So, since it's inevitable that the spree shooting at the Dark Knight Rises premiere is going to go seriously off topic into this arena, I thought perhaps we'd head it off at the pass and just start one here and have done with it.
Apparently the shooter's AR had a 100 round barrel drum, of which IG converters are so enamored of. I have to be honest; in that although I generally support the right to keep and bear arms, I also support some reasonable limitations thereof; and I kinda sorta think 100 round drums maybe shouldn't be available to civilians.
On the other hand, I was reading this article and was struck by this snippet:
According to the Brady Campaign/Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Colorado ranks among states with weaker gun laws. On Brady’s 100-point scorecard, Colorado scored 15. The states with the lowest ranking, 0, were Alaska, Arizona and Utah. California had the highest score, 81. According to the Brady Center, the score is based on laws that can prevent gun violence, such as background checks on all guns sales, permit-to-purchase requirements, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and retention of sales records.
I don't have to google it to know that California has more actual gun violence per capita then Alaska despite having significantly stricter laws. So what's the deal?
A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there, but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.
In Alaska most guns are a matter of survival against things like bears and giant moose. Also, there are less violent crimes likely because there is a significantly higher risk of being caught.
"Who killed Ted?"
"Bob said if he saw Ted near his cabin again he'd regret it."
Small communities tend to have less violent crime, as everyone knows everyone.
California has tons more people than Alaska. As such, it is easier to hide and blend in, so the fear of getting caught is much less. Also, California has things like LA and Oakland.
I do find it odd that Utah and Arizona have looser gun laws than Texas or Louisiana, where full automatics are legal. Apparently Mormons like their guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there, but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.
Scientifically sound reasoning to me >.> about the sharks that is.
I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred, but I think it is something that needs to be discussed and debated. One of the issues is that gun ownership and the belief/support in the right to bear arms is quite a cross party thing; it isn't just die-hard Republicans that believe it, which is one of the reasons that top level politicians have traditionally shied away from addressing gun ownership; they know full well that any discussion of gun ownership or attempt to debate the pros/cons of gun laws will turn off vast swathes of their support. No politician who has any ambition of rising to the top (and they all do) is willing to jeopardise his/her future in that way. So the silence continues and the stone is left unturned. I feel, however, that sometimes you have to analyse and debate distasteful subjects if you ever want to make progress. It may be hurtful and someone may suffer politically for it, but the nettle must be grasped. How many more random and senseless killings need to occur before people sit up and think 'this is not right'. You may well draw parallels with other countries and indeed, there are very few countries which have not suffered the hurt of a shooting but where else on earth does this happen on a regular basis?
The problem is that Pandora's Box is well and truly open. Here in the UK, it was easy enough to pass the laws banning handguns because it didn't really affect many people anyway, apart form gun club members. If by some miracle, Obama passed a law banning gun ownership in the US, what happens to all those millions of weapons in the country? They don't suddenly disappear overnight and no amount of amnesties will get rid of them - the guns are there and always will be, unless the government starts getting incredibly pro-active about taking them off people and how many of us think that will ever happen?
The right to bear arms in so deeply ingrained in US culture such that guns pervade so many aspects of American life; it just isn't easy to separate the two. This isn't a case of giving up guns, this is a case of a massive sea change in American culture and thinking to the extent that average Americans reject their guns. But that would require an enormous social and political change in the mind set. Its harsh to say it, but you wanted your guns and your automatic weapons for all and you got it. But the price of that means that you suffer and will continue to suffer such appalling tragedies until such time as Americans say 'enough is enough'.
I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.
At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.
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.
America is fethed either way because the guns are already in circulation. Even if you brought about sensible gun laws ala - the rest of the entire world, it wouldn't stop regular rampages by deranged individuals because there are millions and millions of firearms all over the place anyway! And guns have long shelf lives..
As a result, I think more people should carry and everyone should take regular refresher training, better to have one of your own in-case you bump into a nutter outside Baskin Robins.
I think it really is a mental situation, and it arose due to Americas young history, it made sense for citizens to have guns a couple hundred years ago, not anymore because that bizarre national paranoia just isn't justified, but once you have them, your stuck with them!
So I just find it a quirky thing about a nation that is otherwise identical to my own, that absolutely gak loads of people have guns, like your walking around in Iraq or something.
2 guys recently tried to rob a net cafe in Florida. They burst in with guns out and pointed at people. A senior citizen with a conceal carry license pulled his gun out and shot both men without killing them. They then decided on medical treatment instead of dying and turned themselves in.
How many people in Florida are going to try robbing things if they have to be paranoid about people carrying concealed. Not many robbers are willing to take a bullet for the money.
Now I'm not saying that some old dude in Colorado should have been carrying. But if the FEAR that any old person could be armed would dissuade many people from attempting gun related crimes, for fear of being gunned down themselves.
As stated, the state with the strictest gun control laws has one of the highest amounts of gun related crimes in the country. Clearly making it hard to legally obtain a gun doesn't stop people from obtaining guns. A black market exists because our laws force it to exist.
I'm not saying everyone needs to be packing. But if there is a fear that ANYONE could be, then any sane person would rethink the crime they intended.
None of this accounts for people who are flying rodent gak crazy. But then crazy people don't need guns to kill people, as they usually have teeth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia 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.
This. No one in the states needs an AK. Bears don't need 30 rounds to take down.
Proper training and licensing is needed of course. And there should be guidelines as to who specifically can not own a firearm, such as felons convicted of violent crimes. That guy who went to prison for tax evasion isn't going to be in a drive by any time soon.
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.
I support the idea that if somebody is threating your life, you should be able to gun the scumbag down. By threat, I mean an actual knife or gun waved at you, not some drunken trash talk.
The right to self-defence is a principal I support. Where I live, there have been dozens of shopkeepers badly wounded, sometimes killed, by crooks and thugs attacking their shops.
Nine times out of ten, the robbers are carrying some kind of gun, so why shouldn't the shopkeeper?
I used to think It was a straightforward argument - guns are bad so lets ban them, but then you discover the Swiss and Finns have more guns per percentage of population, and those countries are safer than the USA.
Maybe it's the attitude of society?
What I do know is that it is such an emotive issue, that reasonable, rational attitudes and discussion, are often drowned out by the likes of Michelle Bachmann trying to score cheap political points. That's the tradegy.
But at the end of the day, it's for the American people to decide. If they're happy with 90 people killed every day by guns, then so be it.
Palindrome wrote:I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.
At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.
It is something that is really hard to grasp as a non-american, my dad had similar issues when he emigrated here form Britain. It goes back to long before the revolution, and is ingrained in the american psyche, as pioneers and settlers it was an essential tool far more important to them then the average British subject. This continued until the French-indian war (7 years war) when colonial militia fought of the french, giving them the confidence and experience that would allow them to challenge the British. The revolution tought us that any government could be challenged by a well armed and confident populace. Guns were seen not as form of personal defense but rather as a defense against the government itself. So armaments are such an ingrained part of american society, government, and culture. We were created not by a professional army but rather by a group of armed civilians.
Eventually, the "protection against the government" thing faded (most people recognize that this kind of thing isn't really going to work these days anyway) and it became a matter of ingrained culture instead; hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, self defense, and sometimes even fashion (someguns just look downrightsexy to many Americans) in a weird sense. Collecting them is also popular, especially collecting historical weapons like ones from the World Wars.
Deal is that people who want to shoot other people might not care if "Illegal possession/carriage of firearm" gets written in after "Murder/Attempted Murder" ..couple this with MUCH different attitudes and legal complications in trying to defend yourself and the situation shouldn't be terribly surprising.
California has tons more people than Alaska.
Alaska also generally does not care if one goes for a long walk and put a pistol under their coat. California will jail you for this. Anyone deciding you need to die will still be armed if they want to be.
Alaska doesn't care if ones gun holds 11 rounds or just 10. California will jail you for this. For bad guys, this is irrelevant except that they can expect you will have fewer bullets than they would.
Alaska will not automatically assume one is out to kill babies by the bushel if a group of upstanding gentlemen decides curb stomp you, and the attackers take rounds. California will pretty much start with the assumption that you are, in fact, out to murder babies and work from there.
Alaska puts a rifle (in a surprising amount of cases a select-fire rifle) in most of its squad cars if it can at all be afforded. California does not do this. Bad guys can expect lighter initial police resistance in one place. On the bright side, response times in my experience have been equivalent (AKA: Way too damn late to actually help you, whether rural or city.) and they both draw chalk outlines and write reports with stunning efficiency.
Someone bent on preying on others is just enabled by the legal and social situation in one state more than the other.
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.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I support the idea that if somebody is threating your life, you should be able to gun the scumbag down. By threat, I mean an actual knife or gun waved at you, not some drunken trash talk.
The right to self-defence is a principal I support. Where I live, there have been dozens of shopkeepers badly wounded, sometimes killed, by crooks and thugs attacking their shops.
Nine times out of ten, the robbers are carrying some kind of gun, so why shouldn't the shopkeeper?
Hence why outright blanket 'gun bans' are so moronic - you're only punishing the responsible, law-abiding citizen who's not out to shoot anyone who gets in his way like criminals do!
Criminals will always find ways to get around our laws and obtain their illegal weapons. They're criminals!!! They don't give jack- about the police or our justice system because it's become so watered down and tends to favour the law-breaker to begin with.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I used to think It was a straightforward argument - guns are bad so lets ban them, but then you discover the Swiss and Finns have more guns per percentage of population, and those countries are safer than the USA.
Maybe it's the attitude of society? What I do know is that it is such an emotive issue, that reasonable, rational attitudes and discussion, are often drowned out by the likes of Michelle Bachmann trying to score cheap political points. That's the tradegy.
But at the end of the day, it's for the American people to decide. If they're happy with 90 people killed every day by guns, then so be it.
Emphasis mine.
And there's the real kicker; politicians are terrified of actually addressing the real problems because they don't want to be seen as racist and/or insensitive. "Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs, because our leaders don't want to risk offending the leftist nutters, bleeding-heart socialists, 'dude who takes everything as a personal insult', etc... crowd. (honestly, the right and the left needs to get together on this and work out a proper solution instead of continually pointing fingers at eachother!)
Look at Toronto to see where strict gun laws and rigid adherence to political correctness gets you.
Apparently, the solution to Toronto's gun violence problem as one local politician figures, it to ban the sale of bullets. (because of corse, every gangbanger is responsible enough to go down to his local gun store with his illegal handgun, and then leagally purchase his ammo with his non-existant gun permit you actually need to legally buy your bullets!)
It's a complicated issue and I'm glad I'm not making the decisions at the end of the day!
No matter how much laws you have, criminals will always have guns, and every so often, somebody will go on the rampage. It happens even in Britain.
Dare I say maybe Michael Moore had a point? Maybe there is something unique about gun violence in America, because there are other countries with more guns than the USA, and more countries with equal or more violent histories.
Maybe if America was more socialist (or at least addressed some of it's problems) and embraced European cafe culture, It would be less of a problem
Seriously, though, I'm more qualified than most on this forum to use guns (past military service) and yet, having seen violence and the mess that guns can do to human anatomy, I don't keep them, and I seem to shy away from violence these days except when it's plastic soldiers...
"Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs
Complete and utter nonsense. I dunno how it is in the UK, but that is certainly not the case here in the US (you know, the subject of the thread?). Here, the societal bias tends to be for harsh punishments and enforcement of crimes (unless they're white-collar crimes). It gets to the point where we have to have investigations and lawsuits just to protect the basic fundamental rights of the accused at times.
"Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs
Complete and utter nonsense. I dunno how it is in the UK, but that is certainly not the case here in the US (you know, the subject of the thread?). Here, the societal bias tends to be for harsh punishments and enforcement of crimes (unless they're white-collar crimes). It gets to the point where we have to have investigations and lawsuits just to protect the basic fundamental rights of the accused at times.
Depends on where you are.
Here is CA its PC all the time, regardless of whats right. Some downright wrong things get done in the name of political correctness.
The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.
And just because someone wants an assault rifle, doesn't mean they are planning on going on a rampage. Maybe I want an AK-47 because its a cool gun. If I have a weapon for self-defense, might as well make it a cool one right? And its good insurance if someone comes after me. The very threat of a "Chopper" is often enough to make most criminals run for the hills, unless they too have one. In which case its good I don't have some peashooter.
Not to mention that with the way some court cases have gone down in recent months, its really best to shoot and kill an intruder in your home instead of just wounding him. He might sue you for assault, and win(true story)
Relapse wrote:A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there...
Its not a bad answer once all other variables are eliminated.
...but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.
Sharks are known for their love of honey glazed ham (preferably spiral cut), and that's the best they can get. Its why they hate us so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:This isn't a case of giving up guns, this is a case of a massive sea change in American culture and thinking to the extent that average Americans reject their guns.
I think you're partially correct. It is a cultural issue, but not related to firearms. Its more a matter of callousness with regard to the state of your fellow Americans.
I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.
Grey Templar wrote:
The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.
Not true at all. Laws are designed to place hurdles in front of certain desires, not eliminate them entirely.
Does your desire for that automatic assault rifle exceed your desire to not break the law? I mean, would you try to steal one?
filbert wrote:I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred
In a couple of months it will be forgotten as Americans move on to more important issues like The World Series and what Snookie is wearing...
Though it will get a quality made for tv movie on Lifetime in a year or two starring Brian Austin Green...
Your both wrong, you know why?
In a couple of months something like this will have happened again.
You live in America. A nation bustling with firearms and 30% of the populous are on meds for mental issues.
You think your going to forget about this because of Snookie?!
Sadly chaps, your going to forget about it because its going to happen again someplace else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.
Not true at all. Laws are designed to place hurdles in front of certain desires, not eliminate them entirely.
Does your desire for that automatic assault rifle exceed your desire to not break the law? I mean, would you try to steal one?
Dogma has the right of it as usual.
The idea of gun control clearly isn't futile, because funny thing, the first world country with the slackest gun control laws, has (fething overwhelmingly by the way!) the largest number of deaths/murders by shooting.
Its not rocket science is it?!
Of course hard core gangsters and gak will always get guns, they can in England. But this kid, and the Columbine kid, and the Virginia tech kid, and any other numerous incidents I could mention, are not hard core gangsters, they were quiet and shy most of the time, they didnt associate with Russian mobsters or Mexican smugglers, and as a result if they went nuts in Yorkshire, they would probably stab a couple of people and that would be the end of it.
You honestly think a young lad like the perp in this incident would be able to get an assault rifle if he went to University in Edinburgh?
Why is the statement the 'US has loose gun laws' thrown about like that? As has been pointed out before, some states have *very* strict laws and sometimes contribute substantially to the nation's overall gun crimes.
Although, I suppose it is the case that those states have less strict laws than say the UK or some such country.
Assualt style weapons are not an issue. The shooter in COlorado did not have an automatic. Even though the weapon jammed on him was more due to the weapon double feeding itself was due to the huge capacity magazine he was using. Good thing he didn't knew SPORTS corrective action. Only thing saving my 30 rounds mags from being collected locally is I'm military. Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?
I completely agree that there is no practical or realistic way you could ever remove all guns from society. However the idea that gun control is somehow 100% ineffective is ludicrous. The cat is certainly mostly out of the bag but in the case of Virginia tech or the aurora shooting a lack of regulation and oversight is quite obviously a huge factor. As dogma and matty have stated, a lot of the lone wolf loser psychos who end going on senseless rampages weren't exactly plugged in to the local underground firearms market. I really doubt the Virginia tech kid or this guy would have been able to acquire illegally purchased firearms. Although the thoughts of a nerdy loner walking around the bad parts of town asking every person he see's where he can buy a gun is amusing.
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
It's funny, you talk drugs and half the people seem to think the war on drugs is working but when you talk to the some people about guns its "oh you can't stop it, there will be a black market". That’s too much cognitive dissonance for my taste.
You can't stop most crime most of the time but the idea that it's fruitless to attempt to prevent it through regulation is bull***t. If all buddy in the theater could find on his stroll though the bad part of town was an ass kicking or possibly a crappy pistol we wouldn't be seeing nearly the same death toll.
Crablezworth wrote: The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
There is much truth here.
I own a few guns, though I don't carry, but even if I did my immediate response to an indirect threat would be to escape the threat, not confront it.
Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
Yep, because once one person gets shot and decides to defend themself/retaliate in a very public area, you tend to up with something like Monday night's mass shooting on Danzig street in Toronto... 2 dead & 23 injured. But sure, more people with guns who think they can be heroes would be a good thing?!
Perhaps if there had been a fully trained sniper/sharpshooter who was carrying their proper night vision gear, they might have made a difference... Sadly, I don't anyone who tends to walk around with all that added gear just because some random crazy gak-wipe wants their 15min of infamy.
Crablezworth wrote:
What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
There is much truth here.
I own a few guns, though I don't carry, but even if I did my immediate response to an indirect threat would be to escape the threat, not confront it.
I think its all about confidence. Its all about risk/reward, just as in nature. A jackal will try and swipe some meat from a lion if he thinks hes going to get away with it, and the prinicpal is the exact same. Your the same as me Dogma, namely, honest about things and beyond all the white knighting people do on the internet. If I dont think Im going to get something out of it, then why do it?
So, in this case, if a guy was shooting in the cinema and I was carrying, im 99% likely to shoot the fether for two reasons, firstly little risk to myself, and secondly big reward. If he was targetting people randomly, I would casually whip my handgun out, centre it on him from a nice bit of cover and casually and calmly blow his face off, the risk (minimal to me in a crowd) is outweighed by the rewards HERO MATTY SAVES CINEMA, hello morning news, book deal, have to beat the chicks off with a gakky stick for a few weeks.
Now, if there was say.. 4 or 5 of them and they had rifles and machine guns..
I would trip the guy next to me as we fled, possibly nudge him towards the bad guys and nip out the fire exit.
I don't understand this need for guns either, for hunting seems reasonable but the idea that it's okay to have multiple weapons with which you can go on a killing spree with doesn't seem particularly logical.
The other thing that I don't understand is the insistence that a law from the 1800s entitles people to possess weapons. Considering we were also trading slaves and hanging people in the 1800s it doesn't quite seem right that the second amendment shouldn't also be adjusted slightly.
I also agree with matty on the fact that there are too many guns now to remove them all. I think stricter gun laws are definitely a necessity though, like one firearm per household. I don't really understand why you'd need more than one weapon.
Bill of Rights/2nd Amendment has evolve over time so the federal and state gov't has to work within the confine of the law.
Main points though of US citizen mentality from colonial to modern day
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system
Also the unconfirmed...really unconfirmed...the ability to overthrow the US gov't if the people so choose to
Evilledz wrote:I don't understand this need for guns either, for hunting seems reasonable but the idea that it's okay to have multiple weapons with which you can go on a killing spree with doesn't seem particularly logical.
The other thing that I don't understand is the insistence that a law from the 1800s entitles people to possess weapons. Considering we were also trading slaves and hanging people in the 1800s it doesn't quite seem right that the second amendment shouldn't also be adjusted slightly.
I also agree with matty on the fact that there are too many guns now to remove them all. I think stricter gun laws are definitely a necessity though, like one firearm per household. I don't really understand why you'd need more than one weapon.
Why would someone need more then one car?
Why would someone need more then a couple pairs of shoes?
Why would someone need to make more then what their basic cost of living is?
The issue isn't the guns. Its the person behind the gun. This guy could just as easily have committed this act with a hatchet and a pipewrench. The difference in casualities would have been minimal, especially since it wouldn't have been as immediatly obvious what was going on whereas when a gun goes off you know exactly whats going on. Or let just say he did it with a couple of 9mms.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and its never going to be anything different.
Should we regulate knives too? I mean, more people get hurt by those things then they do by guns.
Grey Templar wrote: This guy could just as easily have committed this act with a hatchet and a pipewrench. The difference in casualities would have been minimal
I'm sorry what? I'd love the to meet the individual who can wound/kill 71 people with a hatchet and wrench combo...
Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?
Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.
My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.
He operated within the law when he purchased the firearms... had the laws governing the purchase/ownership of firearms been different, he may not have been able to access firearms especially the ones that are designed to facilitate efficient levels of death. I don't think a .22 bolt action hunting rifle would lead to the same levels of wounded. Also, from all indications it was an ar-15 with 100 round drum mag and he was firing semi and it apparently jammed at some point due to the drum mag. He also had a shotgun and a glock.
I really don't think he would have been able to acquire firearms illegally, he already lived in a s**ty part of town and yet still went the legit route to purchase his guns. If he still intended to massacre people but was unable to procure firearms to facilitate that I can't see him making the jump to "I'll just hack a bunch of people up with an axe". There’s a greater disconnect between firearm and stabbing/bludgeoning. He also showed some form of regret because the second the police had him he was telling them that his car and apartment had been boobytrapped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote:Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?
Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.
Not to mention the use of tear gas, he was wearing a gas mask afterall. And I would think 100 rounds of 5.56 in an inclosed space isn't exactly quiet either. You can also add that the way most theaters are designed, it's not easy to escape if buddy is standing near the exit and just firing up at anything that moves.
skyth wrote:Hmmm...More people packing guns wouldn't have helped in this situation. It was in a dark movie theatre and wasn't he wearing body armor?
Here's the situation...It's dark in the theatre, and someone starts shooting. You think...I'm going to be the hero and take him down so you pull your weapon and start firing at him (And missing badly because of the panic/light conditions/etc). Another person sees two people who are shooting trying to kill everyone so pulls out his weapon and tries to take down the two people. Add more to that.
Assertive speculation like that isn't valid, I would argue. The eventuality we can be certain about is the one that actually happened, which was one person(the killer) using a gun.
It's a tricky situation to be sure, though. If you would ask an individual if they'd rather be armed(and have typical training/experience of a firearm carrier) in this kind of situation, their response would probably be 'yes'. If you ask if they would be okay with *other* people being armed...it varies.
Individuals [may] want to be armed.
Individuals may not want others to be armed.
The killer certainly doesn't want others armed.
I would say with the vision issues there was plus the mass panic, anyone with a gun shooting back would be likely to hit an innocent bystander rather than the target.
Judgeing by the reported use of body armor, he was counting on it
o_O
Err, what? Sounds like he was anticipating it yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to be shot.
EDIT: Unless your point was he was anticipating civilians carrying weapons, therefore the point about about armed civilians scaring criminals is invalid?
But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.
There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.
The source said the extensive body armor Holmes had on when he was arrested gives "no doubt he intended to do battle with law enforcement," and not people watching a movie, according to the source. But he was arrested unarmed while going back out to his car, possibly to retrieve another gun, the source said.
Weapon jammed, three other weapons unloaded in the theater and caught in the open by police with no loaded weapon.
But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.
There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.
This assumes that psychopaths care about infamy, which isn't often the case.
But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest. His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.
There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.
This assumes that psychopaths care about infamy, which isn't often the case.
Spoiler:
Psychopaths are usually extremely egotistical, it is one of the defining characteristics of a Psychopath. Here's a list of some of the characteristics tested for when determining whether one is a psychopath:
Spoiler:
1) Glibness/superficial charm 2) Grandiose sense of self-worth 3) Pathological lying 4) Cunning/manipulative 5) Lack of remorse or guilt 6) Emotionally shallow 7) Callous/lack of empathy 8) Failure to accept responsibility for own actions 9) Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom 10) Parasitic lifestyle 11) Lack of realistic, long-term goals 12) Impulsiveness 13) Irresponsibility
A Psychopath is extremely self centred and manipulative, often highly intelligent too or at least can pass themselves off as intelligent.
Someone who just wants to see the world burn is not necessarily a psychopath, they seem to fit more into the category of a sociopath, someone with no regard for any human values.
Judgeing by the reported use of body armor, he was counting on it
o_O
Err, what? Sounds like he was anticipating it yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to be shot.
EDIT: Unless your point was he was anticipating civilians carrying weapons, therefore the point about about armed civilians scaring criminals is invalid?
Anticipating anyone being armed, civilian or police
Palindrome wrote:I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.
At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.
Ah... in America, being able to own a gun IS a basic right. It's the second right specifically mentioned in our Bill of Rights. It's enshrined in the basic framework of our government.*
I'll grant you that when the Bill of Rights was written, you were looking at muzzleloading rifles as state of the art. Furthermore, a very large portion of the population lived on farms, in a land full of predators and potential game animals - not to mention pests like squirrels that had to be dealt with lest they harvest your crops before you do. It's literally worlds different from the weapons and needs of a modern society.
But that's the nice thing about America. We can revisit the Bill of Rights and change them if we, the people (and government) see the need.
*And the 2nd Amendment is not in the least bit ambiguous. Americans have the right to bear arms, full stop. It says nothing about militas or any other such nonsense that people have since claimed 'are what it really means.' The English of the Founding Fathers isn't THAT different from modern English...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood guard26 wrote:I just think the laws should be reduced to pistols only not shotguns, assault rifles or anything like that.
In other words, you think hunting should be illegal? Or if not illegal, just so difficult as to be impractical?
Jihadin wrote: Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?
No, there are no laws against high capacity mags and no effort to phase them out, at least not driven by any legislation. What you're talking about was part of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, and no actual effort has been made to reinstate it.
--
Also, several people (not you) have made arguments in this thread to the effect of "do you really need to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon" and such. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for civilian purchase since 1934. The only way to legally buy one is fairly complex, involves many onerous regulations and the strictest of oversight - legally owned automatic weapons have only killed 2 people since then, and one of the perpetrators was a cop. TLDR, if you bring up the spectre of fully automatic AK-47's, you're raising a really ignorant strawman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:*And the 2nd Amendment is not in the least bit ambiguous. Americans have the right to bear arms, full stop. It says nothing about militas or any other such nonsense that people have since claimed 'are what it really means.' The English of the Founding Fathers isn't THAT different from modern English...
You are a liar. Anyone with 2 seconds and google knows what it really says, but for anyone reading this whom lacks either of thise, here's what it says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Jihadin wrote: Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?
No, there are no laws against high capacity mags and no effort to phase them out, at least not driven by any legislation. What you're talking about was part of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, and no actual effort has been made to reinstate it.
--
Also, several people (not you) have made arguments in this thread to the effect of "do you really need to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon" and such. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for civilian purchase since 1934. The only way to legally buy one is fairly complex, involves many onerous regulations and the strictest of oversight - legally owned automatic weapons have only killed 2 people since then, and one of the perpetrators was a cop. TLDR, if you bring up the spectre of fully automatic AK-47's, you're raising a really ignorant strawman.
While currently legal, why does a civie need to have a 100 round drum mag? WTF is he "hunting" that requires it?
Crablezworth wrote: The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.
I'd like to paraphrase the President's story about two young adults presence of mind during the shootings, names Abby and Stephanie If I recall correctly.
They were sitting up close to the screen so that they saw the gas canister as the gunman threw it. Abby immediately stood up, maybe to warn people, maybe to throw the gas canister out the door. The gunman shot her in the neck and hit a vein. Abby started spurting blood.
Stephanie had the presence of mind to fall forward with Abby, pull her out of the aisle and cover her wound with her fingers and apply pressure to it. She used her free hand to call 911. She did this immediately while the gunman was shooting people. Three men had the presence of mind to protect those they were with and cared about, taking a bullet for them.
I don't think it's so unreasonable for one of those men to have had the presence of mind to shoot the guy in the front of the theatre shooting people as they stood up. It's certainly not a given I'll grant that but you shouldn't discount the possibility as some sort of armchair badass guy who's ignoring reality's opinion.
It still refers to "the people's right the keep and bear arms"
It means that both Militias and personal weaponry are legal and a fundamental right of the respected parties(the states have the right to have a Militia, and people have the right to own weaponry)
The biggest reason for this is so that the people have the ability to oppose the government by force if it becomes necessary to protect their freedoms. It allows for another revolution to take place. The government can't gun down mobs without fear of armed reprisal.
Rebellions in the past have always been hampered by the ability to arm the participants. This basically makes it a little easier. And is thus incentive for the Government to stay loyal to the people.
Sure, I agree that's what it says and what the intent was. What I disagreed with was what was posted previously by someone else, who explicitly pretended there was no mention of militias at all, when in fact the 4th word in the sentence is "militia". If we're going to have this discussion I'd like to at least try to have it as honestly as possible.
I think the stance that what the amendment actually meant was that "citizens only had the right to own a weapon under the auspices of a citizen militia" was a completely legitimate interpretation (not one I agree with) up until 2010, when SCOTUS knocked down the Chicago gun ban. At that point I thought it was made clear that wasn't how they read it, and the current usage of it (anyone can own one within some regulation) is the correct one.
And I think the founders would have agreed with them.
They probably never in their life thought that someone would ever try to outlaw civilian guns, which at the time were often more advanced then the military. Kentucky Long Rifles for example. Primarly a civilian weapon, but far superior to other rifles of the time period.
I say we all just get issued jackets with a claymore front back and sides, and if your heart stops they detonate - and you have to wear them every time you leave the house. It'd cut down on murders, robbery, fights, traffic, lines at any sort of business - no one would just stand around yakking, people would get their gak done and go home.
Up to the individual on what what he wants with his weapon. If he wants a 100 rds magazine then he's going to want a 100 rds magazine. Me personnaly being more fimiliar with my weapon I perfer the 30 round mag. Less chance of a weapon jam from a double feed plus if one of my 30 rds mag keeps having a failure of feed I can fix it simply by stretching the spring or compressing it. More simpler compare to fooling around (guessing) a $100 or more one hundred rds magazine trying to do the same thing to a 30 round mag.
Thanks Ouze for clarifying for me the high capacity magazine portion. I disfavor a high capacity mag like the one we're talking about since I never consider to purchase them let alone look at them.
Also I never select "auto" while in a combat theater but always on "semi" in a shooting match. I have more muzzle control firing one round then dealing with a automatic burst. Reason why is I'm terrified of rounds fired after the first on where their going to go after muzzzle climb. My assigned weapon is a M4A1 on deployment
Better disbunk this to since some going to go with converting a existing semi weapon to automatic weapon by filing the hammer. Can't do it becuase you have to know how to change out the lower reciever with pins and springs for both a AK and M4
Jihadin wrote:Up to the individual on what what he wants with his weapon. If he wants a 100 rds magazine then he's going to want a 100 rds magazine. Me personnaly being more fimiliar with my weapon I perfer the 30 round mag. Less chance of a weapon jam from a double feed plus if one of my 30 rds mag keeps having a failure of feed I can fix it simply by stretching the spring or compressing it. More simpler compare to fooling around (guessing) a $100 or more one hundred rds magazine trying to do the same thing to a 30 round mag.
Thanks Ouze for clarifying for me the high capacity magazine portion. I disfavor a high capacity mag like the one we're talking about since I never consider to purchase them let alone look at them.
Also I never select "auto" while in a combat theater but always on "semi" in a shooting match. I have more muzzle control firing one round then dealing with a automatic burst. Reason why is I'm terrified of rounds fired after the first on where their going to go after muzzzle climb. My assigned weapon is a M4A1 on deployment
Better disbunk this to since some going to go with converting a existing semi weapon to automatic weapon by filing the hammer. Can't do it becuase you have to know how to change out the lower reciever with pins and springs for both a AK and M4
Though what is the point to a 100 round magazine, it doesn't help with defense or hunting.
Palindrome wrote:I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.
At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.
It is something that is really hard to grasp as a non-american, my dad had similar issues when he emigrated here form Britain. It goes back to long before the revolution, and is ingrained in the american psyche, as pioneers and settlers it was an essential tool far more important to them then the average British subject. This continued until the French-indian war (7 years war) when colonial militia fought of the french, giving them the confidence and experience that would allow them to challenge the British. The revolution tought us that any government could be challenged by a well armed and confident populace. Guns were seen not as form of personal defense but rather as a defense against the government itself. So armaments are such an ingrained part of american society, government, and culture. We were created not by a professional army but rather by a group of armed civilians.
There are many to whom "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers" is a literal thing. you want a war the likes of which this country hasn't seen, try it.
Though what is the point to a 100 round magazine, it doesn't help with defense or hunting.
The point is people get boners for doing stupid crap. Why don't all cars have governors that keep them from going above 65? It's silly, and endangers lives, but it's also fun.
MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.
Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:30 rds mag and above. A twenty round mag is not considered high capacity
Yet thhat is illegal in California as a 'high capacity magazine.'
Though what is the point to a 100 round magazine, it doesn't help with defense or hunting.
The joy of putting a hundred rounds into a target (firing range) without swapping mags. Not something I recommend doing for fun because it has a possibilty of tearing a weapon up (fire pin more likely) but the carbon buildup in the gas tubes if not cleared would required a weaponsmith to look into if not properly cleaned.
But he just surrendered to the police. The body armour was to ensure his survival of shooting people in a theatre, not a gunfight with the police.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in a dark, gas filled theatre with a blinded civilian with a handgun is pretty good with a Kevlar vest.
His chances of surviving a gunfight in an open street with a SWAT team packing fully automatic weaponry is slim to nil.
There's no point in being an infamous psychopath if you aren't alive to enjoy the infamy.
It would be difficult. Stopping the VMI killer would not have been difficult. Stopping would be rapist X would also not be difficult.
IN my instance we had (have) a stalker. he would not have been stopped by the police. Indeed the police recommended the wife be armed at all times. I am not sacrificing her safety for whatever nonsense laws become reality.
Evilledz wrote:I don't understand this need for guns either, for hunting seems reasonable but the idea that it's okay to have multiple weapons with which you can go on a killing spree with doesn't seem particularly logical.
The other thing that I don't understand is the insistence that a law from the 1800s entitles people to possess weapons. Considering we were also trading slaves and hanging people in the 1800s it doesn't quite seem right that the second amendment shouldn't also be adjusted slightly.
I also agree with matty on the fact that there are too many guns now to remove them all. I think stricter gun laws are definitely a necessity though, like one firearm per household. I don't really understand why you'd need more than one weapon.
Why would someone need more then one car?
Why would someone need more then a couple pairs of shoes?
Why would someone need to make more then what their basic cost of living is?
The issue isn't the guns. Its the person behind the gun. This guy could just as easily have committed this act with a hatchet and a pipewrench. The difference in casualities would have been minimal, especially since it wouldn't have been as immediatly obvious what was going on whereas when a gun goes off you know exactly whats going on. Or let just say he did it with a couple of 9mms.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and its never going to be anything different.
Should we regulate knives too? I mean, more people get hurt by those things then they do by guns.
Think about the number of people killed by drunk drivers each year compared to the number of people killed by guns. It's roughly equal or greater, but no one says that we should limit a person to one bottle a month.
With all of the damage drugs do , we still have people saying they should be legalized because prohibition didn't work.
Prohibition on guns? Ain't gonna work.
Yeah, although drugs and liquor are much more likely to cause permanant damage* then guns. And of course all 3 problems are often interrelated.
*And by that I refer to the change of having guns about and drugs/liquor about compared to each other. Obviously if bullets are flying they will do more damage. But guns by themselves are less likely to cause damage then drugs/stuff. Addictions feth more people over then anything else.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, although drugs and liquor are much more likely to cause permanate damage then guns. And of course all 3 problems are often interrelated.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, although drugs and liquor are much more likely to cause permanate damage then guns. And of course all 3 problems are often interrelated.
Yup, and with the great success of Fast and Furious to show us how on the ball those in charge of regulating weapons are...
Lots of places have loads of guns, but the USA is quite unique in the amout of gun violence it has. Nor does the gun violence in the US track particularly closely to gun regulation - it seems largely independant of efforts to restrict the use of guns.
The above is, to be perfectly honest, pretty god damn hard to deny, but the anti-gun crowd does their best to ignore it anyway. The result of denying a basic piece of reality produces the same result it always does - deeply useless policy ala the Brady Assault Weapons ban.
The pro-gun crowd doesn't do any better, as they see that gun restrictions have little effect on gun violence, figure that is enough to keep their guns safe and think no more on the issue. They don't bother to really think if there is some part still played by America's fixation on guns in gun violence, and that if gun culture, with it's deeply misanthropic central assumption that all a man can do is defend himself against the individual or social villains that will be attacking any minute now, is maybe a contributor to the sheer number of lunatics the USA produces.
The result of all of this is a culture that goes unquestioned, while legislation is sometimes debated and even more rarely passed, and always doomed to be ineffective.
Grey Templar wrote:They probably never in their life thought that someone would ever try to outlaw civilian guns, which at the time were often more advanced then the military. Kentucky Long Rifles for example. Primarly a civilian weapon, but far superior to other rifles of the time period.
This is a common myth. The Kentucky Long Rifle was far more accurate than the muskets in common use among regular infantry at the time of the war, but this is because muskets were built to have far greater rates of fire. It's comparing a Ferrari to a Bradley light tank, and deciding civilians have superior vehicles because ferraris go faster.
Instead, you should compare the Kentucky Long Rifle to the rifles in use by the British at the time, namely the Pattern 1776 and Ferguson rifles, as well as the various German designs in use among mercenaries. The 1776 had very smiilar performance to the Long Rifle, while the Ferguson was a breach loading rifle decades ahead of its time, with a rate of fire of 7 rounds a minute and an effective range equal to the long rifle (being well ahead of its time it was also too expensive and unreliable, and only a small number ever saw service.
The idea that the revolutionary forces had these rifles that were miles ahead of their time, a product of the unique US experience of frontiersmen is a great piece of mythmaking, but is ultimately a piece of fantasy. This is only compounded by the minimal effect those famous, much vaunted riflemen had in actually winning the war. In the end it was US muskets and artillery that decided the war, coupled with a little help from some French boats.
In the 1970's my 76-year old grandmother living in Detroit saved her life and her roommate when a drifter broke onto her apartment and kept on coming despite their screams. A legally owned handgun became a great equalizer for a frail elderly woman with arthritis facing a twenty year-old man with bad intentions.
Privately owned firearms used in self defense by private citizens have saved more lives that those used in violent crimes. Check out the stats here:
What I find it ironic is those who worry more about gun control of private citizens, yet seem to have no problem with their government having nukes, bio-weapons, tanks, machine guns, cluster bombs, drones and similar WMD and regularly kill people in large numbers---with collateral damage of innocent civilians merely being brushed off as highly regrettable.
The Aurora shooting is indeed tragic---but when ordinary folk in distant countries are killed day in and day out by CIA piloted drones, who weeps and demands justice for them? Why should the government get a free pass employing deadly weapons indiscriminately, while quibbling about the magazine capacity of privately owned firearms?
Whenever this conversation comes up, I am always amused by the comments by the Brits, and how they do not understand why we have the 2nd Amendment.
We have the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest, because we no longer wished to be under British rule. We continue to not want to be like you, and so defend our constition and rights fiercely.
Sadly with passage is bills such as the importation bans, as well as modern full auto production being limited to just for official government purposes. The 2nd Amendment has already lost strength of purpose.
Part of the reason as mentioned before, (thank you, I would normall mention the reason like in previous threads) specifically, defense of liberty against a tyranical government. We no longer have access to a level of technology equal to that of our military.
Yes I realize some of this is simply not practical, however in the circumstance where the government gets out o fhand, and the National Guard comes sweeping through neighborhoods with tanks, grenades, full auto firearms, body armour etc.
The populace will largely be armed with hunting rifles, shotguns, hand guns, and some semi auto versions of the military rifles, as well as a smattering of full auto firearms, rarely body armour, and even more rarely tanks, grenades and artillery.
I can only hope that if push ever comes to shove, that the military by in large will side with the populace rather than following orders from a tyrranical government.
I want my tank, and I have the right to own it, granted by the bill of rights, 2nd Ammendment, and it shall not be infringed.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Whenever this conversation comes up, I am always amused by the comments by the Brits, and how they do not understand why we have the 2nd Amendment.
We have the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest, because we no longer wished to be under British rule. We continue to not want to be like you, and so defend our constition and rights fiercely.
Laws do not make a culture. You could have the exact same laws we do and you still wouldn't be 'like us'. People in the UK don't get why you still have laws concerning guns that you do. We understand the whole rebellion thing but that was a long time ago and bar your own government no one is gonna oppress you and i don't see that happening any time soon... Incidentally you can own a tank in the UK... The guns have to be deactivated though.
I can have that same tank here, I can also technically have a fully operation tank, but only one that was here before the bans went into place. So this of course is rare.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I want my tank, and I have the right to own it, granted by the bill of rights, 2nd Ammendment, and it shall not be infringed.
I'm pretty sure that tou actually do not have a right to own a tank.
Your 2nd Amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms. It makes no specifications as to what those arms encompass. If the government only allows you to own single-shot, black powder, smooth-bore muskets, then that is all you are constitutionally entitled to. Everything else is a privilege: the 2nd Amendment does not specifically grant you the right to own top-of-the-line firepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:It doesn't strike you as a bad idea to allow people to purchase fully armed and operational tanks?
It strikes me as a bad idea to let anyone with a Napolean complex overcompensate with weaponry; and the idea of anything full-auto in the hands of such worries me to no end: not because I'm concerned about their intent, but because I generally think that most people who own full-auto rifles are fools that think they're Rambo. These people will likely have no concept of where every round beyond the first will end up, and that is a horrifying possibility.
Imagine the joys of someone in your home being hit by a stray round, because some moron unloaded high-velocity rounds from a full-auto on an intruder, and did not have the presence of mind to consider how many wooden houses those bullets will pass through before stopping. Such is my argument against full-auto.
Well, that and the fact that it is completely useless outside of suppressing fire.
EDIT: I have never known anyone who has served in the armed forces to feel the need for full-auto at home.
Brushfire wrote:Privately owned firearms used in self defense by private citizens have saved more lives that those used in violent crimes. Check out the stats here:
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
gunowners.org
The obviously biased nature of that website aside, the claim actually does have some merit, though its prioritisation of sources is telling. It is questionable, however, what actually constitutes "self defense", especially given that this statistic also counts people merely showing they were armed. How many of the cases reported by the interviewed test group of ~4.000 people were "false positives", reported by people who felt threatened by a completely innocent person? And was everyone actually honest in this interview, considering that many of these 4k gun owners might have been gun lovers fervently believing in this form of self defense and willing to make up a story for it, or even believe an incident that actually played out a little differently? I remember dakka talking about this case a few weeks back. Regardless of how the case ends, this one would have been booked under "gun used for self defense" by the statistic you're using, simply because it's up to the gun owner to decide.
Also, the website does not claim that the number of guns used in self defense is higher than those used in crimes. The website compares to the number of guns used in injuring or killing someone. A more accurate comparison would thus be something like:
# of firearms used in saving someone who would have otherwise been injured or killed vs # of firearms used in injuring/killing an innocent person
-or-
# of firearms used in self defense by brandishing or firing warning shots vs # of firearms used in crimes where no-one was injured/killed due to the victim cooperating with the criminal
Anyhow, whilst UN statistics do seem to present an obvious connection between the amount of gun violence and the level of distribution of firearms in a populace (I have posted these numbers before, but for the sake of completion here they are again), and whilst the purpose of gun ownership as a means of defending oneself against an oppressive government is completely at odds with the reality of the 21st century, I do have to agree with a number of points made by previous posters. Introducing limitations on gun ownership similar to other Western nations would have no immediate effect on the level of violence. Worst case, it might very well actually have a negative impact. The guns are already in circulation, and disarming the honest people, whilst in some cases certainly preventing nutjobs from going on a rampage, might lead to well-armed criminals having an easier time.
I think there might still be potential in stricter gun control, just that it might take many years, perhaps even decades to show. Weapons are being confiscated from criminal elements by the police every day, so logically their existence should drop considerably should they no longer be easily available. I would predict a brief surge in crime, followed by a steady decline, though this is obviously coming from an idealist. Either way, the big question is: Would the populace be willing to endure this transition, or would they jump to conclusions when no progress has been made after 1-2 years already? The latter seems almost guaranteed, given the fast pace of modern politics and the rather short memory/patience of people in most industrialised nations.
Perhaps in another couple years public opinion will swing around, but I do not think a sizeable enough subset of the people actually want this yet, and the resistance is just too big and influential for any politician to try and risk his seat on this. Massacres by nutjobs have to occur on a more regular basis first.
... actually, do we have any statistics on that development? Whilst linked more to society than gun control, I'd be interested to see how this has evolved over the decades.
azazel the cat wrote:
Imagine the joys of someone in your home being hit by a stray round, because some moron unloaded high-velocity rounds from a full-auto on an intruder, and did not have the presence of mind to consider how many wooden houses those bullets will pass through before stopping. Such is my argument against full-auto.
Well, that and the fact that it is completely useless outside of suppressing fire.
EDIT: I have never known anyone who has served in the armed forces to feel the need for full-auto at home.
Do you know what kind of licenses you need to have an automatic weapon? They are already a pain in the backside to get (legally). Even though your point is 90% valid, if you live in a high crime area where the bad guys have AK- 47s, a 9mm is not going to help you. You would need a 12g with choke/ambush points or an assault rifle/close quarter battle weapon yourself.
Brushfire wrote:In the 1970's my 76-year old grandmother living in Detroit saved her life and her roommate when a drifter broke onto her apartment and kept on coming despite their screams. A legally owned handgun became a great equalizer for a frail elderly woman with arthritis facing a twenty year-old man with bad intentions.
Privately owned firearms used in self defense by private citizens have saved more lives that those used in violent crimes. Check out the stats here:
According to that website, there are 2,500,000 uses of firearms in self defence each year, with 8% resulting in the killing or wounding of the attacker. So apparently there's 200,000 lawful shootings of attackers every year... which is an incredibly stupid claim, when there's only about 80,000 shootings of any kind a year in the USA.
You just... you have to apply some critical analysis to the stuff you see posted on the web, because most of it, especially in the gun debate, is full outright lies, and in most cases incredibly stupid lies. The pro-gun side is particularly bad for this, most of the stuff they claim is a million miles from reality, and steeped in some incredibly delusional power fantasies about standing up against an apparently declining society.
If guns don't kill people, why do we arm soldiers?
As to the 2nd ammendment, does it make any provision for people to be able to have ammunition?
Here in the UK I am reasonably happy with our gun and knife laws and given our population density I think our gun and knife crime figures are pretty good. I certainly don't think that anyone needs a gun for self defence any more than everyone needs a stab vest when walking into town and I'm quite happy that our laws make it so.
Even in the US, your average suburban worker can go most of their life without having to interact with guns in any meaningful way (if they don't want to) and don't have to fear being unable to have some wild west standoff while standing in line at the coffee shop, defending the innocent from some madman with a gun/invading communist army/liberals/etc...
The illusion of power that any kind of weapon or protective device (such as a bullet proof or stab vest) gives is just that in most cases - an illusion.
I know there are a lot of guns in the US, but how many regular gun users actually are there? Say regular use is using a gun more than once a month (a reasonable limit); how many people actually go out and shoot/train/etc with their guns that much, compared to those who keep a gun in the night stand to 'protect' their homes and never use it?
How many homes are actively protected by the use of guns each year?
MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.
Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.
Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.
MrMerlin wrote:Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.
More to the point, why are there less rampages in Europe? Maybe because if someone is on the edge of sanity, then being in a country covered in guns, in which guns and violence are constantly put forward as a solution, even when there isn't actually a problem, are that much more likely to tip someone over the edge.
SilverMK2 wrote:If guns don't kill people, why do we arm soldiers?
Of course guns kill people, that is the point! Even a tiny 22 will kill you (eventually)
As to the 2nd ammendment, does it make any provision for people to be able to have ammunition?
Well, you know what you have without bullets...a really expensive stick.
Even in the US, your average suburban worker can go most of their life without having to interact with guns in any meaningful way (if they don't want to) and don't have to fear being unable to have some wild west standoff while standing in line at the coffee shop, defending the innocent from some madman with a gun/invading communist army/liberals/etc...
Well Sir it''s like having a condom...it offers protection, and it's better to have one and not need it then to need it and not have one.
I know there are a lot of guns in the US, but how many regular gun users actually are there? Say regular use is using a gun more than once a month (a reasonable limit); how many people actually go out and shoot/train/etc with their guns that much, compared to those who keep a gun in the night stand to 'protect' their homes and never use it?
As far as "regular" gun owners, I couldn't find any statistics on that.
How many homes are actively protected by the use of guns each year?
MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.
Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.
Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
One thing I was thinking is that due to the nature of the U.S., restrictve gun laws in a place won't work because someone can just go to the next state over and buy a gun then bring it back home. Just look at how many fireworks places are on the border of states where fireworks are illegal.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, although drugs and liquor are much more likely to cause permanate damage then guns. And of course all 3 problems are often interrelated.
Death from gunshot is pretty permanent.
Wussies. Zombie up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:It doesn't strike you as a bad idea to allow people to purchase fully armed and operational tanks?
Clearly, you've not been stuck in LA rush hour. Oh how I longed to be in an M4 or M60, kick on a little Hank Williams or Ride of the Valkyrie, and just go "offroadin."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMerlin wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.
Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.
Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.
I'm agreeing with you. Plus our southern neighbor has severe restrictions, but is awash in full auto machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.
You also said:
"I think there might still be potential in stricter gun control, just that it might take many years, perhaps even decades to show. Weapons are being confiscated from criminal elements by the police every day, so logically their existence should drop considerably should they no longer be easily available"
Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted. The war on drugs is a colossal and expensive failure notwithstanding Zero tolerance laws, property forfeiture, No-knock warrants by militarized SWAT teams, to outright war declared against the Cartels by Mexican government resulting in 50,000 deaths. What stricter gun controls do you suggest to that might a difference before returning diminishing returns? Besides, like it or not, the US is awash with as many if not more guns than people. It would go broke (Not that it isn't already) trying to buy them all back.
No one seemed to take my up concern on advocating gun control for governments.
The Iran-Contra Affair. We are familiar with that shenanigans that went on with drugs traded for guns vouchsafed by the US government, right?
And this:
"According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces" Yeah, that went well. Thousands of radical insurgents and criminal elements armed with US supplied arms paid by our tax dollars. Same thing happened in Vietnam, where the VC obtained arms and deadly daisy cutter mines from compromised ARVN troops.
Then you have the ATF directing legal gun store owners to break federal and state laws to sell 2,000 or more US firearms that knowingly would end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Which resulted in the death of a ATF agent killed by one of said guns, and no doubt are killing Mexican civilians and law enforcement as we speak. One might ask why its the President's business to claim execute privilege to block obtaining evidence on a subordinate held under contempt by Congress for his connection in the Fast and Furious fiasco?
We could stretch it even further, where unbeknownst to the civilian passengers the Lusitania, both the US and the UK colluded to ship arms and munitions on a commercial passenger ship, indirectly justifying the German U-boat's commander decision to sink her for transporting munitions in a clearly advertised war zone.
Lots more of examples, but you get the picture. Governments are the biggest gun dealers in the world. Save maybe someone not getting re-elected their next term, no accountability at all. So how can we expect government to be a paragon of virtue to prescribe gun control of its citizens, when it cannot even police itself ? Like trusting the fox to guard the hen house.
If anyone here that says gun control is needed to prevent killing uses illegal drugs, chances are better than average they are enabling people that kill others in order to protect their business.
If anyone here who touts stronger gun laws has driven impaired, they put themselves in the same position as someone irresponsibly firing a gun and not knowing where the bullets go.
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.
...
8% of 2.5 million is 200,000 -- that is, 200,000 people a year are shot.
I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing.
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.
...
8% of 2.5 million is 200,000 -- that is, 200,000 people a year are shot.
I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing.
Well if you had a semi automatic instead of single shot, it would have only taken .35 seconds, and you wouldn't have had to reload!
Ok that joke was way more funny in my head. I need more coffee. On the positive I found out that, if you put a young wiener dog on a retractable leash, and they charge at another dog and hit the end of that leash, that snap back and spin through the air like a furry sausage yoyo. . .
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.
My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.
Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!
The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.
Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?
Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK?
No chance.
If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?
Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.
Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.
My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.
Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!
The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.
Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?
Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK?
No chance.
If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?
Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.
Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!
So yes, your point was an awful one.
You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.
Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I want my tank, and I have the right to own it, granted by the bill of rights, 2nd Ammendment, and it shall not be infringed.
Tanks aren't "arms" they're vehicles that carry arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brushfire wrote:Lynata
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.
No, you're wrong. The quoted piece specifically states that less than 8% of the time a citizen will kill or wound the attacker. That's not based on the intent to kill or wound, but the act of killing or wounding.
Brushfire wrote:
Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted.
Of course guns are not like alcohol in that they are nowhere near as widely used or possessed, nor are they addictive.
Brushfire wrote:
No one seemed to take my up concern on advocating gun control for governments.
Why is that a concern at all? Any government trafficking in weapons doesn't generally involve killing people we care about. Maybe some soldiers, but that's part of their job description.
I feel that Americans have the right to own shotguns, long rifles, handguns(with proper permitting and possibly mental evaluation at the owners expense). All of these can be used for hunting, personal defense, and recreation. Do i think that people need automatic rifles? no, but i believe it is an Americans right to own firearms.
even if some crazy wacko's are out there, there will always be crazy wacko's. Do guns make it easier for them to accomplish their evil ends, yes, but i feel they have uses that should keep most of them legal.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Brushfire wrote:Lynata
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.
I did not. Actually, my argument targeted that very part you bolded - that "merely brandishing or firing a warning shot" already counts as +1 legitimate self defence, regardless of the event in which this happened.
I still think sebster - who was the actual poster mentioning this bit about the 200.000 lawful shootings you are criticizing here - has a very good point. I did not realize this before, but according to the CDC:
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
If you add the numbers up to account for these 8%, it's clear that they are nowhere near the stats used in that article.
broodstar wrote:
How many homes are actively protected by the use of guns each year?
I won't say that he has an agenda, but when conducting interviews with gun owners, I suppose it's safe to say that the accuracy of their statements about "self defence" may be questionable. Or at the very least, this guy's ~4k strong target group was way out of line with the national average when he scaled the percentage up to reflect the national populace.
Maybe he only interviewed people from Texas. *ducks into cover before Frazzled gets his gun*
Brushfire wrote:Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted.
Whilst that is true, one could say that booze and drugs are needed by the people already addicted to them. Guns aren't, it's just a mixture of them being considered cool to have one, and a culture that seems to distrust the government to do its job and keep the peace. Plus you can't really manufacture guns and ammunition in your home the way you can cook up booze. Well, you sorta can for ammo, but even that takes way more specialized equipment and you still need to get your hands on the chemicals and cast your own bullets as well. How many people would learn and buy all of this just to have a single clip or magazine of rounds to "feel safe"?
Brushfire wrote:Governments are the biggest gun dealers in the world. Save maybe someone not getting re-elected their next term, no accountability at all. So how can we expect government to be a paragon of virtue to prescribe gun control of its citizens, when it cannot even police itself ?
Whilst there is sadly a lot of truth to that argument, the government probably accounts for the least amount of innocent citizens (its own citizens) killed by guns. Unless you presume that the US will turn into Syria over the next couple decades, it just seems like an excuse to hold on to tradition. And even then, as someone pointed out before, that puny gun won't protect you from the U.S. Army with its tanks and helicopters. Or a drone strike.
Governments break the laws they proscribe to their citizens all across the globe, and in spite of Cold War propaganda it is not just the KGB etc who pull off "evil" stuff. Yet somebody has to make some laws and enforce them, that's a principle of modern civilization. If you don't like how the government deals with this, vote for a change. Democracy does give you that option. Unfortunately, way too many people just don't seem to care enough to do so, or perhaps they allow themselves to be manipulated by the various politicians' campaigns. If person A campaigns for "greater government accountability" and person B campaigns for "tax cuts", guess who will be voted into office, even though that person is known to have lied about their agenda in the past? Most humans do not look past their very own and immediate situation and fears. It's one of the biggest weak points of democracy compared to a type of government that lends greater authority to whoever is in power.
I would also agree with the assessment that the situation has become somewhat deadlocked, though. I have a feeling that the longer a specific form of government is in place, the more corruption you have, simply because those in power tend to "breed" their own successors for various posts. You may still get to vote on some of them, but at some point, you're only going to have the choice of the lesser evil, if at all, as many of those people who would do the most awesome job in office are kept out of it by those "threatened" by their idealism. I got a taste of how this works in the city council, and I have no illusions about the German Bundestag being different.
You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.
Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.
A very fair point, I think surely people need to notice the fact that the US has FAR more people on meds, and 31% of the populous have been treated for psychological conditions.. its like 7% higher than anywhere else in the world. I think only New Zealand was close, and they were on 25% of something. I read a big article about it last week.
But regardless, I love guns and I would buy one if I moved over. But I seriously think the USA would be a better place if it was more like the UK in this regard.
There are just too many freaks for guns to be easy to get. Go for a walk down the street in any town in America. We used to walk down the high street in Santa Barbara and I used to laugh my ass off at all the weirdos! fethers talking to themselves, general crazies.. people twiddling their ears and shouting at their feet. The worlds full of fething freaks.. and say only one in a thousand has murderous tendencies.. thats a fething gakload of people in a big city.
I just think its a really bad idea having easily accessible firearms for Joe Public. I can see both sides of the argument, but my kids have less chance of getting their faces blown off at random in England than in California, and that can only be a good thing whichever way you slice it.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.
A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)
Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.
Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.
A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)
Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.
Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.
Yes exactly. And a wannabe gangsta, some ghetto dude who rocks up to a liquor store with a piece is no "hardcore criminal" he is a moron.
Which is the point I was making, and Mel incorrectly said I was totally wrong.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.
A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)
Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.
Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.
Yes exactly. And a wannabe gangsta, some ghetto dude who rocks up to a liquor store with a piece is no "hardcore criminal" he is a moron.
Which is the point I was making, and Mel incorrectly said I was totally wrong.
No, they are Hardcore criminals. They do that sort of thing all the time. They are ticking time bombs.
They account for the vast bulk of shooting in the US.
First they start with robbing convenience stores(after a hefty stint as shoplifters), then muggings, maybe some burgleries, until it becomes a regular thing for them. All the while, the clock is ticking till someone gets hurt.
Definitly hardcore criminals. less hardcore then some, but hardcore regardless.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Thats how it used to be. Mexican cartels are a different animal altogether now. They are turning Mexico into a charnal house.
Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.
I'm agreeing with you. Plus our southern neighbor has severe restrictions, but is awash in full auto machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.
I bet the severe restrictions are the very cause for the abundance of guns in Mexico
mattyrm wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.
My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.
Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!
The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.
Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?
Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK [other country with similar laws]?
No chance.
If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?
Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.
Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!
You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.
Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.
A very fair point, I think surely people need to notice the fact that the US has FAR more people on meds, and 31% of the populous have been treated for psychological conditions.. its like 7% higher than anywhere else in the world. I think only New Zealand was close, and they were on 25% of something. I read a big article about it last week.
But regardless, I love guns and I would buy one if I moved over. But I seriously think the USA would be a better place if it was more like the UK in this regard.
There are just too many freaks for guns to be easy to get. Go for a walk down the street in any town in America. We used to walk down the high street in Santa Barbara and I used to laugh my ass off at all the weirdos! fethers talking to themselves, general crazies.. people twiddling their ears and shouting at their feet. The worlds full of fething freaks.. and say only one in a thousand has murderous tendencies.. thats a fething gakload of people in a big city.
I just think its a really bad idea having easily accessible firearms for Joe Public. I can see both sides of the argument, but my kids have less chance of getting their faces blown off at random in England than in California, and that can only be a good thing whichever way you slice it.
Evidently we have the wrong people on the wrong meds methinks.
mattyrm wrote: But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters.
No, they don't. Especially not in the Texas/Mexico border.
Gangsters there? They execute people in broad daylight, gun down people for tweeting about them, kill journalists, etc.
Mind you I'm all for gun rights. Handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc-- even semi-automatic versions of fully automatic rifles can be good for hunting or (in the case of SMGs/PDWs) self-defense if you're trained and comfortable with them (and you should need training to own them, provided at a discount for those of lower incomes).
I kinda say no at the fully automatic thing, mind you, because it's a danger to society.
There's also the problem that a large number of men* don't seek help for their mental problems to begin with.
*(And a smaller number of women, as well. But men, due to cultural reasons (IE Machismo), are less likely to get help for mental problems, and more likely to develop violent mental issues as a result. The actual rate of mental illness between the two genders is about the same, but the rate of reporting is quite different.)
Virginia Tech, Virginia USA, 32 killed, 25 wounded
Virginia Tech had/has a no guns policy on campus. Lotta good it did them: virginiatechmassacre.com
Columbia, 30 killed, 15 wounded
Columbia is in the midst of a drug war, among other issues. Gun laws would be ineffective as even the government is corrupt.
Just some basic info on NFA and gun control laws that restrict the ownership and posession of same...it's worth the read:
P.S. You cant just walk in and buy an automatic weapon.
Quick FAQS related to Machine Guns and Suppressors...
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 34):
This law placed certain classes of firearms into a registered ownership category. Private individuals can possess a functional machine gun, silencer (suppressor), short-barreled rifle or shotgun, smooth-bore pistol, cane gun, or destructive device (certain shotguns, grenade launchers, hand grenades, bazookas, mortars, cannon, etc.) only after first paying a Federal Transfer Tax of either $5 or $200 per firearm/device. The $5 tax applies to pen guns, cane guns, smoothbore pistols, or any other such firearm that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classifies as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). All other functional guns or devices in the NFA registry require payment of a $200 federal tax for each private transfer. The tax is not an annual tax. It only is paid each time a functional NFA firearm is being transferred to or from a private owner (excepting inheritance).
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68):
Largely modeled after the 1938 Gun Control Act of Nazi Germany, a section of this law updated the NFA 34 by restricting the transfer of newly imported machine guns to the military, law enforcement, and certain Special Occupational Tax (SOT) payers. In addition, a short moratorium was provided before the law went into effect, to allow unregistered machine guns and other NFA firearms already in private hands, to be added to the Federal Registry without penalty.
The Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 (GOPA 86):
A somewhat vague statement was added to this bill that has been interpreted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and some Federal Courts to mean no machine guns registered after enactment (May 19, 1986) can be built and sold to private individuals. BATFE further concluded that SOT payers cannot receive "post-May" guns without first presenting a letter from a qualifying government agency that has requested to see the firearm. These rulings do not apply to other types of NFA firearms. Transfers to government agencies having law enforcement or military functions are allowed. SOT payers who are also licensed as manufacturers are allowed to produce machine guns from scratch, from kits, or by means of conversion. They cannot transfer them to private individuals. They can be transferred to other SOT payers or government agencies only as described above. Post-May guns cannot be retained by a SOT payer who fails to renew his SOT annually.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA 94):
This law sunset on 30 Sep 04 and no longer applies. This law banned the public sale of new detachable magazines with more than a ten round capacity, and invented a new term - assault weapon, the future manufacture of which were also banned from public sale. Note, the law applies only to firearms manufactured after enactment of the law. Specifically, it limits certain features on certain types of firearms. Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines may possess no more than one of the following features: pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action, telescoping or folding stock, threaded barrel desinged to accommodate a flash suppressor, flash suppressor (not to be confused with a muzzle brake), grenade launcher, bayonet mount. Semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines may possess no more than one of the following features: magazine that attaches outsidethe pistol grip, threaded barrel, shrouded barrel, unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more, a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. Semiautomatic shotguns may possess no more than one of the following features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the action, fixed magazine capacity over five rounds, ability to accept detachable magazines.
State Laws and Local Ordinances:
Most states allow ownership of NFA firearms, but some states or local municipalities have statutes or ordinances that restrict or ban ownership. At last count thirteen states placed some sort of restrictions on the types of NFA firearms you could own (anything from requiring a state permit to outright denial). These include California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. If you are uncertain of the laws in your area, contact your state or national gun rights organization for help. They likely will know more about your local firearms laws than anybody else.
Government Agency Transfers:
There are no federal prohibitions on any type of government entity acquiring most NFA firearms, including many destructive devices. Some states prohibit law enforcement agencies from possessing certain types of NFA firearms or destructive devices. Government agencies are exempt from paying Federal Transfer Taxes or Federal Excise Taxes. In most cases, machine guns and other NFA weapons can be imported, purchased off-the-shelf, or custom manufactured specifically for any authorized government agency. Excluding direct military contracts with licensed manufacturers, all other transfers to government agencies, including law enforcement agencies, must first be approved by BATF. All foreign transfers require State Department approval.
SOT Dealer Transfers:
The SOT (Special Occupational Tax) is an annual fee paid to the U.S. Treasury Department by dealers, manufacturers, or importers of certain products including alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. In the case of firearms, the SOT is broken down between NFA dealers, manufacturers, and importers (A separate SOT applies to destructive devices). For our purposes the term "SOT payer" refers to any currently licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer who also has paid the SOT for dealing in NFA firearms. SOT payers have the advantage of being able to transfer functional NFA firearms to or from other SOT payers and government agencies, with BATFE approval, but without having to pay a transfer tax. SOT payers also can acquire registered NFA firearms from any regular gun dealer or private citizen, but only after paying the applicable transfer tax and receiving BATFE approval. SOT payers can transfer certain functional NFA firearms to in-state residents and to both in-state and out-of-state regular gun dealers, but only after they have paid the appropriate transfer tax and received approval from BATF.
Regular Gun Dealer Transfers:
Regular gun dealers or manufacturers who do not have SOT's, still can acquire functional NFA firearms from in-state or out-of-state sources. If the firearm is a machine gun, they are restricted to purchasing only those machine guns registered prior to May 19, 1986, excluding all dealer samples. The applicable NFA transfer taxes must first be paid on each NFA firearm ordered. Once this paperwork is approved and they have received shipment, transfers can then be conducted with private individuals in-state, or with other dealers either in-state or out-of-state. These transfers also require payment of the tax and BATFE approval before they can be completed.
How to Pay the Tax:
If you are acquiring an NFA firearm from a SOT payer, he will provide you with copies of the required paperwork for each firearm being transferred to you. If this is a private transfer or a transfer from a regular gun dealer who does not possess a SOT, forms can be acquired from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), National Firearms Act Branch, Washington, D.C. Some states have their own requirements in addition to the federal paperwork. Check with the appropriate licensing bureau in your state. The federal paperwork involves three forms, two of which must be completed in duplicate (ATF Form 4 and fingerprint card). The front of the ATF Form 4s are filled out and signed by the seller (See exceptions for SOT payers and corporations below). On the back of the Form 4s are placed recent photographs of the purchaser. The purchaser also signs the block under his photograph. The bottom backside of the forms are endorsed by the purchaser's sheriff, chief judge, police chief, etc. The second set of forms are FBI fingerprint cards. While the Form 4s are being endorsed, ask to be fingerprinted using the cards supplied by BATF. Both the person fingerprinted and the person taking them sign these forms. The third form is the ATF 5330.20, Certificate of Compliance with 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B). This is a statement by the transferee (buyer) that he is a legal resident of the United States. The transferee should complete this form using capital letters and sign it. The transferor (seller) then mails the paperwork and a check for the Federal Transfer Tax to BATFE. On average it takes about 90 days for approval. The seller will receive back one of the Form 4s with a Federal Transfer Tax Stamp attached to it. This is given to the purchaser when he picks up the NFA firearm. It's his firearm from then on. No further tax is due.
Corporate or Estate Ownership:
In some areas it is difficult to get a law enforcement signature on the ATF Form 4. To circumvent this problem, some people purchase the gun through a corporation or an estate. If you are a SOT payer acquiring a firearm from a private source, a private individual who is creating an estate, or someone who is incorporated or is a senior officer in a corporation, you can acquire an NFA firearm on an ATF Form 4 without the need for a law enforcement endorsement, photograph, or fingerprint card. You still must pay the Federal Transfer Tax. If the gun is transferred to a corporation, it must be retained by the corporation until it is dissolved. At such time the gun must be sold on a tax paid transfer, retitled to someone on a tax paid transfer, or surrendered to the BATF. In the case of estate ownership, it can be transferred or inherited.
Travel and Use:
Do not take NFA firearms out of state without first checking with BATFE. For machine guns, destructive devices, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns, you will need prior approval from BATFE on a Form 5320.20 to travel interstate or to permanently move NFA firearms to another state. This protects you from accidentally going some place where they are banned. If the state you are traveling to allows possession of the type of NFA firearm you own, and you have received prior approval on a Form 5320.20 (if applicable), then you can transport the firearm through any state just like any other firearm. That means it must be unloaded and readily inaccessible (in a locked case or trunk of the car). While in a travel status you are afforded the same protection as any other gun owner under the GOPA 86 law. You cannot be legally arrested for simply passing through a state, county, or township where the guns are banned unless you violate the procedures just described or stop in that state for an extended period of rest. Necessary stops for food, gas, repairs, etc., are allowed. Stopping to site-see, visit friends, or even spend the night, might be construed as an unnecessary delay and place you at risk. Check your state and local laws for other restrictions that may apply regarding hunting, concealed carry, or self-defense with an NFA firearm.
Temporary Transfers:
NFA firearms may be left for repair with an authorized person (dealer, gunsmith, manufacuturer) without filing any federal paperwork (check your state and local laws for any restrictions). BATFE advises owners to first file a Form 5 before doing this. The Form 5 was designed for the purposes of inheritance, government acquisition, or to transfer a deactived firearm. It looks very similar to the Form 4, the main difference being that no tax is paid. However, law enforcement endorsements and fingerprint cards are required (unless waived by BATFE). As a result, the Form 5 is a bit awkward for purposes of repair. If you are taking the firearm to someone local and reputable, and the repairs won't take a very long time, then a Form 5 may seem pointless. If you are shipping the firearm to someone you don't know, it might be best to use the Form 5 as an audit trail. Indeed, some companies won't accept NFA firearms without an approved Form 5. Use your best judgement.
Transferable Firearms:
NFA firearms that can be transferred to private citizens on an ATF Form 4 are the most desirable, and therefore most expensive ones to acquire. They are often referred to as "fully transferable". Nearly all NFA suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and AOWs are transferable. The number of registered machine guns that are transferable was frozen in 1986. Included in this category are the following machine guns:
Original or converted machine guns, whether foreign or domestic, if added to the Federal Registry prior to enactment of the GCA 68.
Deactivated war trophies (DEWAT) that were registered prior to enactment of the GCA 68. DEWATs can be reactivated after payment of the $200 Federal Transfer Tax and approval by BATF.
Domestically manufactured or remanufactured guns that were registered after the GCA 68 enactment, but prior to the GOPA 86 (May 19th, 1986). This includes registered receivers, sears, bolts, or other parts accepted by BATF.
Imported guns that were remanufactured into machine guns prior to the GOPA (May 19, 1986). This includes registered receivers, sears, bolts, or other parts accepted by BATF.
Curios and Relics:
Some states allow private ownership of machine guns only if they are listed as Curios & Relics by the Federal Government. Examples would include original Thompson 1921 or 1928 submachine guns, and early production M-16 rifles. The Curios & Relics list is periodically updated and you can petition for particular guns to be added. Normally a gun is accepted to the list if the Federal Government determines it is of some historic value or of such an age or rarity that it is unlikely to see criminal use. Collectors who possess a Curios & Relics license (FFL) can purchase these guns out-of-state, with prior payment of the applicable transfer tax and approval by BATF.
Pre-May Dealer Sample:
Machine guns imported after 1968 and prior to May 19, 1986, are transferable to FFL dealers (01) and manufacturers (07) who have paid the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) for the current year. A dealer who acquires a pre-May dealer sample and then fails to pay the SOT in succeeding years may retain the gun in his private collection. It only can be transferred to someone holding a SOT or to an approved government agency, usually military or law enforcement. An exception is made sometimes if the gun is being inherited from the dealer's estate by a family member.
Post-May Dealer Sample:
Any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19, 1986, can be transferred between SOT payers only if they first provide a letter on agency letterhead showing that a legitimate government organization has requested to see it. This usually means a law enforcement agency or military unit. The gun can be retained by the dealer/manufacturer only so long as he pays his annual SOT. If he drops the SOT, BATFE expects him to first dispose of, surrender, or destroy the gun. It can be transferred only to another SOT payer or approved government agency, as previously described.
Privately Building NFA Firearms:
Provided there are no state or local restrictions, you can build your own NFA firearm if you receive prior approval from BATFE on a tax paid Form 1. Along with the Form 1, you must include fingerprint cards, law enforcement endorsement, and a drawing of the firearm. Machine guns will not be approved. Only suppressors, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, destructive devices and AOWs will be approved. In all cases, the tax will be $200 per firearm to make. Once approved, they will be treated as any other fully transferable NFA firearm.
All three of the UK's gun massacres were done with weapons held on legal licences.
I don't think the incidence of gun massacres is a good argument for gun control. They are so rare that statistically there is nothing to be got from them in terms of significance.
The strange thing about the US is not the gun massacres, it is the large amount of deaths from gunshot not during massacres.
Melissia wrote:There's also the problem that a large number of men* don't seek help for their mental problems to begin with.
*(And a smaller number of women, as well. But men, due to cultural reasons (IE Machismo), are less likely to get help for mental problems, and more likely to develop violent mental issues as a result. The actual rate of mental illness between the two genders is about the same, but the rate of reporting is quite different.)
True, but it is pretty vocabulary failureif you go see a doctor isnt it?
Look at me, I havent seen a doctor for 18 years and I'm in great condition.
(Hack.. gasp... wheeze... Why does my left arm go numb when my arse itches?)
Melissia wrote:There's also the problem that a large number of men* don't seek help for their mental problems to begin with.
*(And a smaller number of women, as well. But men, due to cultural reasons (IE Machismo), are less likely to get help for mental problems, and more likely to develop violent mental issues as a result. The actual rate of mental illness between the two genders is about the same, but the rate of reporting is quite different.)
True, but it is pretty vocabulary failure if you go see a doctor isnt it?
Look at me, I havent seen a doctor for 18 years and I'm in great condition.
(Hack.. gasp... wheeze... Why does my left arm go numb when my arse itches?)
That kinda Doctor anyway
The truth is, if you still have the mental capacity to think "Dang, I may need to see a psychiatrist" then you probably still don't need one. Its the people that think they're fine that really need one.
I'll say one thing, though, people have wasted thousands of miles of column inches on this, and we can talk about it until the cows come home, but we, the good members of Dakka, ain't gonna change a damn thing!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'll say one thing, though, people have wasted thousands of miles of column inches on this, and we can talk about it until the cows come home, but we, the good members of Dakka, ain't gonna change a damn thing!
Best stick to arguing about Star Wars and Batman
But we can't change anything about them either! So we should not change something about something important!
But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!
That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.
Its not THAT wrong is it?
Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.
But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.
What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?
They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!
As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.
Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.
Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.
A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)
Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.
Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'll say one thing, though, people have wasted thousands of miles of column inches on this, and we can talk about it until the cows come home, but we, the good members of Dakka, ain't gonna change a damn thing!
Best stick to arguing about Star Wars and Batman
But we can't change anything about them either! So we should not change something about something important!
That's a fairly good point...
If you're going to argue about something you can't change it may as well be important...
I like that...
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
True, but they do that regardless if people shoot back.
And maybe if everyone was armed they wouldn't have gotten so powerful in the first place.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
True, but they do that regardless if people shoot back.
And maybe if everyone was armed they wouldn't have gotten so powerful in the first place.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
True, but they do that regardless if people shoot back.
And maybe if everyone was armed they wouldn't have gotten so powerful in the first place.
"And armed world is a civilized world"
As a gun owner and CCW holder, I agree.
An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?
John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Question: What is the basis for these numbers?
Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?
Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.
Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?
Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.
For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?
Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.
Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?
Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?
Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.
Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.
Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?
Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.
All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
If one man shoots a cartel member, he is probably going to die, but if the whole town starts breaking out guns, the cartel is not really likely to come down on it. More to the point, the cartels wouldn't have the power they do in the first place, since the citizens would have long ago put them down in their infancy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Spacemanvic
As has been said before by Penn and Teller, there are really not that many reports of a mass killing at an NRA convention as opposed to shootings in other places.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
If one man shoots a cartel member, he is probably going to die, but if the whole town starts breaking out guns, the cartel is not really likely to come down on it. More to the point, the cartels wouldn't have the power they do in the first place, since the citizens would have long ago put them down in their infancy.
"To be in power you don't need guns or money or even numbers, you just need the will to do what the other guy won't." - Verbal Kint from The Usual Suspects.
It may be taken from a film but it is true. It's one thing to give everyone a gun, it's another thing entirely for everyone to suddenly be capable of using that gun to kill.
Grey Templar wrote:True, I was refering to the base difference between the Mafia and local petty gangs. Of which both a real hardcore criminals.
Of course neither has anything on Mexican cartels.
Those guys are hardcore for sure.They just go into an area and take what they want with no one daring to say anything. This is a case where it's highlighted what happens when the bad guys have all the guns.
They would do it even if they didn't have all the guns. If a civilian man shoots a cartel member then not only are the cartel going to kill him, they're going to kill his wife, his children, his mother, his father, his brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else connected with him, just to make a point about not messing with them.
Fear is more powerful than any gun and that is the real weapon which they use.
If one man shoots a cartel member, he is probably going to die, but if the whole town starts breaking out guns, the cartel is not really likely to come down on it. More to the point, the cartels wouldn't have the power they do in the first place, since the citizens would have long ago put them down in their infancy.
"To be in power you don't need guns or money or even numbers, you just need the will to do what the other guy won't." - Verbal Kint from The Usual Suspects.
It may be taken from a film but it is true. It's one thing to give everyone a gun, it's another thing entirely for everyone to suddenly be capable of using that gun to kill.
If someone was abusing myself or my neighbors family and freedoms, I would very much be ready to fight to protect those freedoms. I believe most other posters here would also use the strongest means at their disposal.
Ash Street shootout: The night that changed Tacoma's Hilltop
Nobody died in the Ash Street shootout. That was the miracle.
Ten minutes, 300 shots. Army Rangers versus gangsters. Bullet holes and broken windows. The night of Sept. 23, 1989 turned the Tacoma Hilltop into a national bulls-eye, an emblem of unrest.
Bill Foulk, the retired Ranger who led a group of Army buddies in a defensive stand against the gangsters, still lives in the same house: 2319 S. Ash St.
He wouldn't leave then, though even his commanders urged him to do so. He isn't leaving now. At 52, it amuses him to think he's turned into the old guy on the block.
A few years back, a Tacoma police officer said something to him about the shootout.
"He said it was the single most important incident in Tacoma that caused a change in police policies and practices,"Foulk said.
"I guess I'm still surprised that people are still interested in that story,"Foulk added – which is part jive, because he knows it's a good story.
BLATANT DRUG DEALING
In 1989, Ash Street was an open-air drug market. There were several hot spots, but the epicenter was a little house numbered 2328, where Renae Harttlet, 18, lived with her boyfriend, Mark "Marco"Simmons – the main dog on the street, according to neighbors who remember.
The drug traffic had always been around, but by the summer 1989, it had grown blatant, fueled by an influx of gang members moving in from California and other areas.
"We had this open drug-gang phenomenon that was occurring in Tacoma that we had never experienced before,"said Bob Sheehan, now an assistant police chief, then a sergeant who worked the Hilltop area. "We didn't know how to respond to it. We were doing our best but we were struggling with it."
Ash Street neighbors groused to police, called 911 repeatedly, and got nowhere.
One of them was Shirley Luckett, then 33 and a young mother. She lived at 2360.
Luckett was a busybody and a spitfire – the type who took down license plates, took no guff and called police on a regular basis.
"I'm always looking at my surroundings – I like to feel safe,"she said. "My son, he couldn't ride his bike to the store and wear his red shirt without them gangsters chasing him home. You have a right to live anywhere, peacefully, without that junk and trash spilling over on you.”
The typical response from police was tepid, neighbors felt. Community-oriented policing – getting out of the car, getting to know neighbors – was a coming trend, still viewed with suspicion by veteran cops who typically came up in the '60s and preferred the old ways.
Police Chief Ray Fjetland pushed the new programs, but old habits were hard to break.
"They used to call it ‘over the hood or over the radio,' "said Bob David, 52, a retired Tacoma police officer, and one of the first responders to the Ash Street shooutout. "That's the way a patrolman handled his day. If it didn't come over the hood – if the fight didn't come over the hood of the police car – you could drive away and let it resolve itself. Because that way there's less violence, less stress, and that's the way things were done."
POWERLESS
Renae Harttlet, now 38, doesn't like to think of those days. She was 18 then, already a mother – wild, young and nave, she said, but never a crack addict, she insists. She rented the house at 2328 – but she had no power over the wave of dealing on the street, the friends of Marco Simmons who came and went. Sometimes she fought with him about it. Nothing changed.
Simmons, reportedly still in the Tacoma area, could not be reached by The News Tribune to provide his recollections. Harttlet said many of the hangers-on around the house were there with his permission.
"I don't want to act like I'm innocent, 'cause I'm not,"Harttlet said. "I'm aware of things that took place, but sometimes it wasn't to my liking. I didn't agree to it. I don't want to blame and act like I was totally innocent of the situation. Did I approve of it? No. Could I control it? No.”
PRELUDE
The run-up to the shooting began with a series of public missteps that made the result seem inevitable.
In summer 1989, Foulk returned from a December deployment in Panama to find the neighborhood worse than when he left. Along with Luckett and other neighbors, he formed a neighborhood group that pressed police, demanding action. The neighbors started making signs, protesting, taking pictures of the dealers.
Even as the tension on Ash Street rose, Chief Fjetland made a decision he would later regret. Hamstrung by budget constraints and desperately short on the patrol side, he shifted four of six officers away the Hilltop crime management team – a community policing pilot project that now looked unaffordable.
Neighbors reacted with dismay. Fjetland, under fire from citizens and the City Council, agreed to reconsider. The News Tribune covered the controversy, noting efforts by Ash Street neighbors to monitor the drug activity.
"A group of a dozen neighbors who live in the area of South 23rd and Ash streets said they are on the verge of vigilante action because police have failed to curtail drug dealing around their homes.”
– The News Tribune, Sept. 21, 1989
The publicity had a side effect. Drug traffic on Ash Street slowed to a trickle. Foulk was used to seeing more than 100 cars pass through the block on a given day. After the story appeared, it was down to 20.
"That really pissed them off,"Foulk said, recalling the reaction from gangsters.
Foulk installed a video camera in his upstairs window to record the traffic. He organized a neighborhood barbecue as a show of public unity, set for 3 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 23. He invited neighbors and friends, including Ranger buddies. Coming armed might not be a bad idea, Foulk suggested.
THE GUN FINGER
The day of the barbecue, Foulk and the neighbors got the gun finger.
It came from bystanders across the street, from cars driving by: the index finger pointed, thumb up, a little flip of the hand, mouthed words: boom, boom.
The gangsters saw the video camera in Foulk's house. They threw stones and rotten pears at it – one of the scruffy trees on the block was laden with September fruit. Someone else took shots at the house with a BB gun.
Foulk and a few Ranger friends walked across the street to confront the harassers.
It was a short talk, marked by a difference of opinion. Foulk asked for Marco Simmons. The gangsters scoffed.
Foulk told them to stop throwing things at his home and the neighbors, to stop shooting BBs, to knock it off.
The gangsters told him to take the camera out of the window.
"Stop doing wrong,"Foulk replied.
Foulk was 32, already a combat veteran, married, a homeowner. The people facing him were children, barely out of their teens – Simmons was 20.
The gangsters suggested Foulk didn't know who he was dealing with.
Foulk suggested the gangsters didn't know who they were dealing with.
The gangsters weren't impressed.
"You're history, bitch,"Foulk remembers one of them saying.
They would burn his house down and light him up – after dark, they said.
Foulk walked away, cheap chatter trailing in his wake.
"I'm gonna shoot that Army SOB,"he heard someone say.
Things started moving fast. Harttlet remembers Simmons telling her to take the children out of the house, to go down the block to her mother's.
"It was out of control,"Harttlet said. "It wasn't right, you know. But at the time, whether you're right or wrong – people at that time probably didn't look at it that way.”
DEFENSE
A few Ranger friends were already at the barbecue. Foulk called a few more. The total grew to 15. He told them to bring personal weapons, whatever they had. He called The News Tribune. A reporter, Dan Voelpel, and a photographer, Russ Carmack, soon arrived.
The plan was defensive, he and his buddies agreed. Stake out locations and wait. No first moves. If police come, disarm immediately. Maybe nothing happens. But if it does, keep the gangsters off. No more.
"Our intent was to not allow them to advance on us,"Foulk said.
Foulk ordered the women into the house. Shirley Luckett, who had a gun, was mildly annoyed. She had sent her children to stay with a relative. However the thing went down, she was in.
"I had a nine (a 9-millimeter pistol) in my hand – yes I did, somebody gave me a nine,"she said. "I was gonna fight for my life."
A car drove by. Someone in it fired a shot into the air.
After sunset, Foulk turned out the lights in the house and the yard. The neighbors waited.
THE SHOOTOUT
The first shots at Foulk's house came at 9:20 p.m., according to statements from several witnesses. Then things got crazy.
"Shots were heard and seen coming from the west side of the house. Small-caliber automatic gunfire was also heard.”
– Tacoma police report
"All of a sudden I hear a bang from across the street, then it's boom boom boom,"said Carmack, the TNT photograper. "I'm hunkered down by this piece of wood, among these cars. The bullets were whizzing past, over my head. I've never been on the receiving end of the sound before, the zinging."
William Edwards, one of the Rangers, was posted on the front porch. When the shooting started, he hit the ground. A bullet slammed into the wall beside him.
He and other Rangers returned fire, seeing figures running among parked cars on the other side of the street.
A new fusillade of shots came from the opposite side of the house. Ranger Russell Nolte, posted in the backyard, crawled forward – a shot hit the front of the house, three feet over his head.
Ranger Burr Settles was upstairs by the hated video camera. A shot came through the window, and a shower of shattered glass grazed his head.
"Numerous muzzle flashes/shots began coming in from the east. There were at least three different shooters.”
– Tacoma police report
The Rangers again returned fire. Outside, the assailants flitted among the parked cars, shooting over their shoulders and ducking down.
Luckett flattened herself on the floor of Foulk's house. Bullets slammed into the walls.
"It's something I would never want to be in again – 'cause it was frightening,"she said.
Harttlet, down the street in her mother's house, was in the same position.
"I'm petrified of guns to this day,"she said.
Inside Foulk's house, Luckett dialed 911.
"They're shooting!"she shouted at the receiver.
A few Rangers overheard and put down their weapons, sending Luckett into a conniption.
"You cannot do that!"
The first police car came down the middle of the street, emergency lights on, sirens blaring. Carmack watched.
"All of a sudden another round goes off,"he said. "I have never seen smoke come out of a rear set of tires ... this patrol car backed out, just squealing.”
Officers in the car reported hearing 50 to 60 shots in less than a minute.
For 20 years, the official version of the shootout held that no one was hurt in the gunfire. Not true, according to Foulk. During the firefight, one gangster rushed toward Foulk's house.
"I guess he thought he was gonna John Wayne it,"Foulk remembered.
One of the Rangers took aim and winged the gangster in the shoulder. The attacker staggered back and ran away. The moment goes unmentioned in police reports and witness accounts of the time. Unverified gossip holds that the wounded man was treated at a Seattle-area hospital.
More cops poured into the block. The gangsters ran.
"As other police units arrived in the area, subjects were seen fleeing. Those subjects were pursued, and some caught and detained.”
– Tacoma police report
COPS TAKE CONTROL
The gunfire dwindled. Foulk listened and ran the options.
Cops coming, guaranteed.
Show yourself. Do not get shot.
He was carrying two pistols: A Browning 9-millimeter, and a Colt .357. Foulk put them in the laundry basket in the laundry room. He walked out the back door, to his driveway and the alley behind his house.
He felt someone behind and didn't fight. A hand shoved his head down, a voice ordered him to the ground, a knee plowed him into a spread-eagle.
"Who's in charge around here?"the cop said.
"I guess I am.”
"What the (expletive) is going on?”
Foulk cannot remember the officer's name. It could have been Bob David, the officer who wrote the primary report of the incident. It could have been Jim Pincham, another officer who was among the first to respond to the scene. It could have been any of at least a dozen cops who swarmed into Ash Street that night.
TAKING THE GUNS
David remembers the scene. He was in charge of handling the Rangers. Over the radio, a commander he won't name told him to seize all their guns as evidence.
The Rangers weren't happy. David offered a compromise. They were Rangers – they had lots of guns, right? Give up the lousy ones – keep the high-end stuff.
Nowhere close to protocol. David knew it. Part of him didn't care.
"I wasn't gonna be the arm to hurt somebody that I knew was innocent, fighting someone that I knew was guilty,"he said.
Sgt. Mike Miller, one of the mid-level commanders running the crime scene, wasn't happy, either. Arriving at Foulk's home, taking control, he gave the Rangers a tongue-lashing.
"R/SGT (Responding sergeant) lectured Foulk and his companions for not calling for police assistance until shots were fired. ... R/SGT feels that this situation may have been avoided by calling 911 prior to the shooting getting started. R/SGT also expressed the above thoughts to the military commanders of Foulk and his friends...”
– Excerpt from Miller's police report
Carmack, the photographer, heard a police commander lecturing the Rangers. He doesn't know who it was, but he knows what he heard.
"The commander, he was really pissed off at the soldiers,"Carmack recalled. "He said, ‘I don't see one (expletive) body over there.' I may be ad-libbing, but he was upset that they missed."
THE CHASE
Renae Harttlet walked outside from her mother's house.
"I just know I came out and everyone scattered,"she said. "The street was smoky as heck – everyone came out and everybody was like gone.”
Police were taking witness statements and fanning out across the Hilltop, searching for the assailants. The Rangers gave sketchy descriptions. They described one particular shooter – a big, beefy kid in a red, white and blue jacket.
Two blocks from the scene, a police dog cornered a group of young men.
One suspect was carrying 16 bullets, .38 caliber. He said he was holding them for a friend, but couldn't remember the friend's name. Same went for the pistol he was carrying.
Another suspect was carrying copper-headed rounds for a gas gun – big, beefy kid in a red, white and blue jacket. His name was Frankie Lee Stricklen.
He was 20, already familiar to police from previous contacts on the Hilltop. A 1987 incident led to a second-degree burglary conviction. State community corrections officers had little hope for him.
"Stricklen lacks basic skills presently and will continue to experience problems securing employment. His learning disability is severe and I do not project he will be making significant progress in near future.”
– Department of Corrections report, July 27, 1989
Police brought several Rangers to the area where Stricklen was held. All of them identified him as one of the shooters.
He would be the only man charged in the incident.
THE AFTERSHOCKS
The neighbors stayed at Foulk's house all night.
"Nobody wanted to go home,"Foulk said. "They're like, hey, you guys got all the guns.”
At 7 a.m. the phones started ringing. Media.
Along with the other neighbors, Luckett spent the night at Foulk's house. She woke up seething.
Across the street at 2319, Harttlet was no happier. She woke to reporters knocking at the door, TV cameras in the street and a milling crowd of neighbors.
Luckett was one of them. Harttlet fixed on her, walking across the street, screaming and pointing.
The moment survives on 20-year-old video. Luckett stands on a slope, screaming back at Harttlet, rapid-fire.
"What kind of a mother are you?"Luckett says. "What kind of a mother are you?”
In the video, Harttlet lunges forward, pulls Luckett down, and the two women roll into Ash Street, clawing and kicking.
Marco Simmons, Harttlet's boyfriend, rushes in, kicking at Luckett. A neighbor rushes from behind and kicks at Simmons, and the fight spreads, spilling down the street, going on and on.
Someone off-camera says, "Where's the damned police?”
The police had been called. They arrived 27 minutes later. Records showed they were handling other calls: a burglary in progress, two stolen-car reports, an escaped mental patient and a domestic dispute in the city's North End.
Whatever the reasons, less than 12 hours after a neighborhood shootout that made national headlines, the timing was lousy.
Foulk spent the next three weeks sleeping upstairs, fully dressed, with a gun at his side.
He remembers a visit from Army commanders, one of whom he won't name.
"I cannot order you to leave your home. But I suggest you do,"the commander said.
"If I leave they will burn this house to the ground,"Foulk replied.
"Well, you've got fire insurance, don't you?”
LANDLORD GETS INVOLVED
Tom Cosey, then 61, had owned the house at 2328 South Ash since 1965. An old soldier, he had always fixed things himself, handled problems himself. In his day, neighbors would kick unruly youths in the butt. None of that gangster crap.
He wasn't the sort of landlord to throw people out on a whim. The Hilltop was far from rich. People struggled. He tried to go easy when he could – but the shootout and complaints from neighbors were too much.
He had thought about evicting Harttlet before, but always hesitated. He knew her mother, who lived down the street. Cosey talked to Foulk and other neighbors, who voted 11-1 for eviction.
"I was for the Rangers, for what they did, you damn betcha – old soldiers,"says Cosey. "I probably would have done the same thing.”
He told police what he was planning. They told him to wait a little. He waited two days and knocked on Harttlet's door.
"I said, OK, back up and out,"he remembered. "They knew that I had had it.”
There was more to it. Cosey knew the city had a crime abatement program. Enough police complaints, and they could take his house.
"I understood,"Harttlet said. "He told me that he didn't want me to have to move, but they were having meetings and all that stuff and there was nothing he could do about it.”
CITY REACTION
Tacoma's leaders had a public relations uproar on their hands.
Mayor Doug Sutherland suggested limiting civil rights in certain areas of the city. His would-be successors, mayoral candidates Karen Vialle and Tim Strege, jousted over who could be tougher on crime.
Police demanded more bodies – 100 additional officers, right away, a budget-buster.
Gov. Booth Gardner said he wasn't ready to call the National Guard, but he would certainly consider it if police were overwhelmed.
Chief Fjetland took the local heat. At a hastily arranged public meeting, neighbors ripped him for transferring officers out of the Hilltop.
Media pundits chewed on the shootout. TV reporters turned Ash Street into a stock backdrop. Newspapers fretted.
Tacoma, always Seattle's scruffy sibling, had a new bruise.
"The shootout ... was on the fringe of anarchy. And it represents just the beginning of what will happen in Tacoma and other communities if police don't get substantially better at dealing with drug dealers.
"...These are sorry and frightening times when citizens feel they have to do law enforcement's job because they no longer trust the police to do it.”
– The (Spokane) Spokesman-Review, Sept. 25, 1989 (editorial)
Community groups and the Safe Streets organization met with neighbors and batted opinions back and forth. Luckett went to those meetings and felt growing anger as the discussion shifted to a race debate.
"They tried to make it a black-white thing – it was never that – it was always residents against alleged drug dealers,"she remembered. "You cannot make that shootout on Ash Street a racist thing because it was not a racist thing. I don't care. If you want to fight alongside to clean up this place, you're my brother.”
Police pulled overtime shifts, keeping constant vigil on Ash Street, walking up and down the block, talking to combatants from both sides. At one point, police brokered a truce between the two sides – an agreement that seemed to wink at drug-dealing, as long as there was no violence.
Luckett wanted no part of it.
"Why were we gonna sit down and negotiate with some dope-dealin', gun-slinging, drug-using fools?"she said. "That didn't make no sense to me. They didn't have no right to be doing what they were doing up there.”
THE ARMY REACTION
Bill Foulk had a new problem. His commanding officers didn't like the publicity surrounding their sergeant. His home on Ash Street was declared off-limits to other Rangers. There was talk of transferring him to another base.
"I was an embarrassment to the Army, because I did what I thought was right,"he remembered.
A meeting at the Fort Lewis public affairs office shortly after the shooting underscored the situation. Foulk remembers a tough colonel going straight at him.
"Sergeant Foulk, I want you to know you can forget about being promoted,"the colonel said.
"Why is that, sir?”
"Because you've become too well-known for the wrong reasons.”
After weeks of nonstop tension, Foulk had to get away from the house, just to feel normal for a while.
He picked a barbecue joint on Mildred Street. Not so far from Ash, but it felt like another country. He sat down and ordered a beer.
He heard someone at another table hailing the bartender.
"Say, this guy's money's no good here,"the voice said.
Foulk turned and saw a table full of off-duty cops: Tacoma police officers and Pierce County sheriff's deputies – about a dozen of them. For the rest of the night, beer was free.
ONE CONVICTION
Frankie Stricklen, the only man charged in connection with the shootout, was convicted of second-degree assault. He was later sentenced to 22 months in prison.
The years that followed led to more convictions for drug-related offenses. Stricklen is currently in the Pierce County Jail, awaiting trial on a drug possession charge. He declined requests for an interview.
The only record of his views comes from a 1990 broadcast of "48 Hours"on CBS. A reporter interviewed Stricklen in the jail. He denied involvement in the shootout.
Did you start the shooting?
No. I didn't.
So let me make sure I understand this, Frankie. You and your friends are hanging around, minding your own business, not doing anything illegal at all...
Mm-hm.
... not selling any drugs, not buying any drugs, not using any drugs, not shooting anybody...
Nope.
. ...or at anybody. And these guys come along, these Army Rangers, and shoot up the neighborhood.
Yeah.
Forgive me. It just doesn't sound like it makes any sense.
That's it.
– Excerpt from "48 Hours"broadcast, Feb. 22, 1990.
CHANGES
Bob David retired from the police department in 1997; a decade of chasing bad guys wore him down, and the death of a colleague soured him on police work.
The shootout was bad, an embarrassment for the department, but it was good, too. Old habits began to die.
"With (Foulk) doing what he did, bringing all this up to make a it a huge political football, that's when things started to change,"he said.
Fjetland's plans for community-oriented policing took hold, jump-started by the controversy. By degrees, the Hilltop crime management team was reassembled. The department assigned community liaison officers to specific areas, breaking the city into sectors, and refining data-gathering.
"I look at the Ash Street shooting as kind of the pinnacle of all that stuff, because it became national and it really got our attention. It was huge, it was a big deal,"said Sheehan, the veteran assistant chief. "(Fjetland) started training the department and making the necessary changes to get a better handle on what was going on."
Shirley Luckett moved out of Ash Street years back. After the shootout, she learned that people in her own household had been buying drugs from the dealers on the block. It was a disappointment.
She lives near Foss High School now. She still watches the street, and calls police sometimes to warn them about suspicious activity – not as much as the old days.
Ash Street is a better place now, more peaceful. Whatever people thought about the shootout, something good came from it.
"A lot of people misunderstood what it was really about,"she said. "If neighbors get together instead of peeking out from behind their blinds, you can make a difference. You can really make a difference.”
Renae Harttlet is a single mother with seven children. One is a miracle – born premature, given no chance to survive, in surgery before he weighed a pound.
"I'm just blessed,"she said. "I never thought I was blessed before. I've been through so much in my life, and I never thought any good things would happen for me, but they have.”
She doesn't claim innocence. She hates to relive the shootout, or think about it. It was crazy, a mess. She doesn't fault the Rangers. Upstanding citizens, she says. Good people, though she didn't understand it then.
Her older children know the shooting as a story their mother doesn't like to tell. They ask her questions sometimes, and she sums it up short.
"I've been in trouble even after that happened. But I also changed up,"she said. "I have these kids that look at me. If my kids get taken or I get in trouble, who's gonna take care of them? These kids are my life. I have to do right. I would never allow that to ever happen again. I'd never live like that.”
ROOTS RUN DEEP
Bill Foulk could have moved. He never did.
As the tough colonel predicted, he was never promoted. He left the Army in 1993.
His house at 2319 South Ash is bigger than it was, after 20 years of puttering. He repaired the bullet holes long ago.
Twice the square footage now, he guesses: add-ons in back, covered porch in front, new picket fence. On the side, a deck and small swimming pool, and green grass, and flowers and tomatoes.
"I like it here,"he says. "I like this neighborhood.”
He's had the front windows redone. About halfway up the front siding, between the window and the wall, a pockmark lingers – the last bullet hole.
It's a ladder job. He means to patch it, but he keeps forgetting.
Staff writer Brian Everstine contributed to this report.
Relapse wrote:
If someone was abusing myself or my neighbors family and freedoms, I would very much be ready to fight to protect those freedoms. I believe most other posters here would also use the strongest means at their disposal.
But how would you fight? Your children are walking to school and a parked car explodes. How could you fight against that?
Your wife is going shopping and is shot as a car drives past her. Or maybe they take her and she'll die if you don't do what the cartel says.
Your neighbour has been promised that if he betrays you his family will be spared, would you kill him too? Just for trying to protect his family in the only way he thinks he can?
What exactly are you willing to do? How many people are you willing to kill? How many people are you willing to lose?
You're talking about about worst case scenarios where the choices to do the right thing and fight back are painful. My country was established because brave men chose to do the right thing, no matter how painful.
Just so you know I'm not playing with theory, I have been in situations where I could have had my head shot off, but went in to help put down the threat because no one else was around.
I know how far I will go to stop a criminal, and my answer is that I will use whatever force is needed to protect other people.
Relapse wrote:
If someone was abusing myself or my neighbors family and freedoms, I would very much be ready to fight to protect those freedoms. I believe most other posters here would also use the strongest means at their disposal.
But how would you fight? Your children are walking to school and a parked car explodes. How could you fight against that?
Your wife is going shopping and is shot as a car drives past her. Or maybe they take her and she'll die if you don't do what the cartel says.
Your neighbour has been promised that if he betrays you his family will be spared, would you kill him too? Just for trying to protect his family in the only way he thinks he can?
What exactly are you willing to do? How many people are you willing to kill? How many people are you willing to lose?
And that is why fear works. People are afraid of these things happening and thus they back down. If as a group people stand up then groups like cartels don't have that power. People talk, if someone saw something suspicious they should say something, such as a car noone has seen before in the neighborhood. But doing nothing because of what MIGHT happen is the problem. But an armed society is a polite society. If people are afraid to commit a crime because they don't know who has a gun and who doesn't then they won't commit a crime.
While I don't agree with Penn and Teller on everything...gun control is one of the ones I do.
Oh btw it would seem that most people in Co agree with me.
Colorado gun stores are seeing a big jump in demand for firearms since last Friday's massacre at a midnight movie showing in Aurora.
Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado reportedly increased more than 41 percent after last week’s Aurora movie massacre. The Denver Post reports that firearm instructors have also seen increased interest in training needed for a concealed-carry permit.
"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker told the newspaper Monday.
Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday and a 39 percent jump over those same days on the first weekend of July.
The biggest spike was on Friday, when there were 1,216 checks, a 43 percent increase over the average number for the previous two Fridays.
On Friday morning, just hours after alleged 24-year-old gunman James Holmes killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora theater, up to 20 people were already waiting outside the store when Meyers arrived, he said.
He said the day was “probably the busiest Monday all year” and said basic firearms classes that he and the store’s owner conduct are booked for the next three weeks — a first for this year, the newspaper reports.
"A lot of it is people saying, 'I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do,' " he told the newspaper. "When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing — 'Hey, I go to the movies.'"
Spacemanvic wrote:Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?
Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones.
If only those children in school were packing uzi's...
SilverMK2 wrote:If only those children in school were packing uzi's...
A vision of some cyberpunk'esque future just appeared before my inner eye, of school kids with SMGs and people driving to work in armoured cars and old ladies in bullet-proof vests shopping for groceries and bullets.
Been doing some research on gun control in America, and found some interesting facts:
1) A guy called Gage tried to seize some guns, and apparently, it led to a minor skirkmish called the revolution
2) After the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831, some states passed laws banning African Americans from owning guns.
3) After the civil war, more states passed laws banning African Americans from owning guns.
4) In the 1960s, images of African Americans arming themselves prompted calls for more gun control...seems to be a pattern emerging here
To sum up, I've always supported the idea of people gunning down crooks if their life is threatened, but after reading about the racist element behind gun control (I'm an ethnic minority to those that don't know), I'm edging more towards being pro-gun.
I don't know how to say this, but could Frazz and other pro-gun posters on this site be right? The horror....
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Been doing some research on gun control in America, and found some interesting facts:
1) A guy called Gage tried to seize some guns, and apparently, it led to a minor skirkmish called the revolution
2) After the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831, some states passed laws banning African Americans from owning guns.
3) After the civil war, more states passed laws banning African Americans from owning guns.
4) In the 1960s, images of African Americans arming themselves prompted calls for more gun control...seems to be a pattern emerging here
To sum up, I've always supported the idea of people gunning down crooks if their life is threatened, but after reading about the racist element behind gun control (I'm an ethnic minority to those that don't know), I'm edging more towards being pro-gun.
I don't know how to say this, but could Frazz and other pro-gun posters on this site be right? The horror....
Gun regulation was passed in Texas in the late 1800s for a very similar reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote:And the right to vote was initially limited to men.
zomg democracy is sexist! Abolish democracy!
Wrong you nattering nabob of delictationness! It was limited to men of substance, men of...Property.
(insert gentling waving American flag here)
Spacemanvic wrote:Simple really. Make an area a "gun free" zone, and you've given a shooter a target rich environment with little or no threat to themselves.
Sure, as long as you can get your guns in the next town. That's pretty much common sense.
Actually, this reminds me of that American Dad episode where they ban trans fat in Langley Falls.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
The Canadian Firearms Registry was part of the Firearms Act and was managed by the Canadian Firearms Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). It required the registration of all restricted and prohibited firearms in Canada. It was introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1993 and implemented by successive Justice Ministers Allan Rock and Anne McLellan. The net annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.[1]
Originally the program required the registration of all non-restricted firearms but this requirement was dropped on April 6, 2012 by the coming into force of Bill C-19.[2][3] Bill C-19 also mandated the destruction of the non-restricted records of the registry as soon as feasible.[4] The Province of Quebec immediately filed a request for an injunction to prevent the destruction of the data. A temporary injunction was granted by the Superior Court of Quebec on April 5, 2012 to prevent the data for Quebec residents from being destroyed until legal arguments could be heard.[5]
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not "flaming" here but whats the deal my northern brothers
Think there was more to it though. It didn't solve any crimes if I remember. Article from "Fox news" but I didn't see it on CNN site. Between those two sites one should figure out the nugget of truth in there.
Grey Templar wrote:I always found this quote humerous
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Grey Templar wrote:I always found this quote humerous
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Oh, this discussion is quite a bit longer since I last was here....
anyway, I still think that with an average of one death by firearm per hour, you guys should get rid of at least a few of them!
Oh and with thousands of people shot a year, the gun control should be discussed not only after a massacre (which, I know it sounds cynical, only accounts for a fraction of the annual firearm casualities! Accidents are the most common cause!) but every day. Becuase just yesterday, about 20 people got shot. Just as today. And tomorrow. Because accidents happen when guns are lying around!!
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMerlin wrote:Oh, this discussion is quite a bit longer since I last was here....
anyway, I still think that with an average of one death by firearm per hour, you guys should get rid of at least a few of them!
Oh and with thousands of people shot a year, the gun control should be discussed not only after a massacre (which, I know it sounds cynical, only accounts for a fraction of the annual firearm casualities! Accidents are the most common cause!) but every day. Becuase just yesterday, about 20 people got shot. Just as today. And tomorrow. Because accidents happen when guns are lying around!!
Responsible gun ownership doesnt leave guns lying around. Irresponsible government disarms the citizenry, coddles the criminal and thinks it's compassionate.
Good god, will you people get your information from other than a pamphlet.
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
If you're relying on guns for protection, you're gonna have a bad time.
Also, if the jews had made a violent resistance to the Germans, their downfall would have been even quicker and much harder to condemn. They would have been painted as violent domestic terrorists, in addition to everything else. The only protection the people have from their own governments are the media and a sympathetic global community. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't be worth squat.
Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!
Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.
Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.
Simple really. Make an area a "gun free" zone, and you've given a shooter a target rich environment with little or no threat to themselves.
Don't forget to assume no liability or responsibility to physically protect those you have disarmed under force of law!
This part of society really does make me laugh. "No, you can't have a weapon to defend yourself here. I don't like it." "You going to protect me, then?" "Pfft heck no, that's someone else`s job!"
If you're relying on guns for protection, you're gonna have a bad time.
Tactically speaking, if you're drawing a gun in any sort of legally justifiable situation...what you're looking at is having a good chance at being in the ICU or a morgue by dawn. Relying on a gun or weapon of any type in that scenario is only half as bad a time as relying solely on screaming really loud at the police dispatcher on your cellphone.
Maybe it's different outside of the US and Canada, but our police (valiant though they usually are) have not yet developed phase gates, they will take time to get to you. A fair bit more time than it takes whatever situation going on in the moment to resolve itself.
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
If you're relying on guns for protection, you're gonna have a bad time.
Also, if the jews had made a violent resistance to the Germans, their downfall would have been even quicker and much harder to condemn. They would have been painted as violent domestic terrorists, in addition to everything else. The only protection the people have from their own governments are the media and a sympathetic global community. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't be worth squat.
As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an violent altercation by at least 50% if youre only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.
I see youre from Australia. You wouldnt know about the US Constitution and the need for the 2nd Amendment.
Homicide with the use of a firearm HAS INCREASE BY over 50% from 2008 to 2009....
What? Criminals don’t comply with 'firearm' and 'crimes' legislation?? Surely not as long as we have strict gunlaws crime will evaporate...wont it?
Homicide in Australia
Year '06 '07 '08 '09
By firearm 29 25 19 30
Total 155 165 205 211
%FA 19 15 9 14
What else? The much proclaimed reduction of suicides is a figment of the imagination of certain 'interest groups who declare the reductions in firearm suicides are saving countless(!) lives AND substitution does not occur. What a load of crap:
Suicide in Australia
Year '06 '07 '08 '09
By firearm 155 167 170 164
Total 1799 1881 2191 2132
%FA 9 9 8 8
Note the reduction in percent firearm suicide; these mongrels will (do) claim lives are being saved - they discount the overall tally....
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".
He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.
Spacemanvic wrote:As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an altercation by at least 50% if your only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.
If you need a gun to feel safe, you aren't free. You're afraid.
Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
Spacemanvic wrote:As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an altercation by at least 50% if your only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.
If you need a gun to feel safe, you aren't free. You're afraid.
Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
You're wrong on both counts but thats ok. You're surrounded by killer flora and fauna. I've heard even your hamsters are proven mankillers. I'm so jealous!
Frazzled: he's ok with snakes that will drop into your boat and kill. He's ok with gators who will kill you (afterall their relatives). he's ok with sharks and barracuda that will try to eat you. But the scorpions? Feth that bs!!!
Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!
Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.
Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.
Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!
Spacemanvic wrote:As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an altercation by at least 50% if your only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.
If you need a gun to feel safe, you aren't free. You're afraid.
Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
I aint afraid of a damn thing.
The fearful, want gun control.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote:Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!
Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.
Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.
Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!
There's your fundamental flaw. Its not that the government thinks anything. The government would prefer we didn't have them. Its that the Right of US citizens to have firearms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED by the government.
Government is not the font of rights. Those rights are inalienable. Government tries to take those rights and must be restricted so that those freedoms may be passed from generation to generation.
You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to disco. You have the right to wear white in October. You have the right to have a cat, even though cats are wrong. You have the right to eat a one lb burger and follow it with a 30 oz. tub of Dr. Pepper with a whisky chaser. You have the right to cry havoc and let slip the wienerdogs of war...
You know why? Because you're in America Hurr! (or maybe Canada)
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".
He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.
Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
Spacemanvic wrote:As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an altercation by at least 50% if your only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.
If you need a gun to feel safe, you aren't free. You're afraid.
Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
I aint afraid of a damn thing.
But you would be without your guns. I however, and most people in developed countries, manage to feel (and be) safe without them.
Kaldor wrote:Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.
You really believe that?!?! Sad, so sad.
I don't need to believe it. It's a fact. Just off the top of my head:
"In a 2001 study, for example, small groups of boys from 8 to 12 years old spent 15 minutes in a room where a handgun was hidden in a drawer. More than two-thirds discovered the gun, more than half the groups handled it, and in more than a third of the groups someone pulled the trigger—despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the boys in the latter groups had received gun-safety instruction."
1. Its ok if you need this to feel superior. Please don't forget to do your superior happy dance as well. We'll rest easily knowing that, when goes down, only Mad Max and the local farmer will have shotguns in your post apocalyptic world, while we'll be sitting pretty on our stockpile of booze, guns, and nukes. Don't dance too much though, you might attract the attention of the killer drop bears.
2. I saw that too. Good gun owners and NRA members don't leave their weaponry laying about like your average redneck Aussie might.
Frazzled wrote:1. Its ok if you need this to feel superior. Please don't forget to do your superior happy dance as well. We'll rest easily knowing that, when goes down, only Mad Max and the local farmer will have shotguns in your post apocalyptic world, while we'll be sitting pretty on our stockpile of booze, guns, and nukes. Don't dance too much though, you might attract the attention of the killer drop bears.
2. I saw that too. Good gun owners and NRA members don't leave their weaponry laying about like your average redneck Aussie might.
Should I fry his noodle and let him know my 12 year old daughter has a Ruger MkIII Target Pistol and a stainless steel Ruger 10/22?
Or that my younger children (10, 7, 7, 5) shoot a 22 bolt action Cricket rifle (a rifle made specifically for small children) as well as a BB rifle?
How about I let my children fire one of my ARs (the tricked out BCM one is daddy's).
If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.
Spacemanvic wrote:Homicide with the use of a firearm HAS INCREASE BY over 50% from 2008 to 2009.... and other claims
You realise of course that the statistical significance of the numbers quoted in that article is pretty much zero right? All the numbers they quoted would be well within the white noise level of variation year on year.
Should I fry his noodle and let him know my 12 year old daughter has a Ruger MkIII Target Pistol and a stainless steel Ruger 10/22? ***Excellent! Genghis Connie has a Browning Buckmark, shares a Marlin 795 with me (high mounts as she likes the iron sights and I need a 3x-9x just to see my foot at this point) and has taken control of my tweaked out Beretta 92.
Or that my younger children (10, 7, 7, 5) shoot a 22 bolt action Cricket rifle (a rifle made specifically for small children) as well as a BB rifle? ***Again excellent. GC shot her first at 8. Our boy shot his first at 5 and got his first deer at 8.
How about I let my children fire one of my ARs (the tricked out BCM one is daddy's). ***Yea baby! I'll add my wife went through a drum on a full auto Tommy gun a few years back and immediately wanted one.
If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.
Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
The brown shirts were not actually Hitler's - they were the Nazi party's uniformed membership. The SS were Hitler's loyal followers, not the SA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Switzerland requires its males to have machine guns. Oh those wacky Swiss!
How do you think they make the cheese with holes in?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote:If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.
I'm glad to see that everyone trains children how to behave around guns... wait a second...
Even if every child was "trained", children are still children, even if you drill something into them they still are more than capable of going off and doing something stupid. Hell, more than enough adults shoot holes in themselves and each other and they are supposedly responsible adults. Even with training, people still get hurt. Everyone is supposedly qualified to drive once they have passed their test, but pleny of people die and are injured every day on the roads. I don't know what, if any, training is required before purchasing a gun, but I'd rather there be formal, accredited training than being able to just walk up to the counter with some cash, and walk out ready to free the world, or however it is one sees oneself when carrying guns, at least then you know everyone who is legally carrying a gun knows how to use it (and possibly when and where and how they are legally allowed to us it)...
The SA did what Hitler told them to do. At least until the German army wanted them gone and he traded them for their support.
Even if every child was "trained", children are still children, even if you drill something into them they still are more than capable of going off and doing something stupid. Hell, more than enough adults shoot holes in themselves and each other and they are supposedly responsible adults. Even with training, people still get hurt. Everyone is supposedly qualified to drive once they have passed their test, but pleny of people die and are injured every day on the roads. I don't know what, if any, training is required before purchasing a gun, but I'd rather there be formal, accredited training than being able to just walk up to the counter with some cash, and walk out ready to free the world, or however it is one sees oneself when carrying guns...
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.
Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.
Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly
So, if you don't want to have your gun safe inspected, do you need to present a bill of sale for a gun safe to the gun shop before you buy a gun? Do you have to meet any kind of minimum safety/usage training levels before you buy a gun?
As far as I am aware, you don't. So saying that "that is what a gun safe is for" or "you train your children not to play around with guns" is disingenuous to the extreme and about as useful to the discussion as a fart in a space suit.
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.
Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.
Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly
.
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.
Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly
.
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
When you have people willing to roll over and take it, the government DOES use that excuse it would seem.
Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws.
I don't know how I survived without a law telling my parents not to let me play with Dad's M1 when I was a kid. Its a shocker I survived not being snake bit without government intervention.
But looking at NY, I can see that there's a savior on the horizon to make sure we're safe from terrors like salt and large pepsis.
Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.
Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.
I don't need guns. I like guns. At least thats what the Wife says. I think I do need them. Give me my gunpowder crack!
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws.
I don't know how I survived without a law telling my parents not to let me play with Dad's M1 when I was a kid. Its a shocker I survived not being snake bit without government intervention.
But looking at NY, I can see that there's a savior on the horizon to make sure we're safe from terrors like salt and large pepsis.
That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!
Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.
Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.
I don't need guns. I like guns. At least thats what the Wife says. I think I do need them. Give me my gunpowder crack!
This x10. The 1911 is a work of art, as is the art of reloading.
So, are you going to bring any useful insights to the table, or are you just going to behave like a couple of jackasses?
The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.
Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?
Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?
I like drinking, doesn't mean i can drink a lot and drive my car home after 15 beers.
... admittedly this situation isn't help by my lack of said vehicle but you get the point
.. because it's dangerous for the rest of society.
Now I -- and you or whomever -- might be quite capable of drinking a tad more than legallimitofwhereyoulive, but them's the breaks.
I like swearing but there places I don't and shouldn't do it.
I like loud music but etc etc
I might like owning an atom bomb -- sure sort out that annoying neighbours cat -- doesn't mean I could or should.
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.
Oh the wit!!
That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!
If this is the best you can contribute to the thread then it's best you stop posting now before you lose your posting privileges.
I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.
filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.
I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote: I don't need guns. I like guns.
I like drinking, doesn't mean i can drink a lot and drive my car home after 15 beers.
... admittedly this situation isn't help by my lack of said vehicle but you get the point
.. because it's dangerous for the rest of society.
Now I -- and you or whomever -- might be quite capable of drinking a tad more than legallimitofwhereyoulive, but them's the breaks.
I like swearing but there places I don't and shouldn't do it.
I like loud music but etc etc
I might like owning an atom bomb -- sure sort out that annoying neighbours cat -- doesn't mean I could or should.
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.
Oh the wit!!
That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!
If this is the best you can contribute to the thread then it's best you stop posting now before you lose your posting privileges.
Maybe you shouldn't post on this thread either. You're getting personally involved as well. EDIT: I'll be nice and calm if everyone else is nice and calm and doesn't throw insults about gun owners or Americans as well.
To your point I'm just fine with laws against driving and shooting.
Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
You're aware that the vast majority of Brown Shirts - those operating within the city - were armed with batons, not guns? The version of the SA that formed out of marauding post-WW1 Reichswehr soldiers armed by their captain was outlawed by the government. The much bigger "reborn" SA was intended to be a formation of stewards for party rallies and for street battles with political opponents. Hitler actively resisted and turned down attempts of their leader to rearm the organisation as a form of private army.
They didn't go around gunning people down - they beat them, kidnapped them, then beat them some more. This was far easier to justify and excuse by the police than fully armed militias doing their private civil war in the streets.
By the time of the 1938 weapons law you were referring, the SA had long since slided into insignificance, in the so-called Röhm coup where Hitler had their leader murdered as he came to see this organisation (which had grown to well over 200k members) as an unnecessary threat.
I think it's you that has to read up on history some.
And yes, the idea that the individual citizen with a pistol or a rifle under his bed has any chance at resisting organised, well-armed mobs - be them from a political organisation or not - is ridiculous. The truth is that it'd only be easier for said mobs to be formed. The key is to get that organisation going in the first place. And if the USA were in a situation like Germany after WW1, you'd have a civilian populace with jobs and families and little (if any) training for their guns facing groups of professional soldiers returning from the front, still carrying their arms and driving armoured vehicles and operating in company- to division size.
It's confusing how so many people apparently see themselves as Heroic Vigilante Minutemen just because they've got a gun lying around somewhere and enjoy shooting a few targets on their weekend.
Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
You're aware that the vast majority of Brown Shirts - those operating within the city - were armed with batons, not guns? The version of the SA that formed out of marauding post-WW1 Reichswehr soldiers armed by their captain was outlawed by the government. The much bigger "reborn" SA was intended to be a formation of stewards for party rallies and for street battles with political opponents. Hitler actively resisted and turned down attempts of their leader to rearm the organisation as a form of private army.
They didn't go around gunning people down - they beat them, kidnapped them, then beat them some more. This was far easier to justify and excuse by the police than fully armed militias doing their private civil war in the streets.
By the time of the 1938 weapons law you were referring, the SA had long since slided into insignificance, in the so-called Röhm coup where Hitler had their leader murdered as he came to see this organisation (which had grown to well over 200k members) as an unnecessary threat.
I think it's you that has to read up on history some.
And yes, the idea that the individual citizen with a pistol or a rifle under his bed has any chance at resisting organised, well-armed mobs - be them from a political organisation or not - is ridiculous. The truth is that it'd only be easier for said mobs to be formed. The key is to get that organisation going in the first place. And if the USA were in a situation like Germany after WW1, you'd have a civilian populace with jobs and families and little (if any) training for their guns facing groups of professional soldiers returning from the front, still carrying their arms and driving armoured vehicles and operating in company- to division size.
It's confusing how so many people apparently see themselves as Heroic Vigilante Minutemen just because they've got a gun lying around somewhere and enjoy shooting a few targets on their weekend.
Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't really see the average American citizen throwing his life away like that, taping bombs to their children and launching suicide attacks against the evil communist invaders.
You're too spoiled. Europeans are, too. That's the downside of our way of life, and to deny this just reeks of neglecting realism imo.
Organised, well trained and well motivated guys with extensive supply and funding, sure.
Billy Bob and the guys, not so much. If America were overthrown tomorrow with all government forces etc gone, there would be no overallcommand and control, no real communication structure, no supply and logistics, ect etc...the ability of even reasonably well prepared groups (survivalists etc) to resist and regain control in any coordinated or meaningful way against any invading/oppressive government force would be minimal.
filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.
I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.
It seems to me that the level of gun crime in highly regulated areas would be higher than other areas. Why? Because most law-abiding citizens don't have guns (because they don't want or need one enough to circumvent the law to get one), but those who are prone to commit crimes still have easy access to guns if they can be bothered driving for half an hour to get one.
In Australia after our big gun massacre in 1996, guns were actively retrieved and confiscated (people being reimbursed of course), such that no one had guns anymore. This would be completely infeasible in the US for so many reasons, but it seems to have worked quite well. Its not comparable to prohibition on alcohol, for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.
I'll quote from above what I think is a pertinent point:
SilverMK2 wrote:The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.
Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?
Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?
filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.
I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.
It seems to me that the level of gun crime in highly regulated areas would be higher than other areas. Why? Because most law-abiding citizens don't have guns (because they don't want or need one enough to circumvent the law to get one), but those who are prone to commit crimes still have easy access to guns if they can be bothered driving for half an hour to get one.
In Australia after our big gun massacre in 1996, guns were actively retrieved and confiscated (people being reimbursed of course), such that no one had guns anymore. This would be completely infeasible in the US for so many reasons, but it seems to have worked quite well. Its not comparable to prohibition on alcohol, for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.
I'll quote from above what I think is a pertinent point:
SilverMK2 wrote:The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.
Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?
Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?
Actually the comparison is excellent. Good hooch came over the border, spurring illegal crime. Make weapons illegal and they'll come from over the border as well.
But of course thats not going to happen. Politicians beware.
Frazzled wrote:Thats ok. Its our country. If we think we need guns to protect against tyranny, or to reform after wienerdoggedon, its fine.
That's true. It is a democracy, after all, so if the majority prefers the illusion of protection to less dead people, than that is quite simply their choice.
It's difficult for "us" to understand (much like with the healthcare debate) and I'll continue to feel bad for the many innocent victims to this policy, but in the end, even if "we" maintain that it would be better for everyone, this still is a conclusion that the people have to arrive at by themselves. Even if the government were trying to enforce this, it would only end in political suicide for whoever was responsible (and said decree being invalidated again after 4 years at the latest), as in the current political climate it would be a major topic to be exploited by the opponent.
Frazzled wrote:Actually the comparison is excellent. Good hooch came over the border, spurring illegal crime. Make weapons illegal and they'll come from over the border as well.
Doesn't seem to work that way for Europe. At least in the scale as I assume you are insinuating, which is citizen Joe Random (which includes the majority of criminals) knowing where to get black market goods, and being willing to spend both time and money for getting loaded.
You can get a gun in any nation on the globe. It's just harder in some than in others, and apparently people stop bothering at some point.
Kilkrazy wrote:It would take an amendment to the constitution. That is an entirely different matter to the creation of a regular kind of law.
That too. Good point.
I suppose the government wouldn't even be able to make the change in the first place then, not without massive support from both parties as well as the public.
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".
He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.
Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
Actually he has a point...
He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".
He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.
Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
Actually he has a point...
He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...
True, but they voted under the threat of violence.
To vote for someone else would only invite violence on themselves. Not to mention the German people weren't exactly thinking straight. They were disillusioned after WW1 and Hitler told them what they wanted to hear.
Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!
Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.
Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.
Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!
There's your fundamental flaw. Its not that the government thinks anything. The government would prefer we didn't have them. Its that the Right of US citizens to have firearms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED by the government.
Government is not the font of rights. Those rights are inalienable. Government tries to take those rights and must be restricted so that those freedoms may be passed from generation to generation.
You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to disco. You have the right to wear white in October. You have the right to have a cat, even though cats are wrong. You have the right to eat a one lb burger and follow it with a 30 oz. tub of Dr. Pepper with a whisky chaser. You have the right to cry havoc and let slip the wienerdogs of war...
You know why? Because you're in America Hurr! (or maybe Canada)
afaik the rights can be changed if 66% of the senators agree... or something like that
also, (reading your later comments), no-one said YOU are irresponsible, but many others are. Since noon here in germany, about eight people have been shot in the US.... but no, that's not because you have too weak coltrol laws, but because of them evil mean gangsters that buy their guns illegally anyway, right?
I'm not saying you guys should ban guns, but at least make it harder to buy them? (you'll still have your second amendment then!) Maybe test the to-be owners and make sure their responsible enough not to leave the guns lying around the house.
All I'm saying is:
Plenty of people get shot every day, don't you want to do anything about it?
Judging by your replies to every pro-gun control comment, it seems you dont care, and all is well as long as YOU get to shoot your guns, because its fun. And YOU are responsibe enough anyway, so there's need to change any laws....
Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!
Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.
Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.
Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!
There's your fundamental flaw. Its not that the government thinks anything. The government would prefer we didn't have them. Its that the Right of US citizens to have firearms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED by the government.
Government is not the font of rights. Those rights are inalienable. Government tries to take those rights and must be restricted so that those freedoms may be passed from generation to generation.
You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to disco. You have the right to wear white in October. You have the right to have a cat, even though cats are wrong. You have the right to eat a one lb burger and follow it with a 30 oz. tub of Dr. Pepper with a whisky chaser. You have the right to cry havoc and let slip the wienerdogs of war...
You know why? Because you're in America Hurr! (or maybe Canada)
afaik the rights can be changed if 66% of the senators agree... or something like that
also, (reading your later comments), no-one said YOU are irresponsible, but many others are. Since noon here in germany, about eight people have been shot in the US.... but no, that's not because you have too weak coltrol laws, but because of them evil mean gangsters that buy their guns illegally anyway, right?
I'm not saying you guys should ban guns, but at least make it harder to buy them? (you'll still have your second amendment then!) Maybe test the to-be owners and make sure their responsible enough not to leave the guns lying around the house.
All I'm saying is:
Plenty of people get shot every day, don't you want to do anything about it?
Judging by your replies to every pro-gun control comment, it seems you dont care, and all is well as long as YOU get to shoot your guns, because its fun. And YOU are responsibe enough anyway, so there's need to change any laws....
No, the only way to change the Constitution is to have a Constitutional Convention. Everyone votes on Consitutional amendments.
Or by a 2/3 majority vote of BOTH houses of Congress. Something thats nearly impossable. The previous method is actually easier.
As for people getting shot, the laws we have in place are sufficient. So 8 people got shot since noon. Its a big country. How does that compare to how many people are getting shot in areas of similer landmass and population.
MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.
No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".
He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.
Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.
Cute. I did study History at school. That included Nazi Germany and Hitler's rise to power. Got an A in it.
Hitlers Brownshirts were a militia under the command of Captain Ernst Rohm, a World War 1 veteran. They took part in Hitler's first failed attempt to gain power through force, the Munich Putsch.
During the years between this and Hitler's victory in the 1933 election the SA grew to have thousands of members and was used as Hitler's personal bodyguard and as saboteurs of the meetings of rival parties such as the Communist party and the Social Democrats, as well as a defence against sabotage of Nazi meetings from these parties. In the run up to the elections Hitler ordered the SA to cease violent action so as not to alienate potential voters and the SA effectively became banner wavers and a spectacle to add glamour to the party.
Upon reaching power by election, which he did by securing votes using his legendary charisma and oratory skills, he disbanded the SA as a military force, with all of its usual tasks such as Hitler's personal protection and rooting out disloyalty in the party falling to the newly formed SS. Rohm and other leading members of the SA who were angry at being removed from positions of power were executed in what became the Night of the Long Knives. This removed a potential threat to Hitler's own power and improved relations with the official German Army. Hitler sacrificed a militia of 3 million men for the actual army which numbered 100,000.
purplefood wrote:He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...
True, but they voted under the threat of violence. To vote for someone else would only invite violence on themselves.
Nonsense. People just got caught up believing the gak Hitler was spouting, because they were - as you then correctly pointed out - disillusioned with the existing government. And it is always so much easier to point a finger at some minority to shift all blame regarding the economic situation away from one's own people. *cough cough*
Germans didn't vote "under a threat of violence". For one, the votes were still secret. Secondly, as can be seen in the rapidly rising support of Hitler's party, they didn't need to be threatened, they were perfectly willing to integrate themselves into the system because at the time they simply believed in it.
This can happen anywhere and is founded in mankind's tendency to form groups to combine their strength, yet yearning for leadership by an "alpha" exhibiting desirable traits.
Are you familiar with this experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
Any suggestion that it was all Hitler's fault and that the Germans were somehow "forced" to put him into power is just apologist-revisionist propaganda.
[edit] Considering that the "Wave" experiment happened in the USA ... wouldn't it be scary if a group thusly indoctrinated would have ready access to firearms? Oh, wait.
You know...we wouldn't have need of the 2nd amendment if the crown hadn't taxed us. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
Yet we do have the 2nd amendment and a self imposed IRS................
Troop "OMG Sarge the insurrectionist set fire to the IRS building"
Officer "SARGEANT TAKE YOUR PLATOON AND SECURE THE AREA AROUND THE IRS BUILDING"
Me "You two do notice its the IRS building right? From here where we are at we can visualy see the area around the building is secured"
We threw off the crown about taxation and formed our own nation with constitution which consist of the 2nd amendment
In turn a fictional joke where the 2nd amendment has allowed arm insurrection within the US who are burning down IRS Building (the IRS was self imposed) IRS collects taxes
Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 1/3 of the vote. Through a combination of the night of the long knives, and the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler seized power. More people were voting for the SDP (social democrats) than Nazis. The communist vote was also significant.
Anyway, enough of the Nazis, back OT.
I mentioned earlier that gun control laws in America, were historically, motivated by a desire to stop African Americans and other minorities from having firearms. Back then it was right-wingers and conservatives behind this, whilst liberals opposed it. Now, we have the weird situation of the left and the liberals calling for gun control, and the forces of conservatism supporting the right to bear arms!!!
How the hell did that happen?? Politics.... :( I'm confused. Too much reading can do that
for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.
There are people in certain (mostly crappy) parts of the world making machine guns without access to electricity or batteries. Do you really think that anyone with an ounce of drive to do so, with the resources a first world country has available, can't manage it? Seriously?
Or that some drug lord with 6 digits into his operation won't have a brain wave and drop another 10k or so on some old manufacturing equipment to start building weapons to send up along with the drugs?
It's a heck of a lot easier to make a simple SMG like a STEN or Uzi than it is a bolt action or pump action from a machining standpoint. That's kinda the whole point of the designs. Pretty much the only thing easier to make is "Tape dat tube to dat wood block" type firearms. It doesn't happen more because...well..for a variety of reasons people don't WANT to bother.
Billy Bob and the guys, not so much.
Happened at least once to my knowledge. Back in the 40s, a bunch of vets and company decided they didn't want to put up with a corrupt county government in tennesse anymore, and sieged out the sheriffs department. Insurrection does not always mean 80 million gun owners getting into a big open field with the full might of the US military on the other side and slugging it out rifle to aircraft carrier.
Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.
Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.
In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...
Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.
Hahahaha!
And so do you. But you feel that would be an infringement of your rights, so you refuse to do it.
That's why so many people are accidentally shot and killed.
Rules are great, if everyone follows them. They don't. Not here, and certainly not there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The VC was a politically motivated army of regular and irregular and civillian troops. The Taliban (and a number of other such groups) are the same.
So, what point were you making again?
Guys with guns can change the world even against a superpower.
No they can't.
An informed and sympathetic global community can keep 'super' powers under control.
Happened at least once to my knowledge. Back in the 40s, a bunch of vets and company decided they didn't want to put up with a corrupt county government in tennesse anymore, and sieged out the sheriffs department. Insurrection does not always mean 80 million gun owners getting into a big open field with the full might of the US military on the other side and slugging it out rifle to aircraft carrier.
ugh. If that happens today that be some serious clairification on orders to avoid the possibility of following a unlawful order. From the platoons on up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Let's clear up a common myth here.
Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 1/3 of the vote. Through a combination of the night of the long knives, and the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler seized power. More people were voting for the SDP (social democrats) than Nazis. The communist vote was also significant.
Frazzled wrote:No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution
To all the tree huggers I say:
Guns do not kill people. Irresponsible gun owners do.
P.S. Frazzled the pic is mostly for you.
Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?
Lunatic starts blasting away in a dark enclosed space, 20 untrained members of the general public responded. Weapons are drawn and a target is looked for. One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.
Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces, even if there was one there, it would have no impact the chaos that is about to unfold. Owning a gun to protect your home or stop being mugged is one thing, allowing people to have a gun in such a place is madness.
Frazzled wrote:No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution
Is that possible? I thought SCOTUS held to the principle that earlier decisions are binding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?
...
...
I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator. Normally the gunman is shot by the police or shoots himself.
This attack is a rare one in which the shooter has been taken into custody. It offers the chance to find out something about his psychology, which might lead to some helpful insight into why people do these things.
I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator.
Why would they be? A bit hard for a concerned citizen to carry in a no-carry zone.
....But there's been at least one school shooting stopped by a school admin going out to his car, retrieving a pistol, and confronting the shooter. (Pearl, Mississippi.)
....And been at least one instance of a handgun carrying CHL holder engaging an armored and rifle armed bad guy along with the police. (Tyler, Texas.)
Granted, neither of these fits your criteria, because in the first, the culprit wasn't shot, and in the latter case the baddie was not stopped after being shot in the chest twice.
20 untrained members of the general public responded.
This is where your argument crashed and burned. To get a CHL in Colorado, and indeed almost every state that allows someone to carry a firearm concealed, you must have -some- form of training or verifiable experience in shooting (And that doesn't mean "I shoot wrecked cars in the rock quarry!".)
Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces,
Perhaps, but odds are anyone that was serious enough to get a CHL in the first place has been trained by or next to a Mil/LEO type, to say nothing of any other shooting experience. While I don't want to say that taking a 1-day pistol class with a ranger just back from his third round in the middle east will prepare you to get dropped out of a C130 to raid some mountainside bunkers in afghanistan, we are talking about something just a little bit more intensive than "Heres da sights, now pull this curvy bit real gentle like."
One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.
Someone want to explain to me why I am firing at muzzle flashes when I know damn good and well (And so will anyone issued a CHL) that this behavior WILL result in a vibrant alternative sex life for decades on end and a 3x9 cage as a -best case- outcome? Better still, if my only way to detect my attacker is by his firing (Where is my weapon light? Where is the surefire I keep? Where is the giant freaking LED light on a cell phone I can activate at arms length for a moment if it comes to that last ditch effort?) why am I attempting to return fire in favor of getting the hell out of there? Either he can see me, and I can't see him...in which case I need to be gone before I am shot, or He can't see me, and I can't see Him...in which case, I need to be gone, and not giving him something concrete to shoot at.
Secondly, if I -CAN- detect the firer by something other than muzzle flash, I am sure my first instinct will be to shoot the man in street clothes with a handgun that IS NOT pointed in my general direction, rather than the freakishly bright red haired man who is screaming "I AM THE JOKER!" and wearing body armor, carrying a rifle, shotgun, AND handgun that ARE pointed in my general direction.
The scenario you present not only requires a complete lack of training or experience, but a total disregard for the subjects desire to both not be shot and not be jailed.
After work, stopped by my LGS, picked up a 50 cal. ammo can for $5 AND bought a complete multical AR lower to make yet another EVIL BLACK GUN[.
Might make it with a .22 upper for the kids, or a 9MM carbine, havent decided which. I already reload for 9MM which has me thinking this is the route I wanna take.
Oh yeah, my LGS also became a Class III dealer this week as their BATFE paperwork came through. So they'll stock suppressors soon, as well as carry FA firearms. M16's will start around $17,000 each, UZIs will be the cheapest at $7,500 a pop. Im more interested in getting a can for my .243 which I can then use on my threaded 5.56 AR. Feeding an FA for me is cost prohibitive, so I'll probably look at the goodies, but thats about it.
That's the one thing I envy from the Euros, that suppressors arent that big of a deal there. Here, we have to pay a $200 stamp tax, go through a BATFE review, wait 4-9 months for the paperwork to process, THEN we can go to the store and pick up the can, starting for around $700. Not cheap.
I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator.
Why would they be? A bit hard for a concerned citizen to carry in a no-carry zone.
....But there's been at least one school shooting stopped by a school admin going out to his car, retrieving a pistol, and confronting the shooter. (Pearl, Mississippi.)
....And been at least one instance of a handgun carrying CHL holder engaging an armored and rifle armed bad guy along with the police. (Tyler, Texas.)
Granted, neither of these fits your criteria, because in the first, the culprit wasn't shot, and in the latter case the baddie was not stopped after being shot in the chest twice.
20 untrained members of the general public responded.
This is where your argument crashed and burned. To get a CHL in Colorado, and indeed almost every state that allows someone to carry a firearm concealed, you must have -some- form of training or verifiable experience in shooting (And that doesn't mean "I shoot wrecked cars in the rock quarry!".)
Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces,
Perhaps, but odds are anyone that was serious enough to get a CHL in the first place has been trained by or next to a Mil/LEO type, to say nothing of any other shooting experience. While I don't want to say that taking a 1-day pistol class with a ranger just back from his third round in the middle east will prepare you to get dropped out of a C130 to raid some mountainside bunkers in afghanistan, we are talking about something just a little bit more intensive than "Heres da sights, now pull this curvy bit real gentle like."
One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.
Someone want to explain to me why I am firing at muzzle flashes when I know damn good and well (And so will anyone issued a CHL) that this behavior WILL result in a vibrant alternative sex life for decades on end and a 3x9 cage as a -best case- outcome? Better still, if my only way to detect my attacker is by his firing (Where is my weapon light? Where is the surefire I keep? Where is the giant freaking LED light on a cell phone I can activate at arms length for a moment if it comes to that last ditch effort?) why am I attempting to return fire in favor of getting the hell out of there? Either he can see me, and I can't see him...in which case I need to be gone before I am shot, or He can't see me, and I can't see Him...in which case, I need to be gone, and not giving him something concrete to shoot at.
Secondly, if I -CAN- detect the firer by something other than muzzle flash, I am sure my first instinct will be to shoot the man in street clothes with a handgun that IS NOT pointed in my general direction, rather than the freakishly bright red haired man who is screaming "I AM THE JOKER!" and wearing body armor, carrying a rifle, shotgun, AND handgun that ARE pointed in my general direction.
The scenario you present not only requires a complete lack of training or experience, but a total disregard for the subjects desire to both not be shot and not be jailed.
You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.
Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.
The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.
Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!
Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.
Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.
The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.
Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!
American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House.
As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype some Americans have about Brits. Which is a damn shame as I think upon Rorke's Rift, the Falklands, the Battle over Britain and the UKs lock step with us in many past and current military actions. Id always thought of the Brits as thick headed can do types (rugby players).
It's a shame that some in Great Britain see events as out of their hands and better left to others to handle.
Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?
I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion.
The recent up-tick in gun sales in Colorado isn't people wanting guns to take to the movies, dinner, the theater, or a comedy club to protect themselves.
It's a knee jerk reaction of people thinking there will be stricter gun-control bills being passed, on the state or federal level. It's people that were on the fence about owning a gun taking the plunge now, while they can avoid future "hurdles." Whether that's something that will come to pass or not will remain to be seen.
We believe in letting those who have been trained to do something, do it. In Rourke's Drift that was the army, in the Falklands that was the combined forces of Royal Navy, Army and RAF, in the Battle of Britain it was the RAF.
The people who want to do it join these forces. If they want to enforce the law they join the police. We don't want some wannabe vigilante with a pistol wandering around.
If some nut goes on the rampage with a gun here we expect the police to handle it, it is their job after all. Why should we want an unarmoured civilian with a pistol to face a mad gunman over a team of police officers wearing kevlar and armed with MP5s? One of those has been extensively trained and the other has not, which is more likely to result in unnecessary casualties?
Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.
Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.
The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.
Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!
American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House. As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype we Americans have about Brits.
Way to go!!
And you are doing the same for Americans.
You will defend your right to "bare arms" without evening thinking that "too many" is a statement worth reflecting on. You are also taking the statement of "above your paygrade" and twisting it. Having a system that allows some kid from a single parent, poor and deprived neighbourhood make it as the Captain in a SWAT team, CEO of the board or even President is what your refering to, which is one of the great things about the US. My reference means that wouldn't even trust a Marine in that situation if there was the risk of other less trained individuals in the same room with weapons.
Lets change the scenaro a little. Lets say that two US Marshals are there at the cinema, both for some reason both are carrying a concealed weapon. One is in the same room as the lunatic another is either in another room or outside.
The lunatic lets rip, what follows?
The Marshal in the same cinema starts to react at the same time as the rest of the general public. All those moving bodies stop him from moving towards the lunatic
The Marshal in the same cinema manages to see where he thinks the lunatic is and draws his weapon. A have ago hero panics and thinks he's the lunatic and attacks him
The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. The other Marshal finally manages to fight his way through the crowd and sees an outlined figure with a weapon drawn
The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. Meanwhile the Marshal in the cinema thinks he has a target and pulls the trigger, just as the other Marshal comes into view and is trying to make sense of it, now automatically targetting the other Marshal.
This is a list of basic scenarios based on professionals being involved, just how bad do you think it would be if you added in people who don't do this for a living and are using their own "common sense"?
Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.
Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.
The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.
Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!
American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House. As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype we Americans have about Brits.
Way to go!!
And you are doing the same for Americans.
You will defend your right to "bare arms" without evening thinking that "too many" is a statement worth reflecting on. You are also taking the statement of "above your paygrade" and twisting it. Having a system that allows some kid from a single parent, poor and deprived neighbourhood make it as the Captain in a SWAT team, CEO of the board or even President is what your refering to, which is one of the great things about the US. My reference means that wouldn't even trust a Marine in that situation if there was the risk of other less trained individuals in the same room with weapons.
Lets change the scenaro a little. Lets say that two US Marshals are there at the cinema, both for some reason both are carrying a concealed weapon. One is in the same room as the lunatic another is either in another room or outside.
The lunatic lets rip, what follows?
The Marshal in the same cinema starts to react at the same time as the rest of the general public. All those moving bodies stop him from moving towards the lunatic
The Marshal in the same cinema manages to see where he thinks the lunatic is and draws his weapon. A have ago hero panics and thinks he's the lunatic and attacks him
The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. The other Marshal finally manages to fight his way through the crowd and sees an outlined figure with a weapon drawn
The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. Meanwhile the Marshal in the cinema thinks he has a target and pulls the trigger, just as the other Marshal comes into view and is trying to make sense of it, now automatically targetting the other Marshal.
This is a list of basic scenarios based on professionals being involved, just how bad do you think it would be if you added in people who don't do this for a living and are using their own "common sense"?
And the people in the cinema only see another gunman entering the room and totally panic.... maybe run back towards the actual maniac, etc. etc. etc....
So, instead of arming civillians, which may just cause more mayhem in a case like this ,why doen't someone just make it harder for lunatics to buy guns?!?
Spacemanvic wrote:Based on what just happened in Colorado, following the anti-gun mantra, Id say at least the victims would have had a chance at protecting themselves.
They wouldn't because the cinema had a no guns policy.
Which is the case of many locations where mass shootings happen.
You oviously havn't been in many Movie Theatres. Its not so dark that you can see whats going on. A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.
Grey Templar wrote:You oviously havn't been in many Movie Theatres. Its not so dark that you can see whats going on. A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.
Grey Templar wrote:A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.
Whilst of course everyone stays perfectly still in their seats instead of jumping up and trying to get away like a headless chicken, moving themselves and others before the dozen barrels. Or freezing in shock because they didn't expect anything like this to happen and have to take a moment to realize what's going on. All the while the cool heroic citizens with their guns have no problem keeping their calm and accurately shooting over the heads of a dozen other human beings to hit a shooter it took "a cursory glance" to identify.
Yeah, right.
Also, according to witness reports, this theater was dark.
As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.
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!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.
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!
Thank you. It's what I was trying to get across but appeared to be failing badly
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.
Its "Living in the moment" If two individuals were armed in there and were actually trying to identify the shooter more likely one or both will have the weapon in the firing position. The other shooter (good guy) spots the other good guy and see's the weapon out the shooter either shoots the shoots the good guy or is shot in return. The other problem with that is firing discipline. One round or the entire mag...half mag whatever is going to be cut loose in a crowded theatre room. The other issue is CS gas. One of the effect is your eye's are stinging/tearing out like mad and not to include snot running out your nose in a flood. That would not be a good time to spot a shooter because misidentification is going to happen.
Just curious but was there a stage below the screen? I thought I seen somewhere he ran across stage shooting.
The CS gas added a whole new dimension to the idea of fog of war! All in all though, the scene would have been mass panic and utter confusion. Even the professionals would likely have f****d up!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.
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!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.
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!
God Bless you! There's an Englishman left!
Either your blind or not comprehending the other guys posts, he never said that you should lose all your guns, he said that having armed civilians in that situation would not have helped and would have likely been detrimental. As multiple people have said there is jack gak you can do in that environment especially if the bad guy is wearing body armour.
Curious though on the body armor. What type it was. I know you can go on ebay and get IBA's/IOTV's with plates. Same as we use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since AP rounds are illegal then regular ball rounds not going to stop him.
Also if the was shot down by a another "good shooter" and there was a significant pause between first set rounds taking him down and then a 2nd set of rounds putting him down then the "good guy" just committed murder. Its a "double tap"
Jihadin wrote:Curious though on the body armor. What type it was. I know you can go on ebay and get IBA's/IOTV's with plates. Same as we use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since AP rounds are illegal then regular ball rounds not going to stop him.
Also if the was shot down by a another "good shooter" and there was a significant pause between first set rounds taking him down and then a 2nd set of rounds putting him down then the "good guy" just committed murder. Its a "double tap"
Reports so far say Level 2 armor.
A fast round, like say a 40cal ball or hot 10MM ball could penetrate that level. If the round doesnt penetrate, it can cause damage still, quite a bit through kinetic energy. A vest works best against hollow point SD ammo, ball ammo would give it a run for its money.
You can get XM855 62 grain ammo in 556. Thats penetrator. I have about 3k rounds of that from Lake City and 2k of 55gr loaded, with another 1800 ready to be loaded. I do alot of target practice, reloading helps alot
As soon as I get the Colt 10MM from my cousin, Ill have to reload for that as well. Right now I reload for 223 Remington, 8MM Mauser, 3030 Winchester, 243 Winchester and 9MM Luger.
True, this situation is way different because the guy had some much junk. Most mass killers arn't going to get body armor and tear gas. This is definitly atypical.
True, this situation is way different because the guy had some much junk. Most mass killers arn't going to get body armor and tear gas. This is definitly atypical.
Last time something of this caliber on being armed and with body armor was 1997 LA bank robbery shootout. Yes the movie Heat was got involved in that on inspiration
Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.
What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.
That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?
A couple of things things that stood out to me were:
At the top of the wish-list of the gun control lobby would be the reinstatement of the Bill Clinton-era national ban on assault weapons, such as AK-47s, that was allowed to expire by Congress in 2004 during the George Bush presidency. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, passed a law banning some assault-weapons including the kind that the suspect in the Colorado shooting is alleged to have used.
But speaking to NBC News upon his arrival in London on Wednesday, Mr Romney, with an eye to conservatives at home, took a different tack to Mr Obama.
“We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away,” he suggested. “It won’t.” Mr Romney wrongly said in the interview that the guns used by the Colorado gunman were obtained illegally, which they were not.
Which if true is a shame as it would appear common sense goes out the window if it could lose you votes, which again is scary that there enough people in the US that think this way that you have please them.
Then there is this:
Victims struggle with hospital bills
The political fall-out from the Denver cinema massacre is not just about gun control. Several of the critically wounded will struggle to pay their medical bills because they are among the 50 million uninsured people in America.
President Obama’s healthcare overhaul aims to roughly halve that number; Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it. While hospitals in the US are obliged by law to stabilise critically ill patients even if they can’t pay, there is no such requirement for longer term treatment such as that many of the Colorado victims will need.
A fund-raising effort to help those victims without insurance is under way. Warner Bros, which made the Batman film, has donated $2m (£1.3m) and three hospitals treating the wounded will limit or forgive bills.
In fairness there appears to be some help for the victims, but seriously? "We've removed the bullets and stopped the bleeding, anything else wil cost $$$$"
A couple of things things that stood out to me were:
At the top of the wish-list of the gun control lobby would be the reinstatement of the Bill Clinton-era national ban on assault weapons, such as AK-47s, that was allowed to expire by Congress in 2004 during the George Bush presidency. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, passed a law banning some assault-weapons including the kind that the suspect in the Colorado shooting is alleged to have used.
But speaking to NBC News upon his arrival in London on Wednesday, Mr Romney, with an eye to conservatives at home, took a different tack to Mr Obama.
“We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away,” he suggested. “It won’t.” Mr Romney wrongly said in the interview that the guns used by the Colorado gunman were obtained illegally, which they were not.
Which if true is a shame as it would appear common sense goes out the window if it could lose you votes, which again is scary that there enough people in the US that think this way that you have please them.
Then there is this:
Victims struggle with hospital bills
The political fall-out from the Denver cinema massacre is not just about gun control. Several of the critically wounded will struggle to pay their medical bills because they are among the 50 million uninsured people in America.
President Obama’s healthcare overhaul aims to roughly halve that number; Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it. While hospitals in the US are obliged by law to stabilise critically ill patients even if they can’t pay, there is no such requirement for longer term treatment such as that many of the Colorado victims will need.
A fund-raising effort to help those victims without insurance is under way. Warner Bros, which made the Batman film, has donated $2m (£1.3m) and three hospitals treating the wounded will limit or forgive bills.
In fairness there appears to be some help for the victims, but seriously? "We've removed the bullets and stopped the bleeding, anything else wil cost $$$$"
Well, yes, things cost money. They aren't going to pull the sutures and untie the tourniquets because your check bounced, but you will get a bill at some point.
Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.
After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...
The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...
SilverMK2 wrote:Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.
After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...
The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...
Of course. However as a nation we have managed to institute a number of systems to make sure people are looked after with a reasonably small outlay by everyone paying make sure no one goes without basic care, housing, food, etc...
Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.
I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil
youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil
Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.
youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil
Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.
No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions
youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil
Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.
No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions
Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.
Bromsy wrote:Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.
You're the only one judging people here.
Societies may differ, but people are all the same. Every person has the same basic needs. I don't understand why a society as a whole would be so against providing them as a last resort when something goes wrong. I guess it could just be the types of people from those societies that I have encountered, but the media is littered with examples from every level of your society.
youbedead wrote:I don't have an issue with paying for healthcare, but i take issue with the fact that we as society decided that money is more important then a human life, that it is better to let someone go untreated then footing the bil
Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.
No, they are obliged to provide emergency treatment, there is no obligation for a hospital to treat long term life threatening conditions
Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.
Even if you are insured then your still likely to be refused treatment. The US has really good high end cancer treatment, the best in the world, however you are far more likely to die of cancer in the US if yor in the lower-middle or lower class. It is very common for insurance to cover long term life threatening conditions, for example very few companies cover chemo therapy, most will cover surgical removal however, but if you need treatment after surgery then your out of luck.
Bromsy wrote:Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.
You're the only one judging people here.
Societies may differ, but people are all the same. Every person has the same basic needs. I don't understand why a society as a whole would be so against providing them as a last resort when something goes wrong. I guess it could just be the types of people from those societies that I have encountered, but the media is littered with examples from every level of your society.
Okay, so we are ignoring the fact that hospitals in America have to treat you to keep you alive - "Last resort"... but we are going to also claim that I am judging people? I would have to question your reading comprehension and memory on that score. Lets look at what I've written versus what you have.
=me]Well, yes, things cost money. They aren't going to pull the sutures and untie the tourniquets because your check bounced, but you will get a bill at some point.
It's not like you have to pay the bill. Just fake your death or something.
Or get insurance.
Whatever floats yer boat.
Look, you need to take a step back and realize different nations are different. We all get it, you think we are backwards because we charge people for healthcare. We think you are backwards because you put people in jail for saying mean things. Different nations are different.
Hospitals are obliged to treat you. They just have the ability to charge you for it later.
Okay, if your argument is that any condition that may be life threatening in any span of time should be treated, I can't fault you. If you are broke, have no insurance, and have a rockin' case of Inflammatory Bowl Disease and areunwilling to take on crushing debt to stay alive, then yeah, it's gonna suck.
That is every single word I have said in this thread, as opposed to fun nonjudgmental stuff like
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say I really can't quite get the American outlook on life. To be frank, I am quite glad of that in many ways.
Yeah, because that makes sense... And I'm sure loads of insurance companies would love to take on people with pre-existing conditions and ongoing care costs and pay for their treatment when they have put in no premiums.
After all we know insurance companies really care about people and do everything in their power to help them... Oh, wait...
The attitude of Americans to caring for one another just boggles the mind. It is a wonder your society hasn't exploded by now...
I get it, you have this awesome sense of moral outrage... but please realize the nonsense you are typing.
Being unable to comprehend does not imply a judgement (though I admit that I am not a huge fan of insurance companies, they do go out of their way to ensure they pay for as little as possible). Though I will give you the first comment quoted - I am glad that my views are not those seemingly typical in the USA. Does not mean though that I am judging you or anyone else. I'm glad I have all my limbs, doesn't mean I judge those who do not.
The comment I was specifically referring to was you suggesting I think America is backwards, and you suggesting the UK is backwards for our seldom used hate speech laws.
I don't think the US is backwards for many of the ways it works, I just don't understand why it has chosen to work the way it does and ultimately I think it will have to change to avoid exploding into chaos. I'm not making any kind of judgement on how it works being right or wrong.
In my experience, Americans are fiercely independent. They don't want to have anything to do with anyone else. By which I mean, the concept of their tax dollars being spent on someone else's healthcare really gets up their nose. They don't see why they should have to pay for that persons healthcare.
Similarly with gun control, they feel they need to have guns to protect themselves because no one else can be trusted, and a peaceful society through education and effective law enforcement is impossible. They have an intense dislike of government interference, and believe everyone should be responsible for themselves.
Which has some merits, to be sure, but at the same time they often ignore the tangible benefits of a more 'socialist' (and I use the term in the loosest possible sense) society like Canada, the UK, Australia, or anywhere else in the developed world.
I mean, here in Australia we are one of the lowest taxed populations in the world, yet we have public healthcare, public transport, public schools, and an efficient method of distributing our tax dollars. I won't say there's no room for improvement, but if I get sick here I can go into the hospital and be treated, no matter the extent of the treatment, without paying another cent out of my pocket and at the same time I pay less taxes than someone in America.
I dunno, maybe we just spend less money on explosives with which to bomb brown people into democracy.
All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.
Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.
Melissia wrote:All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.
Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.
....Your response was much less inflammatory than mine, whilst still containing the gist of what I would have said. Big ups, and I need to stop drinking and go to bed.
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.
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
And I don't get why people are happy to pay fairly large health insurance premiums rather than possibly have a small tax increase (assiming they don't change defence spending ) and then no longer having to pay insurance.
Either way you are paying for the care of other people, just with insurance you are paying more and for a lot of conditions you will still have to pay at least some of your costs.
Melissia wrote:All of that Kaldor mentioned is really a load of nonsense. Unless you're listening to solely hardcore rightwingers, who make up a very tiny minority within the US I should note, that sort of intellectual vomit is definitely non-applicable to the US in general.
Fiercely independent? Sure. To the point of not wanting any tax dollars spent on people other than themselves? No. Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.
Oh, please explain the anti-public healthcare point of view, and the need for the second amendment then.
Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.
What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.
That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?
Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.
Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.
What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.
That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?
Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.
No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.
If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.
Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.
What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.
That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?
Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.
No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.
If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.
To be fair, you are using fairly generalized terms in a very specific manner without quotes or any other qualifiers.
Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.
What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.
That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?
Again, you are assuming. Dont make an a55 of you and me.
No, that's exactly what you said. Something that is out of a persons 'paygrade' isn't beyond their scope.
If something is beyond your paygrade, it means it is beyond your capabilities. It means you don't have the required skills, training and experience to handle it.
I have an active adult life I have to tend to. It's almost 7AM here, and I have a ton of work to do. When Im done though, think Ill hit the gun range. Im bringing some reactive targets out today, should be fun
about the police or our justice system because it's become so watered down and tends to favour the law-breaker to begin with.
