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.

reds8n wrote:Thank you, most enlightning.

So after the initial outlay for the weapon itself it doesn't seem too expensive as a hobby really.

Feel free to tell me to butt out here, but how do you store your guns ? Obviosly don't reveal anything here you'd rather not !

I remember seeing something years back when (I think) the Desert Eagle first came out, and they showed it shotting through something stupid like 50 phone directories. Very useful I thought if I'm ever attacked by a very slow moving conga line of phone books. From memory/Dirty Harry films the Magnum had been the "most powerful handgun in the world" at the time. Would I be correct in thinking that this is kind of a status thing/pissing contest between the manufacturers then ? Akin to producing the Worlds fastest car/smallest microchip/beefiest burger etc etc.

You mention gold plating, I take there is the usual plethora of "tasteful" adornments one can purchase for ones weapon ? I assume this would generally be something done by the less "serious" sortsman in this regard.

Oh, , do you name your guns ? Or is that just another popular myth ?

I considered naming my .44 Brunhilde, but then I thought that would be a little creepy .

I store my firearms boxed in a closet. I don't have any children nor do I regularly recieve guests who have them. I don't keep a loaded handgun on me though I have no problem with doing so, I just don't feel the need to do so. I have considered getting a permit but have never gotten around to getting it. Incidentally, most of the people I know who "tote a Roscoe" are doing it sans permit. I'm not advocating that, I'm just mentioning it as a fact.

I know my mother was pretty much around loaded firearms constantly as a child, same with her siblings, and they never had any problems. I however, believe I would invest in a gun safe or at least a locking cabinet if I had children, I'm just too paranoid not too.

The manufacturers just make what people will buy, like any manufacturer. I'd say the pissing contest was amongst your hand cannon fanatics and cartridge wildcatters. The .44 Mag probably was the most powerful handgun cartridge in the world at one time. Again, "most powerful" really only has any meaning when limiting your definition of "powerful" to muzzle energy and only considering cartridges designed for handguns. A few companies make specialized ( typically single shot ) handguns that chamber rifle rounds like the .308 and .270, for hunting, metallic silhouette, etc. I'd say by the definition mentioned the current most powerful is the .50 S&W mag, although there is a .460 Smith that has a flatter trajectory and plenty of energy. But I guess in every industry there is always someone who wants to make the next bigger sexier thing, and someone will buy it. So yes.

For what it is worth, I will admit the DEagle is cool. It is one of the few gas-operated automatic pistols out there, or at least that is what I understand. I hear the recoil with the .50 AE is not nearly as bad as you expect, if for no other reason the weight of the gun.

reds8n wrote:thank you.

You mean one of these yes ? Seems strange to think that the same basic weapon has been used for so long. I guess if it aint broke etc etc.

I've heard similar stories about the Ak eapons, but I am surprised at what you say about the M16 family. I know a few serving soldiers and they pretty much all say they'd prefer to use what the septics are armed with. Of course that might be more of a comment on what the Brits are armed with ...

Also remember the military is conservative by nature. You have to be, I guess, when you're talking about the lives of men.

What are the Brits armed with anyway, the FN FAL?

I did wonder about the whole storage thing. For what it's worth for your personal situation that seems more than adequate. I would also go for some form of lockable storage if the younglings were involved.

I'm no expert--- that shocked you I'm sure -- but the Brits are mainly armed with the SA80.

All the guys I know hate it and say it is a liability. It's old but you'll get the gist of the problems here.

Some of the issues have since been "fixed".... apparently, but my friends still complain about it not working correctly in sandy and/or hot areas. Which given current (and likely) deployments is, as I'm sure you can see, a bit bit of a rum do, as we might say.

My friends tell me the ... err.... small flaw mentioned in the article-- the bit about it going off when dropped !! -- still occurs, and basically they say you almost have to clean the bastard after every magazine/burst of fire.

All of my friends say they'd much rather be armed with the American weapons and gear.

With the exception of your soldiers underwear strangely enough, but there's certain military aspects I'm more than happy to leava as a mystery.

reds8n wrote: I did wonder about the whole storage thing. For what it's worth for your personal situation that seems more than adequate. I would also go for some form of lockable storage if the younglings were involved.

I'm no expert--- that shocked you I'm sure -- but the Brits are mainly armed with the SA80.

All the guys I know hate it and say it is a liability. It's old but you'll get the gist of the problems here.

Some of the issues have since been "fixed".... apparently, but my friends still complain about it not working correctly in sandy and/or hot areas. Which given current (and likely) deployments is, as I'm sure you can see, a bit bit of a rum do, as we might say.

My friends tell me the ... err.... small flaw mentioned in the article-- the bit about it going off when dropped !! -- still occurs, and basically they say you almost have to clean the bastard after every magazine/burst of fire.

All of my friends say they'd much rather be armed with the American weapons and gear.

With the exception of your soldiers underwear strangely enough, but there's certain military aspects I'm more than happy to leava as a mystery.

It looks cool, I'll give you that. I still think Steyr has some neat guns.

ChaosDave wrote:
The reason that the American constitution has a the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) is because the framers weren't stupid. They understood that even with the best of intentions Government can get out of control and end up as a Tyranny. History shows time and time again where a tyrant has taken control of a republic or democracy and by ensuring the people have the right to bear arms it helps ensure that the people can overthrow a tyrant if needed.

If the government has become a tyranny, then what exactly do you think a little piece of paper is going to do?

the AK-47 family of weapons, while not as accurate are generally "better" than the M-16. There are numerous stories told to me by vietnam vets about how they capture/killed some vietcong and confiscated weapons that were crammed full of mud and whatnot, that still fired perfectly. it can fire even if its all rusted up... basically, so long as the breech is clear, it will fire the round. the biggest complaint by most is the weight of the ammo, as it uses the 7.62mm round.

They jam more often (but oddly, not that much in actual combat), but are easier to maintain and transport as the weight of the gun itself is roughly half that of an Ak model (typically) and the ammunition is considerably lighter. It is also more accurate, easier to fire in useful bursts, and is vastly superior in urban conflict zones where the added penetration of the 7.62 round is a liability.

A lighter more accurate gun firing lighter ammunition. This means less ammunition is expended wastefully and less effort is used in carrying similar amounts of ammo. It means that the firer can fire more accurately longer in combat, and it's one of the reasons why since its adoption it has such a disproportionate kill ratio against AK wielding combatants. All the AK is good for is insurrections and poorly equipped militaries. It's cheap, it's great at killing civilians (7.62 passes through car doors but nothing armored), it's fantastically easy to fix, and it doesn't require much service. For the US military the M16 is the superior weapon due to the more easily available repair, and the care with which the guns are treated. The AKs only advantage in a first class military is it's penetration vs body armor, but even that is kind of a stretch given modern CQB tactics (wherein any carbine is vastly superior anyway).



Anyway, this is a my dad can beat up your dad fight. Neither gun is the best infantry rifle in the world. Both are just overly prevalent, and the US is too full of idiots to spend the money on anything better (also the M models are awesome at shooting dudes in shirts which is all we really fight any more).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it was a measure to ensure the formation of state civilian militias. The expansive federal government came into existence after the formation of the constitution, the right to bear arms was more in line with ensuring the nation had the ability to call upon its people to defend itself. Remember, it was primarily self organized state militias in the early days of the revolutionary war. The right to overthrow the government and the right to bear arms are neat in concert, but it's not really a functioning combo. The military could easily quell any armed insurrection civilians could attempt. Glocks and shotguns aren't going to do much to tanks and jets. Overthrowing the current day national government of the US isn't something the forefathers planned for. We have what is essentially an entirely different structure of national governance now, and the forefathers views in this regard are no longer really realistic.

First it wasn't just about the country being able to defend itself. Congress created the Continental Army just after the outbreak of the war, which was the first professional army and not a civilian militia. Clearly they knew that there could and would be a federal force for defending the country and not just civilian militias. Secondly they knew how government can become tyrannical, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to have so many checks and balances and restrictions placed upon it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The right to revolution is an excellent way of protecting protest demonstrations and keeping disobediance alive though. These days it really functions more as an inspirational note than an actual right (when was the last time a violent revolutionary was considered to just be properly excersizing his rights?).

I don't know, when was the last time we had a tyrannical government in the US? When that happens I fully expect Americans to exercise that right.

I don't know, when was the last time we had a tyrannical government in the US?

I dunno, ask one of the slaves.

Congress created the Continental Army just after the outbreak of the war, which was the first professional army and not a civilian militia. Clearly they knew that there could and would be a federal force for defending the country and not just civilian militias.

What they likely didn't see was the new method of warfare that would occur long after their deaths. Do you honestly think that an armed civilian militia could possibly hope to put a dent in the institution of american government? Back when the only difference between a militia and a military was training it was quite conceivable, militias would have the vast numeric superiority that could easily overcome better trained military loyalists. Except thats not true any more, militias don't have armor, air, anti armor weaponry, industrial support, or the logistics to maintain any sort of fighting force. In the face of the US military civilian armed revolt would be stamped out almost immediately. Especially if they threw off the kid gloves. The best a US insurgency could hope for is a protracted and bloody conflict that wears down the governments will to fight on.

It's what you see in dozens of countries including Iraq around the world. Not to mention the fracturous nature of internal conflict, it's very doubtful any sort of unified resistance could be created. This isn't a neat book, in real life that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the military then you lose, and if you have the military then you win. Either way they would be bringing the guns (better ones then the crap scrounged off ebay).

Right to bear arms doesn't do a whole lot when it comes to bringing down the government anymore. No matter how awesome you think your modified ar15 is some guy with a 70 million dollar attack helicopter is going to shoot you.

ShumaGorath wrote:
What they likely didn't see was the new method of warfare that would occur long after their deaths. Do you honestly think that an armed civilian militia could possibly hope to put a dent in the institution of american government? Back when the only difference between a militia and a military was training it was quite conceivable, militias would have the vast numeric superiority that could easily overcome better trained military loyalists. Except thats not true any more, militias don't have armor, air, anti armor weaponry, industrial support, or the logistics to maintain any sort of fighting force. In the face of the US military civilian armed revolt would be stamped out almost immediately. Especially if they threw off the kid gloves. The best a US insurgency could hope for is a protracted and bloody conflict that wears down the governments will to fight on.

You assume that the military wouldn't split or fracture with the factions. There is actually precedence that it would split given an internal US conflict. In such a situation insurgents would actually play a significant role.

It's what you see in dozens of countries including Iraq around the world. Not to mention the fracturous nature of internal conflict, it's very doubtful any sort of unified resistance could be created. This isn't a neat book, in real life that just doesn't happen. If you don't have the military then you lose, and if you have the military then you win. Either way they would be bringing the guns (better ones then the crap scrounged off ebay).

Well according to many of your liberal brethren Iraq was a failure. Our military had some difficulty with insurgents, how much trouble would something 10 times the size be for it the US is actually more than 10 times the population, not to mention area of Iraq. I suspect it would be a hell of a lot more difficult than Iraqi insurgents ever even dreamed of.

Right to bear arms doesn't do a whole lot when it comes to bringing down the government anymore. No matter how awesome you think your modified ar15 is some guy with a 70 million dollar attack helicopter is going to shoot you.

Again you assume a stead fast loyalty of the military, something I don't think you would get with a Tyrannical government in the US. Also 70 million dollar attack helicopters get shot down all the time with 100 dollar RPGs or LAWs or even stingers. Just ask the Russians about insurgents when they ran away from Afghanistan.

So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

Ya know that forgotten ammendment. Better known as the 3rd. There's a reason it immediately follows the second ammendment.

Hmmm, a military of about a million and not all are combat oriented verses how many gun owners. Reminds me of South Africa or Little Big Horn

Well according to many of your liberal brethren

So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

...


Are you that robot at the end of fallout 3?

ChaosDave wrote:
...with 100 dollar RPGs or LAWs or even stingers.

That is a ridiculously backwards progression.

ChaosDave wrote:
Just ask the Russians about insurgents when they ran away from Afghanistan.

The fact that the Afghanis were backed directly by the US government doesn't interest you?

ChaosDave wrote:
So unless you can get 2/3s of the states to ratify you removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution we will always have the right to bear arms in this country, no matter how "antiquated" you think it is or how much you try and trample on that right.

I don't think that was the point. Rather, I think the point was that, even if we have the right to bear arms, it doesn't matter in the context of anything that deals with reality in respect to the possibility of revolt.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I kind of look at the murder rate statistics like this:

World average = 7.6 (2004)

Americas = 16.2 (2004)

North America = 6.6 (wow, we're doing well, and we still have Mexico... which was 11+ in 2004, now 25+ due to unrestricted drug war / drug-fueled civil war)

USA = 5.6 (+/- 0.1 measurement / reporting error)

After this, there are basically no comparable populations in the remainder of the list.

That's about the most deliberately wrong headed silliness I've seen on the internet. To limit comparisons to region and ignore similar economic and social areas... well.

To get a valid comparison with Australia with it's population of a mere 20 MILLION, one might compare with, say, Southern California alone (California is 38 million total). Or for an easier comparison, one can either use the state of Texas or New York. Let's use New York, as the total population and geographic isolation are somewhat more comparable (i.e. they don't have huge influx of illegals walking in - illegals need to boat or fly in).

The murder rates are per capita. While population density has some effect, size of population is entirely irrelevant. You know this, or at least you should. Please stop this silliness, John.

There's nothing like economic collapse in an urban environment to drive murder rates sky-high.

Imagine that!

Why are you pretending you're the first to bring up economic factors in affecting the murder rate? Have you been reading this thread. Do you even understand the conversation that going on here?

focusedfire wrote:Its not a bias to look at 2 non scientific statistics and say they shouldn't be used as empirical evidence. It really bothers me how accumalated data automatically passes for science without the study to properly support such. This isn't personal bias. Its whats happening.
It starts with certain things are required to be reported. Someone then takes those numbers and runs a ratio analysis. Suddenly we have a "study" saying one thing or the other. Yet, none of the rules of scientific reaserch were followed. There was no central oversite. No attempt to standardize the form of report. No attempt to understand cultural differences in what is considered murder. No standardization of investigative techniques (may be some basic level but not enough to be considered scientifically valid). With out a consistent paradigm for the study and without any actual studying there is no science.

Are you suggesting the US doesn't have more murders per capita than other developed nations? The stats can produce variations but the conclusion is the same every time, the US has more murders per capita than other developed nations. From there, it's seems important to me to figure out why. Seems a lot more important than playing around with the numbers to produce small variations and try to deny the fairly obvious major point.

That would require for me to accept the statistics as scientifically valid studies which I just went over. All these statistics prove is that, yes, murder does happen and that there "appears" to be variation.

Of course there's variation, and yes it's significant.

Oh, nice one. Pull out the World trade Centers, cry 9/11, and the world,especially americans, will jump to your cause. Btw, its more like 3 time the WTC death toll. Nice subtle use of an emotional issue in support of your side of the debate.

It's a measure of scale. People can see numbers in the thousand, and trick themselves into thinking that that's no big in a country of 300 million. It helps to bring it into scale by comparing it to something like 9/11. Probably was a little politically loaded, so I apologise for that. Don't know what else gives the same scale though.

Having said that, yes, murder is horrific. So are killer tsunamis, 8.+earthquakes, catagory 5 hurricanes, and the worst natural disaster of them all humanity. On purely philosophical levels I wonder, "How long we will cling to the idea of the sancitity of life?". I hold that our most reveered morals are purely situational at best. How valuable is human life in a world of 6 billion of mostly well fed people? Then, how valuable is that life in a world of 12 billion starving individuals? Yes, the act of murder is still horrific. But the rates can be viewed as acceptable when on a larger historical perspective. I admit to concern about man having circumvented the natural process of maintaining a balanced population. That we will grow unchecked until the morals we hold dear will have to be sacrificed on the alter of necessity.

Human life is valuable because that's all each of us. You can make hypothetical arguments all day long, until its you or your sister or whoever's life at stake. Then the importance of human life becomes very clear. From there you just make intuitive leap that everyone murdered had a life they valued as much as you value your own, a family like your own, and the tragedy becomes clear.

Looking forward and at the world that surrounds us makes it hard for me to accept the irrevocable sanctity of human life. When, even, our government has such a casual attitude toward the issue itself. Used to be better a guilty man goes free before we kill an innocent. Whether that was ever fully practiced I don't know but its what we were taught. Now that thought process has change to so if an innocent dies to keep the rest of us safe.
My stance on this issue stems from the words of Benjamin Franklin,"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." To me this means that in a free society, we accept that there will always be threats on some level and it a part of the price for living within this system.

I think you've assumed I'm arguing for gun control. I'm not. I'm arguing for a real look at the causes of violent crime, and saying guns aren't it.

There's a problem with this solution. It requires a system of continual expansion. That is neither realistic or sustainable. I'm looking for a more natural solution. Something that balances with mankind no matter what his conditions. Problem is that that solution will probably be viewed as unacceptable because it allows for the fact that a free society will inevitably have a few idiots or sick individuals that will perpetrate these crimes.

No, I'm not. I'm looking to make improvement as each improvement is possible. There will always be killings, but each killing stopped is a person saved.

@both sebster and ghetto- Responsibility to not get murdered is to not do stupid things. Interviews with incarcerated offenders show there is usually a targeting process. The more complacent people become, the safer everyone feels, the less aware of their surroundings they become, are the things these criminals are looking for. Then there is just stupid life decisions to consider(choosing to join a criminal organization). Don't wave large sums of money in an impoverished area unless you want to be robbed. Don't be a part of a violent gang unless you're willing to be shot. Don't automatically assume that everywhere you go is safe, its what criminals are looking for. Don't always put your safety in someone else hands, they probably don't care as much about your life as you do. I've got enough to do watching out for my own life, family, and friends. Don't make me responsible for watching out for you also. Its down right inconsiderate.

I'm not arguing people get to be irresponsible. I'm not sure where you got that from. I am saying there are factors beyond the victim and the murderer. This seems almost a truism. Yet the obvious conclusion, 'do stuff about those factors' seems very contraversial.

If you paid attention, I was narrowing scope to see how the US was doing within our corner of the world: Americas -> N.Am -> US. The numbers show that the US is outperforming most of the rest of the Americas. So, for our size and diversity, the US is a pretty good place.

The notion that per-capita numbers have any meaning when not looking at the total population size is pretty foolish. You simply cannot rationally or fairly compare a small country like Oz with a vastly larger country like the USA, because the fundamental drivers scale differently. It'd be like me comparing Oz with Hong Kong (pop. ~7M; <1 murder per 10k people) and then wondering why Oz is such a horrible, crime-filled place of filthy gwailo/abo scum descended from the worst brigs and prisons of the British Empire... :S

The smaller the population, the easier it is to get a particuarlly good (or bad) "average" result, as the larger the population, the more likely it reverts toward the mean. That is why Oz will necessarily be worse than HK.

@ Sebster, will reply later. Dakka update just ate my carefully crafted reply and sweety is telling me its time to sleep.

@Reds8n, yes the wiki link you provided is my sweet beauty

i love her, and she takes care of me in return.


@most everyone bickering about numbers and scales, and proportions, per capita and all that good stuff... please keep in mind where the numbers come from, as many groups will skew numbers to show a result in favor of their cause. eg. a group who wants privately owned guns banned in the US, will show only evidence that supports their desire to ban firearms.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you paid attention, I was narrowing scope to see how the US was doing within our corner of the world: Americas -> N.Am -> US. The numbers show that the US is outperforming most of the rest of the Americas. So, for our size and diversity, the US is a pretty good place.

The US is a wonderful place, I want to go there in the near future. But it kills a lot more people than other developed countries.

The notion that per-capita numbers have any meaning when not looking at the total population size is pretty foolish. You simply cannot rationally or fairly compare a small country like Oz with a vastly larger country like the USA, because the fundamental drivers scale differently. It'd be like me comparing Oz with Hong Kong (pop. ~7M; <1 murder per 10k people) and then wondering why Oz is such a horrible, crime-filled place of filthy gwailo/abo scum descended from the worst brigs and prisons of the British Empire... :S

No, they don't. The fundamental drivers related to size are things both our countries have, such as large cities, are things both countries. And yes, and if I'd picked a single country as an outlier that would be different. I didn't. Australia is not an outlier, its about par with other Western nations.

Meanwhile, as the product of some truly obtuse thinking that that the primary factor to be considered was region. This led you to compare the US with a country famous for grossly corrupt law enforecement, low GDP per capita, poor income distribution, and chronic drug gang problems. Not surprisingly US murder rates looked quite good compared to Mexico.

The smaller the population, the easier it is to get a particuarlly good (or bad) "average" result, as the larger the population, the more likely it reverts toward the mean. That is why Oz will necessarily be worse than HK.

You haven't been reading the thread? I knew it. I had already made this comment;
"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

These are developed countries, that the US can be reasonably compared to. I've now listed eight developed countries, and only one of them isn't doubled by the US. Six are trebled by the US rate.

The US has a much higher murder rate than other developed countries. This is a thing that can't be argued.

"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

Australia: 21,468,700
France: 65,073,482
Japan: 127,433,494

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

Germany: 82,060,000
Poland: 38,116,000
Spain: 46,157,822
Canada: 33,525,000

United States: United States: 306,165,000 (woohoo, number three and climbing!)

If we are going to talk numbers we should also look at the overall population differences as well.

K, due to my awful english, i hope what i want to say didnt come out wrong lol.

IMO, gun usage increases exponentially . The more normal citzen , police has, the more the criminals will have.

They'll always out gun us, so the question is , do you perfer 1 mil criminals with weapon or 100,000 of them with weapon.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster, will reply later. Dakka update just ate my carefully crafted reply and sweety is telling me its time to sleep.

My sympathies. I hate it when that happens.

Ahtman wrote:

"Anyhoo, its got Australia at a rate of 1.28, the UK at 2.03, France at 1.64, Japan at 1.1, and the US at 5.7. Basically the US is a lot more murderous than any other developed country."

Australia: 21,468,700
France: 65,073,482
Japan: 127,433,494

I can pick out others if you want... Germany is at 0.98. Poland is at 1.64. Spain is at 3.35 (which is quite a big number, and still a long way below the US). Canada is at 1.85.

Germany: 82,060,000
Poland: 38,116,000
Spain: 46,157,822
Canada: 33,525,000

United States: United States: 306,165,000 (woohoo, number three and climbing!)

If we are going to talk numbers we should also look at the overall population differences as well.

The figures given were per capita. There is no relationship between population and murder rates once you're accounting at a per capita level. Otherwise Germany and Japan, the two highest would also have high murder rates... except they're the two lowest.

It just isn't a thing that can be debated. Is anyone here actually trying to say the US doesn't have a higher murder rate than other developed nations?

I never said your figures weren't per capita. I never said they were invalid or useless. I never said that the figures invalidated your argument. I never argued one way or the other. I just said that they may help in the overall discussion.

LunaHound wrote:K, due to my awful english, i hope what i want to say didnt come out wrong lol.

IMO, gun usage increases exponentially . The more normal citzen , police has, the more the criminals will have.

They'll always out gun us, so the question is , do you perfer 1 mil criminals with weapon or 100,000 of them with weapon.

the thing with most US gun laws, is that they're designed to allow law abiding citizens access to firearms. the problem is, most criminals get their firearms through illegal means ie, they stole them from another citizen.

no matter how many laws you pass to control firearms, there are those who will go around those laws and acquire them anyhow. it is my firm belief that gun control laws, at least in the US, should only be so far as to govern the licensing of them. most times, if you wish to buy a gun, there is a cursory background check done on you... so if you have a long history of mental illness, or violent crimes on your record, you probably arent going to get one through conventional means...whereas if you straight up ban firearms, you will effectively remove a large barrier that prevents many would-be robbers from breaking into a home.

You see I don't have a problem with people owning guns as such. I can especially understand it if you hunt or need one for your job. And at the end of the day what.. 98 ? 99 % of people who own them don't cause problems and it seems churlish to me to deprive people-- innocent people-- from something that they enjoy if they don't directly harm others. I can see how simple target shooting can appeal to people, or even like Mr. Grignard mentioned you just might enjoy the engineering or the technical aspects. That don't float my boat, but neither do lots of things.

And I think it's worth just pointing out there is gun control n the USA already-- licenses etc etc-- it's really just a question of the amount you have or should have really rather than a strict case of yes or no.

What I do find odd is the lack-- AFAIK, feel free to correct me here-- of any actual proficiency or testing that is required before you can buy and use a gun. Cars are often used as an example of something else that can be used to kill people-- somewhat disingenuously as that's not their primary function. And it's obvious that you have to have a basic level of skill and proficiency before you let people drive around as they are a danger not only to themselves but others. It just seems batshiot crazy that you don't have something similar for firearms, where the risk is almost entirely for other people.

I appreciate the argument is skewed as it is mentioned in the Constitution-- exactly how and to what level, the RAW and RAI is best left I think. We've gone over it several times and let's be honest, much better minds than us have to equally stalemated positions. But if it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution do people think that they would still be legal ?

Just to clarify or head off the most obvious "counters". Yes, I know that if guns were banned next week/whenever law abiding citizens would, criminals wouldn't.. blood on the streets... yadda yadda... too many to enforce etc etc.

Most people I've discussed this with-- and I'd say most people here-- seem to accept that some form of gun control ( even if it is the level you have already) is needed and works, I always just find it curious exactly how partisan the divide seems to be. But I've noticed from your last few elections and laws etc the country as a whole often really seems as if it is almost two entirely opposed factions with almost no middle or common ground at all. Is this right or is that a distorted perception skewed by internet and media coverage ?

Ahtman wrote:I never said your figures weren't per capita. I never said they were invalid or useless. I never said that the figures invalidated your argument. I never argued one way or the other. I just said that they may help in the overall discussion.

Fair enough, I probably jumped the gun. It's just... have you ever said something fairly straightforward and then sat there for a day while people misinterpret it or come up with some really silly arguments?

reds8n wrote:Most people I've discussed this with-- and I'd say most people here-- seem to accept that some form of gun control ( even if it is the level you have already) is needed and works, I always just find it curious exactly how partisan the divide seems to be. But I've noticed from your last few elections and laws etc the country as a whole often really seems as if it is almost two entirely opposed factions with almost no middle or common ground at all. Is this right or is that a distorted perception skewed by internet and media coverage ?

Yeah, this is kind of what I've been trying to get at. There's folk that believe that guns are just penis substitutes that turn folk into murderers. There's folk that believe guns are the absolute and only defence against the horde of psychopaths waiting to break in and the best defence against government going bad. Both views need a reality check.

@Reds8n:
You do have a point with the lack of training prior to buying a gun.

Our government counters this however, buy makeing people go through a (In my opinion) pretty good training course (at least in the state of Idaho) prior to getting a Concealed Carry Permit.

Im sure this varies from state to state, but from my life experiences from around here, most people know how to shoot a gun by the age of 6 (.22 cal) and by the age of 12 or 13 are activally our hunting and shooting with loved ones.

Around these parts, its common place to see people walking around packing heat. Now mind you its not cause were redneck white boys looking for a fight. Its not cause were all part of some ultra Militia looking to overthrow the government at any moment. Its not becuase were afraid that at any moment Russians are going to come dropping out of the sky like in Red Dawn either.

I do not believe that anyone can pinpoint exactly why we do what we do. Some could say thats its been a way of life for us since most of the towns around here started as Western Mining/logging towns.

Others can say that its tradition, where father would teach his son to shoot/hunt, then his son ect ect.

Guns have never killed anyone in the history of the world. People have killed people each and every time. Guns have just been a means to a end. Even if America banned every gun in the nation, Stores would still be robbed and people would be murdered... Only instead of being robbed at gunpoint or shot you would be robbed at Knifepoint and stabbed.... or something else.

I do not feel that America needs any more restrictions on any type of firearm that what is already in place.
In fact, I feel that the Importation of Machine guns for civilian use should be lifted. Keep the current checks and balances in place for legal use, just allow kits to be imported to bring the overinflated price down.

So Im sure the first thing im going to hear is something along the lines of......
"You must be Crazy! Why on gods green earth would you want a machine gun?? Think of the Law Enforcement nightmare that it would cause!!"

Yes, I have though of this and no im not crazy. If people honestly think that Legal Machine guns are being used today in shootings and robberies then they need to turn off the TV cause its just not that way.

A vast majority of shootings that involve a Full Auto gun are Semi autos that have been illegally modified into full auto. Reason being, if you spend $30,000+ on a gun, your not going to be very willing to just throw it away. Plus the mountain of paperwork behind each and every Class 3 would make it very easy to track down.

Right now you can legally make blanks for Full auto bolts (UNCUT) for just dollers. All you have to do is print it out, glue it on and cut on the dotted lines when the time comes.

(Please note.... its legal to own both the blank and the blueprint, but as soon as you make 1 cut it instantly becomes illegal without a Class 2.)

Id write more, but this is long enough lol.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I've often wondered why America still has guns, even why you seem to have some americans who have a love of guns, shooting, gun club memberships etc.

Because they are fun, and it is hard to hunt deer (to eat, not for sport) with a fork. They shouldn't be fun, but they are. I watched the Matrix and I know this.

whatwhat wrote:I concluded that rather than having them for self defense many Americans suffer from sps.

sps? Society of Physics Students?

Google is your best friend.

Eh, as an American I don't mind. I don't own a gun mind you; nor will I probably ever own one. Anyway though, I don't know that I'd be too affected if guns were outlawed (then again I live in one of the safest cities in the US) but perhaps others would?

The other problem is that America is a lot different from Britain. Americans are just, eh...different in how we're brought up. It'd be too much of a culture shock to change which is the problem and I think that we'd go downhill.

It's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

**sigh**

If you want criminals to stay away, get a dog.

Generally criminals avoid houses with dogs (even child abusers - I read this from a proper university study, not the Internet, so you know).

Hunting Rifles - Keep them unloaded and locked up until hunting season.

handguns - you're more likely to hurt yourself if you have a handgun, because a criminal may take your gun and shoot you in the middle of you attempt to stop them.

Military-grade weapons - illegal. luckily. If you aren't a soldier or in switzerland (each adult male recieves one because of compulsory military, and they keep them in their homes. They have a low crime rate mainly because each house almost always has a gun in it - unlike most countries.) , keep away from these.

You may insult me or say I have no idea what i'm talking about, but I'll just ignore you.