Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ifStatement wrote:Like I said I have better things to do.

Apparently, you don't.

ifStatement wrote:What conclusions would you draw?

None, particularly if I had only been around the board in question for 3-4 months while at least one of the people I was attempting to lampoon had been here for 4 years.

Plus: However long under prior iterations of Dakka.

Oh seriously, I do. When you were asking me to crusade against you I thought you meant like almost everyday. I'm afraid I can't come on here and argue that often.

But I can spare a few minutes here and there this morning for you. Don't you worry yourself about that.

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:What conclusions would you draw?

None.

Well that's where you and me differ old boy.

ifStatement wrote:Oh seriously, I do. When you were asking me to crusade against you I thought you meant like almost everyday. I'm afraid I can't come on here and argue that often.

But I can spare a few minutes here and there this morning for you. Don't you worry yourself about that.

I never asked you to crusade against me, I wondered as to whether or not you were engaged in a crusade, given that you seem so intent upon targeting myself and sebster.

But, if you can "spare" a moment, might not we have the same ability?

Or are you just pretending?

I'm sure you'll get to see just how much time I spend on here if that concerns you so much. Like I said, I don't intend on making a habit of this. I don't find fulfilment in arguing with people I don't know.

Gents, can you either take it to PM or start a new thread where you can bicker in peace instead of de-railing this thread further.

filbert wrote:Gents, can you either take it to PM or start a new thread where you can bicker in peace instead of de-railing this thread further.

Indeed.

Thanks

Fo Shaw.

I'll see if we can get back on track with my twopenneth.

I have no objection to people owning guns so long as they have a damn good demonstrable reason for owning one.

The fact that someone else might have a gun and I might need to defend myself against them; is NOT a good reason; it is a good reason for not allowing the other person to have a gun in the first place.

Guns are power tools; they aren't things you just stick in your pocket on the off chance you might need it. They are things you take out to serve a specific purpose.
Hand guns and fully automatic weapons have only one purpose and that is an illegal and imoral purpose.

The comparison that the OP makes is fatuous as a car is a tool for another job.

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

When the EU collapses you may want to change your tune. WWMMD!*


*What would Mad Max do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

Anecdotal evidence supporting this: When I was studying in Japan, some of the Japanese students asked some of the American students (I was not part of this discussion) if they had ever been in a gunfight, as if this were an everyday occurrence for most Americans.

In these circumstances, its best just to say "of course!" and point to some minor scar. Tell them you got it in 'Nam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

There's no doubt about it, for most men and probably quite a few women, walking around with a gun in your hand feels great / cool. I'd love to run a range tooled up blasting away, however I don't feel that letting people have access to such weapons is a good idea.

If you are a hunter fine, you can have a hunting rifle. If you are a sportsman, fine, but they are locked up at a secure location. The types of weapons and amounts of weapons that an American can have access to is just wrong.

The whole defending yourselves against criminals is just one big vicious circle. Defending yourself against your own government is just paranoia. When your Constitution was written, I can't imagine that the founding fathers could ever envisage the changes to society that were to come. They were people of their time and could not of foreseen how much society would of changed. In their time invasion was a big possibility still and you still had a wild frontier. In someways your Constitution reminds me of the Koran. The content of it is treated as being set in stone, which is how you treat the Constitution.

If you were able to take away all guns from every criminal, what reason would be left, that it's written in the Constitution?

sebster wrote:Yes, I do call it that. Because it is a legal product, and it has a decent purpose. You can't argue this, because it simply is legal, and it simply is used daily by millions of people, who enjoy it's benefits.

Somehow, this statement seems to seethe with wrongness, but at seven in the morning I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it.

But if I had to guess, my objections are as follows:

1: It being legal does not make it morally upstanding.
2: It being popular does not make it have a "decent purpose".

Wolfstan wrote:There's no doubt about it, for most men and probably quite a few women, walking around with a gun in your hand feels great / cool.

It feels dangerous to me, because I have a respect for the weapon. Someone who says it feels "cool" doesn't really respect the weapon enough...

Wolfstan wrote:The whole defending yourselves against criminals is just one big vicious circle.

No it isn't.

Sonophos wrote:I have no objection to people owning guns so long as they have a damn good demonstrable reason for owning one.

Self defense is the only reason anyone needs so long as they are proven to be both mentally stable and a non-criminal.

Even if the criminal doesn't have a gun, I still want one to fend them off with. Peace through superior firepower and all that. Guns allow me to stand up to a six foot something two hundred something pound criminal, shoot him three times in the chest, then bravely... run the hell away knowing that he's probably down for the count as I try to find somewhere to hide while I call the cops. Regardless of what weapon he has.

If I didn't have the equalizer of a firearm, I'd just be another victim instead. I don't want to risk that. The best way to avoid such a situation is to pay attention, and I do, but you can't ever be perfectly safe so it's still good to be prepared just in case.

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.
This is something people don't seem to have considered; violent crime is actually more prevalent compared to petty crime in America compared to over here, and so guns may be considered more acceptable to own because of it.
I don't think it's a good idea to judge the laws of another country by the conditions we have here, as they may not apply over there.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Kitchen knife.

They have a greater reach, a hundred pounds of muscle, and a lifetime of knifefighting on the streets over you. The kitchen knife does not equalize.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.

How do you know? We've had recent stuides that were surprising to say the least.

People will turn to anything in times of desperation. There are numerous cases where police go knocking on someones door on a warrant. The stubborn resident fires a few rounds and a siege situation happens. Same goes for repo men, bounty hunters and anyone that has to deal with people on the street or in there homes.

Now on another point most of these crimes are illegally owned firearms so as far as the majority who abide by the law, I have no problem. The availability of firearms is however a problem.

A citizen should be allowed a firearm, but it should only be the lowest caliber and lowest firing rate. Something that does the least damage and still makes a nice bang to scare off your opponent. Even waving the thing at them would deter them.

I know before in this thread I said NOONE should own these things but at a bare minimum the firearm should be stored in a secure location with at least a lock,keypad or completely unaccessible to anyone else. Don't just hide the damn thing under your bed. Before you even gain this firearm you would have to pass a criminal/police background test, a phsycological test and a strict inspection of the weapon itself and where it is going to be stored. Then the person should be properly schooled on the safety, laws and regulations by a professional.

If you have special circumstances such as you are in the witness protection program or your job requires it you may also be eligable for a concealed weapon permit or to carry it in specific places utilising proper transportable storage. Even then if you need a specific weapon for a job it should be signed out for and brought back to a clerk or a police station who can keep tabs on them.

That is my 2 cents anyway.

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Kitchen knife.

They have a greater reach, a hundred pounds of muscle, and a lifetime of knifefighting on the streets over you. The kitchen knife does not equalize.

Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.

How do you know? We've had recent stuides that were surprising to say the least.

As I understood it, that was the rationale for guns as protection in the US.
Do you have a link to said studies? They sound like interesting reading.

It feels dangerous to me, because I have a respect for the weapon. Someone who says it feels "cool" doesn't really respect the weapon enough...

Sorry, generalizing. Just trying to make the point that there is "something" about handling weapons. Call it a buzz, excitement, wow, sense of power... whatever you want to call it. I can understand why there is a fascination in weapons.

Private_Joker So you suggest the only guns civvies should be allowed to have are .17 caliber?

That kinda defeats the purpose. The gun needs to quickly disable an opponent, not just scare them-- the round is meant to take down small animals like wildcats or small fur creatures (IE for skinning and making their fur in to clothing) causing minimal damage to the creature and the fur so the fur can be sold at the highest price possible, not for disabling a human. Furthermore guns of such small caliber are hard to maintain, and foul up quickly leading to wild inaccuracy-- they have to be cleaned every ten shots basically. That's definitely not ideal and in fact is highly impractical for a self defense weapon for people who are not members of the military.

Even a .38 purse gun revolver is better than that. A full handgun would be even better-- the famous old standby of the M1911A1 for example is easy to maintain, easy to use, easy to get parts for if it's broken, has decent stopping power, is louder and so on, making it far better for a self defense weapon than the measely pistols taht use the .17 caliber "wildcatter" round.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

Eh, yes and no. I'd say there was little need for guns in the UK, personally, but I can see why you'd want one. Ultimately, they're kind of a subjective and heated issue, I guess.
As I recall, the reason handguns are no longer allowed in UK law is because they're easily concealable. Other weapons, such as shotguns and some rifles, are allowed under very strict circumstances,
and I think they only tend to be owned by landowners and people rich enough for the license.
Frankly, given the strictness of UK gun laws, I often laugh at people who think they should be even tighter over here.

Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

Same goes for Australia on anal law restrictions.

@ Melissa .As to the calibre of the weapon that can be decided at a later date. Even modern 5.56mm rounds in the defence force is not going to stop your target. The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

A comment that made me chuckle so much it made the sig, as an example of proper orkish thinking at it's best.
Brilliant.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Not trying to be dark or cryptic. Just can't pull at work. Recent rape studies/statistics are coming up showing far higher rates than originally thought.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Then you have problems with overpenetration. Same reason the police use smaller rounds, your ultimate goal should be to not kill. This is why tazer technology is also more advised.

Private_Joker wrote:Then you have problems with overpenetration.

False. A bigger round does not necessarily mean a better penetrating round.

A .357 magnum revolver, for example, has bigger ammunition than an M16, but the M16 has more problems with overpenetrating.

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Not trying to be dark or cryptic. Just can't pull at work. Recent rape studies/statistics are coming up showing far higher rates than originally thought.

Don't worry about it, I didn't think you were trying to be either.
And they're probably even higher than that, considering how many cases don't get reported, too.