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.

SilverMK2 wrote:How dare you speak that way about Queenie!


This is to Mel - on my phone and it is a bit slow...

She a lizard, its true

Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Man drowned in shallow lake after firefighters 'not allowed' to rescue him

Charity shop worker died in Gosport, Hampshire, after rescuers said they could not enter water for health and safety reasons

Wednesday 22 February 2012 02.52 EST

A man who fell into a lake drowned after firefighters called to the scene said they could not enter the water if it was higher than ankle deep for health and safety reasons, an inquest has been told.

Simon Burgess, a 41-year-old charity shop worker died at Walpole Park, in Gosport, Hampshire, on 10 March. He is believed to have had an epileptic seizure either before or after falling into the water while feeding swans.

Witnesses raised the alarm, but the hearing was told on Tuesday that members of a fire crew refused to get to him because the water was more than ankle deep. Instead, they waited for a specialist water rescue team and Burgess was only taken out of the lake 28 minutes after the alarm was raised.

Gillian Hughes, 53, told the inquest, at Portsmouth coroners court, that she had phoned emergency services and urged them to rescue Burgess when they arrived. She said: "The firemen arrived with the police, and I said: 'He's only been there five or 10 minutes, so if you hurry you might save him.'

"He just said: 'We're not allowed', and I said: 'But that's your job.'

Hughes added: "I said to one of the firemen: Why don't you go in?' and he said they couldn't if the water was higher than ankle deep. I said: 'You're having a laugh'. He said: 'No, that's health and safety' – but I thought that was their job."

She said that another fire crew arrived and started walking around the lake, putting in a pole and measuring the depth but, by this time, Burgess had drifted from one side of the lake to the other.

Deborah Coles, the control room manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue, told the inquest that she took the call from Hughes at 12.17pm and, within a minute, had sent a fire appliance, a water rescue trained crew and a water support unit.

"Police, ambulance and coastguard were also sent as standard for a water rescue," she added. "The specialist teams are there to deal with water which is over half a boot in depth. At 12.20pm, the fire crew confirmed attendance and at 12.25 they told us a male was floating face down."

"The water support unit arrived at 12.31pm. At 12.46, we received a message requesting our press officer attend the scene. At 12.52, an update came in saying a male had been recovered, and at 12.58 he was taken to hospital."

Burgess was pronounced dead at 1.42pm after he was taken to hospital.

Dr Bret Lockyer, the speciality registrar of histopathology, told the inquest there were signs that Burgess had fallen into the lake because of an epileptic seizure.

Burgess was diagnosed with the condition in 1987, and had unsuccessful brain surgery to ease the seizures. Lockyer said: "If he had been taken out of the water after 10 minutes, there is a slim chance he could have been resuscitated.

"It seems he had a seizure either before or while he fell into the water."

The hearing continues.

SilverMK2 wrote:The 'defence' budget of America is out of line with the spending by pretty much any other developed nation, which really skews the money available for everything else, given the generally low american tax rates.

Mostly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png


The United States spends more money on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid individually then it does on the Military.

Yes, we spend more money on the military then other developed countries, but thats because our military is bigger. Its also engaged in active military conflicts, unlike other developed countries.

And of that Pie Chart, the only parts that can legally be changed without changes in the law is Military and Discretionary Spending.

Thats only 37% that the president can change in his budget reccomendations.


The Military has no money to cut. Cutting the Defense Budget will not even put a dent in the deficit. Only cutting mandatory spending(like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) or raising taxes will do anything to the budget deficit.

And compared to some other countries(especially some European countries) the US budget deficit as a % of GDP is not so bad. France, Italy, and Greece are drowning in Debt. They make the US look like frugal saints.

Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Please tell me this is a joke or wind up? Are you really telling me that you have no grasp whatsoever of the examples used?

Syria is a different place to the US. Nobody in the West, in their right mind, about from the US Citizens themselves, would ever think that you would be in such a position. Only US Citizens, who voted for their political leaders I'd like to point out, feel that they are one step away from a dictatorship. That you have to have one hand on a gun and one eye on the government. The bloody peasents in the UK have managed to shake up the establishment quite a few times over the years and are still fully able to if need be, you only have to look at the riots last year. Oddly enough we have some of the strictest gun laws in the West. You've had one war of Independance and one cilvil war in your brief history, wars that are actually on home soil and are basically political infighting. We've had numerous invasions, riots, rebellions and royalty infighting that you can shake a stick at, but none of us over here, look at our own government like you look at yours.

As to your second example, why do I bother? I would expect in that situation that someone who has access to a gun, even if they only fire 1hour a month, to be able to pull it and with confidence point it at a lunatic in this situation.

You are obviously choosing to ignore the whole point of "above your paygrade" actually means.

Wolfstan wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Just found a story about a bunch of people who dont believe in things being beyond their paygrade:

The rebels have gone from being a ragtag defense force to an armed movement capable of attacking Syria's big cities, but they have been vastly out-gunned. That may be changing

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/meast/syria-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Damned peasants and their rifles

Oh, and someone else who went beyond their paygrade:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[b]Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store[/b]
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

These guys believed in the mediocrity of staying within their paygrade though:

Please tell me this is a joke or wind up? Are you really telling me that you have no grasp whatsoever of the examples used?

Syria is a different place to the US. Nobody in the West, in their right mind, about from the US Citizens themselves, would ever think that you would be in such a position. Only US Citizens, who voted for their political leaders I'd like to point out, feel that they are one step away from a dictatorship. That you have to have one hand on a gun and one eye on the government. The bloody peasents in the UK have managed to shake up the establishment quite a few times over the years and are still fully able to if need be, you only have to look at the riots last year. Oddly enough we have some of the strictest gun laws in the West. You've had one war of Independance and one cilvil war in your brief history, wars that are actually on home soil and are basically political infighting. We've had numerous invasions, riots, rebellions and royalty infighting that you can shake a stick at, but none of us over here, look at our own government like you look at yours.

As to your second example, why do I bother? I would expect in that situation that someone who has access to a gun, even if they only fire 1hour a month, to be able to pull it and with confidence point it at a lunatic in this situation.

You are obviously choosing to ignore the whole point of "above your paygrade" actually means.

Im ignoring it because it is made out of an assumption. An erroneous assumption. An assumption that others blindly accept mediocrity. And an assumption that I dont know how to employ my weapons.

Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS? Much like the Americans received from the French in the AWI? Or the VC received from both China and the USSR? You still needed a populace willing to pull themselves from mediocrity, to rise above their "paygrade".

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

Mercenaries? Interesting. Stuff I read claimed active service SAS.

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

reds8n wrote:Would these be the same Syrian rebels who been receiving extensive support from various western govts. for quite some time now ?

Especially from the British SAS?

I believe they are ex-SAS not current.
What they do as civilians is up to themselves...

Mercenaries? Interesting. Stuff I read claimed active service SAS.

The stuff I read claimed they were contractors for a private security company that hires ex-special forces.
Apparently there are two different companies working there.

I'd find it unlikely that there would be active SAS in Syria and if there was that they would be in the news. That kind of stuff would be very hush hush...

Reports "allege" the involvement of both Uk and French special forces on the ground in "advisory" capacities with Qatari units providing more "robust" assistence.

Since November last year "conservative Islamic" fighters who've seen action in ( amongst other places) Iraq and Afghanistan have been arriving -- some airlifted apparently -- to "fight the good fight".

The USA has been somewhat more cautious, but of course they're involved. In April they admitted they were providing communications equipment and assistence in evading regime attacks.

The Telegraph reported that former terrorist turned Libyan rebel leader Abdulhakim Belhadj, now head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” after being sent there by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan president.

Belhadj is the former front man for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Belhadj was captured by the CIA in Malaysia in 2003 and extradited to Libya where Colonel Gaddafi had him imprisoned.

Belhadj is a committed jihadist who fought with the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that Belhadj’s LIFG fighters were the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq.

reds8n wrote:Reports "allege" the involvement of both Uk and French special forces on the ground in "advisory" capacities with Qatari units providing more "robust" assistence.

Since November last year "conservative Islamic" fighters who've seen action in ( amongst other places) Iraq and Afghanistan have been arriving -- some airlifted apparently -- to "fight the good fight".

The USA has been somewhat more cautious, but of course they're involved. In April they admitted they were providing communications equipment and assistence in evading regime attacks.

The Telegraph reported that former terrorist turned Libyan rebel leader Abdulhakim Belhadj, now head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” after being sent there by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan president.

Belhadj is the former front man for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Belhadj was captured by the CIA in Malaysia in 2003 and extradited to Libya where Colonel Gaddafi had him imprisoned.

Belhadj is a committed jihadist who fought with the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted that Belhadj’s LIFG fighters were the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq.

Also reports of CIA up to their old game of providing arms and training. Oh the webs weaved. Most of the "Arab Spring" has been triggered by groups with ties to the Islamic Brotherhood. The West is stupidly playing with fire.

You know what happens when insane people get guns and then are told that you have an innate right to shoot some one on you property, this happens.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/florida-man-kills-door-to-door-salesman-i%E2%80%99ll-kill-anybody-that-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit

To some people here who might think I'm "insane" or living in my own little world. Fry the shooter. The salesman was not a danger to anyone nor was it a "legal" killing. That was murder plain in simple.

Roop’s neighbors described him as “the neighborhood crazy.” Roop has a concealed weapons permit and approximately 14 firearms.

Well, at least they didn't go for the "he was such a nice guy" lie.

Jihadin wrote:To some people here who might think I'm "insane" or living in my own little world. Fry the shooter. The salesman was not a danger to anyone nor was it a "legal" killing. That was murder plain in simple.

Not saying gun owners are insane but saying that the insane shouldn't be gun owners

Problem is he wasn't insane. He can't claim insanity. He did a deliberate "double tap". Notice the female police officer didn't get shot when she walked on his property

edit
sentence structure

Good to see the collective "independent thinkers" in agreement!

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

You need an assault weapon—

* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

* 2. for recreation.

* 3. to collect military small arms.

* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

* 6. for more fun plinking.

* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

* 18. to save time while shooting

* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

* 28. to defend your business.

* 29. to defend your home.

* 30. to defend your boat.

* 31. to defend your camp.

* 32. to defend your ranch.

* 33. to defend your farm.

* 34. to defend your family.

* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

* 36. as an investment.

* 37. as a military souvenir.

* 38. as a hedge against inflation.

* 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.

* 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)

* 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)

* 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)

* 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.

* 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.

* 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.

* 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.

* 47. to reject anti-gun bias.

* 48. to challenge “Big Brotherism”.

* 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.

* 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.

* 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to “salami” tactics.

* 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).

* 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)

* 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.

* 55. to familiarize yourself with your country’s military rifle.

* 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country’s military rifle.

* 57. because they are interesting.

* 58. to hang on your wall.

* 59. to shoot clay targets.

* 60. to shoot paper targets.

* 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.

* 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.

* 63. to exercise a natural right.

* 64. to exercise a civil right.

* 65. to exercise a fundamental right.

* 66. to exercise an inalienable right.

* 67. to exercise a human right.

* 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.

* 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.

* 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.

* 71. to avoid a “Tiananmen Square” in the U.S.

* 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.

* 73. to protect livestock from predators.

* 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.

* 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).

* 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.

* 77. to own a firearm with that “shoulder thingy that goes up.”

* 78. to own a “state-of-the-art” firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).

* 79. to own a “turn-of-the-century” firearm (e.g. Borchardt).

* 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).

* 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.

* 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.

* 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.

* 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.

* 85. to own a firearm which is banned.

* 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.

* 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).

* 88. to own a firearm that is a “work of art”.

* 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.

* 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use. * 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).

* 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.

* 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.

* 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.

* 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.

* 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.

* 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.

* 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).

* 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.

* 100.because you believe in freedom.

* 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual’s need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the country. That’s 100 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

My top chain of thought when this thread came up. When I was pulled over for speeding and I had my mini cases in back of my jeep. Police officer was nervous I can tell. He asked and I told him and then I showed him. Then we got into talking about 40K and models and then I I clued him about claiming it on taxes as medical expense since he was a bit on the same line of profession as I was.

Back on topic.
101 reasons....some are the same but different in wording

Spacemanvic wrote:101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

Oh this should be a good amount of fail.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

See the National and various State Guard units. That is a citizen soldier, your "well regulated militia" as it were.

And before you have an aneurysm, no, I am not advocating any form of gun control here. Just pointing out the facts.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 2. for recreation.

Too vague to count as a point.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 3. to collect military small arms.

You don't need the weapon to be capable of full-auto to collect it. Or even to be ABLE to shoot it at all. So sure, you can have your AK47, but its barrel is filled with concrete.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

Try sucking less next time instead.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

Doesn't count as an additional point.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 6. for more fun plinking.

If you have to fire full auto to plink, you're pathetic.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

Unless you're ex-specops, you're not gonna be able to defend yourself against a street gang by yourself, assault rifle or no.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

Against a mob, a shotgun will do just fine.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

Shotgun.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

Bolt actions are better for marksmanship than assault rifles and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

This might count.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

Most of the time, civilians just get in the way.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

Aside from the fact that this is never going to happen (even Russia would have to be insane to really consider actually invading the USA), you're not gonna put one up on disciplined military soldiers.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

Nutjobs like you are more likely to be the ones trying to do the takeover.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

It needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

Donate money to charity.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

It needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 18. to save time while shooting

You're more dangerous to everyone around you than your target if you honestly think this way.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

Assault rifles are less reliable than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

Assault rifles suffer wear and tear more than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

Assault rifles are more expensive than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to manufacture than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to repair than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

Assault rifles are harder to maintain than bolt actions and semi-automatics.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

Perhaps. But for what purpose?

Spacemanvic wrote:* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

Assault rifles are not more weather resistant than other kinds of weapons.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

Needs no help from you.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 28. to defend your business.
* 29. to defend your home.
* 30. to defend your boat.
* 31. to defend your camp.
* 32. to defend your ranch.
* 33. to defend your farm.
* 34. to defend your family.

A shotgun will work fine.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

You haven't ever fired a weapon, have you? Assault rifles do not have reduced recoil, especially when fired on full auto.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 36. as an investment.

Go invest in stocks or property.

Spacemanvic wrote:* 37. as a military souvenir.

Go take your dog tags.

Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Going back to the beginning of this thread, someone stated:

I'm a huge supporter of pro-gun legislation, but I do think that some more specific regulation is required.

Like the transfer of gun ownership. Should be done at a licensed dealer, so that the appropriate background checks are performed.

While this would not have much impact criminals selling firearms to other criminals, it would decrease the possibility of the lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to criminals.

I would also be supportive of a more thorough background check prior to issuing class 3 licenses, similar to the checks conducted when attempting to get a security clearance.

A lot of information can be learned about someone by asking their family, friends, and neighbors.

Transfers of firearms have to go through an FFL dealer (Federal Firearms Licensed). Fact of the matter is, you have to go through a thorough NICS check whenever you purchase a firearm. Even at gunshows (unless in some states where long guns (shotguns/hunting rifles) can be exchanged face to face provided both parties are residents of the same state), you have to go through a NICS check. Even when doing a FTF (Face To Face) transfer, its prudent to go through an FFL NICS check. If the gun is later involved in a crime, the last person associated with that serial number is tracked down and investigated as part of the crime committed. NICS checks against an FBI database which " check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials." http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

Every gun has a serial number. Serial numbers are recorded by the manufacturer, the retailer, the buyer, the insurer (if insured). Serial numbers are always associated with someone. If a firearm has had the serial number removed or defaced, it is an instant federal felony gun violation, 12 years minimum imprisonment.

To obtain a Class 3 NFA firearm (automatic weapons, SBR (short Barrelled Rifle), you go through a minimum 4-9 month wait, as investigations are conducted by the BATFE on local, state and federal levels. Even then you have to obtain the approval of the local law enforcement agency. And yes, interviews are conducted during the course of seeking a Class 3 stamp.


Someone else wrote:

Most Americans don't want to own a fully automatic weapon. A handgun for self defense, perhaps a short-barrel shotgun for home defense, or a hunting rifle for, well, hunting, and all of the above for practice shooting-- but an AK47 with full auto would be seen as excessive even here in Texas.

Most Americans prefer and own semi-automatics. The difference between semi-auto and FA (Full Auto) is that semi-autos fire one bullet per trigger pull. Full-auto fire until the trigger is no longer pulled, or the magazine runs dry. It is very hard to obtain an automatic weapon, as well as expensive to both purchase and feed one. It is nearly impossible to convert a semi-auto to FA, as well as a Federal Felony violation. The boys in black (BATFE) will pay you a visit.

Shotguns and pistols are the worst choice for home defense. Both suffer from over-penetration of sheetrock, some with enough force to penetrate 4 layers of sheetrock (and anyone behind that sheetrock) and in the case of a shotgun, slow rate of fire. In testing, something in 223 was preferable in both firecontrol (pistols are notoriously harder to shoot than rifles or shotguns ) as well as lack of over penetration. Contrary to movies and comic books, shotguns provide a very narrow cone of shot (pellets), so if you miss indoors, not only are you now deaf with a possibly ruptured eardrum (firing most firearms within an enclosed space will do that to you), but you now have to make a followup shot. Unlike movies, most people do not expire immediately upon being shot, and can still advance or attack you. Most police (and some handgun self defense classes) are trained to fire until the target is no longer "man shaped" ie crumpled to the ground. Gun self defense courses train you to fight using a gun.

He didn't get owned. Nice though Mel I give you that.

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

Melissia wrote: Wanting guns because they don't trust anyone but themselves? No.

I know a *lot* of Americans who hold this view, and they aren't a bunch of right wing loonies. Most of the non-Republican gun owners I know are people who live in or near potentially rough neighborhoods, recognize that calling the police just means law enforcement shows up in time to draw a chalk outline around your corpse, and have no qualms (at least in theory) of being responsible for their own protection. This includes my 59-year-old mother who lives alone and keeps a .357 revolver in her bedroom. She's willing to upgrade to a shotgun as soon as I tell her what to buy.
These people may trust the government on healthcare and infrastructure, but trusting law enforcement to save you before a home invader kills/rapes you? No thanks.

SilverMK2 wrote:The 'defence' budget of America is out of line with the spending by pretty much any other developed nation, which really skews the money available for everything else, given the generally low american tax rates.

Azizonomics addresses this on his blog: http://azizonomics.com/2011/08/25/team-america-world-police/

Essentially, the US's huge defense spending has subsidized the global economy by providing the security necessary for inexpensive, safe trans-oceanic trade. This has enabled the rest of the world to cut their defense spending to the bone and blow all their money on social programs, which, as we've seen in Europe's case, has still manged to be such an unsustainable economic proposition that the Eurozone is about to go belly-up.

Spend even a fraction of the money spent on defence on healthcare and the armed forces would hardly notice thedifference, while everyone else would get free (at point of use) healthcare

Medicare/Medicaid FY2011: $835B
DoD, DoHS, Vet Affairs FY2011: $929B

So tossing, say, 5% of defense spending into the healthcare pot would not be some magical panacea, especially since we've already seen how just throwing endless stacks of money at a problem usually just results in massive corruption and waste.

More importantly.....why should everyone get free healthcare? The real purpose of healthcare is to maximize labor productivity (and, by extension, economic output) by minimizing the downtime caused by illnesses and injuries. People who are permanently out of the labor force (the elderly, those with severe mental handicaps, etc.) should not get healthcare because they are not national assets. That's what your social support network (family, friends, community) should be for.

Noble713 wrote:I know a *lot* of Americans who hold this view, and they aren't a bunch of right wing loonies. Most of the non-Republican gun owners I know are people who live in or near potentially rough neighborhoods, recognize that calling the police just means law enforcement shows up in time to draw a chalk outline around your corpse, and have no qualms (at least in theory) of being responsible for their own protection.

You are shifting the goalposts here because this has nothing to do with the utter nonsense and vile flamebait you vomited out before. Wanting to be able to defend yourself is not the same thing as not trusting anyone else. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you need to seek help? It's not a healthy position to hold.

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

That was a copy-paste job, taken from a gun forum. I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever she brings up.

Exhalted Melissia

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

purplefood wrote:Spacemanvic just got owned.,..

Hardly. Throughout the thread, she's been wrong on a number of firearm issues. As she brings them up, I'll be more than happy and able to refute them.

Considering even i can refute a number of them you lost on a fair few of those points.

That was a copy-paste job, taken from a gun forum. I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever she brings up.

And that makes your point better how?
I'd understand that citizens of the US wants guns for self-defense and maybe competitions but a lot of those points are either NA, repeated or you don't need live guns for...