There are myriad reasons why handbag carry is a poor choice, this is one of them.
Surely you would have a holster or something? Or am I missing something? Are handbags and jeans waistbands a pre requisite before a CCW permit is granted?
There are myriad reasons why handbag carry is a poor choice, this is one of them.
Surely you would have a holster or something? Or am I missing something? Are handbags and jeans waistbands a pre requisite before a CCW permit is granted?
Most responsible carriers use a holster of some sort to protect the trigger from being snagged which could lead to a negligent discharge. It is not a legal requirement to use a holster, to my knowledge, but it is generally advisable to use something to keep the trigger from being actuated.
I would also advocate carrying in a position where the firearm is on your person, as opposed to something like a handbag which is easily stolen or gotten into.
That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
Desubot wrote: Huh didnt realize. honestly though that most handguns would.
As I say, most do in some fashion. Even if it is not visible, there may be several internal safeties rending the firearm unable to shoot until the trigger is fully depressed. Guns generally do not just "go off".
That requires the operator to have enough sense to ensure that the firearm's trigger is not pulled until required, however. Sadly the lady in the story lacked that sense.
Many guns include a safety, or several safety features, that prevent the gun from firing unless the firearm is held in a hand and the trigger pulled. One example is a switch in the grip that is depressed when you hold it, or a notch built into the trigger that actuates when the trigger is pulled, or a block between the firing pin and the primer that is pulled out of the way when the trigger is actuated.
These safeties are to ensure the gun wont go off if you drop it, but a safety as it is commonly thought of - "that is manually toggled to prevent a gun held in a hand and a trigger pulled from firing off a round despite the positive action of having done so" is not universal.
Glocks have multiple internal "passive" safeties ensuring that it cannot fire until the trigger is fully depressed, which can only be done by direct rearward pressure due to the little tab on the trigger itself. Pretty much the only way to discharge a Glock is a finger pulling the trigger or if a careless person let junk from a pocket/handbag get inside the trigger guard and jam the trigger backwards.
Desubot wrote: Huh didnt realize. honestly though that most handguns would.
The US military has four weapon safety rules. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intemd to shoot, never point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot, treat every weapon as if it were loaded, amd keep your weapon on safe until you intend to shoot. Safetys are only a small part of safely handling a weapon. Purse carries aren't ideal because while it's in the purse, you can't control where it's pointing and if the trigger gets snagged. Even if it has a safety, you can easily violate a couple of the other rules.
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
I need to knowo people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
I need to knowo people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
Deadly serious. America knows what many other countries allow themselves to forget- someday, your government will fall into the hands of a whimsical dictator, and need to be disposed of. When that day comes, Americans will be far better armed than the rioters that did this ultimate expression of democracy in Egypt earlier this year. Protection from murderous shoe thieves, and uppity moms is just incidental- those weapons are out there to make our government think twice.
It is a rather terrifying and long term goal, but one that is certainly worthwhile- I don't want to be one of the malcontents wearing freshly baked riot gear when it all goes in the can.
He's got the passion, and his motives may be just- but he would be a lot scarier brandishing a pistol or rifle.
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
I need to knowo people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
Deadly serious. America knows what many other countries allow themselves to forget- someday, your government will fall into the hands of a whimsical dictator, and need to be disposed of. When that day comes, Americans will be far better armed than the rioters that did this ultimate expression of democracy in Egypt earlier this year. Protection from murderous shoe thieves, and uppity moms is just incidental- those weapons are out there to make our government think twice.
It is a rather terrifying and long term goal, but one that is certainly worthwhile- I don't want to be one of the malcontents wearing freshly baked riot gear when it all goes in the can.
He's got the passion, and his motives may be just- but he would be a lot scarier brandishing a pistol or rifle.
Like every other time an American talks about guns I pray you are joking.
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
I need to knowo people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
It is our right to have a gun. It is not our right to be an idiot with said gun. Now, your definition of "idiot" may be different from mine, but if your two year old shoots you with your gun, chances are your stupid opinion was stupid.
I'm not joking at all- well, a bit about defending against moms, and the bread helmet bit was an attempt at levity. But the 2nd amendment was aimed at keeping armed resistance to the government available if the need for it arises.
Oh come now- how long has it been since the Troubles? How many countries from the 90s no longer exist, or have been split, and split again? Nothing lasts forever, least of all government. The 2nd Amendment was put in there because our founders were certain that one day our government would fall to corruption and megalomania, and when that day came, an armed population would have a far easier time overturning their government.
I don't own a gun, and I don't expect that eventuality to come to pass within my lifetime, but inevitably the US will splinter or become a totalitarian state.
The second amendment- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The intention there isn't personal protection, hunting or anything else- it is there to keep the possibility of armed resistance around in case the government seeks to take away our other freedoms.
Terrible two's everyone thinking lost keys, tantrums, potty training, MATCHES to name a few things. I bet Mom set her purse right in the fold out child seat beside him
Me too. It seems to be a cultural thing though. In the UK hand guns are treated with the same kind of suspicion as things like nail-bombs. There is no good reason to have one, and someone just casually carrying one around in their handbag sounds like insanity. Americans seem to see guns as more of an everyday thing like power tools. Unfortunately familiarity teaches complacency.
Just the other day in fact, I was using a power drill, and the drill-bit snapped and pinged off at high speed. Luckily it didn't hit me in the face because I wasn't wearing my goggles, because apparently I'm an idiot. Except I'm not really -- those kind of accidents are so rare that all the safety precautions start to feel a bit OTT and unnecessary, you can do them a thousand times and nothing ever happens and it just starts to feel like a waste of time. Until one day you decide "I'll just drill this quick hole", or "I'll just run to wallmart" and you take your safety for granted, and that's that.
Yes it's careless but I think it is also human nature to conflate "rarely happens" with "never happens" and make bad choices.
^ That. The place I work has some safety training that basically amounts to "pay attention. workplace accidents are pretty rare, but every day accidents are not." It seems kind of cheesy but when you think of all the potential times something bad could have happened but it didn't you realize just how dangerous everyday life is once you get complacent.
I fail to see why someone would need to carry a firearm in a handbag where a two year old can get to it.
And I see Darwin Awards were mentioned..
Assuming it was her own kid, that automatically disqualifies her from entry.. Since she would already have contributed to the gene pool AFAIK..
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
way to go, blame the victim.
Sad for the kid but Darwin works in mysterious ways.
Considering in this case, her own progeny offed her, it seems Darwin didnt work at all, as her genetic material remains in the gene pool, at least in part.
Considering in this case, her own progeny offed her, it seems Darwin didnt work at all, as her genetic material remains in the gene pool, at least in part.
Ouze wrote: That article, like so many other similar articles, misspelled "negligence". A shooting in which you let your kid root around in your purse that contains a loaded gatt in it is not an accident, it's a wholly foreseeable outcome of criminal negligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better headline, btw, would have been "2 year old exercises his second amendment rights"
I need to knowo people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
Deadly serious. America knows what many other countries allow themselves to forget- someday, your government will fall into the hands of a whimsical dictator, and need to be disposed of. When that day comes, Americans will be far better armed than the rioters that did this ultimate expression of democracy in Egypt earlier this year. Protection from murderous shoe thieves, and uppity moms is just incidental- those weapons are out there to make our government think twice.
It is a rather terrifying and long term goal, but one that is certainly worthwhile- I don't want to be one of the malcontents wearing freshly baked riot gear when it all goes in the can.
He's got the passion, and his motives may be just- but he would be a lot scarier brandishing a pistol or rifle.
And you do know that if that day ever comes, you'll be using your second amendment rights to shoot cops right? and then the national guard & maybe even the military?
Think about that when you consider the new york city cops, and the cops go to phrase "He tried to take my gun, and he was charging me, so I had to shot him" Where anyone who could possible, but not known til after the fact is shot dead because they might have a gun. You've already lost the revolution that will never happen, so worried about the 2nd amendment you no longer have any others.
Maybe. But personally if i'm going to die in a lost cause revolution, i'd rather die with a loaded gun in my hand. The way governments are going of late, the 'protect yourself from your government' scenario is looking more and more likely. The basic premise of the 2nd amendment is a good one imo.
All this "government is out to get us" fearmongering bs really gets annoying after a while. If you honestly think that the US government is going to start revoking your rights and declaring a dictatorship, then you are a sad, sad person. You are the reason that some nuts want to ban guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Someone, somewhere else, argues that this wouldn't have happened with a Barrett XM500.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Someone, somewhere, is arguing that this issue could ahve been avoided if the woman had a CCW.
You're right. And it's almost certainly a non-American with a negligible understanding of US gun laws and culture, trying to make the same old tasteless joke that someone "clever" always makes when something like this happens.
Just imagine how you will feel when you find out people have been saying the same thing for centuries.
Co'tor Shas wrote:All this "government is out to get us" fearmongering bs really gets annoying after a while. If you honestly think that the US government is going to start revoking your rights and declaring a dictatorship, then you are a sad, sad person. You are the reason that some nuts want to ban guns.
Yeah, this stuff has been going on for a long time, that's why i have my opinion. Nations older than america have gone to pot and back. Nero fiddled while rome burned, archimedes was sold out by the hippies. The US government has been revoking citizens rights lately, there's nothing hypothetical about it. To me the nuts are the ones trying to remove other people's rights to 'make them safer', that never ends well.
having a gun to fight the goverments tanks and missiles is going to save your country.....or give you a chance to host another civil war.Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with. In Ireland we cant carry handguns. Even the police in Ireland only have roughly 25 percent of themselves armed at the moment. This might be linked to the fact that we dont let our civilians have pretty much any type of gun anywhere we want at an time to shoot them with.
Tjomball wrote: As for home defence.. 21 feet is all I'll say..
A friend of mine has a Thunder Five. Google it if you don't know what it is. He keeps it loaded and in the sock drawer. His rule is if a bad guy breaks in and he hears it (which is very likely as his doors have good locks on them, something I make sure of for all my friends) he will stand at the end of the hallway where the bedrooms are. The hall is around that magical distance. As long as the bad guy stays out of that hall he wont do anything. But if the bad guy starts down that hall, well the Thunder Five holds five .410 shotgun shells and he loads 00 buck. His motto, three balls-no waiting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Received additional intel that the weapon discharge happen in Wal-Mart parking lot
Mom left purse in vehicle with kid
So sad.... That she didn't die BEFORE she passed her idiot genes on to another generation.
Sometimes I think we are too civilized. We need that frontier edge to weed out stupidity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Considering in this case, her own progeny offed her, it seems Darwin didnt work at all, as her genetic material remains in the gene pool, at least in part.
Well, we can hope the kid is so messed up by this that he spends his live in a mental institution and never has the opportunity to breed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: And you do know that if that day ever comes, you'll be using your second amendment rights to shoot cops right? and then the national guard & maybe even the military?
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
sirlynchmob wrote: Think about that when you consider the new york city cops, and the cops go to phrase "He tried to take my gun, and he was charging me, so I had to shot him" Where anyone who could possible, but not known til after the fact is shot dead because they might have a gun. You've already lost the revolution that will never happen, so worried about the 2nd amendment you no longer have any others.
I agree that by and large both sides of the aisle have unloaded their bladders and bowels upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But they did so to appease the Baby Boomers. I have hope that my sons generation will be the one to reclaim the ideals of our founding. They seem disillusioned by both major parties and are open to new ideas. As long as we can keep them from falling for socialist dogma I think we have a good shot at fixing things. Of course they may fix things by moving to Mars and leave the earth to the whiner babies who are scared of everything. But that's another topic for another day.
sirlynchmob wrote: And you do know that if that day ever comes, you'll be using your second amendment rights to shoot cops right? and then the national guard & maybe even the military?
What is even more absurd is the idea that this "people's militia" would be able to coordinate and agree on anything. You're gonna have a bunch of guys fighting to bring back slavery alongside anti-capitalists, NRA alongside PETA, paranoid tinfoil hat guys with hollow points. Roving bands of looters, rape gangs. It would be anarchy meets massacre. I think I'd prefer to totalitarian government TBH.
Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.
SilverMK2 wrote: To be fair, even if she did not return fire, having a gun on your person does magically protect you from all harm...
You almost are getting it. Nothing will protect you form all harm. Not a gun, a knife, a religious symbol or forces of government are able to protect you form everything. In fact trying to protect you from everything is the root of the problem. I watch Top Gear and hear them talking about the "Health and Safety Nazis" all the time. From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.
The idea of carrying a gun is the same as carrying a pocket knife or a cell phone. If you don't need them they are just so much more weight you carry but when you need them... Such tools don't stop bad things from happening, they just give you options to deal with the bad things when they happen.
You can't legislate risk away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da krimson barun wrote: .Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with.
You realize most of the resistance in Afghanistan started off without much more than the average American has in their gun cabinet? They used those civilian type arms to acquire the military arms the invaders brought with them. A pistol isn't much good against a tank, but it is rather effective against the guy guarding the armory filled with weapons that can kill a tank. Many of us have military training with those weapons. It's a side effect of having one of the largest military forces in the world. Plenty of trained vets who may not side with the govt forces. Also the fact that we are armed would give pause to the policeman or soldier ordered to disarm a city and make them wonder if they are on the right side. Human nature is such that if it is easier to go along with evil we will, but raise the danger level of siding with evil and many will rethink their loyalties.
Da krimson barun wrote: In Ireland we cant carry handguns. Even the police in Ireland only have roughly 25 percent of themselves armed at the moment. This might be linked to the fact that we dont let our civilians have pretty much any type of gun anywhere we want at an time to shoot them with.
I have a friend who spent a lot of time in England with the Air Force. We were talking one time about the cops without guns thing and he pointed out that they have vans full of guns that they can call in and suit up with an array of military weapons. I would figure Ireland wouldn't be much different. So while the cop walks about with narry more than a stick if things get hairy there's a van full of deadly weapons ready to roll to back him up. Your nations iron fist is just kept in a sneakier bag than ours.
Me Like Burnaz wrote: From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.
That all grew out of this culture of suing people for every little thing, which feels a lot like an American import.
I recall a few years ago it snowed here, chaos ensued. A bus skidded a little on the ice that morning, so all the buses were canceled. It was excruciatingly stupid, like people had never seen snow before. 70 years ago they would have just got on with it and muddled through, but the truth is, you can't do that anymore because you'd be liable. The problem isn't with people being wusses, it is with people being greedy.
SilverMK2 wrote: To be fair, even if she did not return fire, having a gun on your person does magically protect you from all harm...
You almost are getting it. Nothing will protect you form all harm. Not a gun, a knife, a religious symbol or forces of government are able to protect you form everything. In fact trying to protect you from everything is the root of the problem. I watch Top Gear and hear them talking about the "Health and Safety Nazis" all the time. From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.
Top Gear is not a reliable source of anything to do with facts.
Health and Safety law exists to protect people in the workplace from unnecessary risks. If by less fun you mean less risk of inhaling asbestos fibres due to lax law regarding its removal then yes, it is less fun. Around 99% of the time someone complains about health and safety it isn't the HSE imposing the rules, it's some middle management idiot who doesn't understand how to do a risk assessment.
One example was the school which banned conkers, then rescinded the ban but made students wear goggles to play. The HSE has never recommended either of those, it never commented on playing conkers at all. The problem is not with health and safety, it is with idiots who don't understand what health and safety law is for, such as Jeremy Clarkson who is an idiot about most things and a racist, too.
You realize most of the resistance in Afghanistan started off without much more than the average American has in their gun cabinet? They used those civilian type arms to acquire the military arms the invaders brought with them. A pistol isn't much good against a tank, but it is rather effective against the guy guarding the armory filled with weapons that can kill a tank. Many of us have military training with those weapons. It's a side effect of having one of the largest military forces in the world. Plenty of trained vets who may not side with the govt forces. Also the fact that we are armed would give pause to the policeman or soldier ordered to disarm a city and make them wonder if they are on the right side. Human nature is such that if it is easier to go along with evil we will, but raise the danger level of siding with evil and many will rethink their loyalties.
I didn't realise that fully automatic AK-47s are regularly in american gun cabinets. Or that all of those came from the russians rather than the CIA arming them.
I have a friend who spent a lot of time in England with the Air Force. We were talking one time about the cops without guns thing and he pointed out that they have vans full of guns that they can call in and suit up with an array of military weapons. I would figure Ireland wouldn't be much different. So while the cop walks about with narry more than a stick if things get hairy there's a van full of deadly weapons ready to roll to back him up. Your nations iron fist is just kept in a sneakier bag than ours.
We have armed response teams, which are basically swat teams. That's it. There's no "van full of guns" which arrives and equips every bobby at the scene. There's highly trained, expert units who will answer calls regarding firearms. These teams are not armed with an array of military weapons, standard equipment is a semi-automatic MP5. My uncle was in the force and was first a member of such a team in London then trained such teams before switching to close protection detail in the City.
And, here in the UK at least, they aren't required very much.
Smacks wrote: What is even more absurd is the idea that this "people's militia" would be able to coordinate and agree on anything. You're gonna have a bunch of guys fighting to bring back slavery alongside anti-capitalists, NRA alongside PETA, paranoid tinfoil hat guys with hollow points. Roving bands of looters, rape gangs. It would be anarchy meets massacre. I think I'd prefer to totalitarian government TBH.
There is an amazingly detailed board game that plays out the Russian Revolution. It shows how all these different factions with their own agendas fought not only the Czar but each other for control of Russia. You really get the feel of how one mishap with the railroads or one person waiting an extra day to decide what side to join could have changed the outcome of that very messy revolution. I mentuion this to make a point. Revolutions are always messy and in the end it's the winners that write the history books, they clean up things and make it seem like everyone was pulling together for "the cause".
If the fecal matter hits the rotary air circulation device here in the states I suspect it will be no less messy. However I doubt the Anti Capitalists and PETA members would be out on the streets with their AR-15's capping cops and national guardsmen. They tend to be in the no guns camp. But you're right about the Neo Nazis and Clansman being an armed movement. However they are a small minority of the "Patriot Movement" types who await the day the government out-steps the bounds that a majority of Americans will accept.
Most of us are reasonable folks who leave our guns at home when we go to the store and don't insist that McDonnalds allow us to open carry an AK into the kiddy play area. We use our guns to hunt and target shoot. We may carry concealed if the state we live in allows such things or we may just keep a pistol under the seat of the pickup. We are law abiding citizens whose guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy's cars. We ask simply to be left alone to live our lives and raise our children to be responsible hunters and gun owners without our doctors or kids teachers giving us a hard time over our lawfully purchased firearms.
Why are some people so afraid of that? What about a 45 year old locksmith who pays his taxes and leaves his neighbors be having a few long arms and pistols in a closet is so frightening? My family is an example of the great majority of gun owners. There are a few who go overboard and could use some anti psychotic medications to level them out and even fewer who chose to use firearms for criminal reasons. Why punish the majority for the actions of a minority?
Smacks wrote: Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.
Very true. We have been divided into small camps, all of which distrust each other. We are divided by gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age and our entertainment preferences. We each see our own liberties as vital and the liberties we do not share with others as dangerous. But that is changing. I see it growing in my sons generation, they are watching the melt down of the mega-state and seeing that the Emperor is buck naked. I think they will change the world for the better. That could be a fathers blind spot where his son is concerned, who knows.
The sadness in this story is that woman took this gun to feel secured and "protect herself/her family".
And it was her two-years old child who killed her in the end, with her own weapon.
Looks like guns don't protect, after all. Out of fear, she brought her own demise.
Gun defenders will keep saying it was her fault (some would blame the two-years old, I'm sure). Well, this surely would have never happened if she didn't have a gun in the very beginning, that is the truth.
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!
Me Like Burnaz wrote: There is an amazingly detailed board game that plays out the Russian Revolution. It shows how all these different factions with their own agendas fought not only the Czar but each other for control of Russia. You really get the feel of how one mishap with the railroads or one person waiting an extra day to decide what side to join could have changed the outcome of that very messy revolution. I mentuion this to make a point. Revolutions are always messy and in the end it's the winners that write the history books, they clean up things and make it seem like everyone was pulling together for "the cause".
This might just be coincidence, but I love board games, that sounds amazing. Do you recall what it is called?
However I doubt the Anti Capitalists and PETA members would be out on the streets with their AR-15's capping cops and national guardsmen. They tend to be in the no guns camp. But you're right about the Neo Nazis and Clansman being an armed movement. However they are a small minority of the "Patriot Movement" types who await the day the government out-steps the bounds that a majority of Americans will accept.
Haha yeah, I wasn't being too serious about PETA, I was just pointing out that there are a lot of different agendas out there.
There are a few who go overboard and could use some anti psychotic medications to level them out and even fewer who chose to use firearms for criminal reasons. Why punish the majority for the actions of a minority?
That question seems to come up a lot. I think "punish" is a slightly hyperbolic word. I'm not allowed a hand gun here in the UK, and I don't feel punished especially. I acknowledge that they are dangerous, and have been ruled as contraband. Even Americans should be familiar with the idea of some weapons being prohibited.
I don't feel my freedom is threatened (at least not about that). There is a place down the road where I can go shoot clay pigeons all day long, if I felt like it.
As for the majority being "restricted" by the actions of minority. I think the argument is always going to come down to risk versus reward. There are some weapons (Nukes, WMDs) that just aren't worth the risk for anyone to have, regardless of how responsible they are (perhaps even governments shouldn't have them). Then there are are things such as cars which are obviously very dangerous, but the rewards in terms of mobility often outweigh the risks (not that I'm against making cars and roads as safe as possible). I think guns fall in a slightly middle area where about half of people think the risks outweigh the rewards and half think the opposite, making them a divisive issue. I don't really want to argue either side is right, as it is quite subjective, and depends on circumstances, but an argument can be made for something dangerous being prohibited, even if the majority of people would use it responsibly.
Sarouan wrote: The sadness in this story is that woman took this gun to feel secured and "protect herself/her family".
And it was her two-years old child who killed her in the end, with her own weapon.
Looks like guns don't protect, after all. Out of fear, she brought her own demise.
Gun defenders will keep saying it was her fault (some would blame the two-years old, I'm sure). Well, this surely would have never happened if she didn't have a gun in the very beginning, that is the truth.
Now her children are motherless. A real pity.
Drawing a huge blanket statement based on one incident. You could say "Looks like airbags don't protect, after all." based on the recent Japanese airbag explosion incidents. A few people, who would otherwise have been fine, were killed when their airbags failed catastrophically. The fact of the matter is that airbags, and guns, save thousands of lives every year.
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!
Welcome to Ignore.
Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.
Me Like Burnaz wrote: Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Damn right. In this case, the incident was 100% the fault of the victims utterly preventable, wholly negligent actions.
I wasnt serious.
All this "government is out to get us" fearmongering bs really gets annoying after a while. If you honestly think that the US government is going to start revoking your rights and declaring a dictatorship, then you are a sad, sad person. You are the reason that some nuts want to ban guns.
You realize the government HAS been revoking our rights since pretty much day 1, right? Especially post WW2.
having a gun to fight the goverments tanks and missiles is going to save your country.....or give you a chance to host another civil war.Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with. In Ireland we cant carry handguns.
Middle Eastern insurgencies beg to differ.
Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.
Sure it will. Armed revolution means not having to pay back your credit card debt and student loan bills
I didn't realise that fully automatic AK-47s are regularly in american gun cabinets. Or that all of those came from the russians rather than the CIA arming them.
There might be more AKs in the US than Afghanaland... not many of the AKs in afghanistan were automatic mind you, and most were using far older weapons than that (like the stash of Martini Henry 1888s that my friends unit discovered). If your knowledge of the war in afghanistan was derived from something other than Call of Duty and The Hurt Locker youd probably know this.
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!
Welcome to Ignore.
Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.
You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!
Welcome to Ignore.
Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.
You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?
Doesn't China execute them? Didn't they do that way back when JC was a PFC by rounding up the opium den owners, users and makers and executed them?
If America were ever to rebel against a tyrannical government, if you actually thing that the government could retain control then you haven't been paying attention to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, if citizens just ran around guns blazing then coordinated airstrikes, artillery fire, and infantry forces would just kill everyone real fast. That's not how a rebellion or resistamce would go down, though, not unless the US military itself fractured and fought against itself (which is exactly what happened in the civil war).
No, you would just have local leadership ignore the federal government, and any troops or police would be met with ambushes and IEDs, and there's no way for even the US military to secure the full territory of the US, especially not without the full support of the people.
If the government ever did become so tyrannical as to prompt a widespread rebellion or violent resistance, that givernment would only be able to retain power if the resistance was a small minority. Either way, it would be violent and a lot of Americans would die, and no one wants that, but it absolutely does present a strong deterrent against, say, a political party like the Nazis or a Mao style communist party taking over.
Conversely, it does not mean that if popular opinion is against, say Democrats but they win a big election anyways and there's controversy and conspiracy theories that suddenly people are going to whip out their guns. This is like doomsday stuff, it can happen, it has happened both to the USA and to countless other nations in history, and it would be dangerous and trying for everyone involved, but giving the people a means of exerting their will even under extreme duress is a fundamental part of the constitution. After all, it's how we won our independence in the first place.
We have armed response teams, which are basically swat teams. That's it. There's no "van full of guns" which arrives and equips every bobby at the scene. There's highly trained, expert units who will answer calls regarding firearms. These teams are not armed with an array of military weapons, standard equipment is a semi-automatic MP5. My uncle was in the force and was first a member of such a team in London then trained such teams before switching to close protection detail in the City.
And, here in the UK at least, they aren't required very much.
You realize that 1) MP5s were standard military issue for half the world's militaries for decades, and that 2) the extend of the "array of military weapons" the police use in the USA amounts to... tear gas? Maybe the same model shotgun? Our police use AR-15s, not M-16s, most police forces just use remington 700s or similar comercially available hunting rifles for marksman rifles, and the police don't use M203s, machine guns, anti-material rifles, or anything similar. At best, you can moan about how they're getting used MRAPs basically for free, but those are just heavily armored cars, something pretty useful to have if someone's trying to shoot you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Me Like Burnaz wrote: Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
What is wrong with you? Are you actually so jacked up in the head that you actually belive that non-political murder is justified because you don't care for our drug laws? Do you realize how many people have been pointlessly murdered because of this opinion? I can only pary that you're just an internet tough guy and aren't actually serious about this.
Sarouan wrote: Looks like guns don't protect, after all.
One instance explains everything about an entire sub culture? I suppose that one black guy who robbed a liquor store once means all black males are criminals. Who knew that southern racists had it right all along.
Stage five renal failure, Multiple Ideopathic Neuropathy and a collection of issues from having Boomers for parents.
DarkLink wrote: IAre you actually so jacked up in the head that you actually belive that non-political murder is justified because you don't care for our drug laws?
I think police enforcing what are clearly unconstitutional laws with the defense of "just following orders" is no different than the German soldiers who rounded up Jews and locked them up in death camps claiming they were "just following orders". Sure the young african americans arested under our nations drug laws aren't put to real death, they are simply put to a political death as in something like 2/3 of the states a convicted felon has his voting rights taken away and in all fifty states he will have a hard time getting any job that isn't illegal. Had the police in the 60's simply said "no, we wont enforce these clearly unconstitutional drug laws" we could have avoided having our nation dragged through the last fifty plus years of nightmare. So yes, I consider cops who willingly enforce these drug laws to be an enemy of individual liberty. You see, I take my liberty seriously and will say and cop who tries to take my guns is the same as a cop going after people for selling weed. That is to say a criminal himself.
But this is a drastic turn from the OP topic and I ask the kind mods to make this into a separate thread as it is likely to get a little crazy.
All of this 'protect second amendment rights' and 'ability to protect yourself against the government', it's all fething nonsense. When you have a massive arms trade, of people becoming extremely rich from sales of arms, they have managed to persuade people that holding these guns is in the interests of personal freedoms, has substituted for a form of cultural foundation, and is somehow acceptable in the 21st century civilised world.
You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.
If the kid had been growing up in any pretty much any other developed country in either Europe or Australasia, where it is not legal nor a requirement to carry a loaded weapon, the mother would still be alive. Really that's it and all about it.
Pacific wrote: All of this 'protect second amendment rights' and 'ability to protect yourself against the government', it's all fething nonsense. When you have a massive arms trade, of people becoming extremely rich from sales of arms, they have managed to persuade people that holding these guns is in the interests of personal freedoms, has substituted for a form of cultural foundation, and is somehow acceptable in the 21st century civilised world.
You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.
If the kid had been growing up in any pretty much any other developed country in either Europe or Australasia, where it is not legal nor a requirement to carry a loaded weapon, the mother would still be alive. Really that's it and all about it.
It's not a requirement to carry a loaded weapon in the US, by any stretch of the imagination. That said, what do you find so frightening about a law-abiding citizen carry a firearm? Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be allowed to own a weapon?
Pacific wrote: You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.
You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.
Me Like Burnaz wrote: Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
What?
What part of that is hard to understand. After WWII we established that "I was just following orders" isn't a viable defense. Why should cops get to use that defense?
Pacific wrote: You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.
You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to own guns (within reason), I'm saying that anyone who thinks that the validity of someones arguments should be based on their contires military needs to learn some common sense, and not just spout rehtoric.
I personally use gunnut for any gun enthusiast who is nutty, not just gun enthusiasts in general. I like guns as well. Know feth all about them, but I find them interesting, and kind of fun.
OK, I'll accept that the handgun might have had a trigger safety, not a separate lever. Yes, I know Glocks rely on the trigger safety thing.
I'll also accept that firearms discipline is different from country to country.
Over here, it's not allowed to have the weapon LOADED - let alone having one up the spout and off safe - whilst in transit to a place it can legally be used (aka "condition 4") unless your job requires you to carry one (when it would probably be in "condition two"). The only reason the LEOs and (those with the firearms training) Security guards for banks, etc - get to carry in C2 is because they generally carry the Glock.
Me Like Burnaz wrote: Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII
chromedog wrote: Over here, it's not allowed to have the weapon LOADED - let alone having one up the spout and off safe - whilst in transit to a place it can legally be used (aka "condition 4") unless your job requires you to carry one (when it would probably be in "condition two").
Over here I'm not familiar with any legislation that covers what condition you carry your firearm in. There are plenty of conditions about transporting a firearm - in states where you have no CCW, you have to keep it in unloaded in a case with the ammunition seperately - but I've never heard of a law here that would preclude you going cocked and locked vs condition 3 (which is my preferred carry).
If I had a gun with a decocker I'd probably roll condition 2, but I don't so I don't. I know some people are adherents of carefully dropping the hammer on a live round in a 1911 to do so but I feel like that's a good way to put a half inch hole in something.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....
Yeah, this mainly. Would people be opposed to a law that required carried handguns to be in a proper holster to prevent this kind of thing?
I'd be good with it, personally, but I only get one vote. There was a story here just a few weeks ago about a moron who accidentally lit up a can of pineapple slices in walmart while fumbling around in his pocket for his wallet, which also had his loose pistol in there like pack of gum or something.
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...
Hey, guns in safes aren't the problem and nobody has ever said that they are. Guns left about the house, unsecured, and those carried in unsafe ways are.
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
Because classy, civilized people say you have no need for it and it will only end up breaking out of your safe, walking itself to the nearest pediatric ward and start murdering babies...
Hey, guns in safes aren't the problem and nobody has ever said that they are. Guns left about the house, unsecured, and those carried in unsafe ways are.
Actually, several people in the thread called our right to keep and bear arms into question. It was those folks I was alluding to.
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
Personally if you are not willing to ban the ownership of firearms, the sale and use of firearms should be more carefully controlled: firearms should only be sold if there is evidence that proper storage (both for transport and the home) exists (ie gun safe and holster/carry case, depending on if a CCL has been obtained), that sufficient training has been undertaken and passed (much like a driving licence is required to hire a car - a requirement for sale is the proof that you are, nominally, safe and aware and know what you are doing), and where appropriate, insurance/fees/etc have been paid and paperwork has been completed to register the gun to the person.
The police should be able to check that guns are stored and maintained in an appropriate condition and paperwork is kept up to date, much like they can pull you over if your plates say you have lapsed insurance, unpaid fines, or you appear to be driving unsafely, or your vehicle looks to be unroadworthy.
Hello. Not chiming in with great ideas how to run the US here. I was just wondering, how many people own and wear body armor, like kevlar vests for example? I always found it interesting that a lot of Americans are apparently carrying a gun for protection - which is fine by me, so far! - but I rarely hear anything about people also investing in passive protection for a potential firefight. Wouldn't it be ...prudent? to also reduce personal injury in those cases where you aren't able to get the drop on a bad guy?
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
.
If I smash the exalt button with a hammer will It count as more exalts?
Holy crap, no kidding. I can't think of any way to respond to a few of those comments without breaking half of the terms of use rules, I'm just not going to touch the crazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
Personally if you are not willing to ban the ownership of firearms, the sale and use of firearms should be more carefully controlled: firearms should only be sold if there is evidence that proper storage (both for transport and the home) exists (ie gun safe and holster/carry case, depending on if a CCL has been obtained), that sufficient training has been undertaken and passed (much like a driving licence is required to hire a car - a requirement for sale is the proof that you are, nominally, safe and aware and know what you are doing), and where appropriate, insurance/fees/etc have been paid and paperwork has been completed to register the gun to the person.
The police should be able to check that guns are stored and maintained in an appropriate condition and paperwork is kept up to date, much like they can pull you over if your plates say you have lapsed insurance, unpaid fines, or you appear to be driving unsafely, or your vehicle looks to be unroadworthy.
It would be great if things worked that way, and the logic sounds decent on paper, but if you spend the time to look at the statistics nothing here really seems to actually address and of the real issues involved.
First, gun ownership does not drive violence. In fact, even if you only look at gun related violence the correlation isn't particularly strong. But if you look at things like overall homocide rate, there isn't even a correlation to even theoretically back the idea. Fewer guns does not mean less death, not even close. The factors that drive violence are completely independent of gun ownership. It's almost trivial to prove this, you just have to take the time to research gun ownership rates and compare to worldwide violent crime rates.
In cases where a nation has suddenly and significantly restricted firearms, the trend is consistant that rater than dropping the violent crime rate, criminals simply use different tools. Fewer people get shot, sure, but more people are, say, stabbed instead, and even the drop in gun crime isn't as big as you might expect as most crimes are alreadt committed with illegally owned firearms anyways.
Additionally, while cases like this make for good sensationalist headlines, owning firearms is remarkably safe. In the USA, there are something like three times as many homes with guns inside as there are homes with swimming pools. Despite this, for every kid injured by a firearm there are in the ballpark of a hundred who drown in their home pool. Similarly, more kids die from drinking chemicals, falling out of trees, car crashes, and a whole lot of other things. I will note that I have no issue with offering some sort of training class, so long as it does not require any sort of firearm registry (that's a whole 'nother can of worms).
It's not so much that your proposals are inherently bad as that the address an imaginary problem while ignoring a far more serious one. The time and energy wasted on some stupid check where police officers would be requred to get a warrant to regularly and pointlessly check the homes of tens of millions of Americans would be far better spent revamping our welfare system to reduce poverty, something which actually is strongly tied to violent crime, or on any one of a number of issues that actually matter.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....
Obsession? Instead of casting stones, why not try to learn a few things first.
If we wanted to just form opinions on entire nations based on bad news stories... why should I give a gak about a culture like yours that raises terrorists?
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....
Obsession? Instead of casting stones, why not try to learn a few things first.
If we wanted to just form opinions on entire nations based on bad news stories... why should I give a gak about a culture like yours that raises terrorists?
Ok, I was about to say too far, but your right. in the way you mean, not the way it sounds like.
Can't we just go back to good old victim blaming rather than bad mouthing a culture who throw tea away like rubbish, never think of the children, and all carry guns so they can personally thank Obama.
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
You are likely a PTSD addled trained killer veteran who probably can't adjust to civilian life, and even if you COULD, why should us gun fearing folk have to accept the risk of you snapping?
So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?
You are likely a PTSD addled trained killer veteran who probably can't adjust to civilian life, and even if you COULD, why should us gun fearing folk have to accept the risk of you snapping?
The purse carry is fairly common in states that allow concealed carry, and there are alot of purses designed for discretely carrying handguns and allowing easy access to them. The victim was reportedly using one of these kind of purses. The complication with this type of carry is that it requires a complete reevaluation of what the purse is. When one chooses to purse carry, it is no longer a purse. It is now a bulky holster with a gun in it. It can never be removed from your body, and cannot simply be set down. She evidently forgot this.
To clarify, the woman didn't just leave her purse with her kid, she handed her child a loaded pistol in a holster. When you realize this it becomes clear just how terribly foolish she was and unfortunately that foolishness cost her life.
A friend of mine has a Thunder Five. Google it if you don't know what it is. He keeps it loaded and in the sock drawer. His rule is if a bad guy breaks in and he hears it (which is very likely as his doors have good locks on them, something I make sure of for all my friends) he will stand at the end of the hallway where the bedrooms are. The hall is around that magical distance. As long as the bad guy stays out of that hall he wont do anything. But if the bad guy starts down that hall, well the Thunder Five holds five .410 shotgun shells and he loads 00 buck. His motto, three balls-no waiting.
Despite his reasoned approach to when to use the gun, your friend is an idiot. With availability of affordable fast-access safes -which grant access to a firearm faster than digging into a sock drawer- there's no reason to have an unlocked loaded firearm in one's home. His family may be very responsible, but the chance for a nosey friend or worse, a friend's child to get a hold of the gun is just too easy. That's to say nothing of someone who breaks in when your friend is not home and suddenly your buddy is responsible for another gun on the street.
If you have to have instant access to a gun, buy a holster otherwise, lock that thing up!
EDIT:
I just noticed that you also advocate drug dealers shooting cops. Clearly you have only a thin tether to reality, so I'm not surprised you didn't immediately see the folly of your friend's actions.
It is a shame that this entirely preventable tragedy occurred because of the mother's decision to leave her firearm where it could be accessed by an infant.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....
There really is no need for this thread to devolve into nationality bashing and personal attacks. I was born in Ireland and moved to the US, there is a lot (good and bad) to be said for each country. Why don't we stick to discussing the issues instead of one another?
What I was refferring to was edged weapons..
I do not believe in firearms for anything but hunting.
My family has a long history of hunting and fishing.
I am Saami, the equivalent of the American First Nation people.
And I have had home invasions..
One was sorted with a Tonfa between the eyes of the perp.
The other was sorted with a Wakisashi put at the throat of the perp. For the record I collect and train with edged weapons.
Every weapon I own I can use. With proper skill and safeguards. My swords are not available for people.
My knives are kept hidden but accessible.
The only thing I have readily available, meaning not hidden is my cane.
My EDC is a Kubaton. More than adequate for self defence here. This doesn't mean that I can't use firearms safely.
I have been taught firearms safety from an early age.
And yes I have been shooting since I was eight.
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.
Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!
Welcome to Ignore.
Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.
You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?
Yep. Read the whole thing. I don't like it per se, but I have a lot more sympathy for the drug dealers who shoot cops than the cops who shoot innocent people in their own homes after kicking the wrong door.
Pacific wrote: You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.
You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care?
This, in essence, is the problem. It's 'might makes right'. That is the essence of barbarism, and is the reason your predictions of the US becoming a totalitarian state will likely come true. It's also the reason the US is hated by many. Not by me, you understand, I like America and Americans for the most part, but Americans like you are a disgrace to your fine nation, for reasons that will illustrate further below.
In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.
You are talking about mob rule, not democracy. You have also talked about simply disregarding the law of the land and murdering police officers because you disagree with drug policy. I think that illustrates the sort of person that you are quite neatly: an anti-democratic thug. Government is there to exercise the will of the people, based on a democratic consensus reached by society as a whole. Armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government is an infantile power fantasy perpetuated by immature inadequates, and is stupid not least because it's a matter of perspective. Timothy McVeigh committed his atrocity for that specific reason - do you feel that action was justified? What about if there was a armed socialist revolution in the US? Would that be justified?
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.
Stop acting like the US got involved in WWII out of anything other than their own interest. Hitler would have been defeated with or without the intervention of the US in the last two years of the war, it just would have taken longer. The US came out of that war as a superpower, and the British Empire spent years of blood and toil and came out of it with barely anything, indeed, was blocked by the US at regaining its position. That's the only reason anyone is 'hiding behind your military' - the US saw to it that that would be the case. Running the world used to be our job, now it's yours, a situation engineered by the US post-WWII. Stop pretending the US's position is not overwhelmingly to your benefit. You're not policing the world on my behalf, you're policing the world so that you can continue to exploit it to serve your national interests.
And how exactly is the UK 'not willing to get it's hands dirty'? That's the most ludicrous statement I've heard all year. Saying that, it's the 1st of January so you've still got plenty of time to top it.
The purse carry is fairly common in states that allow concealed carry, and there are alot of purses designed for discretely carrying handguns and allowing easy access to them. The victim was reportedly using one of these kind of purses. The complication with this type of carry is that it requires a complete reevaluation of what the purse is. When one chooses to purse carry, it is no longer a purse. It is now a bulky holster with a gun in it. It can never be removed from your body, and cannot simply be set down. She evidently forgot this.
To clarify, the woman didn't just leave her purse with her kid, she handed her child a loaded pistol in a holster. When you realize this it becomes clear just how terribly foolish she was and unfortunately that foolishness cost her life.
Good points about why I absolutely detest "purse carry" and any product that encourages it. People still see it as a purse with a gun in it, instead of what it actually becomes; an off-body "holster" with junk in it.
Me Like Burnaz wrote: You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.
Actually...
1) Brits were the true heroes of that war. They never surrendered, and they never let their allies down. After the war declaration against Japan, Germany waged war on the US, even if they didn't really have to. These guys stood up for their allies. If it weren't for that blunder, we'd still be waiting for you, guys. And the entire Europe world would probably have been communist now.
2) The british stockpile is large enough to blow this planet a couple times. Nukes are the great equalizer.
Gitzbitah wrote: I'm not joking at all- well, a bit about defending against moms, and the bread helmet bit was an attempt at levity. But the 2nd amendment was aimed at keeping armed resistance to the government available if the need for it arises.
Oh come now- how long has it been since the Troubles? How many countries from the 90s no longer exist, or have been split, and split again? Nothing lasts forever, least of all government. The 2nd Amendment was put in there because our founders were certain that one day our government would fall to corruption and megalomania, and when that day came, an armed population would have a far easier time overturning their government.
I don't own a gun, and I don't expect that eventuality to come to pass within my lifetime, but inevitably the US will splinter or become a totalitarian state.
The second amendment- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The intention there isn't personal protection, hunting or anything else- it is there to keep the possibility of armed resistance around in case the government seeks to take away our other freedoms.
The 2nd amendment actually was put in because the purpose of the revolution was to avoid paying the taxes required to support the army and navy needed to protect the north American colonies from the French, Dutch, etc.
This could only be achieved by creating a cheaper defence force, i.e. a militia.
I almost wish you had left us alone, then we wouldn't have to keep listening to you yammering on about how you "saved us". Sorry to have to break it to you, but it was the soviets that defeated Germany in WWII, the war was already a foregone conclusion. America got involved serving American interests, as much as anyone else's.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
This should be some kind of new fallacy: the argument from disrespect. People like to think that their traditions, religious beliefs, laws, rights etc... are somehow "sacred" -- like they have some magic shield that protects them from criticism. Well they don't. Nothing is beyond criticism, nor should it be.
the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.
to think a smart gun & a bracelet could have saved that moms life. So op course the NRA is against the whole idea of it and will pay off politicians to keep them off the streets.
I don't think anyone really cares about availability of 'smart guns and bracelets', I think they care about mandating that these be the only kind allowed. Some states have tried to mandate once these exist they will be the only allowed firearms.
Free market ideas are great here. If a 'smart gun and bracelet' are best for YOUR situation, by all means you should be allowed to have one. It is NOT best for my situation, and you can feth yourself if you try to force that as my only option.
See, I'd oppose that too. I've had plenty of times when my phone wouldn't pair with, or lost it's pairing with, my car stereo (for example); and I'm not trusting my life to my phone; and from my reading they're pretty much describing Bluetooth.
You want to put tiny serial numbers on bullets, OK with me. You want to have it so each round when fired also throws out a tiny shower of microsopic confetti with a serial number, fine (my taser already does this now). However, when you get into tinkering with the core functionality of the gun, I wouldn't like it.
Gun bracelets are just one more thing to go wrong in the event you need to use your firearm to defend yourself.
It does nothing about any of the millions of firearms currently in circulation.
Like "universal" background checks, it's another feel-good measure that doesn't really do anything effective.
We already have background checks. They are required when buying from any FFL dealer (even at gun shows, despite what the left would have you believe) and private sellers can do the same checks on people they sell to. This does nothing to curb black market sales and theft, which is how the vast majority of people with a criminal record get firearms.
Of course, we can go through all of the restrictions of types of firearms, barrel length limits, magazine capacity limits, bans on folding stocks, barrel shrouds and "shoulder things that go up", but ultimately they are all dressing to make it look like things are being done about the "gun problem".
They all miss the point though. There is no "gun problem". The problem is crime. And with all these feel-good measures you're just making criminals out of the law abiding and doing nothing else.
The problem with the smart gun is that, while otherwise reasonable, it requires the gun to have an electronic lock and an RFID reader on it. You can spoof the RFID tag, which makes that not secure against stolen guns, at least in the long term, and the issue with the electronic lock is that you have to have the gun charged enough in order to actually use it. Things that are expected to be used in an emergency situation demand as few points of failure as possible. Also, I can build a functional short range EMP generator that'd likely take care of that out of stuff in my apartment.
This is also excluding any sort of mechanism for knocking out RFID at range. I'm not sure how portable a device you can make that would generate focused microwave rays. I don't know much about magnetrons, but I know it doesn't take much to kill an RFID tag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus the first thing the criminals would do would be to rip the system out, thereby negating the good it does in any situation beyond accidental infantile discharge.
Gun control is bogged down as much by some of the silly measures that liberals try to pass. The NRA actually periodically backs a gun control bill. But most bills are riddled with nonsense, so even if there are good parts they get opposed. Then, instead of thinking 'maybe we should dump the stupid stuff and pass the stuff we both can agree on', a new stupid thing gets added and the cycle continues. The rhetoric liberals tend to use is 'how can we ban guns' rather than 'how can we make owning guns safer', and so long as that is the case, you won't gain any traction.
see a gun that would prevent your kids from taking them and shooting up a school. or should there be a intruder in your house there's a statistical 50/50 chance he gets your gun and shoots you with it. Preventable, so we can't have that.
States have rights to, except when it comes to guns, well that's what I hear when they're trying to deny rights to the people living in that state.
Yes the states has a crime problem, and criminals are freely allowed to buy all the guns they want legally and gun manufacturers profit. so citizens get scared and buy more guns and again gun manufacturers profit. Hey I'm seeing a pastern here.
we can't have gun laws because then us honest citizens become criminals. just like speed limits, we shouldn't have those, it just makes honest citizens criminals, just like drug laws, traffic laws, and any law. Don't break the law and you won't be a criminal right? If we had more gun laws, than when a criminal breaks those laws we'd have more laws to charge him with and keep him behind bars longer.
I don't have the inherent right to drive 100mph, peddle weed on a street corner or go the wrong way down a one way street. What I DO have is the right to keep and bear arms, infringement upon which is protected under the Constitution.
And you're not seriously thinking that a person who intends to commit murder is really concerned with a charge of illegally possessing/acquiring a firearm? Sure, add it to their list of multiple felonies. Feels good right? Might as well infringe on every other law-abiding citizen to do it. The perp will be back on the street after 5 years due to "good behavior" anyway, assuming they lived to face those charges and do the time...
"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"
I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.
Alex C wrote: I don't have the inherent right to drive 100mph, peddle weed on a street corner or go the wrong way down a one way street. What I DO have is the right to keep and bear arms, infringement upon which is protected under the Constitution.
And you're not seriously thinking that a person who intends to commit murder is really concerned with a charge of illegally possessing/acquiring a firearm? Sure, add it to their list of multiple felonies. Feels good right? Might as well infringe on every other law-abiding citizen to do it. The perp will be back on the street after 5 years due to "good behavior" anyway, assuming they lived to face those charges and do the time...
Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
sirlynchmob wrote: Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him.
People are trying to do that already by proposing more laws to prevent people from defending themselves.
you'd think law abiding people could wait a week for a background check. and for the nsa to check their facebook page to see if they're currently threatening to go kill someone. If that was the law, you'd think law abiding citizens would be able to comply.
With how impatient these so called "law abiding citizens" are, I wonder if that's true, or if they're up to some criminal activities.
oh no, I can't defend myself at all, not ever, if I have to wait a week to make sure I'm not a criminal first, give me my gun now.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
you'd think law abiding people could wait a week for a background check. and for the nsa to check their facebook page to see if they're currently threatening to go kill someone. If that was the law, you'd think law abiding citizens would be able to comply.
With how impatient these so called "law abiding citizens" are, I wonder if that's true, or if they're up to some criminal activities.
Why should we have to?
*I'd also like to add the caveat that your arguments are nonsensical and pretty hard to take seriously.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
Nope. Fraid not. Since the rights granted in the original constitution and subsequent amendments (including the second one) can be removed at any point by the government, they are rights granted to you by your government. And as many of those rights are not recognised universally, they can hardly be considered inherent to being a human being...
What Americans do on their own soil is their own business.
After talking about gun control with my USMC collegues when I was out in Afghan, and then after the terrible tragedy of Sandy Hook, it became apparent to me that there was no way that American's are even ready to think about living without guns.
I'm just grateful that as a UK citizen it's just not something I ever have to worry about.
I just think it's very sad that this mum made a terrible mistake, and her family now have to pay a heavy price for that mistake.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
Except we've had to amend that Constitution an additional 17 times beyond the first 10.
Since, you know, it forgot a few things like SLAVERY.
"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"
I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.
Yeah, it's really not true, at all, that if you own a gun it's 50% of the time your gun will be taken from you by an assailant. The fact there are a lot of gun suicides is moving the goalposts to a totally different statement, as you have done by the end of your post.
You have a guy who made a statement that "the statistics bear out" who then points to a study that says something different.
"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"
I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.
I wonder what statistics show that 50% of the time the gun is taken away.
No one can even find concrete proof on how often a gun is used in self defense, where is anyone going to find reliable evidence on how often one is taken away in such an instance?
And this sirlynchmob fellow sure knows what he's talking about when it comes to firearms in the US!
Ya it's not like I spent 20 years defending that right before moving to Canada. No, wait, ya that was me, I did that.
As someone who has spent 13 years doing so, I haven't yet been granted total incite into said rights. At what point in our career does it become something we can stand on as unassailable proof of our knowledge?
CNN) -- The father-in-law of a mother fatally shot in an Idaho Walmart by her 2-year-old son says she didn't have a mean bone in her body.
"Everybody that met her, knew her, loved her," Terry Rutledge said about Veronica Rutledge, 29.
She died Tuesday after her young son grabbed a gun that was in her purse and shot her in an apparent accident, authorities have said. The two were out shopping with other family members when the shooting occurred.
Rutledge put herself through school and was a chemical engineer, Terry Rutledge said.
"She was a fun-loving, outgoing, outdoorsy person. Her family liked to camp, hike, do outdoorsy things. They loved being together," he said.
He added that she had carried a gun for years and had extensive training.
"I cannot put any blame on my daughter-in-law because I know her, the training she's had ... I don't take it lightly ... I cannot put any negligence on her part. It was a terrible accident," said Terry Rutledge.
He told CNN affiliate KREM 2 that the gun used in the shooting had been kept in a concealed zipper pouch in her purse.
One gun expert described what happened as a "perfect storm."
The toddler was able to unzip the pocket and grab the gun -- without being noticed. He was also able to grip the gun and exert sufficient force to fire, at least three pounds, Robin Ball, owner of Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop in Spokane, Washington, told KREM 2.
"Murphy's law just came into play today in so many ways and there are irreversible consequences for that," Ball said.
Indeed, no negligence, apart from the point where she allowed her toddler to get into her handbag, find the "concealed zipper pouch", pull the gun from it and fire it at her, all the while she was apparently oblivious to it.
I guess weapon retention was never covered in her "extensive training".
I wonder what they will tell the kid. My mother died when I was about that age, and it certainly had a big impact on my life. My sister was only 4 days old, and I worry that she has always felt responsible in some way. But to actually be told that you pulled the trigger would surely mess you up for life.
sirlynchmob wrote: the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place."
sirlynchmob wrote: Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.
Except that selling a firearm to someone with the knowledge that they intend to commit a crime with it is a felony, and it will get that business closed and owners prosecuted by the ATF
sirlynchmob wrote: the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place."
sirlynchmob wrote: Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.
Except that selling a firearm to someone with the knowledge that they intend to commit a crime with it is a felony, and it will get that business closed and owners prosecuted by the ATF
nice, cite an opinion poll, and reddit, LOL
OMG his 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon, Look at those gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less. What does the 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed upon, say about the intended use of the gun you buy?
See the 2nd amendment has been infringed upon numerous times, it's been done legally, and can be legally done a few more times, or even just done away with like the 18th amendment and replaced with better and more current laws.
I don't believe that "LOL" counts as a rebuttal. Surely an opinion poll is a legitimate way to gauge public opinion. The Gallop poll is valid, well researched, and sound. In fact they have a link at the bottom of their page to the methodology, questions, and trend data. The Reddit page acts as a portal, and as such contains links to many reputable news stories about defensive gun uses
sirlynchmob wrote: OMG his 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon, Look at those gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less. What does the 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed upon, say about the intended use of the gun you buy?
If someone goes into the store with the intent to purchase a firearm to commit murder, and mentions their intent to the staff how does that then become "gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less"?
sirlynchmob wrote: See the 2nd amendment has been infringed upon numerous times, it's been done legally, and can be legally done a few more times, or even just done away with like the 18th amendment and replaced with better and more current laws.
That's a curious position to take, where you advocate for a strict reading of the Second Amendment, then call for it's alteration. Attempts to roll back the Second Amendment have not been successful on local, State, or Federal levels. In fact there is a very successful push back against gun control measures.
What, in your opinion, would be an example of a better and more current law?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It is a shame that this entirely preventable tragedy occurred because of the mother's decision to leave her firearm where it could be accessed by an infant.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....
There really is no need for this thread to devolve into nationality bashing and personal attacks. I was born in Ireland and moved to the US, there is a lot (good and bad) to be said for each country. Why don't we stick to discussing the issues instead of one another?
well he was the one asking for respect that his country never earned. Any culture that started by throwing away TEA is one that dosn't really convince me to give it respect.Actually I just had a great Idea: Why don't the Brits and Irish Team up to destroy America for its crimes against the UNT?(United Nations of Tea)A real bonding excercise Between our peoples as we celebrate every heathen coffee place destroyed. I mave have gone off track at some point...
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.
As I said, people will kill each other if they want to. I could kill a man with a pen, no gun required.
guns don;t kill, people kill.
Admittedly some people are more determined than others, but it's fairly easy to understand that the more difficult something is, the fewer people will succeed in accomplishing it.
Many case studies have shown that crimes and suicides have been reduced simply by making them less convenient. This is probably because many crimes and suicides have an impulsive element to them, the more obstacles that are put in the way, the more time a person has to think it over and give up.
Guns make killing a bit too easy IMO, evidently even a 2 year old can do it without trying. They also seem to be a bit too easy to acquire in the US. If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined. In fact, it's so much effort most people decide they don't really need a gun after all (see above)...
So arguing that people will do something regardless of difficulty, is in fact false. Ergo, making things harder is not at all as futile as you suggest.
If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.
the shrouded lord wrote: If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.
And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.
the shrouded lord wrote: If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.
And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.
You can with a pipebomb made from gak you can find at the hardware store.
May i ask why? Particularly in the instance of the boston marathon bombings - if someone wants to kill others badly enough, it can be done. IEDs are much like guns in that they can be made by people with the right knowledge and tools, and that is where the problem begins - this stuff is very common and unregulated. The IRA was doing this sort of thing in a country where guns were illegal, long before the 'radicalized terrorists' were.
You can't have an open discussion on the subject while refusing to talk about certain things.
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.
There is also quite a lot more going on in Latin America than people not being able to legally own guns...
Smacks wrote: They also seem to be a bit too easy to acquire in the US. If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined.
All gun purchases through a store must have a completed 4473 and a completed background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
And self-defense (not "shooting trespassers" as the laws on deadly force vary tremendously from State to State) is a valid reason in the US for gun ownership. This has not been a valid reason in the UK since 1968
Smacks wrote: And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.
Smacks wrote: If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined. In fact, it's so much effort most people decide they don't really need a gun after all (see above)...
Correction: if you wanted a legal gun you would have to do those things. If you aren't too concerned about legality you can build a machine gun with parts and tools from your local hardware store. And that's assuming you don't have any criminal connections that could get you an illegal gun.
Smacks wrote: If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops.
Correction: if you wanted a legal gun you would have to do those things.
Illegal guns were also - usually - legal guns at some point. Many guns used in crimes are common handguns that people like buying for selfdefense, now stolen from their legal owners. Burglars often carry away guns too because those can be sold for a nice sum of money. And ofc, seeing as both my father and brother hunt it would be pretty easy for me to "borrow" a powerful hunting rifle or small pistol for a few days.
Ofc, there's absolutely no reason I'd need a gun for any crime I can see myself even thinking about. Few local crooks get one either, unless they're drugheads afraid of robbers or debt collectors. We don't have the death penalty so crooks seldom see the need to kill everyone, and police seldom shoot anyone (or even brandish a weapon).
Spetulhu wrote: Illegal guns were also - usually - legal guns at some point. Many guns used in crimes are common handguns that people like buying for selfdefense, now stolen from their legal owners. Burglars often carry away guns too because those can be sold for a nice sum of money. And ofc, seeing as both my father and brother hunt it would be pretty easy for me to "borrow" a powerful hunting rifle or small pistol for a few days.
Ofc, there's absolutely no reason I'd need a gun for any crime I can see myself even thinking about. Few local crooks get one either, unless they're drugheads afraid of robbers or debt collectors. We don't have the death penalty so crooks seldom see the need to kill everyone, and police seldom shoot anyone (or even brandish a weapon).
Last figure I recall hearing was that 10-15% of guns in the possession of criminals were obtained through theft. It is more common for straw purchases to be a source for criminals to obtain firearms
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
I don't know how things work in the UK, but in some countries of continental Europe, it's surprisingly easy to have access to a gun.
On the right side of the Channel, you can have a gun if you're into hunting or sport shooting.
Hunting : You have to pass a small written exam. Things about species, regulations, stuff like that. Then you have an exam on the field, quite simple, it's just about safety and not acting like a moron. Done, you can buy your cal 12 shotgun. I'm not even sure you have to have a medical exam.
Sport Shooting : Medical exam performed by your doctor, just to be sure you're not legally blind... Then you just have to go to the shooting range 3 times a year to have your shooting licence. That's all.
Sure, there are some additional regulations: guns should be stored in a safe, you aren't allowed to own more than 12 of them, 10 magazines and 1000 rounds per gun. Things like that.
Long story short, it's not really about "no access to firearms", but more like a cultural thing. Even our thugs usually don't carry guns, but the occasionnal knife, pepper spray or telescopic baton.
Guns = Hunting = Cal 12. Sport shooters are not that common and usually shoot .22lr and .357. That's about it. Hilariously large calibers (14.5x114) are perfectly legal and you can buy a .50 BMG sniper rifle with close to no paperwork, but what's the point?
SilverMK2 wrote: I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.
All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.
Not necessarily at all. Latin American gun crime is directly linked to the out of control drug trade and massive corruption.
Europe is a much more valid example. Even with freak occurences taken into consideration like Anders Breivik, there are considerably fewer firearms related offences in comparative western democracies that enjoy an uncorrupted rule of law without warring drug cartels.
There is an interesting article HERE that covers some of the complex issues.
Not surprisingly, two of the most violent countries in the region have relatively lax laws. In Honduras -- the world's most dangerous country based on its total homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000 residents -- civilians can own up to five firearms,
At the other end of the legal spectrum sit Mexico and Brazil, two countries fighting extreme gun violence. Mexico is commonly considered to have some of the strictest gun legislation in the region -– there is only one, military-owned gun store in the country. Civilians are prohibited from owning military grade weapons, cannot carry a gun outside their home, and must undergo rigorous background checks to obtain an ownership license.
The rule of law is critical in understanding why these countries with lax and strict gun controls have such high gun crime. They also suffer weak government, and corrupted legal systems.
So, in order to correctly assess how effective gun controls are you cannot point to Latin America and say "there you go, strict gun controls make no difference". Of course they don't if all they are are words on a bit of paper and the infrastructure is not in place to support a stable and law abiding society. You must look at other comparative countries with similar rule of law, uncorrupted legal systems and differing gun controls, like Europe.
Peregrine wrote: You can build a machine gun with parts and tools from your local hardware store.
cincydooley wrote: You can with a pipebomb made from gak you can find at the hardware store.
Since I was talking about the virtues of making things more difficult, I don't see how either of these are relevant. Making any sort of reusable gun, let alone a machine gun, is a serious project. I would need welding gear, and probably a fething lathe, and obtaining ammunition is difficult in the UK, you can't just walk into a department store and grab some like you can in America. No matter how determined I were to kill, making a gun is far too much effort. Also I'd be scared to hell that pile of junk would blow up in my face.
Pipe bombs are a bit easier, but still require quite a lot of effort, premeditation, and risk. My dad knew a man who lost all his fingers on one hand making one as a teenager. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they are also illegal right? So it's moot. A woman is not supposed to be carrying one around in her handbag at Walmart, and honestly what legitimate reason could she have for doing so.
SilverMK2 wrote: In the UK there are plenty of people with shotguns, mostly farmers and people in rural areas.
The point being that there are additional steps in getting a firearms permit, and generally (in the UK at least) you have to apply through the police.
In the US typically for carrying a pistol (whether concealed or otherwise varies by State) you require a permit be issued by the police, for long guns you have to pass a background check through the NICS system run by the FBI. For NFA items the police also have to sign off before you send your application to BATF
So, is it agreed then that a purse is a poor location to safely store a handgun on your person?
I have seen way too many kids rooting around in their mom's purse that it could not be a consideration never mind the potential for theft.
To legally carry a handgun it should require a holster guarding the trigger to prevent accidental discharge.
I would figure that any scenario where you would need that gun would be a bit of an emergency and rooting around in a purse is less than ideal.
With the way my wife looks for her keys in her purse, her or I would have been accidentally shot multiple times long ago if she had a gun in there.
Canada, any transportation of a handgun can only be to and from a gun club.
Gun must have a trigger lock and be in a locked case.
Ammo must be stored separately.
So this scenario cannot be played-out in Canada, at least legally.
Another case of parents not managing risk for their children (or themselves from said children)
Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?
It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.
I'm not sure I've seen, but I read an article that said the firearm had a 3# trigger pull. Which we all know isn't a whole lot. IMO, if you're going to purse carry you need either a revolver or a DA/SA that you can decock so you ensure the trigger pull is much higher.
It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.
I'd imagine it was a compact, possibly a Ruger .380, with no external safety
cincydooley wrote: It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.
That this tragic event was caused by her own, easily avoided, negligence cannot be in doubt. Hopefully it will serve as a cautionary tale for others who carry off body
djones520 wrote: Does anyone know what type of gun it was?
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.
I'm not sure I've seen, but I read an article that said the firearm had a 3# trigger pull. Which we all know isn't a whole lot. IMO, if you're going to purse carry you need either a revolver or a DA/SA that you can decock so you ensure the trigger pull is much higher.
It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.
Root cause is the person failed to have control of their firearm.
Purses allow it to be out of reach or away from your immediate person so you could not notice it being handled.
I strongly disagree with "letting her kid root through her purse" as cause: kids are CONSTANTLY getting into stuff even with the best of kids safety locks.
Believe me, it is far easier and saner to try to control the environment around the two year old kid than to control the child (even if it is also strapping them down in a shopping cart, possibly with said purse).
I hate to pull this out but do you have kids cincy?
Or at least had to baby sit a two year old for a few hours outside of a playpen?
Yes, the responsibility lies with the gun owner but where and how it is stowed largely determines how controlled it is.
SilverMK2 wrote: In the UK there are plenty of people with shotguns, mostly farmers and people in rural areas.
The point being that there are additional steps in getting a firearms permit, and generally (in the UK at least) you have to apply through the police.
Same thing here, it's mostly a rural thing : farmers and hunters.
But owning a gun is not that difficult. Buying a heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom is actually less complicated than, say, buying (and driving) a car, or a motorbike. It even requires less paperwork than a scooter.
Some countries just don't seem to share that 2nd amendment fetishism.
d-usa wrote: If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.
Pure and simple.
Off body carry is difficult. Off body carry when you do not retain control of the item carrying the firearm is impossible.
A retention holster would have been much more appropriate
To quote "Ding-ding-ding!"
Most appropriate means of keeping control of a firearm short of locking it up.
A lockable latch on the purse would have been nice but again would limit the usefulness of the firearm if needed.
Litcheur wrote: But owning a gun is not that difficult. Buying a heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom is actually less complicated than, say, buying (and driving) a car, or a motorbike. It even requires less paperwork than a scooter.
Some countries just don't seem to share that 2nd amendment fetishism.
Well not many countries have a Second Amendment, not all countries have the same laws and culture as the US does. And that is their right too.
And buying a "heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom" is more complicated than buying a car or motorbike, as explained above. Purchasing a mechanically propelled vehicle does not require a background check through the FBI, and felons are permitted to own and operate motor vehicles
d-usa wrote: If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.
Pure and simple.
Off body carry is difficult. Off body carry when you do not retain control of the item carrying the firearm is impossible.
A retention holster would have been much more appropriate
I'm not a fan of off-body carrying in general, since it gives you less physical control of the gun and increases the possibility of not having the gun available when needed.
Off-body carry that basically results in letting a child reach the weapon is inexcusable and pure negligence.
I think in this case it's not even the off-body carrying that's to blame. The mother left a loaded gun in a holster where the kid can easily reach it. A CCW purse is no different that a holster, and should always be treated as such. It's not a purse with a gun in it, it's a holster with junk in it. Maybe off-body carry makes it easier to forget that.
If she would have carried on her person, and then removed the holster and gun from her belt and put it next to the child where he could easily reach it, it wouldn't really be any different of a scenario IMO.
djones520 wrote: I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
Maybe she tought the same thing? Though I did think it was suspicious, but the reports I read claimed that police reviewed security video from the store to ensure it was an accident. I assume they must have been satisfied with what they saw... At least we haven't heard otherwise.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe: "Nuclear meltdown destroys Idaho".
But in seriousness, I think what is hard (for any person) is to be consistent. People are inherently fallible. Even the most highly trained/practiced people, sportsmen, pilots, doctors they will all make mistakes eventually, it is just a matter of time. This is why the airline industry works so hard to minimize the possibility for human error. I was looking at some of my online game stats recently and figured out that I misclick about one time in every 10,000 moves -- I just click the wrong square like a spaz. That's actually quite accurate, but if someone died every time I did it then it would have killed about three people by now. 100% constancy is far harder than rocket science.
Who here hasn't cut themselves with their hobby knife? Or forgot to turn the oven off (or similar). These things just happen. It's not because she was a negligent person -- by all accounts she was smart, experienced, and responsible -- but she was also human, and people inevitably make mistakes. In the previous two years that she managed not to have an accident with her firearm, she tallied up 99.86% competency record. But that ~0.1% of the time when she was looking the wrong way, cost her dearly. By that standard we are all negligent, we probably just got away with it more often.
So calling negligence is really just deflecting attention away from the lethal weapon she was carrying which is known to cause terrible (fatal) accidents. Honestly, a woman with a bunch of small kids visiting Walmart during the day. How necessary was a gun here? Was she planning to have a shoot out with armed robbers, while surrounded by small children? I think the risks of carrying a gun around far outweighed the risks of not having one, in this case.
d-usa wrote: If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.
Pure and simple.
You people are all glossing over the terrifying reality that is occurring.
We are through the looking glass here people. The two year olds are out to take over the world. Even their parents won't stand in their way.
d-usa wrote: I'm not a fan of off-body carrying in general, since it gives you less physical control of the gun and increases the possibility of not having the gun available when needed.
Off-body carry that basically results in letting a child reach the weapon is inexcusable and pure negligence.
I think in this case it's not even the off-body carrying that's to blame. The mother left a loaded gun in a holster where the kid can easily reach it. A CCW purse is no different that a holster, and should always be treated as such. It's not a purse with a gun in it, it's a holster with junk in it. Maybe off-body carry makes it easier to forget that.
If she would have carried on her person, and then removed the holster and gun from her belt and put it next to the child where he could easily reach it, it wouldn't really be any different of a scenario IMO.
You are absolutely right in what you say, a loaded firearm should never be left with a 2 year old infant. A lot of people I've spoken with about this are very critical of off-body carry, as it is not an effective way of retaining control of your firearm. This only reinforces that belief for many people.
Smacks wrote: So calling negligence is really just deflecting attention away from the lethal weapon she was carrying which is known to cause terrible (fatal) accidents. Honestly, a woman with a bunch of small kids visiting Walmart during the day. How necessary was a gun here? Was she planning to have a shoot out with armed robbers, while surrounded by small children? I think the risks of carrying a gun around far outweighed the risks of not having one, in this case.
I'm sorry but this was a textbook case of negligence. She did not take reasonable steps to keep a loaded firearm out of her child's hands.
Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
Laws? What Laws? Another Swede thinks its the Wild West over here. Church burning! Book burning! Sexual Orientation bashing! Followers of Islam intolerant! Why make new laws when we don't enforce the current laws...
.....
....
wait
......
....
She lost positive control of her weapon and that CNN report mention three shots squeezed off by the kid.
She had a CCW and training
police did not opt her out..
Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm sorry but this was a textbook case of negligence. She did not take reasonable steps to keep a loaded firearm out of her child's hands.
I agree, but you've missed the point. Everyone is going to make a mistake eventually it is just a matter of time. The only way to 100% prevent human error is to remove human responsibility.
Having a firearm for self-defense is not indicative of "planning to have a shoot out"
So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
I couldn't give a bulls tit about the number of shootings in Sweden, quite frankly.
And both of those deaths were due to severe negligence on part of the adult.
Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm
So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And buying a "heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom" is more complicated than buying a car or motorbike, as explained above. Purchasing a mechanically propelled vehicle does not require a background check through the FBI, and felons are permitted to own and operate motor vehicles
Laws are different in every country.
In France, you just need a license from the French Sport Shooting Federation. If your gun is big and scary, you may have to fill some additionnal paperwork after your purchase. If your gun is really big and really scary (larger than .50 BMG), you must have an authorization before the purchase, which will probably not happen, because you're basically asking the cops if they don't mind about that anti-tank rifle you plan to buy...
That's all. Sure, you need a license, and the Federation won't deliver one unless you spend a couple hours at the shooting range, a medical check from your doctor, but that part isn't different from having a license from the Basketball or Horseriding Federation... You'll have to give your criminal record, though. Furthermore, that license can be revoked if you don't show up at least 3 times a year in a shooting range. But that's it.
If you want to buy and drive a car, you have to fill paperwork, pass a written exam about the regulations and stuff, then take the driving exam. Add some more paperwork, you have your license now. Buy a car, fill some more paperwork to have your registration plates, and then fill more paperwork for the (mandatory) insurance. Some crimes can prevent you from taking the exam for a couple years: you really, really don't want to get caught while driving under the influence if you need that truck driving license.
All in all, in some countries, it may be easier to have a gun than a car. Most people are still afraid of guns and stay away from them.
Smacks wrote: I agree, but you've missed the point. Everyone is going to make a mistake eventually it is just a matter of time. The only way to 100% prevent human error is to remove human responsibility.
The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans
Smacks wrote: So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.
In France, you just need a license from the French Sport Shooting Federation. If your gun is big and scary, you may have to fill some additionnal paperwork after your purchase. If your gun is really big and really scary (larger than .50 BMG), you must have an authorization before the purchase, which will probably not happen, because you're basically asking the cops if they don't mind about that anti-tank rifle you plan to buy...
That's all. Sure, you need a license, and the Federation won't deliver one unless you spend a couple hours at the shooting range, a medical check from your doctor, but that part isn't different from having a license from the Basketball or Horseriding Federation... You'll have to give your criminal record, though. Furthermore, that license can be revoked if you don't show up at least 3 times a year in a shooting range. But that's it.
If you want to buy and drive a car, you have to fill paperwork, pass a written exam about the regulations and stuff, then take the driving exam. Add some more paperwork, you have your license now. Buy a car, fill some more paperwork to have your registration plates, and then fill more paperwork for the (mandatory) insurance. Some crimes can prevent you from taking the exam for a couple years: you really, really don't want to get caught while driving under the influence if you need that truck driving license.
All in all, in some countries, it may be easier to have a gun than a car. Most people are still afraid of guns and stay away from them.
I am aware that the laws are different in every country, and I am aware that knowledge of US gun laws is something that people elsewhere may not be familiar with.
Here buying a firearm that utilizes a round larger than .50BMG is usually very problematic as the rounds themselves are considered "destructive devices" and each one is not only very expensive, but must also be registered with the ATF. With regards to firing a .50BMG it is expensive, and most ranges are not set up to accommodate them . Because of this is it common for them to be used on expansive private ranges. There is a considerable amount of skill involved in distance shooting. The requirements for less powerful firearms vary from State to State, some mandate training others leave it discretionary.
Owning firearms isn't for everyone. Members of my family back home in Ireland won't pick up a gun, others have gone shooting with us here in the US. Owning a firearm is not something that, in my opinion, should be forced upon anyone who is eligible. In the same vein that right should not be striped from those eligible to exercise it either.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans.
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.
Smacks wrote: So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
It is not really hindsight. We've had this conversation before, when that woman was alive. I told you accidents would continue to happen, and now she is dead, and it was preventable.
Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans.
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.
In that case, you're effectively arguing to re-instate the Prohibition.
No I'm not, that's a rather obvious strawman. There is a lot of middle-ground between unrestricted and completely banned. I see nothing wrong with making alcohol consumption safer where possible though.
Smacks wrote: Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.
I never denied human fallibility, what I said was that the risk cannot be eliminated. Even in aviation safety mistakes happen - airplanes crash, and accidents happen. It is interesting that you mention medical procedures though, as more people die per year from medical procedures than firearms
Smacks wrote: It is not really hindsight. We've had this conversation before, when that woman was alive. I told you accidents would continue to happen, and now she is dead, and it was preventable.
It was preventable by not leaving the firearm where the child could readily access it. That is the direct result of the deceased's actions.
Smacks wrote: Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.
Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.
Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Even in aviation safety mistakes happen - airplanes crash, and accidents happen. It is interesting that you mention medical procedures though, as more people die per year from medical procedures than firearms
Airplanes crash a lot less than though, it is now (arguably) the safest way to travel. Medical procedures obviously involve risk, but the rewards are far greater than not having medical procedures.
When I compare America to countries with less guns I do not see that you are reaping the rewards of having so many guns. It appears rather you have a gun problem, too many gun crimes, too many gun accidents. The cons seem to outweigh the pros, and that is not even accounting for the fact that most of the pros are directly tied to the gun problem.
It was preventable by not leaving the firearm where the child could readily access it. That is the direct result of the deceased's actions.
As I have already said. human error is not preventable. Better to limit and control the source of danger.
Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.
Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.
It may have saved her, and I suppose pigs may fly. More likely someone steals her bag and her gun with it, or she sees a crime and should not get involved (considering she is looking after 4 kids). The kind of event where the gun might prove useful (spree killer in Walmart) is so rare that it seems less likely than just having an accident with the gun. And even spree killers wouldn't be such an issue if you didn't have gun problem, which bring me back to my first point: there is really no direct benefit to living in a society with so many guns.
Smacks wrote: Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.
Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that you live in a country where people have to think about this to go shopping?
Nappies and wipes, check. Car keys and bags for life, check. Change for parking and shopping trolley, check. Cheque book, purse and house keys, check. Firearm and ammunition, check. Off we go kids.
I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks. Does it not make you think about the society that has been created where people feel they should arm themselves with lethal force to nip out to shop for groceries? Has it always been this way? I'm fairly sure I don't remember such strong feeling about it, or even noticing it in the 80's
I was surprised by how some Americans of my acquaintance actually felt so strongly about this particular amendment that it was indistinguishable from being an American, to criticise it, was to criticise America. They didn't appear to feel as strongly about other parts of the constitution.
To many pistols?
To many revolvers?
To many carbines?
To many shotguns?
To many rifles?
This was a safety issue. She took the weapon being safe in her purse for granted.
Edit
I have had three soldiers hospitalized in Germany from "mugging's"
I have had one soldier come back from England to be hospitalized from a "mugging"
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.
Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I'm not sure the parents of the children of Sandy Hook would agree that it is anything to do with the Nanny state.
If any tragedy could have swayed public opinion on firearms I would have thought it would have been that. Instead the greatest fear was that someone would try and take the firearms away.
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.
Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Hungerford came in close, but in the UK we acted on it, and did our best to make sure it couldn't happen again. So far we have been lucky that it hasn't.
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.
Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
r_squared wrote: Hungerford came in close, but in the UK we acted on it, and did our best to make sure it couldn't happen again. So far we have been lucky that it hasn't.
In this type of situation using the word "luck" is not used. Its "time"
r_squared wrote: .
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..
Cool.
I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.
If any tragedy could have swayed public opinion on firearms I would have thought it would have been that. Instead the greatest fear was that someone would try and take the firearms away.
Oh, don't you worry. Bloomberg and his ilk tried. Fortunately there are enough people in the US that care about our civil liberties and realize that criminals will break laws regardless of how much you try and defrock law abiding citizens of their rights that the laws don't pass.
r_squared wrote: .
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..
Cool.
I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.
That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.
I don't know, but I'd like to speculate. Dreadclaw speculated a Ruger in 380, so presumably he meant the Ruger LCP, which would have been my first guess too. I just googled though and it looks like that's a 5lb trigger pull.
My next guess was a S&W bodyguard in .380, but that looks like an 8lb trigger pull.
Taurus TCP in .380 is 4.8lbs.
Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.
Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?
It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.
r_squared wrote: .
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..
Cool.
I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.
That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.
Tea doesn't put delightful holes in paper or make clay pigeons explode.
r_squared wrote: .
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..
Cool.
I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.
That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.
Tea doesn't put delightful holes in paper or make clay pigeons explode.
Smacks wrote: It appears rather you have a gun problem, too many gun crimes, too many gun accidents. The cons seem to outweigh the pros, and that is not even accounting for the fact that most of the pros are directly tied to the gun problem.
Better to limit and control the source of danger.
It may have saved her, and I suppose pigs may fly.
And even spree killers wouldn't be such an issue if you didn't have gun problem, which bring me back to my first point: there is really no direct benefit to living in a society with so many guns.
I am going to excuse myself from discussing this further with you. You are very clearly set in your view towards firearms, the laws that allow people to own them, and the society in the US and it's relationship with guns and you seem quite content with that. There is nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.
r_squared wrote: Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that you live in a country where people have to think about this to go shopping?
Nappies and wipes, check. Car keys and bags for life, check. Change for parking and shopping trolley, check. Cheque book, purse and house keys, check. Firearm and ammunition, check. Off we go kids.
Crime happens. Violent crime happens. Why should law abiding citizens be denied the right and the ability to defend themselves?
r_squared wrote: I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks. Does it not make you think about the society that has been created where people feel they should arm themselves with lethal force to nip out to shop for groceries? Has it always been this way? I'm fairly sure I don't remember such strong feeling about it, or even noticing it in the 80's
I was surprised by how some Americans of my acquaintance actually felt so strongly about this particular amendment that it was indistinguishable from being an American, to criticise it, was to criticise America. They didn't appear to feel as strongly about other parts of the constitution.
Speaking as someone who isn't American a lot of it comes down to people not understanding the US and it's laws and saying that it would be better if it were more civilized, or better if it were more like X. Americans have a very strong sense of individualism. If you tell them that they have to do something do not be surprised if they do the exact opposite. Also when lawful gun owners are constantly vilified, derided, treated as potential criminals, and continually have to justify their reasons to exercise their rights then it gets a little wearisome.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Americans have a very strong sense of individualism. If you tell them that they have to do something do not be surprised if they do the exact opposite.
Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm
So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?
No, I'm saying that children don't need to know how to handle guns.
Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm
So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?
No, I'm saying that children don't need to know how to handle guns.
Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
Our gun laws are fine, thanks.
I couldn't give a bulls tit about the number of shootings in Sweden, quite frankly.
And both of those deaths were due to severe negligence on part of the adult.
But, it wouldn't've happened if people understood that, I quote myself,
WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?
I wouldn't say that your gun laws are fine. I took Sweden as an example, because we have excellent gun laws. No school shootings. You know something's wrong with a country, when I don't get surprised when I hear about yet another school shooting. Why can't Obama get off his otherwise awesome bottom, and fix the problem?
Ouze wrote: I don't know, but I'd like to speculate. Dreadclaw speculated a Ruger in 380, so presumably he meant the Ruger LCP, which would have been my first guess too. I just googled though and it looks like that's a 5lb trigger pull.
My next guess was a S&W bodyguard in .380, but that looks like an 8lb trigger pull.
Taurus TCP in .380 is 4.8lbs.
Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.
Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?
Trigger modification seems to be the most likely. The lowest trigger pull I can find easily is a Glock 35 at 3lb, but it is a competition gun and is perhaps too large for concealed carry. Everything else is 5+ pounds. I think we can probably rule out most DA/SA pistols too
It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
r_squared wrote: I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks.
I'm going to generalize a bit here, but I'm going to try not to be too abrasive about it. I also realize that there are non-American Dakkaites who have participated in very reasonable discussions on this matter, and I thank you for that.
The problem isn't that others are critical of American gun laws or find it strange that some Americans have a CCW license. I think all of us can understand why someone completely unacquainted with firearms might find that strange. That said, what really turns this into a contentious issue when it is discussed between American and European posters on Dakka is that (and I believe this is what others have been referring to when they talk about lack of respect for our culture), in a disappointing large number of cases, European posters tend to be, in general, grossly uninformed about American gun laws and culture, particularly when they hold such strong opinions of the issue. This isn't a bad thing on its own, because many of us are willing to discuss it, but this is combined with a willful ignorance and a complete disinterest in actually learning about the situation in the US, or why a person in the US might choose to carry a weapon. We have non-American posters who know little about the gun laws and culture of America, and criticize it from an openly belligerent position that they believe constitutes a moral high ground. Many times I have seen Dakka members ask questions about gun laws and gun culture in the US, and several American posters will give genuine, well-thought out replies, and then the poster will proceed to completely ignore them and continue to spout on about what they already (wrongly) assumed was the answer.
It's also a matter of language used. Instead of seeing it as a cultural difference, and saying something like "That seems strange to me, we don't do that here. Why do you feel the need to do it there?", we have posters with virtually no knowledge or experience of the subject who very quickly pass judgement, using words like insane, barbaric, bizarre, and mind-boggling, without making any real attempt to understand the issue outside of asking questions and completely ignoring any answers that don't reinforce the opinions they already have.
So yeah. That starts to get a little old, especially with those of us who are perfectly willing to discuss the issue in good faith. And it's not about everyone agreeing, it's about a little mutual respect.
r_squared wrote: I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks.
I'm going to generalize a bit here, but I'm going to try not to be too abrasive about it. I also realize that there are non-American Dakkaites who have participated in very reasonable discussions on this matter, and I thank you for that.
The problem isn't that others are critical of American gun laws or find it strange that some Americans have a CCW license. I think all of us can understand why someone completely unacquainted with firearms might find that strange. That said, what really turns this into a contentious issue when it is discussed between American and European posters on Dakka is that (and I believe this is what others have been referring to when they talk about lack of respect for our culture), in a disappointing large number of cases, European posters tend to be, in general, grossly uninformed about American gun laws and culture, particularly when they hold such strong opinions of the issue. This isn't a bad thing on its own, because many of us are willing to discuss it, but this is combined with a willful ignorance and a complete disinterest in actually learning about the situation in the US, or why a person in the US might choose to carry a weapon. We have non-American posters who know little about the gun laws and culture of America, and criticize it from an openly belligerent position that they believe constitutes a moral high ground. Many times I have seen Dakka members ask questions about gun laws and gun culture in the US, and several American posters will give genuine, well-thought out replies, and then the poster will proceed to completely ignore them and continue to spout on about what they already (wrongly) assumed was the answer.
It's also a matter of language used. Instead of seeing it as a cultural difference, and saying something like "That seems strange to me, we don't do that here. Why do you feel the need to do it there?", we have posters with virtually no knowledge or experience of the subject who very quickly pass judgement, using words like insane, barbaric, bizarre, and mind-boggling, without making any real attempt to understand the issue outside of asking questions and completely ignoring any answers that don't reinforce the opinions they already have.
So yeah. That starts to get a little old, especially with those of us who are perfectly willing to discuss the issue in good faith. And it's not about everyone agreeing, it's about a little mutual respect.
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.
I don't know, but I'd like to speculate. Dreadclaw speculated a Ruger in 380, so presumably he meant the Ruger LCP, which would have been my first guess too. I just googled though and it looks like that's a 5lb trigger pull.
My next guess was a S&W bodyguard in .380, but that looks like an 8lb trigger pull.
Taurus TCP in .380 is 4.8lbs.
Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.
Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?
I read somewhere that it was a 9mm S&W Shield. For those not familiar, it's a subcompact 9mm.
r_squared wrote:
I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks.
r_squared wrote:
I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
It should be noted that "American Gun Culture" people are talking about here isn't so much "American Gun Culture" as it is "Some Parts of America Gun Culture". America is a big place and far from wholly homogeneous. I can confidently say almost everyone I've approached the subject with is somewhere between skeptical to afraid of the idea that guns need to be/should be commonplace, and the larger gun-rights crowd in general.
I've met all of 3 people in my life that are openly gun owners and maybe 5 I would describe as being interested in shooting. I went with them once.. the whole thing left me feeling unsettled.
There are lots of places this wouldn't be the case in america, and others where people broadly share the views and feelings of those around me. It's absurd to put forward there's some set of cohesive america thoughts or feelings on guns of any sort.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
Thanks for clarifying that you have no idea what you're talking about and no actual knowledge of how US gun laws work. It's appreciated.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
It is mature. There is nothing mature about what you are doing. You are attacking another culture over issues you know nothing about. You are using talking points that you haven't even researched, by your own admission. You're demanding we have laws in place that we already have, demanding our President do things he has no legal power to do, and all in all refusing to listen to anything anyone else says.
There is only one person here acting immaturely, and that is you.
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
You expect me to reas through what, 50 pages of US laws before posting things in a wargaming form? I laugh at thee.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun. Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
What part of the US Gun Laws are dumb?
Clarify and maybe we can see where your going. If not then I m going to put you in the column with 44Ronin
You expect me to reas through what, 50 pages of US laws before posting things in a wargaming form? I laugh at thee.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun. Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
See, here you go again admitting you don't care to learn anything. So explain why we should continue to engage you on this topic?
Chongara wrote: It should be noted that "American Gun Culture" people are talking about here isn't so much "American Gun Culture" as it is "Some Parts of America Gun Culture". America is a big place and far from wholly homogeneous. I can confidently say almost everyone I've approached the subject with is somewhere between skeptical to afraid of the idea that guns need to be/should be commonplace, and the larger gun-rights crowd in general.
I've met all of 3 people in my life that are openly gun owners and maybe 5 I would describe as being interested in shooting. I went with them once.. the whole thing left me feeling unsettled.
There are lots of places this wouldn't be the case in america, and others where people broadly share the views and feelings of those around me. It's absurd to put forward there's some set of cohesive america thoughts or feelings on guns of any sort.
Absolutely this. Which is also part of the disconnect between a lot of American and European posters. The Europeans hear about a few Americans who concealed carry, and a few American Dakkaites post that they concealed carry, and all of a sudden some of the European Dakkaites start imagining the US as a wild west cartoon where everyone has a CCW and you have to have a CCW to be safe, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
We can conclude from this that enjoyment of shooting does not stem from body mass or sex.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
It is mature. There is nothing mature about what you are doing. You are attacking another culture over issues you know nothing about. You are using talking points that you haven't even researched, by your own admission. You're demanding we have laws in place that we already have, demanding our President do things he has no legal power to do, and all in all refusing to listen to anything anyone else says.
There is only one person here acting immaturely, and that is you.
I'm not demanding, I'm suggesting and asking. I felt a bit attacked when he said 'blow his steam', as if I'm some forever alone teenager (oh wait, I am). I'm just posting MY opinions on this subject.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Felons are already disqualified from legally purchasing firearms. You'd know this if you'd done even the most basic of Google searches.
Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
1. Because they're fun to shoot.
2. They're easier to shoot and overall more accurate than any handgun.
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
We can conclude from this that enjoyment of shooting does not stem from body mass or sex.
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
We can conclude from this that enjoyment of shooting does not stem from body mass or sex.
I've had a female who weighs a nickle less who would not be removed from the CROW B240. She even threaten me bodily harm if I attempted to replace her as my gunner. She was my De Facto Over Watch
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
We can conclude from this that enjoyment of shooting does not stem from body mass or sex.
I've had a female who weighs a nickle less who would not be removed from the CROW B240. She even threaten me bodily harm if I attempted to replace her as my gunner. She was my De Facto Over Watch
They made my 5' 110lb wife the SAW gunner. She hated it.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Felons are already disqualified from legally purchasing firearms. You'd know this if you'd done even the most basic of Google searches.
Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
1. Because they're fun to shoot.
2. They're easier to shoot and overall more accurate than any handgun.
When I took my 110lb sister in law for the first time, she almost immediately wanted to buy a pistol of her own and was sad our range time with the rifles ran out.
We can conclude from this that enjoyment of shooting does not stem from body mass or sex.
I agree.
I DO agree that big guns are fun to shoot, but why the need to sell them? Why not just have tonsof firing ranges instead?
I've had a female who weighs a nickle less who would not be removed from the CROW B240. She even threaten me bodily harm if I attempted to replace her as my gunner. She was my De Facto Over Watch
Kaye was a beast with my 226 (40S&W). After the first two magazines, she was hitting 2" groupings at 7 meters. I was pretty damn impressed.
You expect me to reas through what, 50 pages of US laws before posting things in a wargaming form? I laugh at thee.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun. Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
Is feeding homeless people is a crime in Sweden? That's pretty sad, if that's the case.
No one is expecting you to read 50 pages of US laws if you don't want to. But you have access to several American Dakkaites here who are knowledgeable on the subject and happy to discuss it. You could actually learn something here if you wanted to, rather than just share your admittedly uninformed opinions.
To answer your questions: There are a lot of crimes that make it so you can't buy a gun. Most are felonies, but also include misdemeanor domestic violence. Why sell assault rifles? True assault rifles (with full-auto or 3-round burst capabilities) are not widely available, require extensive licensing to purchase, and are prohibitively expensive. Very, very few Americans legally own an assault rifle, and most who do are collectors or gun dealers. What we do have are semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s or semi-automatic AK-47s, both of which are no more deadly than any other kind of semi-automatic rifle.
Boy dies in Sweden school shooting
girl
A traumatised pupil is comforted by friends after the shooting
January 18, 2001
Web posted at: 10:41 AM EST (1541 GMT)
STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- A teenage boy has been killed in a shooting at a secondary school in Stockholm.
The shooting happened at Bromma gymnasium in the west of the city on Thursday.
A suspect was arrested shortly afterwards near the school and was being questioned by Stockholm police. The school has around 900 pupils aged between 15 and 19.
The person who was shot was probably a student at the school, police spokesman Bjorn Pihlblad told CNN Sverige.
The boy was shot in the throat in a restroom at the school. His age has not been confirmed, but Sweden's TT news agency says he was 16 years old.
The suspect, reported by TT to be over 18 years old, is not a student at the school. Police have not ruled out the possibility that several people were involved in the shooting.
"We don´t know, but it is very likely that several persons could be involved", Superintendent Anders Buren told TT.
The Aftonbladet newspaper Web site says several students witnessed the shooting and were being questioned by police.
Students traumatised
Aftonbladet also says police followed the suspect in a "dramatic chase" after the shooting.
Students were said to be deeply upset by the shooting and a student attacked one of the press photographers who gathered around the building.
After that incident all media was banned from the school area. The school was cordoned off and all students were sent home.
No motive for the shooting has been reported. "We still have no answer to what was behind this", Stockholm police spokesman Ulf Goransson told Aftonbladet´s Web site.
CNN Sverige contributed to this report.
From the link Ouze(?) posted.
Shot in the throat. I've seen that type of wound afterward but never seen it happen when engaged. We joke around with the "neck guard" stopping a round but never seen it happen or heard of it happening. Though I have full confidence in my body armor and groin protector because I have seen those stop a round.
Edit
Even quite a few WWII weapons can be considered Assault Weapons
I've had a female who weighs a nickle less who would not be removed from the CROW B240. She even threaten me bodily harm if I attempted to replace her as my gunner. She was my De Facto Over Watch
Kaye was a beast with my 226 (40S&W). After the first two magazines, she was hitting 2" groupings at 7 meters. I was pretty damn impressed.
I DO agree that big guns are fun to shoot, but why the need to sell them? Why not just have tonsof firing ranges instead?
Agree based on what? All those guns you haven't fired?
Well, the biggest gun I've fired is my metal BB CO2-powered rifle... Although, seeing as it's awesome to shoot that one, it must be 1000 times more awesome to shoot an assault rifle.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
What part of the US Gun Laws are dumb?
Clarify and maybe we can see where your going. If not then I m going to put you in the column with 44Ronin
I don't know about him but my understanding is that some parts of the country person-to-person sales, or sales at gunshows are allowed to take place without effective background checks, waiting periods, reporting, or transaction limitations. What laws are in place in those cases tend to lack teeth, rely on self-reporting and/or are given little enforcement.
A Western Australian man who allegedly slammed a female police officer’s head into the ground has been granted conditional bail.
Police allege 53-year-old Victor Kingsley McGuire swore at police officers, and slammed one officer’s head on the ground approximately six times before punching her.
A crowd of 50 people then attacked the police van and pelted the officers with rocks.
Mr McGuire appeared in court today charged with being disorderly in a public place, assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer but was not required to enter a plea.
He was granted bail but is not allowed to go within 50m of the officer and is banned from licensed premises.
He is due to reappear in court on January 6.
Thats not something reserved solely for police: ambulance crews and firefighters get the same treatment. But we're civilized because guns are illegal and gun crime might be down. I feel so proud sometimes.
As red blooded as an American as you can find, I've only shot an Assault Rifle in my capacity as a member of the US Armed Forces.
I own an AR-10. (Here is some news for you, AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle). It is a semi-automatic rifle. That means one round per trigger pull. That does not make it an Assault Rifle.
You need special licenses to get to own an assault rifle.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
What part of the US Gun Laws are dumb?
Clarify and maybe we can see where your going. If not then I m going to put you in the column with 44Ronin
I don't know about him but my understanding is that some parts of the country person-to-person sales, or sales at gunshows are allowed to take place without effective background checks, waiting periods, reporting, or transaction limitations. What laws are in place in those cases tend to lack teeth, rely on self-reporting and/or are given little enforcement.
What he said. The fact that there are ways to buy guns via Facebook or over-the-counter makes me really mad. Especially when a fraction of those guns are used to kill innocent people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: As red blooded as an American as you can find, I've only shot an Assault Rifle in my capacity as a member of the US Armed Forces.
I own an AR-10. (Here is some news for you, AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle). It is a semi-automatic rifle. That means one round per trigger pull. That does not make it an Assault Rifle.
You need special licenses to get to own an assault rifle.
djones520 wrote: It's clear Matthew has no clue what he is talking about, no actual knowledge of how our laws work over here, and no wish to learn, so stop engaging him on it guys. Let him just blow his steam.
Oh, thats mature. I'm just pointing out my view of everything. From what I can see, US gun laws are dumb. As a Swede who has never touched a weapon, I find it hard to understand why people need a gun in their suitcase or purse or backpsck when shopping or driving a car or doing anything. I feel prefectly safe here without guns. I would not feel safe if everyone, incouding me, were carrying guns.
What part of the US Gun Laws are dumb?
Clarify and maybe we can see where your going. If not then I m going to put you in the column with 44Ronin
I don't know about him but my understanding is that some parts of the country person-to-person sales, or sales at gunshows are allowed to take place without effective background checks, waiting periods, reporting, or transaction limitations. What laws are in place in those cases tend to lack teeth, rely on self-reporting and/or are given little enforcement.
I can't really debate this being I have not brought a weapon at a Gun Show Yet even gone to one. Though I am tempted to go to one being I might actually get a WWII refurb M1 Garand to go with my Refurb WWII M1 carbine. Though the Airborne version of a M1 carbine does appeal to me.
You expect me to reas through what, 50 pages of US laws before posting things in a wargaming form? I laugh at thee.
And also, how about if you had a single crime (except for crimes like jaywalking and feeding homeless people) in your database (or whateveryou guys have), you wouldn't be able to buy a gun. Also, why sell assault rifles? What good would an AK-47 do compared to an M1911, if their tasks are to protect a family's house?
Is feeding homeless people is a crime in Sweden? That's pretty sad, if that's the case.
No one is expecting you to read 50 pages of US laws if you don't want to. But you have access to several American Dakkaites here who are knowledgeable on the subject and happy to discuss it. You could actually learn something here if you wanted to, rather than just share your admittedly uninformed opinions.
To answer your questions: There are a lot of crimes that make it so you can't buy a gun. Most are felonies, but also include misdemeanor domestic violence. Why sell assault rifles? True assault rifles (with full-auto or 3-round burst capabilities) are not widely available, require extensive licensing to purchase, and are prohibitively expensive. Very, very few Americans legally own an assault rifle, and most who do are collectors or gun dealers. What we do have are semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s or semi-automatic AK-47s, both of which are no more deadly than any other kind of semi-automatic rifle.
No, feeding homeless people close to residential areas is illegal in the US.
Also, thank you for understanding.
Matthew wrote: No, feeding homeless people close to residential areas is illegal in the US.
I don't know where you heard that, but that's not generally true. It might be true somewhere in the US, as laws can vary widely in certain states or cities, but I've been quite a few places in the US and don't know of a place where that is specifically illegal (or enforced). I've heard stories of certain groups getting shut down for serving large amounts of free food without some kind of license due to health code or something, which I find pretty silly to be honest, but I haven't heard anything about it being illegal to feed homeless people specifically.
A quick google search would reveal that laws like this do exist on a local level in many places, especially where tourists would be in close proximity to potential congregation areas for the homeless.
Though it's asburd hyperbole and more than little dishonest for him to claim that's the case "In the US".
What he said. The fact that there are ways to buy guns via Facebook or over-the-counter makes me really mad. Especially when a fraction of those guns are used to kill innocent people.
I've bought every one of my guns over a counter. I'm glad I can contribute to your anger. They were clean counters though, so hopefully that helps a little.
Is it locked in single fire? In that case, nice.
Quit listening to whatever CNN or MSNBC is telling you and do a basic Google search. You might learn something.
A quick google search would reveal that laws like this do exist on a local level in many places, especially where tourists would be in close proximity to potential congregation areas for the homeless.
Though it's asburd hyperbole and more than little dishonest for him to claim that's the case "In the US".
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
A quick google search would reveal that laws like this do exist on a local level in many places, especially where tourists would be in close proximity to potential congregation areas for the homeless.
Though it's asburd hyperbole and more than little dishonest for him to claim that's the case "In the US".
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
A quick google search would reveal that laws like this do exist on a local level in many places, especially where tourists would be in close proximity to potential congregation areas for the homeless.
Though it's asburd hyperbole and more than little dishonest for him to claim that's the case "In the US".
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
What he said. The fact that there are ways to buy guns via Facebook or over-the-counter makes me really mad. Especially when a fraction of those guns are used to kill innocent people.
I've bought every one of my guns over a counter. I'm glad I can contribute to your anger. They were clean counters though, so hopefully that helps a little.
Is it locked in single fire? In that case, nice.
Quit listening to whatever CNN or MSNBC is telling you and do a basic Google search. You might learn something.
What does asking about a guns firing mode have to do with crappy news corporations? I felt it kight be better to ask someone that could physically check the gun instead of googling.
A quick google search would reveal that laws like this do exist on a local level in many places, especially where tourists would be in close proximity to potential congregation areas for the homeless.
Though it's asburd hyperbole and more than little dishonest for him to claim that's the case "In the US".
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
Now you're just insulting me. I know how huge the US is, and how huge it's population is.
I facepalm at thee, together with this entire thread,
Now you're just insulting me. I know how huge the US is, and how huge it's population is.
I facepalm at thee, together with this entire thread,
Or he's simply telling the truth based on this thread's sample size of your commentary.
I promise, no one here is facepalming at djones.
So, me giving, sure, unresearched (why do I even need to research my own opinions?) opinions gives him full rights to insult me? Huh.
And also, if I use unresearched 'facts', why does it even matter? I started arguing against US gun laws, now people are insulting me.
You're admitting to being ignorant. You are admitting to arguing from a stance of ignorance. And yet you are being insulted when people assume you are ignorant?
o people actually take the second amendment seriously or is it just used as a joke?because if its not, using laws written in 1791 is.......kinda dumb?
I was just wondering, how many people own and wear body armor, like kevlar vests for example? I always found it interesting that a lot of Americans are apparently carrying a gun for protection - which is fine by me, so far! - but I rarely hear anything about people also investing in passive protection for a potential firefight. Wouldn't it be ...prudent? to also reduce personal injury in those cases where you aren't able to get the drop on a bad guy? 
