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.

Actually they look pretty balck and white on the movie reels

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:As a person who is still "free" in the United States, Ill man up and take my chances. Having a weapon to protect yourself increases your chances of surviving an altercation by at least 50% if your only armed with a tearful plea of mercy.

If you need a gun to feel safe, you aren't free. You're afraid.

Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.

I aint afraid of a damn thing.

But you would be without your guns. I however, and most people in developed countries, manage to feel (and be) safe without them.

Kaldor wrote:Besides, firearms for home protection are an accident waiting to happen.

You really believe that?!?! Sad, so sad.

I don't need to believe it. It's a fact. Just off the top of my head:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html

"In a 2001 study, for example, small groups of boys from 8 to 12 years old spent 15 minutes in a room where a handgun was hidden in a drawer. More than two-thirds discovered the gun, more than half the groups handled it, and in more than a third of the groups someone pulled the trigger—despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the boys in the latter groups had received gun-safety instruction."

1. Its ok if you need this to feel superior. Please don't forget to do your superior happy dance as well. We'll rest easily knowing that, when goes down, only Mad Max and the local farmer will have shotguns in your post apocalyptic world, while we'll be sitting pretty on our stockpile of booze, guns, and nukes. Don't dance too much though, you might attract the attention of the killer drop bears.

2. I saw that too. Good gun owners and NRA members don't leave their weaponry laying about like your average redneck Aussie might.

Just today I learned that one of the countries having even MORE open gun laws than the USA is...Pakistan!

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

Does that mean those evil Pakistanis have moar freedomz than Americans?

Sorry, it's really hot here in the office.

Witzkatz wrote:Just today I learned that one of the countries having even MORE open gun laws than the USA is...Pakistan!

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

Does that mean those evil Pakistanis have moar freedomz than Americans?

Sorry, it's really hot here in the office.

Switzerland requires its males to have machine guns. Oh those wacky Swiss!

Frazzled wrote:1. Its ok if you need this to feel superior. Please don't forget to do your superior happy dance as well. We'll rest easily knowing that, when goes down, only Mad Max and the local farmer will have shotguns in your post apocalyptic world, while we'll be sitting pretty on our stockpile of booze, guns, and nukes. Don't dance too much though, you might attract the attention of the killer drop bears.

2. I saw that too. Good gun owners and NRA members don't leave their weaponry laying about like your average redneck Aussie might.

Should I fry his noodle and let him know my 12 year old daughter has a Ruger MkIII Target Pistol and a stainless steel Ruger 10/22?

Or that my younger children (10, 7, 7, 5) shoot a 22 bolt action Cricket rifle (a rifle made specifically for small children) as well as a BB rifle?

How about I let my children fire one of my ARs (the tricked out BCM one is daddy's).

If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.

Spacemanvic wrote:

If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.

Much like sex.

.. errrmmmmm.. hang on...

Spacemanvic wrote:Homicide with the use of a firearm HAS INCREASE BY over 50% from 2008 to 2009.... and other claims

You realise of course that the statistical significance of the numbers quoted in that article is pretty much zero right? All the numbers they quoted would be well within the white noise level of variation year on year.

Should I fry his noodle and let him know my 12 year old daughter has a Ruger MkIII Target Pistol and a stainless steel Ruger 10/22?
***Excellent! Genghis Connie has a Browning Buckmark, shares a Marlin 795 with me (high mounts as she likes the iron sights and I need a 3x-9x just to see my foot at this point) and has taken control of my tweaked out Beretta 92.

Or that my younger children (10, 7, 7, 5) shoot a 22 bolt action Cricket rifle (a rifle made specifically for small children) as well as a BB rifle?
***Again excellent. GC shot her first at 8. Our boy shot his first at 5 and got his first deer at 8.

How about I let my children fire one of my ARs (the tricked out BCM one is daddy's).
***Yea baby! I'll add my wife went through a drum on a full auto Tommy gun a few years back and immediately wanted one.

If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.

Much like sex.

.. errrmmmmm.. hang on...

TMI!!!!

Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.

Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

The brown shirts were not actually Hitler's - they were the Nazi party's uniformed membership. The SS were Hitler's loyal followers, not the SA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Switzerland requires its males to have machine guns. Oh those wacky Swiss!

How do you think they make the cheese with holes in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:If you remove the mystique of a firearm from children, and properly train them, the chance of accidents drop precipitously.

I'm glad to see that everyone trains children how to behave around guns... wait a second...

Even if every child was "trained", children are still children, even if you drill something into them they still are more than capable of going off and doing something stupid. Hell, more than enough adults shoot holes in themselves and each other and they are supposedly responsible adults. Even with training, people still get hurt. Everyone is supposedly qualified to drive once they have passed their test, but pleny of people die and are injured every day on the roads. I don't know what, if any, training is required before purchasing a gun, but I'd rather there be formal, accredited training than being able to just walk up to the counter with some cash, and walk out ready to free the world, or however it is one sees oneself when carrying guns, at least then you know everyone who is legally carrying a gun knows how to use it (and possibly when and where and how they are legally allowed to us it)...

The SA did what Hitler told them to do. At least until the German army wanted them gone and he traded them for their support.

Even if every child was "trained", children are still children, even if you drill something into them they still are more than capable of going off and doing something stupid. Hell, more than enough adults shoot holes in themselves and each other and they are supposedly responsible adults. Even with training, people still get hurt. Everyone is supposedly qualified to drive once they have passed their test, but pleny of people die and are injured every day on the roads. I don't know what, if any, training is required before purchasing a gun, but I'd rather there be formal, accredited training than being able to just walk up to the counter with some cash, and walk out ready to free the world, or however it is one sees oneself when carrying guns...

Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.

Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.

Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly

So, if you don't want to have your gun safe inspected, do you need to present a bill of sale for a gun safe to the gun shop before you buy a gun? Do you have to meet any kind of minimum safety/usage training levels before you buy a gun?

As far as I am aware, you don't. So saying that "that is what a gun safe is for" or "you train your children not to play around with guns" is disingenuous to the extreme and about as useful to the discussion as a fart in a space suit.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.

Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly

.

As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats crazy. You better have a valid warrant before you even think of darkening my door.

Well, if you are going to store something dangerous, you need to ensure that it is stored properly

.

As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

When you have people willing to roll over and take it, the government DOES use that excuse it would seem.

Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.

Spacemanvic wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws.

I don't know how I survived without a law telling my parents not to let me play with Dad's M1 when I was a kid. Its a shocker I survived not being snake bit without government intervention.
But looking at NY, I can see that there's a savior on the horizon to make sure we're safe from terrors like salt and large pepsis.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.

Oh the wit!!

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.

I don't need guns. I like guns. At least thats what the Wife says. I think I do need them. Give me my gunpowder crack!

Frazzled wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws.

I don't know how I survived without a law telling my parents not to let me play with Dad's M1 when I was a kid. Its a shocker I survived not being snake bit without government intervention.
But looking at NY, I can see that there's a savior on the horizon to make sure we're safe from terrors like salt and large pepsis.

That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!

In their defense, stupidity does appear to be spreading...me included.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As opposed to the cars, chainsaws, kitchen utensils, water heater that could explode, and killer attack wiener dogs? That argument is nonsense. The government would love to use that excuse though.

Seeing as you're claiming these things are so dangerous then you won't need guns then.

I don't need guns. I like guns. At least thats what the Wife says. I think I do need them. Give me my gunpowder crack!

This x10. The 1911 is a work of art, as is the art of reloading.

So, are you going to bring any useful insights to the table, or are you just going to behave like a couple of jackasses?

The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.

Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?

Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?

Frazzled wrote:
I don't need guns. I like guns.

I like drinking, doesn't mean i can drink a lot and drive my car home after 15 beers.

... admittedly this situation isn't help by my lack of said vehicle but you get the point

.. because it's dangerous for the rest of society.

Now I -- and you or whomever -- might be quite capable of drinking a tad more than legallimitofwhereyoulive, but them's the breaks.

I like swearing but there places I don't and shouldn't do it.

I like loud music but etc etc

I might like owning an atom bomb -- sure sort out that annoying neighbours cat -- doesn't mean I could or should.

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.

Oh the wit!!

That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!

If this is the best you can contribute to the thread then it's best you stop posting now before you lose your posting privileges.

I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.

filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.

I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I don't need guns. I like guns.

I like drinking, doesn't mean i can drink a lot and drive my car home after 15 beers.

... admittedly this situation isn't help by my lack of said vehicle but you get the point

.. because it's dangerous for the rest of society.

Now I -- and you or whomever -- might be quite capable of drinking a tad more than legallimitofwhereyoulive, but them's the breaks.

I like swearing but there places I don't and shouldn't do it.

I like loud music but etc etc

I might like owning an atom bomb -- sure sort out that annoying neighbours cat -- doesn't mean I could or should.

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.

Oh the wit!!

That's progressive/socialist imbecility for you. They figure their stupidity is contagious, so lets regulate it!

If this is the best you can contribute to the thread then it's best you stop posting now before you lose your posting privileges.

Maybe you shouldn't post on this thread either. You're getting personally involved as well.
EDIT: I'll be nice and calm if everyone else is nice and calm and doesn't throw insults about gun owners or Americans as well.

To your point I'm just fine with laws against driving and shooting.

Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

You're aware that the vast majority of Brown Shirts - those operating within the city - were armed with batons, not guns? The version of the SA that formed out of marauding post-WW1 Reichswehr soldiers armed by their captain was outlawed by the government. The much bigger "reborn" SA was intended to be a formation of stewards for party rallies and for street battles with political opponents. Hitler actively resisted and turned down attempts of their leader to rearm the organisation as a form of private army.
They didn't go around gunning people down - they beat them, kidnapped them, then beat them some more. This was far easier to justify and excuse by the police than fully armed militias doing their private civil war in the streets.

By the time of the 1938 weapons law you were referring, the SA had long since slided into insignificance, in the so-called Röhm coup where Hitler had their leader murdered as he came to see this organisation (which had grown to well over 200k members) as an unnecessary threat.

I think it's you that has to read up on history some.

And yes, the idea that the individual citizen with a pistol or a rifle under his bed has any chance at resisting organised, well-armed mobs - be them from a political organisation or not - is ridiculous. The truth is that it'd only be easier for said mobs to be formed. The key is to get that organisation going in the first place. And if the USA were in a situation like Germany after WW1, you'd have a civilian populace with jobs and families and little (if any) training for their guns facing groups of professional soldiers returning from the front, still carrying their arms and driving armoured vehicles and operating in company- to division size.
It's confusing how so many people apparently see themselves as Heroic Vigilante Minutemen just because they've got a gun lying around somewhere and enjoy shooting a few targets on their weekend.

Lynata wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.
Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

You're aware that the vast majority of Brown Shirts - those operating within the city - were armed with batons, not guns? The version of the SA that formed out of marauding post-WW1 Reichswehr soldiers armed by their captain was outlawed by the government. The much bigger "reborn" SA was intended to be a formation of stewards for party rallies and for street battles with political opponents. Hitler actively resisted and turned down attempts of their leader to rearm the organisation as a form of private army.
They didn't go around gunning people down - they beat them, kidnapped them, then beat them some more. This was far easier to justify and excuse by the police than fully armed militias doing their private civil war in the streets.

By the time of the 1938 weapons law you were referring, the SA had long since slided into insignificance, in the so-called Röhm coup where Hitler had their leader murdered as he came to see this organisation (which had grown to well over 200k members) as an unnecessary threat.

I think it's you that has to read up on history some.

And yes, the idea that the individual citizen with a pistol or a rifle under his bed has any chance at resisting organised, well-armed mobs - be them from a political organisation or not - is ridiculous. The truth is that it'd only be easier for said mobs to be formed. The key is to get that organisation going in the first place. And if the USA were in a situation like Germany after WW1, you'd have a civilian populace with jobs and families and little (if any) training for their guns facing groups of professional soldiers returning from the front, still carrying their arms and driving armoured vehicles and operating in company- to division size.
It's confusing how so many people apparently see themselves as Heroic Vigilante Minutemen just because they've got a gun lying around somewhere and enjoy shooting a few targets on their weekend.

Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.