Guns got sold

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.

**Wyrmalla**

Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.

I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.

Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.

**Hordini**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.

I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.

Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.

The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have access to tanks and planes either. What's stopping the big bad government from carpet bombing away the resistance? Guerrilla warfare isn't a new thing.

**azazel the cat**

Hordini wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.

I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.

Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.

The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have access to tanks and planes either. What's stopping the big bad government from carpet bombing away the resistance? Guerrilla warfare isn't a new thing.

I don't think there are the same number of soldiers in Afghanistan that there is in the US, nor the volume of mechanized resources, accurate intelligence reporting, nor does the US have the type of hostile climate and terrain that Afghanistan does (overall).

Honestly, if you just admitted it was a Red Dawn fantasy, I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and say, "okay then, that's silly but I can't argue with it." But I think it's the disingenuous attempts to rationalize the fantasy that I take issue with.

**KalashnikovMarine**

azazel the cat wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I always have 550 cord around, one billion uses and counting.

Rappelling from the ceiling like Charlie Bronson? He's always got some rope.

Eh... 550 cord is awesome, but I wouldn't trust it to hold my body weight...

**d-usa**

Is 550 cord the stuff you can also take apart to get thread for all kinds of other things?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yes. Endless uses for paracord.

**djones520**

Soladrin wrote:
Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\

I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.

Last month a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. He rents a house on a farm, pretty removed from everything.

He called the police as soon as he realized that this guy was inside of his garage, and then grabbed one of his shotguns. Eventually the person realized that someone was home, and hauled ass out of there. Cops showed up 15 minutes later.

This was a best case situation. In that 15 minutes though, so many things could have happened. Just because he had a gun (he's got about 12) he didn't go storming out there waving it around and popping shots off, a'la Joe Biden. He called the police, he armed himself to ensure his protection, and he stayed put. Had that person shown any intent of doing him harm, he would have been prepared, where others would have just been victims.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes. Endless uses for paracord.

That is so true.

**Soladrin**

Hordini wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
Then, why are you all so certain that something bad will happen? :\

I know for a fact that in my country the chance of coming into situation where a gun would be benificial for my self defense is next to 0.

Because it has happened for various values of 'bad' to me and to people I know.

I have had situations where a firearm was THE correct tool for the job, and other occasions where it was a very useful tool though I could have made do without. Not all 'self defense' as in there was a bad guy. A few times it involved something threatening my horses for example. A couple of years ago a cougar took out two cattle less than a mile away from my property. Think I want to wait for the deputy to show up if something like that is mauling my animals? Or worse, threatens my child? The copperhead in the front yard that almost got one of the dogs, well he met Mr. Mossberg. The moccasin that decided to make the area of the pond where my daughter fishes and feeds the ducks his home? He met Mr Mossberg too.

I've also been very happy on a couple of occasions when I had a fire extinguisher and/or a damned good first aid kit. I keep a jack and a spare in each of our vehicles, as well as a flashlight because again, I have been in the situation where they were pretty danged important. When I owned a boat I kept a case of MREs and two 5-gallon jugs of fresh water on board. I once had a battery die at night while out in the ocean fishing and spent several hours drifting. That sucked and could have REALLY sucked.

Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.

See, to me those things aren't the same. I have a jack, first aid kit and flashlight (some of which you are bound by law to have) in my car too, a gun isn't something that belongs on that list for me. Also, since there's next to no guns in this country, crime involving fire arms is extremely low (and crime in general I guess but I don't think that's related to fire arms). Almost all gun related crimes I can recall here have been liquidations in the criminal circuit, which I couldn't give less of a feth about because I'm not in that target group.

I understand that guns are a lot less common in the Netherlands and your gun crime is pretty minimal, but you also understand that there are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than the Netherlands, right? And that our chances of running into a criminal with a gun are significantly higher? That's one of the big reasons guns are on the list for some of us.

Obviously I understand that but that actually seems to be the problem in itself. It's a case of I need acces to guns because others have acces to guns. Obviously taking guns out of America at this point is impossible but to me it seems to be a bit of a self made problem.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:In the history of the world it seams many times governments have turned on their people. Having a large population that has guns and knows how to use them does make governments think twice about what they are doing. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around.

I understand this is a comforting thought, but do you honestly believe that if the US government turned lets-turn-the-military-on-the-civilians levels of hostile it would actually care about private citizens with firearms? The US government currently spends 40% of the total military spending in the entire world.

Which on that note I'll also point out that, whilst civilians have access to military grade guns, they do not however happen to have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. In this silly theoretical civil war what's to stop the big bad government from just carpet bombing away the resistance? Its a stupid idea, but the whole idea that the American people would rise up against their government and start a war sounds just about as dumb to me (as really, if they were that bad that the people felt that they needed to rebel, what's to stop them ignoring a few UN conventions?). Got to bomb away those dirty terrorists for Freedom youknow.

You'd actually have to take into account whole units siding with the People, as I know my oath, and any order to fire on US civilians is pretty much an unlawful one... so in essence, you'd have army fighting marines, army fighting army, etc. as you know there are less than scrupulous commanders out there who, if you listen to certain media outlets are siding with the "Man" and would have no problem breaking oath and shooting civvies.

**CptJake**

Hordini wrote:

I understand that guns are a lot less common in the Netherlands and your gun crime is pretty minimal, but you also understand that there are a hell of a lot more guns in the US than the Netherlands, right? And that our chances of running into a criminal with a gun are significantly higher? That's one of the big reasons guns are on the list for some of us.

This is one of those arguments I find silly to be honest. A perp with a knife, length of pipe, rusty screw driver, brass knuckles, or what ever is dangerous. In places like the UK gun violence is low, but violent crime isn't. If the meth addled scum bag with a knife feels entitled to my wallet and watch, I want the capability to end his life with out having to get cut up badly in the process. If I am at the point where I feel the need to use force, I want the most force I can have. Frankly that greatly decreases the chance I get badly injured. More importantly to me, I want my 5'4" 130 pound wife to be able to handle a 6' 200 pound perp regardless of how he is armed, or even if he is unarmed. A violent criminal is a violent criminal, gun or not. A gun in a good person's hand can stop that violent criminal.

**Soladrin**

I guess the giant difference in crime rates gives me quite the bias on this. :X

**CptJake**

It doesn't take a high crime rate for one perp to bash your head in and take your wallet... You may be one of a small number of victims. That doesn't repair a crushed in head.

**Soladrin**

I'll take my chances.

**djones520**

Soladrin wrote:
I'll take my chances.

And that is everyones choice. Some of us just don't like it when people think we shouldn't get the choice.

**Frazzled**

Speaking of registrations and government seizing guns:

California governor signs bill to speed up gun seizures
Published May 02, 2013
Associated Press
June 30, 2011: California Gov. Jerry Brown signs the state budget. (AP)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.

They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program. The money will go to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

The program, which is unique to California, cross-checks five databases to find people who bought weapons they are no longer legally allowed to own.

SB140 by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $24 million to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

The bill is the first of numerous firearms bills introduced by lawmakers in response to recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado. The Democratic governor signed the bill without comment.

"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety," Attorney General Kamala Harris, who oversees the state Department of Justice, said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat from St. Helena, introduced HR848 earlier this year to create a U.S. Department of Justice grant program for states that want to develop similar programs

**d-usa**

Just to keep things current:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/01/toomey-on-gun-laws-gop-didnt-want-to-be-seen-helping-obama/?hpt=hp_t4

(CNN) - Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania blamed political polarization for the failure of last month's background check compromise he reached with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, saying some in his party simply voted against the measure to prevent the president from winning a legislative victory.

"In the end, it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey said.

"The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else," he added.

His comments came in an interview Tuesday with a roundtable of Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pennsylvania.

According to the editors at the meeting, Toomey clarified his comment, saying he meant to say Republicans in general, not just his GOP colleagues in the Senate.

Toomey was one of four Republicans who voted on a measure to expand the background check system so that it covers private sales at gun shows and online. Five Democrats voted against the proposal (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted no so he could bring the bill back up later).

In a 54-46 vote, the measure failed to reach the 60 votes needed to move forward in the Senate. Along with the background checks legislation, a ban on assault weapons also went down in defeat.

President Barack Obama said Tuesday in a news conference that he suspected there were Republican members in Congress who vote against their instincts for political purposes.

"Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They're worried about primaries. And I understand all that. And we're going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what's going to be best for the country," he said. "But it's going to take some time."

The president and gun control advocates chided lawmakers for failing to pass the proposal, the only one that had a real shot of passing among the slew of gun proposals brought forward in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

While Obama, Reid and gun control groups have vowed to keep up the pressure and bring the legislation back for a vote down the road, Toomey expressed doubt that a second vote will happen soon.

"Reid could bring it up for a vote at any time, but we need five people to change their minds," Toomey said.

"It's a pretty heavy lift to get five senators to change their mind on a big issue like this," he added. "It's not likely to happen any time soon. I hope people will reconsider over time."

His comments sounded less enthusiastic compared with those made by Manchin. The senator from West Virginia said Sunday he believes the measure is still alive and together they can persuade enough lawmakers to support it.

"I truly believe if we have time to sell the bill, and people read the bill," it will gain support, Manchin said. "I'm willing to go anywhere in this country, I'm going to debate anybody on this issue, read the bill and you tell me what you don't like."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of registrations and government seizing guns:

California governor signs bill to speed up gun seizures
Published May 02, 2013
Associated Press
June 30, 2011: California Gov. Jerry Brown signs the state budget. (AP)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown announced Wednesday that he has signed legislation expanding the ability of state agents to seize firearms from nearly 20,000 Californians who are not allowed to have them.

They collectively own more than 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons but are prohibited from owning firearms because they have been convicted of crimes, ruled mentally unstable or are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program. The money will go to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

The program, which is unique to California, cross-checks five databases to find people who bought weapons they are no longer legally allowed to own.

SB140 by Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, authorizes $24 million to hire more agents to confiscate the weapons and reduce the backlog over the next three years.

The bill is the first of numerous firearms bills introduced by lawmakers in response to recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado. The Democratic governor signed the bill without comment.

"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety," Attorney General Kamala Harris, who oversees the state Department of Justice, said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat from St. Helena, introduced HR848 earlier this year to create a U.S. Department of Justice grant program for states that want to develop similar programs

For feths sake. One day you are complaining about the government not enforcing the laws on the books, and then another you are complaining when they do. It's like watching a wiender dog chase his tail...

**Soladrin**

djones520 wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I'll take my chances.

And that is everyones choice. Some of us just don't like it when people think we shouldn't get the choice.

Well, there's also the issue that carrying a fire arm in public is a crime.

**djones520**

Soladrin wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I'll take my chances.

And that is everyones choice. Some of us just don't like it when people think we shouldn't get the choice.

Well, there's also the issue that carrying a fire arm in public is a crime.

Come to the land of freedom! In Montana they'll give you a rifle when you buy cable.

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I'll take my chances.

And that is everyones choice. Some of us just don't like it when people think we shouldn't get the choice.

Well, there's also the issue that carrying a fire arm in public is a crime.

Not here.

**Soladrin**

I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

Too bad for you.

**Alfndrate**

Soladrin wrote:
I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting?

Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?

**Soladrin**

Alfndrate wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting?
Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?

What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.

**Alfndrate**

Soladrin wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting?
Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?

What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.

I'm sad you won't visit me

You'll visit Whitey, but not me D:

**Frazzled**

Soladrin wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
I have no intention of ever owning or firing a fire arm.

So if you visited 'MURICA to see Alfndrate, we couldn't go shooting?
Is it because I won't let you try a 360 no scope?

What I meant by that is. I will never go out of my way to get to shooting gallery or something. If I were visiting you (when hell freezes over and pigs fly) then yeah, I'd probably have a go. Point is, I don't see any reason to ever want to go to America.

Don't worry, the feeling is more than mutual. Ye know not of the Holy Queso and the Holy Drink of Tequila, and therefor unworthy.

**CptJake**

Soladrin wrote:
I'll take my chances.

And you can do that.

Part of the risk assessment process is not only assigning probability of the event but assigning the level of effect if the event occurs. A 'catastrophic' result to a rare event may very well dictate some mitigation effort.

You see the risk assessment matrix and think "unlikely event, no reason for mitigation".

I see it and think "perhaps unlikely but catastrophic results if it does" and decide some mitigation is worth while. Different approaches to the same problem. The difference ends up being what happens IF the event occurs...

**Soladrin**

Yeah, but my point is that IF is a lot smaller for me.

It also helps that our cops appear to be a lot more attentive, and before you start talking distance, I grew up on the border of Belgium with every police station being at least 20-30minutes away. Cops never took more then 2-3 mins to get there in my experience.

**Miraclefish**

Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?

How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?

I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.

Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.

I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...

(Though given a firing range and a SAW, I would like to open 'er up... in bursts, obviously. This isn't the movies... )

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Years in the military and years living in rural (and city) areas have taught me that it it always better to have and not need than need and not have. If you rely on first responders to PREVENT you being in a bad situation or to save you when they fail to prevent it, you are (in my opinion) an idiot. Self reliance is what every responsible adult should strive for.

You know, this is not only one of the smartest summations I've ever heard from an American (in the sense of someone with direct contact with guns, rather than the 'they're daft as a brush' stereotype, but one of the most concise points from anyone.

**Frazzled**

Miraclefish wrote:
Are you any safer owning an assault rifle over a semi-automatic pistol?

Since its illegal for civilians to own assaulot rifles without a very stringent licensing process the question is moot.

How deadly a weapon should the line be drawn on what the public can't own but law enforcement/armed forces can?

Why should law enforcement have deadlier weapons then citizens? The military already has that. WE can't own tanks, ships, and Vought F4U Corsairs with napalm, sadly.

I find it all fascinating. And I type this as a British fella who's never so much as held a gun, let alone owned one. They're interesting things, but I don't have any desire to have one in my house or indeed my life.

So you have what we like to call 'no point of reference whatsover.' Gotcha.

Non-Brits often find it odd that even the vast majority of our police constables aren't armed, only specialist response units. I rather like that. We have very little gun crime and not a lot of knife-based violence all things considered.

Good for you. Your overall assault and murder rates are higher though. You also don't live next to cartel country thank you.

I'd certainly support being able to carry a sword around, mind you. And I do own two rather tasty recurve bows. I'd happily defend my property with one of those. An Englishman's home is his castle, they say! Come at me, dear boy, and I shall fill ye full of feathered shafts. In the non gay way...

A home invasion would exterminate your arrow chunking ass. Sorry.

**Andrew1975**

Just thought I would throw this in there. Might help some of our none US Dakkaites, see how big gun culture is in some parts of the country. http://news.yahoo.com/ky-child-shooting-part-urban-rural-gun-debate-085327467.html

Yes, in some parts it is common for people to give 5 years olds fully functioning guns.