rounds does the shotgun carry. Also distance between aggressor and you


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

You haven't ever fired a weapon, have you? Assault rifles do not have reduced recoil, especially when fired on full auto.

Your so wrong Mel. Its muzzle climb on a auto. Guess you never fired a automatic weapon before have you

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 36. as an investment.

Go invest in stocks or property.

Some people do invest and actually own fire arms

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 37. as a military souvenir.

Go take your dog tags.

Inexperience owning a historic weapon. How many here would love to get their hands on Pattons 45's?


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 38. as a hedge against inflation.

Useless in this fashion.

Looters

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.

Not relevant

.

Agreed


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)

A shotgun works just fine.

Depends on the distance between aggressor and you. SHotgun devastating closeup and say a M4 works well at all range

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)

Utter nonsense. The reason why so few assault rifles are used in crimes is because they're so hard to get.

Wrong. Go to your local Gander, Caleba, or gunshop

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)

See? Shotguns work just fine

.

Space clarify that for me in grunt 11B terms

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.

Unless you're actually participating, then this is irrelevant.

Then someone owning a weapon similiar to the ones being used in the Olypics shouldn't bother you.....and what Assualt weapons are being used in the Olympics?

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.

You don't need to own the weapon to appreciate it.

I like my M4...its simple to use and easily to maintain. I also enjoy shooting with it

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.

Most weapons do, so this is irrelevant.

You keep bringing up bolt action but I agree on the rest.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.

Maybe.

agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 47. to reject anti-gun bias.

Utter nonsense.

thats a gray area not really sure I can answer that

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 48. to challenge “Big Brotherism”.

Utter nonsense. Republicans are far more "big brother" than Democrats anyway.

Gray area. Not chancing a comment


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.

Again, shotgun.

Screw that. I've seen a feral pack that would render a shotgun useless due to the amount of rounds it can hold. 30 round mag in my M4 is better

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.

An assault rifle isn't better for the physically handicapped.

Ergonomics

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to “salami” tactics.

Utter nonsense

.

WTH is Salami tactics?

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).

Semi-automatic is better for this purpose.

He's refering to semi auto

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)

Irrelevant. There's plenty of non-assault firearms that can shoot military ammunition

.

Marketing scheme

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.

This is a repeat of points you tried and failed to make before

.

Same as the country being invaded

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 55. to familiarize yourself with your country’s military rifle.

Go join the military or the national guard.

A lot of people perfer not to but would like to fire the same type of weapons. Why take a chance of getting killed in the middle east

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country’s military rifle.

Why? Don't give me the nonsense about invading armies.

AK47/AK74 are kind of neat to shoot but aiming on them kinda blows.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 57. because they are interesting.

You don't need to own a working model for this.

Why not. Same as someone that collects muskets

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 58. to hang on your wall.

You don't need to own a working model for this.

I don't advertise what can be potentially stolen

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 59. to shoot clay targets.
* 60. to shoot paper targets.
* 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.

Semi-auto and shotguns are better for this.

He's refering to semi not automatic

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.* 63. to exercise a natural right.
* 64. to exercise a civil right.
* 65. to exercise a fundamental right.
* 66. to exercise an inalienable right.
* 67. to exercise a human right.

Aside from most of these being utter nonsense and padding, you don't need assault rifles for these.

Why not. If the individual want to own a semi assualt rifle then shouldn't be an issue

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.
* 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.
* 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.

Shotguns and semi-autos work just fine

.

Again looters and mob grps. Shotgun is useless

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 71. to avoid a “Tiananmen Square” in the U.S.

Utter nonsense.

Aye thats China.


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.

Heller did not restrict state rights to ban firearms.

Agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 73. to protect livestock from predators.

Shotguns.

Negative. Depending on the predator a semi assualt do just fine

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.

Utter nonsense. Your views are far removed from that of the various founding fathers.

Reaching Space

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).

Utter nonsense. Assault weapons are designed to kill.

All fire arms are designed to kill

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.

You contradict yourself

.

He's talking about semi assualt weapons

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 77. to own a firearm with that “shoulder thingy that goes up.”

You really don't know anything about firearms if you don't know what a folding stock is.

Clarify. I'm with Mel on this

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 78. to own a “state-of-the-art” firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).

FN Herstal sells semi-auto FN SCAR-L and FN SCAR-H to civilians. It is completely legal.

Its an assualt rifle Mel

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 79. to own a “turn-of-the-century” firearm (e.g. Borchardt).

The Borchardt C-93? That's a semi-automatic pistol, not something likely to be classified as an assault weapon. The Luger Parabellum is better though.

I'm tried and true. Colt 45 or 9mm. perfer 9mm due to it works in combat

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).

This is not true about assault rifles.

Its true. M4 being one

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.

Utter nonsense.

Aye we're not at that point...yet

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.

Shotgun.

WTH. Reaching here. Both of you

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.

Shotguns and magnum revolvers

.

Also assualt rifles.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.

Utter nonsense.

Not really. Its the mystique of the possibility

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 85. to own a firearm which is banned.

Utter nonsense.

Not chancing a fine or jail time. Reaching Space


Spacemanvic wrote:
* 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.

Many, if not most, non-assault weapons fit under this definition.

M4

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).

Are you fething kidding me? The Uzi, especially under full auto, is ANYTHING but safe.

Muzzle control and fire discipline

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 88. to own a firearm that is a “work of art”.

Revolvers.

Agreed and historic rifles

Spacemanvic wrote:

* 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.

A modified AK47 isn't considered a good rifle for sporting? You don't say. Next you'll be saying that a club isn't suitable for cleaving meat.

Nice weapon. Seems fun to fool around with on the range.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use.

You're really reaching here.

Agreed

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).
* 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.

The M-1 Carbine is available in semi-auto. And you don't need it to work to own it.

An assualt rifle though in the later stages of developement/wars

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.
]Revolver.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.
You don't want an assault rifle for this.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.
There are many weapons that can operate underwater. You don't need an assault rifle for this.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.
Most assault rifles won't.
Spacemanvic wrote:
* 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.
Most weapons can be, provided you clean them afterwards.

Your both out of your mind.

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).

A law created because the militia was proven to be too weak, even when armed with military grade weapons.

US Volunteers/title ten orders

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.
* 100.because you believe in freedom.

Utter nonsense

Seriously in a gray area

Spacemanvic wrote:
* 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual’s need should not be determined by the state.

Oh really now? I want a nuke.

Thats a WMD and a flip answer Mel

Grey Templar wrote:
Vehicles = legal

Arms = legal


Arms + Vehicle = legal

Not quite. You have no right to a tank, or any vehicle for that matter. There is nothing stopping the federal government from banning the private ownership of tanks, just as there is nothing stopping them from banning private ownership of cars, or planes.

In case you want to try though for some

http://visual.ly/owning-tank-what-you-need-know


Don't go all out and be a Wittmann

I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in. Just because they never get sent beyond the national borders doesn't make them any less of a professional soldier.

A true citizen soldier is one that does what Militia once were. A group of local volunteers(without pay) who got together at the county capital once a month for drill practice and were occasionally used as honor guards at some official event. They would only fight if their local area was threatened.

Its the tradition the National Guards have. They become federal with title 10 orders

US Volunteers "brofist"

Grey Templar wrote:I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in.

No they aren't. The national guard is a militia. They are not professional soldiers, and the vast majority of guardsmen pursue full-time jobs in parallel to their service in the Guard. The ones that don't are usually in college, or temporarily unemployed.

They are as close to being citizen-soldiers as you can get.

They're still a military organization that gets paid. Ergo, not a militia.

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

one weekend a month 2 weeks in a year by the state. Weekend drill is four day pay. The two week is reg. pay. Anything over 30 days they have to be on orders.

Grey Templar wrote:They're still a military organization that gets paid. Ergo, not a militia.

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

Perhaps you should have read a bit further down:

An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

And then of course the article on the National Guard itself:

National Guard members are a subset of the Militia as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

The word militia has several different meanings. Moreover, a citizen-soldier is essentially just a person for whom being a soldier is not their sole profession. For example, members of the National Guard.

Thats only in the definition because the organization is called a Militia by other organizations.

The proper definition of Militia is people volunteering for the defense of their homeland without pay in a time of drastic need. Not the current state army that the National Guard is today. It may be part time, but its still an army.

Grey Templar wrote:Thats only in the definition because the organization is called a Militia by other organizations.

Yeah, that's usually how words acquire their meanings. People start calling X a militia, and X eventually becomes incorporated into the meaning of "militia".

Grey Templar wrote:
The proper definition of Militia is people volunteering for the defense of their homeland without pay in a time of drastic need. Not the current state army that the National Guard is today. It may be part time, but its still an army.

First, there's no such thing as a "proper definition". Something is either a possible definition or it isn't, propriety doesn't enter into it.

Second, the National Guard is most definitely not an army per the modern understanding of the term, as it is not a standing force. Though, in its broadest sense, the term "army" doesn't necessarily conflict with the term "militia". Either way, legally the National Guard is a militia, it further fits several definitions of what a militia is in that its members are not professional, or full time members of the service (this is one of the reason all draft eligible people can be considered a militia). And, more importantly for the purposes of this conversation, even it were not a militia it does not follow that its members aren't citizen-soldiers.

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS? Much like the Americans received from the French in the AWI? Or the VC received from both China and the USSR? You still needed a populace willing to pull themselves from mediocrity, to rise above their "paygrade".

lol, no.

You need media coverage, and a sympathetic global community.

Melissia wrote:Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

Feeling like you have to defend yourself is the same as not trusting people.

Melissia wrote:

OF course, expecting you to make logical, intelligent debate is like expecting a monkey in a suit to behave in a civil manner. Well, that's unfair to the monkey. He's sane.

THIS is the best youve got Melissa? Do you know ANYTHING about firearms, or firearms laws?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I would like to point out that the National Guard are NOT citizen soldiers. They are soldiers in the army of whatever state they are in.

No they aren't. The national guard is a militia. They are not professional soldiers, and the vast majority of guardsmen pursue full-time jobs in parallel to their service in the Guard. The ones that don't are usually in college, or temporarily unemployed.

They are as close to being citizen-soldiers as you can get.

Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.

Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

National Guard members are a subset of the Militia as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

The word militia has several different meanings. Moreover, a citizen-soldier is essentially just a person for whom being a soldier is not their sole profession. For example, members of the National Guard.

And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Second, the National Guard is most definitely not an army per the modern understanding of the term, as it is not a standing force. Though, in its broadest sense, the term "army" doesn't necessarily conflict with the term "militia". Either way, legally the National Guard is a militia, it further fits several definitions of what a militia is in that its members are not professional, or full time members of the service (this is one of the reason all draft eligible people can be considered a militia). And, more importantly for the purposes of this conversation, even it were not a militia it does not follow that its members aren't citizen-soldiers.

The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia. 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

It cant get any simpler to explain.

National Guard is equipped by the state funds. Though additional equipment are regulated down to the Guards.

Noble713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

Its better to have a weapon to defend yourself against a mob/gang than to be defenceless and faced with one.

Usually mobs are a loosely organized group of cowards. Shoot one or two, and they disperse. Gangs are a bit more organized and some will know how to shoot back. Usually ineffectively.

When I was in my 20's, I could shoot alot faster. Now though, with a 3# CMC trigger on one of my ARs (way smoother than the original trigger), I can only empty a 30 round magazine in about 8-10 seconds. If your SA (situational awareness) is up and you move quickly, you can slice up the group like a pie as you seek better cover and address more manageable "slices" . No guarantees though, but better than just sitting there awaiting the gangs "tender" mercies.

Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers. The report is extremely graphic in nature and intended for law enforcement. For the young and squeamish, I strongly advise against Googling the report.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:National Guard is equipped by the state funds. Though additional equipment are regulated down to the Guards.

Yes, and non NG militia fund themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just across the transom:
Will you look at that! Darn evil guns...

http://www.wistv.com/story/19112018/gun-toting-89-year-old-sc-widow-scares-burglars

Gun-toting 89-year-old SC widow scares burglars

Posted: Jul 25, 2012 2:34 PM EDT
Updated: Jul 25, 2012 2:42 PM EDT


Nelson Hawkins and Ronnie Stevenson (Source: WMBF)

BLENHEIM, SC (AP) - An 89-year-old South Carolina widow surprised and chased off two burglars who broke into her home by using a fully-loaded .38 caliber pistol she pulled from under her mattress.

Marlboro County Sheriff Fred Knight told the Florence Morning News he arrived at Ruby Hodge's home Monday morning after she'd used her lifeline emergency device to call authorities.

Knight says 42-year-old Nelson Hawkins of Darlington and 31-year-old Ronnie Stevenson of Lydia were apprehended after a passerby saw a vehicle in Hodge's driveway and took down the license plate number.

Hodge told the paper two men broke in through her back door and they ran away after she confronted them with the gun. The widow says the weapon belonged to her late husband, who died 22 years ago.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

If you have to duck behind a car go for the wheel well, more cover and concealment

South Carolina and she didn't have a shotgun? The pistol hasn't been clean in how long? Still though she kept her head on straight and remember the pistol.

Depends on the circumstances. Take, for example, a street gang of 10, with maybe 4-6 pistols/revolvers, where you get the initiative (i.e. probably fire first) and have access to a covered position (like behind a car's engine block). You don't need to be an operator to force such a group to break contact, especially after you drop the first 2-3 with controlled bursts. CQB firing courses are available all across the country, and typically aren't too expensive either. Hell, every POG in the Marine Corps does Table 2.

Also you able to guess who the leader is to and his "LT's" eventually before a actual shoot out occur. Also no one has "burst" on their M4's

edit

If you have to duck behind a car go for the wheel well, more cover and concealment

I fired quite a few times deliberately under a vehicle to nail a target thats using it for cover. Most of the time there's a cement berm the car park alongside of

Spacemanvic wrote:
Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see a difference. The difference is "unorganized" versus "organized", but both are militias by your own statement.

I'm not even sure what you're objecting to. That I said Guardsmen are citizen-soldiers?

Or, to rephrase: do you even know what you're objecting to?

Spacemanvic wrote:
Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

It was a quote from an article sourced by the person I was responding to.

Spacemanvic wrote:
And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

And?

Spacemanvic wrote:
The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia.

I didn't say it was.

Spacemanvic wrote:
It cant get any simpler to explain.

Somehow I feel as though a 10 year old is trying to talk down to me.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers.

Yes, cars provide almost no physical cover. But engine blocks are damn near impossible to penetrate with lethal force, lest we're discussing anything of cast aluminium and even then that's dicey with anything under .338 Lapua. You can disable a car with much less though, which is the point generally.

You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

possible mix up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Volunteers ?

dogma wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:
Umm, no.

10 US Code §311, defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see a difference. The difference is "unorganized" versus "organized", but both are militias by your own statement.

I'm not even sure what you're objecting to. That I said Guardsmen are citizen-soldiers?

Or, to rephrase: do you even know what you're objecting to?

Spacemanvic wrote:
Focus on the thread, we are talking about THIS country (the United States).

It was a quote from an article sourced by the person I was responding to.

Spacemanvic wrote:
And in regards to 10 USC: 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard.

And?

Spacemanvic wrote:
The National Guard is an organized militia, but not the only militia.

I didn't say it was.

Spacemanvic wrote:
It cant get any simpler to explain.

Somehow I feel as though a 10 year old is trying to talk down to me.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Speaking of cover, modern car engine blocks provide almost no cover.

A well documented shootout in Nuevo Laredo Mexico with fully automatic weapons (not what you can get at a gun store) details the lack of protective cover a vehicle offers.

Yes, cars provide almost no physical cover. But engine blocks are damn near impossible to penetrate with lethal force, lest we're discussing anything of cast aluminium and even then that's dicey with anything under .338 Lapua. You can disable a car with much less though, which is the point generally.

You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

My apologies. I took your post to mean that only the National Guard is the militia, when clearly it is not.

Are you really going to try to curl yourself behind an engine block though? Especially since the skin around the block is paper thin? And modern car engines are relatively small. Maybe if you have absolutely no where to go, then yeah, maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:possible mix up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Volunteers ?

I wouldnt bother with Wikipedia as a primary source for anything. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is militia defined as this Wikipedia entry asserts.

Spacemanvic wrote:
My apologies. I took your post to mean that only the National Guard is the militia, when clearly it is not.

Fair enough. Kudos to you, apologies are rare on the internet.

But it seems we're on the same page.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Are you really going to try to curl yourself behind an engine block though? Especially since the skin around the block is paper thin? Maybe if you have absolutely no where to go, then yeah, maybe.

It depends on what's around. I'm no soldier, but I would take an engine block over a wall, assuming the enemy knew where to shoot, any day.

Granted, this is all me sitting in an office doing math, not fighting in the field.

Avoid the engine block. Either rounds going t punch through the skin or like I said someone going to ricochet rounds under the vehicle to get you. Or for the Hollywod effect the gas tank explode

Makes sense. Thanks for the insight.

Jihadin wrote:To go out to a range and fire with your buddies and other weapon enthusists.

By that definition, this point still doesn't count because he repeated it numerous times for padding.

Jihadin wrote:He's refering to semi assualt weapons

I have no reason to believe this.

Jihadin wrote:Never hunted have you.

I have. I'm not the greatest shot, but at I'm not going to go firing full auto in to the woods.

Jihadin wrote:How many rounds does a shotgun hold and do you really want that mob to be that close

Depends on the shotgun. And shotguns have more than enough range, just wielding one is viable to keep a mob away.

Jihadin wrote:You have to reaquire the sight picture wasting time.

Sure, if you're not very good at using the bolt mechanism.

Jihadin wrote:wrong...so wrong.

If you honestly think we'll ever be invaded by a military force in our lifetimes, you're probably delusional.

Jihadin wrote:He's prior military.

I'm not changing my statement.

Jihadin wrote:You ASSUME again that a human is the target

No I don't.

Jihadin wrote:Wrong.

No it's not.

Jihadin wrote:Your so wrong Mel. Its muzzle climb on a auto.

If you want to claim that muzzle climb isn't an effect of recoil, you should just go argue something else because you've already failed.

Jihadin wrote:Depends on the distance between aggressor and you. SHotgun devastating closeup and say a M4 works well at all range

He said intimidation. A shotgun is intimidating. As is a magnum revolver.

Jihadin wrote:Wrong.

Keep lying to yourself, Jihadin, it'll help you feel better.

Jihadin wrote:He's refering to semi auto

There is no reason for me to believe this.

Jihadin wrote:Its an assualt rifle Mel

However, it is not full auto, and it is perfectly legal to buy.

Jihadin wrote:Your both out of your mind.

Thank you. Being insane is quite fun.

Jihadin wrote:Thats a WMD and a flip answer Mel

Of course it's flippant. It was a stupid "point". The US government CAN regulate what we buy and don't buy, as can the states. each one to differing extent as the various constitutions allow.

Kaldor wrote:Feeling like you have to defend yourself is the same as not trusting people.

I thought the nonsense in this thread was only going to come from spacemnavic.

Compared to no cover or concealment, ill take my chance with the engine block

Melissia wrote:I thought the nonsense in this thread was only going to come from spacemnavic.

Some precautions are sensible. Having readily accessible firearms for home defense is not one of them. Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense, but at least the owner is then in direct control of the firearm at all times.

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

Kaldor wrote:Is it really though?

Yes. The time and effort aren't really that great, as most weapons designed for concealed carry are simple to use and maintain to begin with. As for how likely, well, how likely am I to be hit by a flood in north Texas? And yet, it's still considered sensible to have house insurance that includes flood coverage. It's not likely to happen, but if it does happen, you'll be glad that you were prepared.

Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Man drowned in shallow lake after firefighters 'not allowed' to rescue him

Charity shop worker died in Gosport, Hampshire, after rescuers said they could not enter water for health and safety reasons

Wednesday 22 February 2012 02.52 EST

A man who fell into a lake drowned after firefighters called to the scene said they could not enter the water if it was higher than ankle deep for health and safety reasons, an inquest has been told.

Simon Burgess, a 41-year-old charity shop worker died at Walpole Park, in Gosport, Hampshire, on 10 March. He is believed to have had an epileptic seizure either before or after falling into the water while feeding swans.

Witnesses raised the alarm, but the hearing was told on Tuesday that members of a fire crew refused to get to him because the water was more than ankle deep. Instead, they waited for a specialist water rescue team and Burgess was only taken out of the lake 28 minutes after the alarm was raised.

Gillian Hughes, 53, told the inquest, at Portsmouth coroners court, that she had phoned emergency services and urged them to rescue Burgess when they arrived. She said: "The firemen arrived with the police, and I said: 'He's only been there five or 10 minutes, so if you hurry you might save him.'

"He just said: 'We're not allowed', and I said: 'But that's your job.'

Hughes added: "I said to one of the firemen: Why don't you go in?' and he said they couldn't if the water was higher than ankle deep. I said: 'You're having a laugh'. He said: 'No, that's health and safety' – but I thought that was their job."

She said that another fire crew arrived and started walking around the lake, putting in a pole and measuring the depth but, by this time, Burgess had drifted from one side of the lake to the other.

Deborah Coles, the control room manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue, told the inquest that she took the call from Hughes at 12.17pm and, within a minute, had sent a fire appliance, a water rescue trained crew and a water support unit.

"Police, ambulance and coastguard were also sent as standard for a water rescue," she added. "The specialist teams are there to deal with water which is over half a boot in depth. At 12.20pm, the fire crew confirmed attendance and at 12.25 they told us a male was floating face down."

"The water support unit arrived at 12.31pm. At 12.46, we received a message requesting our press officer attend the scene. At 12.52, an update came in saying a male had been recovered, and at 12.58 he was taken to hospital."

Burgess was pronounced dead at 1.42pm after he was taken to hospital.

Dr Bret Lockyer, the speciality registrar of histopathology, told the inquest there were signs that Burgess had fallen into the lake because of an epileptic seizure.

Burgess was diagnosed with the condition in 1987, and had unsuccessful brain surgery to ease the seizures. Lockyer said: "If he had been taken out of the water after 10 minutes, there is a slim chance he could have been resuscitated.

"It seems he had a seizure either before or while he fell into the water."

The hearing continues.

Yes, one cannot help but agree that this sort of thing would never happen if we all had guns.

I agree, the answer to violence is most definitely more violence. The way to stop gun crime is for everyone to have more guns - after all, that approach won the cold war!

Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Wrong.

No it's not.

Look what's hapened to this discussion....

Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.

What many here fail to see is that more guns does not equate to more violence, its a myth begotten from ignorance and fear.

In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases. This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public. This has been proven in all major American metropolitan areas time and again. The shooting in Aurora Colorado occurred in an area that had very strict and restrictive gun laws, and in a theatre that did not allow weapons. The law abiding people did not have weapons to defend themselves, and so were at the mercy of a madman who had no mercy.

A criminal is a coward. If a criminal suspects that he will be met with force, he will look for an easier mark. If you search hard enough, you will see news story upon news story of people defending themselves with a privately held firearm, more so than a policeman stopping a crime in progress. The police cannot be everywhere at once, and they weigh to much to carry around with you. Some say to use CCTV camera's everywhere and metals detectors every where, and patdowns everywhere etc, in the hope that that will bring about more security. At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?

In the US, this isnt a right or left issue, as the Patriot Act came about under a Republican Administration. The Patriot Act is an odious piece of legislation which, under a Democratic Administration, has been grown to include more government departments who have oversight on the day to day lives of the American citizen, and more intrusion into our personal lives. TSA is now expanded outside of airports, and into bus, train and some highway locations. At what point do we as US citizens say no to giving up our individual liberties in exchange for this veneer, this illusion of security?

As to relying solely on the police for protection, you do know that the police have no general duty to protect individuals, and because of this judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. As there are approximately 500,000 police in this country attempting to police over 240,000,000 citizens and stop 10,000,000 criminals, this is understandable.

There are court cases that aptly illustrate the shortcomings of expecting the police to provide protection:

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

And a recent ruling which formally acknowledges that police are under NO duty to protect:

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

I hope that there are some here with intellectual honesty enough to question their stance on this issue. At least educate yourself enough to both understand your position and have the ability to defend it.

Guns are tools. They are not inherently evil. They do not go off on their own. There are in fact gun laws that need to be enforced to be effective. Had Holmes' mother excercised due diligence and not abrogated her responsibility as a mother to report her son or at the least taken him to a doctor, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun. Period.

Had the people in the theater been given the chance to defend themselves rather than present themselves as the unarmed targets that they were, at least they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves.

I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.

As a side note, the UN gun treaty went nowhere. As it should.

It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.

Spacemanvic wrote:
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.

Perfect example. Afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves. I've had to 'defend myself' a couple of times, the difference being that afterwards you can shake hands with the guy! It's like Travis Bickle is actually representatve of an entire country.

I read this today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179995/A-mass-shooting-happens-FIVE-days-America-Interactive-map-shows-gun-violence-epidemic-sweeping-nation.html#ixzz21unjeb4x. I know data can be manipulated but I think it's fair to say that guns failed as a preventative measure to gun crime.

My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies

Spacemanvic wrote:Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.

I'd ask you to put forth intelligent conversation on the matter, but it's quite too late for that.

In this thread I have not advocated for stronger gun control, but rather, for more effectively using the control we have to try to prevent criminals and the insane from getting guns in the first place. NOT to prevent law abiding citizens. In fact, I plan on purchasing one myself, and my family owns them. I have used many of them over the course of my life, both in target shooting of various kinds, and in hunting-- and quite enjoyed it. In this thread, I've done little other than advocated FOR gun rights.

Just because you made a lot of inane statements (and continue to make them) doesn't mean I'm somehow a gun control fanatic. It just means you have no clue what you're talking about. Your list of 100 things that require an assault rifle was mostly nonsense and padding. Hell, you haven't even bothered to read my posts yet in the first place, you just dismiss them outright because you refuse to read the posts of someone who you think might possibly disagree with your insane ramblings.

Davylove21 wrote:My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme.

If you expect me to act stupid and attempt to enter fisticuffs with a guy who has sixty pounds and half a foot on me (27 kg and 15 cm, appx), you probably don't have much of a head on your shoulders.

MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help

Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.

(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.

What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.

(To Davy)What I want is a statistic on mass shooting where the victim had a gun versus shootings where only the assailant had a gun.

xole wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help

Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.

(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.

What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.

I brought up that salient point earlier to deaf ears:

A criminal is a coward. If a criminal suspects that he will be met with force, he will look for an easier mark.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Your replies have been very disappointing Melissa, but expected from someone who has absolutely not a clue about the subject matter.

I'd ask you to put forth intelligent conversation on the matter, but it's quite too late for that.

In this thread I have not advocated for stronger gun control, but rather, for more effectively using the control we have to try to prevent criminals and the insane from getting guns in the first place. NOT to prevent law abiding citizens. In fact, I plan on purchasing one myself, and my family owns them. I have used many of them over the course of my life, both in target shooting of various kinds, and in hunting-- and quite enjoyed it. In this thread, I've done little other than advocated FOR gun rights.

Just because you made a lot of inane statements (and continue to make them) doesn't mean I'm somehow a gun control fanatic. It just means you have no clue what you're talking about. Your list of 100 things that require an assault rifle was mostly nonsense and padding. Hell, you haven't even bothered to read my posts yet in the first place, you just dismiss them outright because you refuse to read the posts of someone who you think might possibly disagree with your insane ramblings.

Davylove21 wrote:My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme.

If you expect me to act stupid and attempt to enter fisticuffs with a guy who has sixty pounds and half a foot on me (27 kg and 15 cm, appx), you probably don't have much of a head on your shoulders.

Im sorry, you havent.

Your first interaction with me in this thread was an attack BY you regarding a post I made.

Why should I give you the time of day?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davylove21 wrote:It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.

Spacemanvic wrote:
I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.

Perfect example. Afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves. I've had to 'defend myself' a couple of times, the difference being that afterwards you can shake hands with the guy! It's like Travis Bickle is actually representatve of an entire country.

I read this today http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179995/A-mass-shooting-happens-FIVE-days-America-Interactive-map-shows-gun-violence-epidemic-sweeping-nation.html#ixzz21unjeb4x. I know data can be manipulated but I think it's fair to say that guns failed as a preventative measure to gun crime.

My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defence is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies

I am not shaking hands with someone who has tried to do me harm. I have had to provide aid to them afterwards however.

And no, it is asinine to think that guns do not prevent crime.

Spacemanvic wrote:
In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases.

Not really.

Spacemanvic wrote:
This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public.

Again, not really:

Spacemanvic wrote:
A criminal is a coward.

Not by necessity. Often they're quite brave, you might even argue that they need to be in order to ignore the law.

Spacemanvic wrote: At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?

So you're implying that guns make you secure?

Spacemanvic wrote:[some stuff]

I see that my arguments are so superior to yours that you haven't even bothered to respond to them,knowing that such a response would be futile.


Obviously, this has boosted my ego to Steve Jobs levels.

dogma wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:
In areas of the United States where this notion that "gunz are evil" brings about gun bans or the curtailment of one's ability to carry a firearm, we see that gun violence actually increases.

Not really.

Spacemanvic wrote:
This makes sense as in those areas, those who are law abiding, abide by the law that you do not own/carry a gun, but those who are criminals do not. A criminal is then given free reign to exert his influence on an a defenseless public.

Again, not really:

Spacemanvic wrote:
A criminal is a coward.

Not by necessity. Often they're quite brave, you might even argue that they need to be in order to ignore the law.

Spacemanvic wrote: At what point does one give up his or her liberty in exchange for the illusion of security?

So you're implying that guns make you secure?

A criminal usually when faced with resistance will look for an out. Personal experience has taught me that. Any number of surveillance videos of robberies in progress also attest to the criminal abandoning his enterprise when faced with resistance.

But, since we are looking for empirical data....

Granted the following study comes from a conservative leaning group but:

When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

One of the most divisive issues in American politics is that of gun control. Many who oppose gun licensing for citizens do so because they believe that guns do more harm to a populace than good. They emphasize incidents of accidental death in which one's incompetence cost them their life. They also argue that increased gun ownership will result in increased gun use in cases of anger or passion, say Clayton E. Cramer, a history teacher at the College of Western Idaho, and David Burnett, the director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry.

However, such incidents have been overblown in severity and frequency, and cloud the debate over gun control. Specifically, they draw attention away from the fact that, by prohibiting the ownership of guns by private individuals, the government would leave its citizens more vulnerable to criminal activity. The government should recognize this fact and allow for one of the most basic of human rights: the right to self-defense.

The most widely known study of gun-related self-defense, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, was completed in the 1990s and found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.
Another prominent study, by the National Crime Victimization Survey, found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.
The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, performed in 1994, arrived at a figure of 1.5 million incidents of self-defense with a firearm.

The wide variation between surveys is inherent in the type of information that is being ascertained. People often exaggerate, forget the date of the incident or fail to classify themselves as a "victim of a violent crime" (as one survey put it), creating systemic under- and overestimates.

Nevertheless, the idea that so many confrontations end with a "positive" outcome, in which the criminal is killed, forced to flee or held for the police, makes the continued availability of guns for the populace at large an attractive option.

Source: Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett, "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens," Cato Institute, February 2, 2012.

For text:

Those maps are suspect as they are provided by known anti-gun groups. So, while furthering their sides perspective, overall not advancing the argument. We would need a party that has no "dog in the fight".

Here's an interactive map from the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

However, maybe a study by Harvard holds more credence:

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

So you're implying that guns make you secure?

Does a lock secure a door? Is having the appropriate tool for the task at hand prudent?

A podcast of a nationally syndicated show here in the states discussing the Aurora shooting:
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/e/a/5/ea5bdf094fca94d0/Podcast_Aurora_shooting_S.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cc8432d0ca5b3013&c_id=4725969

Again, another podcast of the same show regarding Aurora, but the perspective gained a week later. The shooter DID NOT have body armor, just a tac vest.
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/3/a/f/3af22a0d20e8c581/Bonus_Podcast_MONO_S_7-27-12.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cc8432d0ca549403&c_id=4758448

This one always gives me a chuckle:

Spacemanvic wrote:As to relying solely on the police for protection, you do know that the police have no general duty to protect individuals

An educated and well policed society drastically reduces the need for the individual to protect themselves.

Had the people in the theater been given the chance to defend themselves rather than present themselves as the unarmed targets that they were, at least they would have had the opportunity to defend themselves.

They also would have had the opportunity to turn it into an industrial grade cluster feth.

I understand that there are people who are afraid to carry the responsibility to defend themselves, that would rather leave it up to another "paygrade", Those people can wallow in self doubt and prostrate themselves to whatever fate has in store for them, there are people like that in a given population. But leave those of us alone who chose not to live in mediocrity, those of us who chose to carry the responsibility of self defence and actively engage in exercising our Constitutional right.

As a side note, the UN gun treaty went nowhere. As it should.

I understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:[The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Oh please.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

Sticking to their guns: Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911

It’s been called the greatest handgun ever made, and it has barely changed sine 1911, when the legendary John Browning designed it especially for the U.S. Military.

And now, the Colt .45 M1911 is making a big comeback, now that the U.S. Marines have placed a $22.5 million order for the Connecticut-made pistols.

The gun, which has been wielded on film by John Wayne and in real life by Sgt. Alvin York and Maj. Audie Murphy, was the standard-issue sidearm in the military for decades, until it was replaced by the Beretta M9 in 1985.




"It just became an iconic part of military and American history."

- Gerry Dinkel, CEO and president of Colt Defense


"It just became an iconic part of military and American history," Gerry Dinkel, CEO and president of Colt Defense, told FoxNews.com.

The gun, one of the most successful pistols ever used at Camp Perry's National Matches, a competition known to be the main world event in artillery sports, has barely changed since it's creation. Dinkel says that shows the gun's "elegant design" just can't be improved on. And firearms experts agree.

"You can’t beat a .45 cartridge," Jack Lewis, firearms director for Cowan's Auctions, told FoxNews.com. "Some things are hard to replace," he said.

Colt Defense, based in Hartford, Conn., will supply as many as 12,000 of the 200,000 U.S. Marines with semi-automatic, tan-colored M45 Close Quarter Battle Pistols, and they will include spare parts and logistical support. The gun has long been the weapon of choice for special operations agents, thanks to its reliability and the stopping power of its massive bullets.

"I'm really glad that they're keeping it in the American economy," Lewis, who used the gun while he was in the armed forces, said. "I was quite upset when they went to the Beretta," Lewis said.

Some reports suggest Marines are not happy with their main Beretta M9s for their lack of accuracy and stopping power. With M1911's now supplying Special Ops, growing interest may lead to a better solution.

"To have the 1911 selected again for U. S. Forces 101 years after its initial introduction is just an incredible testament to the timeless design and effectiveness of the Colt 1911," Dinkel said. "This is truly a gratifying contract award."

I better buy a 45 now before prices jump if it hasn't already. Fired a 45 once. Was a lot of fun spinning bowling pins

edit

An educated and well policed society drastically reduces the need for the individual to protect themselves

Iceland wait,,,didn't their government tanked a few months/years ago?

They also would have had the opportunity to turn it into an industrial grade cluster feth

.

Agreed 110 percent.

understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view.

Not obsessed, nor live in fear,I also know "escalation of force" and "Deadly Force" unlike a majority. I'm also quite capable of fire discpline. I'm all ready to take a Wraith out with extreme justice. If Micheal was walking down the street well.....triple tap will insue. Anyway I enjoy a select few firearms and I didn't purchase mine in "fear" nor do I carry and conceal. I don't need a reminder of my fun filled trips to "Paradise" popping in my head any given time of the day.

What the Heck is going on in Anaheim, CA.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

Nice to know that 200 lives are saved from suicide a year in Australi from fire arms.

Spacemanvic wrote:
Those maps are suspect as they are provided by known anti-gun groups.

And because the internet isn't a thing, and you're lazy, the numbers cannot be verified.

Or, to rephrase, "Bitch, moan, bitch bitch, moan."

If the Harvard study is correct, then the USA, with its massive level of tooled-upness, should have practically zero murder and violent crime.

But it doesn't.

Jihadin wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

Nice to know that 200 lives are saved from suicide a year in Australia from fire arms.

That says that lives were saved from guns being banned and I had to mention it because it's unclear to me whether or not you realise that.

I'd never want to live in a world where even the average policeman was carrying a gun, primarily because you could have the training and the cool of John Rambo and still make a mistake. Also because I don't think anybody should be killing anybody else. And like I said before, I think wanting a firearm is a cowardly reaction to fear. Just my opinion.

Wikipedia wrote:Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[65] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period.

The other thing I see with the whole "I needs mah gun to defends mahself" thing is; who gave you the right to use lethal force because someone cut you off on the motorway, or punched you in the face? If they're trying to kill you it becomes situational, but I doubt most people with a gun aim to shoot a would-be attacker in the legs no matter what the situation and I'm certain most people with a gun turn to it as plan A.

Davylove21 wrote: And like I said before, I think wanting a firearm is a cowardly reaction to fear. Just my opinion.

Let's not generalise too much. Guns are fun. I've been a shooter since I was a kid, and enjoy pistol shooting, trap and skeet shooting, rifle target shooting, and many forms of hunting.

Wikipedia wrote:Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[65] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period.

The other thing I see with the whole "I needs mah gun to defends mahself" thing is; who gave you the right to use lethal force because someone cut you off on the motorway, or punched you in the face? If they're trying to kill you it becomes situational, but I doubt most people with a gun aim to shoot a would-be attacker in the legs no matter what the situation and I'm certain most people with a gun turn to it as plan A.

Part of the problem is that guns used in defence during a crime is an incredibly nebulous stat.

For example, I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people who defend themselves from a crime were wearing shoes.

Ergo, shoes are a useful deterrent to crime.

Now that's not a perfect analogy, but any stat that references use of guns as a means of defence from crime is a useless stat.

We need to narrow the field to situations where the victim could only have defended themselves or prevented the crime by the use of a firearm.

We seem to be retreading old ground here. Some people are under the mistaken impression that if other people in the cinema were armed, the tradegy could have been adverted! Thank god for other sensible posters pointing out how flawed that view is.
This is what I wrote about it earlier, which I'll re-post:

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!

But on a final note, having seen first hand what a small piece of metal travelling at a 1000 metres per second (or whatever) can do to a person, I do my best to avoid any violence these days and guns (unless a plastic soldier is carrying them)

xole wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:Agree with what filbert is saying. "Now, what are we gonna do against all this gun violenve??"
"Get more guns!"
Why do so many americans not see that lots of guns = lots of gun violence? even more guns are not going to help

Technically, it did. Russia having nukes ensured that we would not use ours. We sweated it out a few times, but it may have been the best possible outcome.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a very fine concept. Very rarely(and very unsuccessfully) do people try to rob a gun store.

(To the last bit)An argument on the internet is not comparable to two armed people in an argument.

What I'm surprised no one has brought up(forgive me if it has...the 101 points thing was annoyingly long) is that if someone has intent to rob or harm someone then they are likely to do it when the person is the most vulnerable, aka not armed. Following this logic guns would be unable to defend you.

(To Davy)What I want is a statistic on mass shooting where the victim had a gun versus shootings where only the assailant had a gun.

Interesting point about gunshops, but I do have a query and please forgive my ignorance if I understand this incorrectly. Although a gunshop sells plenty of guns and ammo, aren't they by law supposed to be held in seperate secure ares? If this is the case what makes they any more secure then any other shop? Criminal walks in with a loaded handgun in their jacket, nobody is aware of this when the perp walks in, perp pulls loaded handgun and suprises shop staff. At which point does have having hundreds of guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo help out?

At face value the point seems a valid one, but does it really hold up? Or are criminals actually caught up in this assumption and are scared off at the idea of there being loads of loaded weapons being ready to shoot them down in a hail of lead?

Many of them have bulletproof glass just in case. Or a gun at the ready just in case.

Many of them have bulletproof glass just in case. Or a gun at the ready just in case.

All the gun shops I've been into are very well secured.. Ammo are located on the shelves and the weapons behind the counters on walls are locked in place or in glass veiwing cases. You cannot handle a weapon in the store without the presence of one of theworkers.

Also everyone uder the impression of killing the individual/suspect/criminal/nutjob is the only way (in a cronfrontation)

The seperation of weapon and ammo is at the home.

Spacemanvic wrote:Going back to the beginning of this thread, someone stated:

I'm a huge supporter of pro-gun legislation, but I do think that some more specific regulation is required.

Like the transfer of gun ownership. Should be done at a licensed dealer, so that the appropriate background checks are performed.

While this would not have much impact criminals selling firearms to other criminals, it would decrease the possibility of the lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to criminals.

I would also be supportive of a more thorough background check prior to issuing class 3 licenses, similar to the checks conducted when attempting to get a security clearance.

A lot of information can be learned about someone by asking their family, friends, and neighbors.

Transfers of firearms have to go through an FFL dealer (Federal Firearms Licensed).

They're not required to unless you're buying the firearm new. I specifically stated that it would be from person to person, not a new sale.

dogma wrote:You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

Unless you're driving a CVPI with ballistic inserts.

Davylove21 wrote:It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.

My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defense is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies

How is it cowardly to want to be able to defend oneself from the threat of deadly force or grievous bodily injury?

If someone punches you and you shoot them (when you have other means of appropriately resisting), then it's cowardly. But if someone breaks into your house and hold you at gunpoint, wouldn't you want to know that you have the tools and the training to deal with the threat to your life of that of another?

And don't get me wrong, if I'm ever in a situation like that and have the ability to retreat without causing or allowing death or injury to someone else, I'll be smart about it and retreat to a more secure and defensible position. But if that person pursues me, you'd better believe that, in that split-second decision, that my life (and that of others) is going to be considered much more important.

Kaldor wrote:I understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view.

On the contrary. I do not live in fear at all. I am equally as comfortable leaving my gun(s) at home as I am carrying it(them). I carry it/them because there are those rare occasions where the need to protect oneself and others from deadly violence.

And the ones needlessly causing the deaths of innocent are giving all of the responsible gun owners a bad name, doing things like leaving them unattended or assuming they're unloaded.

And lastly, stay out of my country. We don't want your deranged point of view over here any more that you want our "deranged" point of view over wherever you hide.

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

Frazzled wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

For the latter probably for the former unlikely. If someone wants to kill you then you're probably going to die. Really having a gun protects you from criminals that would be intimidated by the threat of violence, so petty thieves, muggers, some burglars etc. however a gun isn't going to help much if the criminal is prepared and wants to harm you as he will likely be armed. So guns are most useful in preventing crimes were a gun really shouldn't be fired.

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

For the latter probably for the former unlikely. If someone wants to kill you then you're probably going to die. Really having a gun protects you from criminals that would be intimidated by the threat of violence, so petty thieves, muggers, some burglars etc. however a gun isn't going to help much if the criminal is prepared and wants to harm you as he will likely be armed. So guns are most useful in preventing crimes were a gun really shouldn't be fired.

Thats what situational awareness is all about.

Frazzled wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

But who are these mystery people? Most rapists are friends or family of the victim, not strangers attacking them at night.

Kaldor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense

Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

But who are these mystery people? Most rapists are friends or family of the victim, not strangers attacking them at night.

Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

Frazzled wrote:Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

I'm sure they do.

But you'd probably get more mileage out of silver bullets, for when the Werewolves attack. Because if we're inventing bogeymen as reasons for carrying, we might as well invent cool ones.

What's the best rounds to use in case of velociraptor invasion?

Ballpoint. 5.56mm for a raptor

Kaldor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

I'm sure they do.

But you'd probably get more mileage out of silver bullets, for when the Werewolves attack. Because if we're inventing bogeymen as reasons for carrying, we might as well invent cool ones.

What's the best rounds to use in case of velociraptor invasion?

12 gauge with birdshot. They are birds after all.

I've no desire for a raptor to be that close to use a shotgun

well they are fast buggers. watch out for Trexes if you have cocnut tree.

50 cal...MK19...AT4....MWAW....A10...wait..Ido have experience in calling in a A10 strike

It doesn't matter who they are.

It could be anyone. Could be family. Could be random guy across the street. Could be someone that no one knows. A hobo even.

Why does it matter who it is? There are things which it is better that you prepare for than not. It's called insurance. Fire insurance, just in case a fire starts from lightning or from someone tossing a cigarette or you leaving the oven on or any reason; house insurance, in case of disasters either natural or unnatural; car insurance, both because it's legally required and because quite a few drivers aren't all that sane to begin with; health insurance, because you never know when you'll get sick or hurt; And donkey-cave insurance, because you never know when you'll need to defend yourself.

It is not only the law that reduces gun crimes.

It is the law ENFORCEMENT that makes it happens.

corrupted law enforcers does not prevent any crimes. but he also increases it.

Do you know anything about how (american) gangsters procure firearms and certain military grade weapons (like RPG-7) and doin' drive by shooting. creating their nation state that never will be recongnized by the World. ??

Gangsters are highly unlikely to produce RPGs. Haven't heard of it ever happening.

If they can't make RPG7 and its ammo. they have to acquire it by other means.

so 'how'. how could those nasty peeps acquire these despite the law and the enforcement.?

Usually... they don't.

There's a local made video I've seen in which some members of our local bulldog gang were toting various weapons, including one RPG. I was told by a cop/teacher of mine that all the people in that video were arrested save the camera man and one of the people behind it.

It's been a few years now and I don't believe an RPG has yet been fired within the city.

I'm not sure if I can actually give the name of the video or anything, as it also contains (mild) amateur pornography.

So, I would say it IS possible. Just unlikely. Like finding a good president.

If they can't make RPG7 and its ammo. they have to acquire it by other means.

so 'how'. how could those nasty peeps acquire these despite the law and the enforcement.?

South of the Border


as for RPG's

Middle East

I collect guns purely for their historical value, aside from plinking and very occasional hunting. But mainly I collect old WW2 era bolt action rifles.

I do think the gun control laws should be a bit tighter. Not restrictions on what you can buy (I'd LOVE to be able to own a PPsh-41 lol) but I think there should be more rigorous background checks, and you should have to pass a gun safety course to be able to purchase guns.

GalacticDefender wrote: but I think there should be more rigorous background checks, and you should have to pass a gun safety course to be able to purchase guns.

While I do believe that weapon safety courses should be required to bring a weapon into public, I don't believe that you should have a license to keep a 45 under the matress. (sort of speak) Yes, you need to know how to drive a car to drive it on public roads, but not just to own a car.

While working in a gas station I've turned away the towns drunks plenty of times. Wouldn't it be more applicable if we could empower the gunshop clerks to be able to deny service to people they believe to be nuts....As well as defining behaviors that would allow them to legally make that call.

Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

... your command of grammar, rhetoric and logic has shown me the true way. I for one welcome our new russian and chinese overlords so long as they make just as much sense as you and match your exacting linguistic standards.

I mean, I just look at the long years of the Pax Americana and long for the more righteous days of major wars every generation.

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Guns don't kill people, husband who come home early do, lol. But seriously, if we are at such risk from dieing to a firearm, how come in the CDC list of gak most likely to kill you, firearms isn't on there.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!

Oh, you crack me up!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

No, what it comes down to "I don't want to learn how to be responible with a weapon so, i'm not going to own one."

I'm only taking the piss, I own like 3 'hunting' rifles and love to hunt, great sport.

Successful troll no?

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring some safety courses and basic proficiency to obtain a gun license, similar to what you'd see with driving a car. I know a lot of states already require this. I don't see that making sure citizens know where the safety is as an onerous requirement.

There are also some hardware restrictions I'd like to see. I think the previous assault weapons ban was foolish and it was right to allow it to die - you shouldn't ban gun accessories because they look scarier. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with some sane limitations on some specific parts. I find it hard to rationalize a civilian need for 100 round drum mags or 25 round extended pistol mags other then facilitating spree murder.

I'm also sort of on the fence on the .50 long - while I can see it's use when hunting water buffalo, we also generally don't allow civilian purchase of ordnance that can be used to down helicopters. Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either. At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

Honestly, you know... what I'd like to see is that a national gun license to allow people to own the guns and have them on their property. It would require you to take several safety courses, first on the safety features of the gun, then on actually handling the gun, and finally on safely storing the gun to prevent children and teens from getting it and doing stupid things with it. After that, a background check for mental illness and criminal record, and you're allowed to have a gun on your property. States would still get to make their own concealed carry, hunting, etc licenses.

I'm sure this would piss off some of the crankier liberals, mind you.

Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either

Actually, as a private citizen...I can buy an rocket launcher or a freaking anti tank cannon a WHOLE lot easier (As in, at all.) than you can buy an brand new M16. Only question is money, or patience to deal with all the secondary regulations.

At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

I agree with this point in principle, however, i'd put that limit at things like: Nerve gas, radioactive material weapons, blistering agents, weaponized microbes.

I moved to Colorado about ten months ago. And though I am a native Texan, Colorado is my adoptive state. In my 31 years, 18 were in Texas and 12 were in Illinois, so that should tell you something. I love this state and the people in it. Just as the people of Texas are my people, the people of Colorado are my adoptive people.

Recently, my Colorado people have suffered through forest fires. And now they’ve suffered through an horrific tragedy. My upbringing has been between one of the most conservative states in the union and one of the most liberal, as far as gun laws go. So I have a lot of friends on both sides of the gun issue that want to share their thoughts. And you know what? You can shut up about gun control for a day or two.

You can shut up about gun regulations and gun bans

I own an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. And, of course, I purchased them all legally. I have a college degree and I don’t have any criminal history beyond speeding tickets. If you’re looking at a background check, I’m no different than James Eagan Holmes. Compare resumes and you’ll pick him; he had a better GPA than I did and actually pursued a higher education than I have.




'I own an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. And, of course, I purchased them all legally. I have a college degree and I don’t have any criminal history beyond speeding tickets.'

-


The difference between James Holmes and me is that one of us walked into a theater and murdered people. One of us wanted to make our home into a giant bomb to kill our neighbors. One of us values human life. There’s no law on the planet that will change how a man values the life of another. Outlaw online sales, assault rifles, guns, liquids over 3 ounces, and he still would find a way to murder.

You can shut up about how concealed carry fixes everything

Colorado isn’t much different from Texas as far as gun laws are concerned. In fact, Texas is the only state in the union where open carry is illegal (the ability to carry a gun in public for all to see). Concealed carry is legal and fairly easy to obtain in the state of Colorado. In fact, my wife and I went through the class. Our course was taught by a police officer and firearms instructor; he was rarely qualified to educated us on conceal carry rules and the actual gun laws in Colorado.

So here’s a few things you should know:
It is perfectly legal to conceal a firearm in a movie theater in Colorado if you have a license
Colorado concealed-carry classes aren’t required to be taught by law enforcement
Colorado concealed-carry classes don’t require that you demonstrate proficiency with a fire arm
Colorado concealed-carry classes don’t require that you even shoot a firearm

You can shut up about how things would have been different if someone had a gun

I’ve fired and used guns my whole life. I don’t claim to be an expert or even overly proficient. And though I have shot a few thousand rounds in my life, I don’t think that would matter for me or others in this situation. So here’s what you soon-to-be heroes with conceal weapons permits should know:
You’re not Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer, or Bruce Wayne. Situational awareness takes training that you don’t get as a civilian. You won’t recognize a threat until it’s too late.
Unless you’ve trained with the exact weapons system you’re carrying, you’ll miss. It takes hundreds of hours with a firearm to really be proficient. Do you know what you’d do if it jams? Can you reload before the last round leaves your chamber? How many rounds in your magazine? Have you even practiced drawing your weapon if it’s concealed?
Proficiency deteriorates without practice. When was the last time you fired your gun? Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun.
A thousand hours on the range aren’t the same as a hundred seconds in a real shootout. Can you recognize the threat, obtain a site picture, and neutralize the target with a gun pointed at you? Police and military don’t just learn how to do this once, they actually train in these situations.
There’s a solid chance you won’t even pull the trigger. There is huge psychological trauma associated with taking a life. Estimates are that between 1/3rd and 1/4th of guns on the battlefield in WWII were never shot. There are even police officers and soldiers who have been killed because they didn’t have what it took to kill.
Even if you train with your gun, you do it until you get it right. Police and military do it until they don’t get it wrong. You’re just not ready like they are to use your gun.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz22IcmReuY

Food for thought

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

No, for me it comes down to "That gun is more historically interesting than that one". The way I collect guns at least is more akin to a coin collection. One that you can shoot inanimate objects with. And we do have bow hunting season, but that translates more to "deer wounding season". (yeah I know its a troll post but this is addressed to the many people who actually think that way. Minus the China and Russia bits)

And guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people


Seriously, I don't think it is a problem with the guns. I think it is a problem with the American public. Guns are legal to own in Canada and Britain, but they don't have anywhere near as many gun deaths as the paranoid anti-immigration racist nuts over here cause every year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with requiring some safety courses and basic proficiency to obtain a gun license, similar to what you'd see with driving a car. I know a lot of states already require this. I don't see that making sure citizens know where the safety is as an onerous requirement.

There are also some hardware restrictions I'd like to see. I think the previous assault weapons ban was foolish and it was right to allow it to die - you shouldn't ban gun accessories because they look scarier. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with some sane limitations on some specific parts. I find it hard to rationalize a civilian need for 100 round drum mags or 25 round extended pistol mags other then facilitating spree murder.

I'm also sort of on the fence on the .50 long - while I can see it's use when hunting water buffalo, we also generally don't allow civilian purchase of ordnance that can be used to down helicopters. Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either. At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

Unless the drum mags in question are for .22s. That would be the most awesome thing ever for plinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Honestly, you know... what I'd like to see is that a national gun license to allow people to own the guns and have them on their property. It would require you to take several safety courses, first on the safety features of the gun, then on actually handling the gun, and finally on safely storing the gun to prevent children and teens from getting it and doing stupid things with it. After that, a background check for mental illness and criminal record, and you're allowed to have a gun on your property. States would still get to make their own concealed carry, hunting, etc licenses.

I'm sure this would piss off some of the crankier liberals, mind you.

Now why would that piss off the Liberals?

This is well written and well thought out. Michael Shermer's take on this topic:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/

The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers
by Michael Shermer, Jul 31 2012

It is too soon to tell what the motive was behind the accused James Holmes’ mass murder in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, especially now that he has stopped talking to the authorities in charge of his case. Reports about his personality, thoughts, and behaviors from friends, fellow students, professors, and the police are conflicting. He was smart, brilliant in fact. No, he wasn’t; he was a sub-standard student who dropped out of his doctoral program at the University of Colorado after failing a preliminary exam. He was a quiet man who said nothing to indicate he was on the verge of cracking. Also not true; he left an incoherent and rambling voice message on the phone service of a gun club he wanted to join, the owner of which noted: “It was this deep, guttural voice, rambling something incoherent. I thought, ‘What is this idiot trying to be?’.” He rigged his apartment with explosive devices but then warned the police about them after his capture. Initial reports described the event as spontaneous and random, but he mailed a notebook to his psychiatrist at his university describing in detail with diagrams precisely what he (pre)planned to do.

It may be months before we have any clue to his mind and motive. And short of something obvious like a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala (the brain’s emotion center)—similar to that in the brain of Charles Whitman, the University of Texas bell tower shooter who in 1966 killed 49 people including himself after leaving a note to authorities to autopsy his brain because he felt there was something wrong—we may never know the motive behind James Holmes murderous actions.

We do know something for certain, however, and that is that this will happen again…and again and again. The reason is the law of large numbers that I will outline below that are disturbing enough that it really is now time to rethink our gun-control laws to include the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles like those Holmes’ allegedly used to murder 12 and wound another 58 in a matter of seconds. Had he not had such weapons—possessing, say, only a pistol purchased for self-defense—the tragedy would surely have been lessened. Thus, even though I am a life-long libertarian who champions freedom in all spheres of life and has previously opposed gun-control measures in principle (I do not personally enjoy hunting or recreational gun shooting), I now believe that the freedom of a few people to own WMMs (Weapons of Mass Murder) conflicts with the freedom of the rest of us to enter the public sphere without the chance of our ultimate freedom of life itself being cut short. Here are a few figures that should give even the most freedom-loving libertarian and conservative pause.

First, there’s a good chance that James Holmes is schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or is a psychopath. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, Schizophrenics account for about 1.1 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 18, with the onset of occurrence most likely in the early to mid 20s. Major depressive disorders strike about 6.7 percent of Americans over the age of 18. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lacking empathy and guilt, shallow emotions and cold-heartedness, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors, and most notably criminality. According to University of Cambridge psychologist Kevin Dutton, author of the forthcoming book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 16, 2012), whom I queried for this article, “estimates of the incidence of psychopathy tend to vary from 1–3 percent in men to 0.5–1 percent in women,” and in prison populations “around 50 percent of the most serious crimes on record—crimes such as murder and serial rape, for instance—are committed by psychopaths.”

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, let us employ a figure of 2 percent across these three disorders (Schizophrenia, major depression, and psychopathy) for men only (since such mass murders are almost always committed by men)—by the law of large numbers the following calculations indicate that the Aurora tragedy is by no means a one-off event and that it will happen again:

The current U.S. population is approximately 314 million, about half of which are males, so if 2% of the 157 million American men suffer from one of these severe disorders, this results in a figure of 3,140,000. Most of these men are not violent; in fact, recent studies on psychopathy, for example, show that many are successful CEOs, politicians, and Wall Street traders and executives who employ their psychopathic personality traits of tough-minded and emotionless impulsive decision making to great effect in the rough-and-tumble world of business and politics. And most Schizophrenics and sufferers of severe depression are not violent. So let’s conservatively estimate that if only 1% of these 3,140,000 men commit any kind of violent act, this results in 31,400 acts of violence per year, a nontrivial number.

If only 1% of those violent acts involve murders, this leaves us with 314 unnecessary tragic deaths caused by psychopaths. And, finally, if only 1% of those murderous violent acts involves killing multiple people at once, this results in a rate of 3.14 Aurora-size mass murders per year in America, which is actually lower than the rate of around a dozen per year that we have been averaging the past half century, depending on what constitutes a mass murder (school-shootings alone that amount to more than one killed in one event happen on average once a year in the U.S.).

Again, it’s too early to say whether or not Holmes was a Schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or was a psychopath, and the specific figures of how many mass murders there are per year vary across different data sets, but my point is a larger one: A large-numbers analysis allows us to understand on a societal-level scale why such events happen randomly and without any specific cause common to all (drugs, gangs, bullying, depression, psychopathy, psychosis, violent video games, and the like). History and population demographics for rates of mass murder show that Aurora-size events are going to happen again and again and again, and there is no way to predict who is going to do it, where, or when. (With the possible exception of a national database that tracks and alerts authorities to the purchase of mass quantities of guns and ammunition by private citizens.) All we know is that it will happen again—for certain.

Thus, damage control is the only option we have, if we want to do something about this tragic social problem. And by damage control I mean gun control. Specifically, I mean outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles for anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military. When the Second Amendment was written stating that citizens have a right to “keep and bear arms,” rifles took over a minute to load one bullet at a time. The most crazed 18th century American could not possibly commit mass murder because no WMMs existed at the time.

My fellow libertarians are likely to see this as another loss of freedom, but I disagree. The principle of freedom states that all people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your nose. The freedom for you to own any gun you like is in conflict with my freedom to interact freely with my fellow citizens in public spaces when so many madmen mingle among us. We should ban assault weapons of all kinds. We already disallow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, missiles, grenade launchers, and the like. WMMs that can be secreted into a movie theater should be categorized among those we can no longer tolerate. This is no loss of freedom. It is, in fact, an increase in freedom—the freedom to move about our living spaces without fear of being gunned down in cold blood.

If you think I am exaggerating, or that my calculations are nothing but mathematical hyperbole, just consider the case of Aurora victim Jessica Ghawi, who was almost gunned down in a shopping mall in Toronto in another public shooting the month before, after which she reflected on her blog: “I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”

I'd rather rethink why crazy people keep getting found by psychiatrists, no one ever calls the authorities to check them out, and even if done so the authorities can't do anything until the wackjob blows a bunch of people away.

And your answer is restricting non crazy law abiding citizens from their Second Amendment RIghts.

Nuts.

BrassScorpion wrote:This is well written and well thought out. Michael Shermer's take on this topic:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/

The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers
by Michael Shermer, Jul 31 2012

It is too soon to tell what the motive was behind the accused James Holmes’ mass murder in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, especially now that he has stopped talking to the authorities in charge of his case. Reports about his personality, thoughts, and behaviors from friends, fellow students, professors, and the police are conflicting. He was smart, brilliant in fact. No, he wasn’t; he was a sub-standard student who dropped out of his doctoral program at the University of Colorado after failing a preliminary exam. He was a quiet man who said nothing to indicate he was on the verge of cracking. Also not true; he left an incoherent and rambling voice message on the phone service of a gun club he wanted to join, the owner of which noted: “It was this deep, guttural voice, rambling something incoherent. I thought, ‘What is this idiot trying to be?’.” He rigged his apartment with explosive devices but then warned the police about them after his capture. Initial reports described the event as spontaneous and random, but he mailed a notebook to his psychiatrist at his university describing in detail with diagrams precisely what he (pre)planned to do.

It may be months before we have any clue to his mind and motive. And short of something obvious like a brain tumor pressing against his amygdala (the brain’s emotion center)—similar to that in the brain of Charles Whitman, the University of Texas bell tower shooter who in 1966 killed 49 people including himself after leaving a note to authorities to autopsy his brain because he felt there was something wrong—we may never know the motive behind James Holmes murderous actions.

We do know something for certain, however, and that is that this will happen again…and again and again. The reason is the law of large numbers that I will outline below that are disturbing enough that it really is now time to rethink our gun-control laws to include the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles like those Holmes’ allegedly used to murder 12 and wound another 58 in a matter of seconds. Had he not had such weapons—possessing, say, only a pistol purchased for self-defense—the tragedy would surely have been lessened. Thus, even though I am a life-long libertarian who champions freedom in all spheres of life and has previously opposed gun-control measures in principle (I do not personally enjoy hunting or recreational gun shooting), I now believe that the freedom of a few people to own WMMs (Weapons of Mass Murder) conflicts with the freedom of the rest of us to enter the public sphere without the chance of our ultimate freedom of life itself being cut short. Here are a few figures that should give even the most freedom-loving libertarian and conservative pause.

First, there’s a good chance that James Holmes is schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or is a psychopath. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, Schizophrenics account for about 1.1 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 18, with the onset of occurrence most likely in the early to mid 20s. Major depressive disorders strike about 6.7 percent of Americans over the age of 18. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lacking empathy and guilt, shallow emotions and cold-heartedness, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors, and most notably criminality. According to University of Cambridge psychologist Kevin Dutton, author of the forthcoming book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 16, 2012), whom I queried for this article, “estimates of the incidence of psychopathy tend to vary from 1–3 percent in men to 0.5–1 percent in women,” and in prison populations “around 50 percent of the most serious crimes on record—crimes such as murder and serial rape, for instance—are committed by psychopaths.”

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, let us employ a figure of 2 percent across these three disorders (Schizophrenia, major depression, and psychopathy) for men only (since such mass murders are almost always committed by men)—by the law of large numbers the following calculations indicate that the Aurora tragedy is by no means a one-off event and that it will happen again:

The current U.S. population is approximately 314 million, about half of which are males, so if 2% of the 157 million American men suffer from one of these severe disorders, this results in a figure of 3,140,000. Most of these men are not violent; in fact, recent studies on psychopathy, for example, show that many are successful CEOs, politicians, and Wall Street traders and executives who employ their psychopathic personality traits of tough-minded and emotionless impulsive decision making to great effect in the rough-and-tumble world of business and politics. And most Schizophrenics and sufferers of severe depression are not violent. So let’s conservatively estimate that if only 1% of these 3,140,000 men commit any kind of violent act, this results in 31,400 acts of violence per year, a nontrivial number.

If only 1% of those violent acts involve murders, this leaves us with 314 unnecessary tragic deaths caused by psychopaths. And, finally, if only 1% of those murderous violent acts involves killing multiple people at once, this results in a rate of 3.14 Aurora-size mass murders per year in America, which is actually lower than the rate of around a dozen per year that we have been averaging the past half century, depending on what constitutes a mass murder (school-shootings alone that amount to more than one killed in one event happen on average once a year in the U.S.).

Again, it’s too early to say whether or not Holmes was a Schizophrenic, suffered from severe depression, or was a psychopath, and the specific figures of how many mass murders there are per year vary across different data sets, but my point is a larger one: A large-numbers analysis allows us to understand on a societal-level scale why such events happen randomly and without any specific cause common to all (drugs, gangs, bullying, depression, psychopathy, psychosis, violent video games, and the like). History and population demographics for rates of mass murder show that Aurora-size events are going to happen again and again and again, and there is no way to predict who is going to do it, where, or when. (With the possible exception of a national database that tracks and alerts authorities to the purchase of mass quantities of guns and ammunition by private citizens.) All we know is that it will happen again—for certain.

Thus, damage control is the only option we have, if we want to do something about this tragic social problem. And by damage control I mean gun control. Specifically, I mean outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles for anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military. When the Second Amendment was written stating that citizens have a right to “keep and bear arms,” rifles took over a minute to load one bullet at a time. The most crazed 18th century American could not possibly commit mass murder because no WMMs existed at the time.

My fellow libertarians are likely to see this as another loss of freedom, but I disagree. The principle of freedom states that all people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. But the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your nose. The freedom for you to own any gun you like is in conflict with my freedom to interact freely with my fellow citizens in public spaces when so many madmen mingle among us. We should ban assault weapons of all kinds. We already disallow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, missiles, grenade launchers, and the like. WMMs that can be secreted into a movie theater should be categorized among those we can no longer tolerate. This is no loss of freedom. It is, in fact, an increase in freedom—the freedom to move about our living spaces without fear of being gunned down in cold blood.

If you think I am exaggerating, or that my calculations are nothing but mathematical hyperbole, just consider the case of Aurora victim Jessica Ghawi, who was almost gunned down in a shopping mall in Toronto in another public shooting the month before, after which she reflected on her blog: “I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders’ faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath.”

I read that, insert statistics of the people drunk drivers kill and injure, then call for Whiskey to be more closely regulated and further say people should only be allowed one beer a week.
By doing so we will limit drunk drivers killing so many people as they do in a year.

Problem is not everyone thinks that way. Owning a vehicle regardless of type is "freedom". Drinking your brand of whiskey is "freedom". smoking your brand of cigerette is "freedom". owning a vast collection of knives including Klingon is "freedom" Eating your choice of high cholesteral food is "freedom". Owning certain type of fire arms is a "stigma"

Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

MrDwhitey wrote:Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

Here's one of many good examples I can give of a drunk driver killing as many or more people than someone with a gun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

The thing is drunk drivers kill about as many people yearly as people with guns do. The answer, obviously is to cut down on the amount and type of alcohol people are allowed to drink.

All those things have one thing in common. Personnal Responsibility

We all know the answer to all of this.

MrDwhitey wrote:Comparing all of those to firearms makes me smile.

And this is coming from someone who thinks people should be allowed to own guns, before Frazzled posts something silly at me.

Your wish is my command.

Not sure about the rest of it, but Shermer has one thing wrong I can spot right out:
An experienced person with a muzzle-loader can manage three shots a minute and deal far more substantial damage per shot then most modern firearms, depending on load.

I will point out that this garbage is pure propaganda. I love the idea that 'the most crazed 18th Century American could not commit mass murder'. I draw your attention to one Barnett Davenport, veteran of the Revolutionary war and mass murderer. A gun was even involved, but only in the portion of his Feb 3rd, 1780 killing spree where he beat one man to death with his own firearm.

Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

I like the way that article casually mentions him booby trapping his apartment and then goes on to conclude he wouldn't have killed as many people if he didnt have the gun the gun that jammed on him.

It took the way cops about three days to disarm the traps on his door and his apartment, if I remember the timeline correctly. Sans his assault rifle perhaps he would have simply brought explosives with him?

Obviously I can't know if he would or wouldn't have, but if the guy was determined to cause as much harm as possible, there are plenty of methods beyond a jamming assault rifle for him to use, while avenues of self defense would become more limited if some had their way. Makes no sense to me.

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

AustonT wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

The news, true, and I'm okay with guns for hunting, but I'm not really happy 'bout keepin firearms in houses. Sure, I don't leave in the US, but I think more murders are comitted thanks to that as well.

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

streamdragon wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

Oh these werent feral or anything; they had collars and tags. We saw them in their owners yard later and I warned her if I saw her dogs chasing my animals again she eas unlikely to get them back.

Couple months laterthey got out again and killed some goats in another farm nearby. Animal control ended up taking them away I believe.

Well, I can see what your point is there, but it seems so stereotypical
'They eatin' mah dogs! Lets shoot 'em, ned!'
Also, the British can do good things indeed.

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Good for what? Whats your question?

purplefood wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

Cept for those big cats....

purplefood wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

We have manlier beasts. Not only can jackalopes breed like rabbits, but they can do the one hundred yard dash in seven seconds to impale you.

The English are manlier.
They got tea and scones

AustonT wrote:

purplefood wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

When a pair of pitbulls got into my pasture and were chasing my animals I grabbed my shotgun and went out after them. I had no desire to shoot them but neither was I going to let my animals die. The dogs saw me coming and one turned towards me. They didn't run off until I fired into the air.

Thats a small example. We have coyotes pushing their way into our area also so it is probably only a matter of tine.

Make no mistake, I don't want to have to shoot a living thing. But I will be damned if Im going to stand by and not defend what is mine.

This is why we killed everything that was a threat to us in Britain...

Cept for those big cats....

Those damn cats...
Everytime we're sure they don't exist something damn well turns up that's part way convincing that they exist somewhere...
And it's not like Britain is that big! You'd have thought there is someway would could find the damn things with the technology we have today...

thenoobbomb wrote:Well, I can see what your point is there, but it seems so stereotypical
'They eatin' mah dogs! Lets shoot 'em, ned!'
Also, the British can do good things indeed.

Except for the part where I didnt want to shoot them, sure. But I had no intention of trying to chase off just about any breed of dog unarmed, let alone two pitbulls.

And Im not sure what Brits doing good things has to do with anything but sure!

AustonT wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Lots of stuff. Keep poor hill people like me and mine fed. And stuff like this.
http://mommyish.com/stuff/oklahoma-teen-mom-sarah-mckinley-shoots-and-kills-intruder-to-protect-3-month-old-baby-268/

This is all well and good but the point is for every success story about someone fending off an intruder by use of a gun, you have ten stories of people getting shot, or a toddler getting killed because he/she found an unsecured gun, or an intruder breaks in, finds a gun and shoots the homeowner and so on and so forth. At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns? I think that is what the European mentality struggles to understand; I would love to go and hunt owls or something but on the whole, I would rather not run the risk of being shot by a robber or in a bank or in a cinema, and whichever way you look at it, there is much less risk of that happening here, not because we are a more peaceful or different society but purely by dint of not having millions of firearms floating about. I'm sure guns can be a force for good in the proper and trained hands; but surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

filbert wrote:

This is all well and good but the point is for every success story about someone fending off an intruder by use of a gun, you have ten stories of people getting shot, or a toddler getting killed because he/she found an unsecured gun, or an intruder breaks in, finds a gun and shoots the homeowner and so on and so forth. At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns? I think that is what the European mentality struggles to understand; I would love to go and hunt owls or something but on the whole, I would rather not run the risk of being shot by a robber or in a bank or in a cinema, and whichever way you look at it, there is much less risk of that happening here, not because we are a more peaceful or different society but purely by dint of not having millions of firearms floating about. I'm sure guns can be a force for good in the proper and trained hands; but surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

Well Fil:

At what point does the ineffable right to bear arms and hunt and all that good stuff get outweighed by all the other bad crap that comes from having a society filled with guns?

When the elected representatives of the United States overturn the second amendment to the constitution.

surely the events of the past few weeks and years have demonstrated that too many times, the wrong pair of hands are the ones handling the weapons, whether it is the nut on a rampage, the robber on the street or simply the idiot who can't keep his guns locked up away from his kids.

Not really, You and I *probably* have a fundamental difference of opinion on firearms. I'm ok with that. There are perfectly good and decent arguments for gun control. I see incidents like those as exceptions rather than the rule. Overall firearms are tools, not just tools but machines. Machines for many purposes kill and maim, that's pretty much the way it is. If it wasn't guns it would be clubs, knives, or bare hands. It's fairly easy to kill a person, guns just make it easier. A common comparison made is that automobiles kill a pretty close number of people as guns, but that includes suicide. If you remove suicide from both, which is a conscious, even if tragic, decision. The number skews overwhelmingly to automobiles. No one is agitating to remove cars from our streets. Guns are simply more emotive than cars.

The United States has enacted gun control in stages on several occasions. The result has typically been seen in an increase in murder and non negligent manslaughter. The sole exception being the assault weapons ban, the expiration of which has not seen a particular growth in gun violence in the past 8 years. Certainly not in the manner murder exploded following the gun control act of 1968, or the Hughes amendment in 1986. All four of which didn't happen in a vacuum.

In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

Now, what do you want to say with that? Imagine that chinese had had access to a semi automatic rifle.... things would have been MUCH worse. So actually, the fact that you can't get a gun easily in china saved a few lifes!

Or... not really. All it takes is a crazed man with a sharp object or three to go on a killing spree.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

And guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people

You guys have it all wrong. Bullets don't kill people. A lack of molecular integrity in the skin cells of the person being shot is the real danger here.

MrMerlin wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

Now, what do you want to say with that? Imagine that chinese had had access to a semi automatic rifle.... things would have been MUCH worse. So actually, the fact that you can't get a gun easily in china saved a few lifes!

Not necessarily. You assume that he would have been automatically any good with it (He might have totally sucked) Like all weapons, guns take practice to use. Guns, btw, according to the Chicago PD, only account for 1/3 the violent crime knives do.

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

You had to bring that pont up

Well on a manufacturing scale its pretty cheap and can use common household goods

BaronIveagh wrote:In the 1830's, a man in France committed mass murder with a billhook. A week ago, one in China managed to kill six and wound ten with a knife.

With regards to the French one, exactly how many people did he kill?

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

You had to bring that pont up

Well on a manufacturing scale its pretty cheap and can use common household goods

You can also make plastic explosives out of household goods, but it's very dangerous as it could explode whilst you're making it and releases toxic fumes as it's being made.

Interestingly if you add Cocaine to the mixture it becomes inert.

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

Are you including the physical injuries recieved while getting out or did he grand total shot that many people

Jihadin wrote:

For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

Are you including the physical injuries recieved while getting out or did he grand total shot that many people

I'm going by what he is on trial for. He is accused of shooting dead 12 people and injuring 58.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'm going by what he is on trial for. He is accused of shooting dead 12 people and injuring 58.

So, yeah, it includes the people injured in the panic (as he's legally responsible for those as well as the actual gunshot victims.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.

He started in a house and took to the street rather then starting in a crowded Movie theater. He actually killed and wounded a higher percentage of the people present.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Interestingly if you add Cocaine to the mixture it becomes inert.

Depends on what you're mixing. Adding cocaine to Aunt Jemima, for example, just makes it a bit harder to detect with dogs unless they're also drug sniffing dogs.

BaronIveagh wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
For the Chinese one, the Colorado shooter killed twice as many people and wounded 5 (almost 6) times more people.

So yeah, the Chinese one doesn't really support the view that a gun makes you safer. It actually suggests that a spree with a gun will kill at least twice as many people as a knife spree.

He started in a house and took to the street rather then starting in a crowded Movie theater. He actually killed and wounded a higher percentage of the people present.

"He killed a higher percentage of those present"? What kind of armument is that? If a boxer kills his opponent in the ring, he murdered 100% of the people present. So is the boxing glove the most dangerous weapon in the world now?
the numbers say that the knife guy killed only half as many people as the gunner. Knifes are not as efficient at killing as guns are, its as simple as that. Had the chinese had the same weaponry as the american, he would have killed way more, I'm sure.

Here in Germany we've had a few nutjobs go on a rampage with axes or knives, and they usually only wound a few people, and kill one or two tops. If they could just walk into a shop and get all kinds of semi-automatics WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, things would be much worse.

MrMerlin wrote:If they could just walk into a shop and get all kinds of semi-automatics WITHOUT BEING CHECKED, things would be much worse.

I can walk into a hardware store, and get all sorts of things without being checked, that would kill way more than the few people that were shot or injured trying to escape in that theater.

Should we outlaw bleach too?

Personally, I'm glad he used a gun. More people lived then if he had, say, flooded the theater with chlorine gas.

thenoobbomb wrote:Anyways, what good does legal firearms do?

Some of us like to collect old rifles and pistols for their historical value. It doesn't do any good, but it doesn't necessarily do any harm, either. I don't think there is anything wrong with owning guns for sport or as a collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I can't seem to find this information anywhere, but was the gun the shooter used fully automatic?

No he did not have a full auto. He had a 100 round magazine that had a failure to chamber and more likely chambered a "dented" round from a double feed or kept getting a double feed. Glad he never pressed for membership at the range where someone could have shown him how to apply corrective action. (eject magazine and pull charging handle, reload magazine and pull charging hammer; problem presist replace magazine with a new one)) The spring in the magazine was never broken in.

edit
He can only fire it on "semi" so no burst or auto since he legally brought the weapons. Lack of experience firing the weapon (M4 style rifle) also prevented more deaths.

Also m4 style rifles often have a "plunger" thing that can be used to put a round into the chamber if its jammed.

"Forward Assist"

So, effectively, we had someone who didn't know what he was doing firing at a target he couldn't possibly miss.

Glad he didn't buy a shotgun and a drum mag loaded with fireflies.

He did a "Pray and spray" from what I read. Point the weapon and just squeeze the trigger repeatedly in the general direction of the target/targets.

Jihadin wrote:He did a "Pray and spray" from what I read. Point the weapon and just squeeze the trigger repeatedly in the general direction of the target/targets.

Doesn't take a semi-auto to make that dangerous when firing at a large crowd. Would have been much worse though if he had, say, chucked some nail-bombs into the crowd, though.

Casualties been higher if he knew how to adjust the spring in the 100 round mag or gotten advice at the range that 30 round mags are perfered to cut down on jams. Ever seen 100 round mags being used by the military? Also to know how to aply "SPORTS" to correct the malfunction. His weapon jam probaly after 5 rounds fired and he went to 2ndary.

BaronIveagh wrote:So, effectively, we had someone who didn't know what he was doing firing at a target he couldn't possibly miss.

Glad he didn't buy a shotgun and a drum mag loaded with fireflies.

He did use a shotgun. Unless I misunderstood the breakdown. He popped smoke and cleared his immediate vicinity with a shotgun. Then started in with the Ar-15, then the Glock.

Jihadin wrote:Casualties been higher if he knew how to adjust the spring in the 100 round mag or gotten advice at the range that 30 round mags are perfered to cut down on jams. Ever seen 100 round mags being used by the military? Also to know how to aply "SPORTS" to correct the malfunction. His weapon jam probaly after 5 rounds fired and he went to 2ndary.

Most reports said "less than 30" but probably more than 5; beta mags defiantly suck. Had he used PMAGS or the Surefire 60s it could have been worse, but remember Jared Laughner was taken out while he changed mags. That may have motivated his decision to run the beta mag.
It's probably better that psychopaths aren't anywhere near proficient, otherwise we get things like the DC sniper(s).

Most reports said "less than 30" but probably more than 5

Thanks for the update Auston

When it happened I was in the wilderness. So when I came back I got to look at everything at once which made it easier to filter through it.
Ugly story made worse by how much planning and how calmly he turned himself in. I'm thankful it wasn't better planned, or executed.

AustonT wrote:I'm thankful it wasn't better planned, or executed.

Yeah, imagine if he'd sealed the exits and detonated some incendiaries inside.

I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

A Town Called Malus wrote:I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

It seems that he actually used an emergency exit vice a fire exit, which is an assumption. Most theatres I've been to have those types of exits to move people out quickly, but since they are used everyday and not just in emergencies they are not alarmed. Like the doors at the front of the theatre next to the stage/screen.
The stories I read all agreed he entered through the front like everyone else and opened the door from the inside and propped it open.

BaronIveagh wrote:

My point is that you're really no safer from mass murdering psychos with guns then without them. Take their guns away, and they just launch sarin gas attacks on subways.

Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin. The average Joe who just had a really bad day can easily pick up an AK-47 and shoot the gak out of everyone in the vicinity.

I don't know why you cant grasp the obvious. Sure you can stab people, or bludgeon people, the simple fact is, if you want to kill as many people as possible before you get apprehended, then its better for all your potential victims if you are armed with things that don't fire 500 rounds a minute at people.

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:I'm still curious as to how he got in. He got in through the fire exit, right? But aren't fire exits in public buildings usually only openable from the inside and alarmed so that once it opens the fire alarm goes off?

It seems that he actually used an emergency exit vice a fire exit, which is an assumption. Most theatres I've been to have those types of exits to move people out quickly, but since they are used everyday and not just in emergencies they are not alarmed. Like the doors at the front of the theatre next to the stage/screen.
The stories I read all agreed he entered through the front like everyone else and opened the door from the inside and propped it open.

Ah, guess that explains that. So now what they need is to either alarm the emergency exit and only use it for emergencies (so everyone leaves by the same way they came in), or have CCTV watching it and a full time security guard to monitor it so he could call the police as soon as he saw the guy coming back with the guns and get a fast response firearms team on the way. Ideally have both an alarm and CCTV.

mattyrm wrote:Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin.

No, but most mass murderers aren't your average Joe.

Just look at the level of preparation that this guy made in order to do this attack.

Now imagine that, instead of purchasing guns, he just purchased a few household chemicals and made himself a bathtub full of impromptu chemical weaponry. Or if he had just bought a few gallons of gasoline and petrol and made him some molotov cocktails, or a makeshift fuel-air-bomb. Any of them would have been pretty easy to do.

I could probably cook up some semtex or some other concealable explosive in my house, using stuff I can get at any Wal-Mart or hardware store. I wouldn't WANT to, mind you, but it's not exactly very hard if you have some basic knowledge of laboratory methods and a rather easy to get recipe.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin.

No, but most mass murderers aren't your average Joe.

Still, most mass murderers don't have access to a chemistry lab complete with full body hazmat suits and the chemicals required to make Sarin.

DOn't mix pine oil and bleach in a enclosed room

Sarin yes, but honestly you don't need to make Sarin in order to make deadly gas.

My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.

mattyrm wrote:
Such a bad argument, the average Joe cant make sarin. The average Joe who just had a really bad day can easily pick up an AK-47 and shoot the gak out of everyone in the vicinity.

I don't know why you cant grasp the obvious. Sure you can stab people, or bludgeon people, the simple fact is, if you want to kill as many people as possible before you get apprehended, then its better for all your potential victims if you are armed with things that don't fire 500 rounds a minute at people.

Because the majority of mass murderers are not average Joes who just go do it because they have a bad day. For every Charles Whitman there are two Columbine or Binghamton shooters who put some effort and planning into it.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.

Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!

In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.

The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.

gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.

What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.

mattyrm wrote:
Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!

Actually not even all the big ones make the papers. Looking at the list, there are about a dozen I never even heard of.

mattyrm wrote:
In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.

Surprise, a nation with a larger population has more murders. However, you have a point on proportion. The US has approx 10 in 100,000 firearms murders whereas the UK has approx 1 in 100,000 firearms murders.

The real oddity is that violent crime in general is a lot higher. If you reduce the US violent crime proportionately to Englands, the difference in gun crime is only 10% (measured incidents per 100k). The difference is that the US has vastly more violent crime in general then England does per 100k.

Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.

It's not TV, games, books or movies. Otherwise Canada would be in the same boat. The real solution is not gun control, it's figuring out what's making American's go ballistic and stopping it.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.

Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!

In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.

The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.

gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.

What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.

The carriers I've spoken with mention how carrying changes their mindset, to where they intentionally *avoid* altercations specifically for the reason you mentioned and are generally more cool-headed than before they started carrying(they have to be -- it's a big responsibility). I would argue that carriers are largely responsible individuals, or certainly that's the culture(here, anyway).

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.

Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!

In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.

The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.

gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.

What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.

If you are going to make an argument against guns this is the way to do it. Getting rid of guns doesnt stop crime, truth be told guns are a Pandora's box though, you can't close it now. I think Matty of all people will agree that man is a fragile. creature, easy to maim and murder. Guns are just a tool that shifts easy to nearly effortless.

AustonT wrote:
If you are going to make an argument against guns this is the way to do it. Getting rid of guns doesnt stop crime, truth be told guns are a Pandora's box though, you can't close it now. I think Matty of all people will agree that man is a fragile. creature, easy to maim and murder. Guns are just a tool that shifts easy to nearly effortless.

Yeah exactly, that's my point. I don't dislike guns, and I think America is fethed now, with all those millions of guns in circulation its pointless banning them now, I'm just glad we aren't in the same mess!

As I said, If I lived over there I would carry. I don't want to be the only man with a knife at a gunfight. I recommend Americans own a gun and train with it, but it doesn't mean I think we should be as lax with them in Europe. Once you open that can of worms it cant be shut again.

The problem with guns, is they are nasty weapons because they make taking a life far too easy. With my rifle I dropped a bloke from a couple hundred yards once on a dark morning, I centred on the muzzle flash, and fired three times at it, no blood, no fuss, I didn't even see the fethers face. Slept like a baby that night too. feth it.

That's a problem right there. Making it easy to end peoples existence is not a good thing. Just like Ned Stark says, The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. I don't wanna sound like a hippy or anything, but a small part of me wishes we had stuck with swords, if you had to look into a mans eyes before you killed him, people wouldn't go around getting themselves killed so often.

Well, until I get the urge to shoot a cow with a bazooka obviously... then Im back to liking guns again.

BaronIveagh wrote:Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.

Violent crime has gone down for five years in a row, at least.

Melissia wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Saying 'Well, it's the gun's fault' is not accurate. Even hardcore anti-gun advocates admit that there is something happening culturally in the US that has been driving violence up in the last four decades.

Violent crime has gone down for five years in a row, at least.

Yeah, but the real mystery is why it has been declining world wide since the mid 1990s.

I think it's the internet.

It rose steadily world wide for almost 40 years before that point.

A lot of violent urges these days are suppressed by video games.

Just my guess.

While I own guns and don't think that they're evil or anything, I just don't see the need for assault weapons and such. Yeah they're fun to shoot, but a lot of things that are fun are a lot less deadly.

Hunting, protection, stuff like that I get. Civilians don't need ARs and AKs and 50 cals in my opinion, but the 2nd Amendment says we can.

Its just hard for me to take the 2nd Amendment seriously when in the same document it says we can own slaves. Times change and I think that should be reflected with stricter gun laws, not that it will happen mind.

Also fun thing to try if your ever arguing with someone who is a big blowhard about the 2nd Amendment, ask them to name the other ones.

Vaerros wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:My point is I reckon 90% of the shootings in the States are done on a spur of the moment in a fit of rage, a bloke gets super pissed and shoots someone. If they slept on it, they probably wouldn't shoot the victim in the first place, and that's why firearms being all over the place are a problem.

Obviously a really committed guy could make a sarin bomb, but gak loads of stateside shootings aren't done by really committed guys, they are spur of the moment shootings.

Your reckoning doesn't really match with the newspaper stories. Most of the shootings, especially the more deadly ones, prepared for it weeks if nto months or years in advance.

Of course not, because the big ones get in the papers, and the big ones are the committed ones!

In 2010 in America there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms, the UK has only 600 murders a year.

The vast majority of those murders weren't done with months of planning.

gak, If I had a gun on me all the time In England I would probably have shot someone by now! That moment during a fight when you suddenly lash out in a rage, is experienced by most people at some point in their lives, and that is why its a problem carrying a firearm. I guarantee some of those 8775 murders would only have wound up being assaults if the guy that did the shooting was unarmed.

What would have been a punch in the mouth, is easily becomes a big deal if you have a pistol in your pants.

The carriers I've spoken with mention how carrying changes their mindset, to where they intentionally *avoid* altercations specifically for the reason you mentioned and are generally more cool-headed than before they started carrying(they have to be -- it's a big responsibility). I would argue that carriers are largely responsible individuals, or certainly that's the culture(here, anyway).

A responsible carrier number one wish is to never have to draw their firearm, and anyone who carries a gun and can't wait to use it on a baddy is an idiot and not a responsible carrier. I've seen more of the former but I've also seen some of the latter, and it's a fething disgrace, that kind of attitude kills people, more often t hen not it kills someone who really shouldn't have been killed.

'It would be incredibly easy for me to carry a gun when I am old enough to do so, but I doubt I would even though I think there fun as hell. But I know that I have anger issues and I wouldn't trust my self with a weapon that can kill someone that easily.

Seems we have an "inspired" killer in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple

Jihadin wrote:Seems we have an "inspired" killer in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple

I don't think I want to bet on the odds that this guy was an islamophobic nut who couldn't tell the difference between Sikhism and Islam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19138754

Seems there's a possibility of there being more gunmen.

Jihadin wrote:Seems we have an "inspired" killer in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple

Can't wait to find out if God told them to do it through a broken television set.

Hey, Americans! guns are legal in the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Though tighter control seems to have done a lot of good.

GalacticDefender wrote:
Though tighter control seems to have done a lot of good.

Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."

AustonT wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:
Though tighter control seems to have done a lot of good.

Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."

You know he probably meant in terms of gun violence...
Incidentally the Mail scarcely counts as a newspaper so don't embarrass yourself by quoting it...

Let me start by saying I did not read all 17 pages so my point may have already been made.
The second amendment isn’t in place so us Americans can go off shooting each other with AK’s and AR’s it is there so we can shoot our government.
“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.” Thomas Jefferson.
Also the fact that almost all Americans have weapons is the best deterrent for an invading force.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto

The whole automatic weapon debate and the 100 round drum argument is coming from people who ether have never shot with a 100 round drum or have never been trained in the proper use of any weapon. The most people ever killed by one man was with a bolt action rifle. The 100 round drum saved many lives that day, the drums are gak and always jam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4
So you get some wackos every now and again, If the theater had allowed CCW’s the guy would have been dead after the first shot.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
lol.. Yes if they had chain swords and power fist that guy would have been really dead lol...

AustonT wrote:Really? That must be why the UK has something like 5x the violent crime per capita and is as the Mail put it:
"The most violent country in Europe."

If you want to read the 2010/11 crime report, feel free.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary

EXTENT AND TRENDS IN OVERALL VIOLENCE
The 2010/11 BCS estimates that there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against adults in
England and Wales.1 Although there was an apparent six per cent increase compared with
2009/10, estimates for these two years are not statistically significantly different (Table 2.01).
Within the overall category of BCS violence, there have been no statistically significant
changes for the specific offence types of wounding, assault without injury or robbery between
the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (Table 2.01).

There was a 38 per cent increase in the number of incidents of assault with minor injury
compared with the 2009/10 BCS. This was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years and
levels of these incidents are now similar to those seen in 2006/07.

As in previous years, assault without injury accounted for the largest proportion (38%) of all
violent incidents measured by the 2010/11 BCS, followed by assault with minor injury (27%),
wounding (24%), and robbery (11%) (Table 2.01).

There were 821,957 offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in
2010/11, six per cent less than in the previous year. Within the overall category of police
recorded violence against the person, both violence with injury and violence without injury fell,
by eight per cent and four per cent respectively (Table 2.04).

Long-term trends
For the population groups and offences it covers, the BCS is the best source for assessing
long-term trends as it has used the same methodology since it began and is not influenced by
reporting and recording changes that can impact on police figures. There are some notable
omissions from the main BCS, for example, homicide data and data for victims aged 10 to 15
(see Box 3.1 for information on BCS experimental statistics on victimisation of children).

1 'All violence' includes wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury and robbery. For more information
see Section 5.1 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics.

But from the wiki if you just want some numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics_in_the_United_Kingdom

According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand). Based on the Government's preferred comparison system, this marked a 7% decline in crime on the year before.

Compared to the USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

In 2008, according to the FBI, 14,180 people were murdered in America.[4] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5]

Homicide

The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 murders in the United States in 2010[30] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[31] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). Taken from the chart in this section, the UK in 2000 had a rate of 1.4 per 100k A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average annual per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest of U.S. cities with average annual homicide totals among the 10 highest during the same period. [32][33] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark.[34][35]

There is a chart in there detailing other crimes, but it does not have a nice little summing paragraph like the UK one does.

The UK one. How many of them were Alcohol related?