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.

To be blunt, in this day and age your 2nd ammendment is something that should belong to history. The original purpose to it no longer exists. However like opening Pandora's box, it's now too late for anything to be done about it. As mentioned tons of times on this board, how do you protect yourselves if the bad guys have guns? Have to say I'd probably fall on ths side of owning a weapon if I was in the same position.

There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts.

Every time I start to think things return to normal you bring forth such diamonds in the rough. Not only have you just insulted millions of veterans including my father, uncle, and pretty much every male ancestor in my family, but you’ve revealed your utter ignorance about the military.

I made a personal point not to mod posts in this area absent the EEOC’s, but this is just atrocious. And you probably won’t even understand why.

Wolfstan wrote:To be blunt, in this day and age your 2nd ammendment is something that should belong to history. The original purpose to it no longer exists.

Course you can say the same about all the Bill of Rights. I'd imagine you'd find a large portion of Congress that would agree.

I am a vet. I served for 6 years with one tour in Iraq. I have since earned a BS. Thank you for telling me that I am a burnout. I wasn't aware until now.

reds8n wrote:That's because that's the one I can't figure out why anyone would have any objections too, especially the original poster given his earlier comments.


Plus this is about the gajallionth time these have been posted, many already disproved ( He didn't vote for a "reckless" bill at all-- that is opinion not a "fact") and I know a fair few people stateside who don't have a problem with some/many of these ideas anyway. Seeing as he espoused nothing of this sort during his election and he has already stated that he has other concerns-- the impending economic collapse of America for example which will leave you unable to afford bullets let alone guns anyway I think may of the fears expressed are groundless.


You can scuttle off back to your troll cave now and return to your paranoia of Obama and Co. coming for your guns.

Frazzled wrote:

There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts.

Every time I start to think things return to normal you bring forth such diamonds in the rough. Not only have you just insulted millions of veterans including my father, uncle, and pretty much every male ancestor in my family, but you’ve revealed your utter ignorance about the military.

I made a personal point not to mod posts in this area absent the EEOC’s, but this is just atrocious. And you probably won’t even understand why.

I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. If you'll notice the sentence which followed specifically related to those characterizations being incredibly generalized ideas. I understand why if offends you, but it in no way should. Given your age (early 30's?)I expect that all the male ancestors in your family served in a time (pre-Vietnam) when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. My comments were meant to refer only to the post-Vietnam demographics of the military. And, even if they weren't so focussed commenting on demographics should in no way be taken as a comment on specific people.

I could have, and obviously should have, been more specific about this. Probably this could also have been avoided had I chosen a word with less negative stigma than 'burnout', perhaps downtrodden? Less-well-off? option-less? It is a statistical category which is difficult to account for terminologically as it is incredibly diverse, and based primarily on post-enlistment numbers.

I do not understand, however, why you feel that a comment on the trends of military enrollment must be offensive to your ancestors. Why are you so sensitive to the examination of servicemen? I only ask because I recall similar reactions from you when McCain had his record questioned.

Edit: As a small snapshot of the statistics which I look at when making these conclusions.

Here is a chart which comments on various statistical relationship in military recruitment. Note the upper left box. Their written conclusion is inaccurate as they compare the mean income of enlisted members of the armed services to the median income in the United State whiles assuming that such a statistic represents the middle class. Indeed, the actual median household income for enlisted men is like a good deal lower than the mean which is supplied. Also, note the method utilized to determine mean enlisted income is highly flawed.:

Much of the analysis in this paper (including this section) uses five-digit Census ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) as the unit of analy­sis. The Census Bureau uses ZCTAs to approximate U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes. In most cases, ZCTAs correspond to postal ZIP codes. For example, Representative Rangel resides in the postal ZIP code 10037. The corresponding five-digit ZCTA 10037, shown in Figure 1, has a median household income of $26,561. In 1999, four recruits originated from the area, in 2003, the total was six recruits.
According to the 2000 Census, the national median income per household in 1999 was $41,994 in 1999 dollars. By assigning each recruit the median 1999 household income for his hometown ZIP code, we calculated that the mean 1999 income for 1999 recruits before entering the military was $41,141 (in 1999 dollars). The mean 1999 income for 2003 recruits was $42,822 (in 1999 dollars). In other words, on average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999.

Also note this article from national priorities dealing with a lack of 'high quality recruits'.

Burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonimous with The term burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonymous with downtrodden, less well of, or option less. Further it ignores a plethora of reasons why people would join the military, and not be “lifers.” Your bifurcation to post Vietnam is erroneous.

Had you said something to the effect of “those with limited economic opportunities” I would agree to a great extent in that many join the military for that reason-it’s a way to obtain new avenues and improve themselves. But that’s not the only reason.

Frazzled wrote:The term burnouts is incredibly offensive and is not synonymous with downtrodden, less well of, or option less. Further it ignores a plethora of reasons why people would join the military, and not be “lifers.” Your bifurcation to post Vietnam is erroneous.

It was a deliberate abstraction based on the two, far and away, largest categories of post-Vietnam military recruits: career guys, and 1-tour guys (which, in hindsight, is superior parlance). And there was a pronounced shift in military recruitment during the post-Vietnam era when a great many drafted soldiers came back as anti-war activists. It is impossible to maintain a net positive public perception of the military when you both enact a draft, and 'lose' the war you drafted men to fight.

Frazzled wrote:
Had you said something to the effect of “those with limited economic opportunities” I would agree to a great extent in that many join the military for that reason-it’s a way to obtain new avenues and improve themselves. But that’s not the only reason.

Obviously not. Which was the reason for the application of a disclaimer immediately after the sentence you took offense to. The entire thrust of the post was that the vast majority of post Vietnam recruits join the services in order to derive the benefits of service. Only to find that those benefits, in peace time, are not what they were advertised to be. Yeah, there is the issue of military tradition, but that is a much smaller factor than you might believe. I think you'd also be surprised by the number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist. They certainly have other economic opportunities, but tend to join up as doing so generally has a lower stigma than enrolling in technical school. Though the post-Iraq military, with its VA shenanigans, is unlikely to be held in similar regard.

You may have thought thats what you stated but the post was pretty clear, lifers or burnouts. You know who burnouts are. I know who burnouts are. Now you're trying to backtrack by inserting new segments when the original segment segment was pretty clear.

Further your notes about post Vietnam views of the military betrays a certain “world view” that jives with the above. Where I come from the military is not looked down upon. We shake their hands and thank them for service.

I suggest you quit while you’re behind on this.

Frazzled wrote:You may have thought thats what you stated but the post was pretty clear, lifers or burnouts. You know who burnouts are. I know who burnouts are. Now you're trying to backtrack by inserting new segments when the original segment segment was pretty clear.

No, I'm trying to apologize for offending you while keeping discussion open. I'm pretty sure you stopped reading my original post at 'burnout' without actually taking the time to contextualize it within the larger framework of what I wrote. I was at fault to use such obtuse terminology, but that does not mean that I meant it in the context which you assume I did. Everything I have written here has been a matter of clarification, not back-peddling

Frazzled wrote:
Further your notes about post Vietnam views of the military betrays a certain “world view” that jives with the above. Where I come from the military is not looked down upon. We shake their hands and thank them for service.

I suggest you quit while you’re behind on this.

Sure, where you come from that may be true, but where you come from is only where you come from. I base my conclusions on statistical analysis and internal commentary on military recruitment, not something as simple are how I feel about them. Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better. I respect people who serve but no amount of respect should elevate a person or institution above examination. Frankly, I find this kind of 'with us, or against us' mentality pretty offensive.

Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better.

Really, just stop at this point.

Typeline wrote:People think guns are bad because they are used to kill people, get over it.

I'll probably never own more than a handgun.

I'd totally shoot anyone that broke into my house or attacked me/my family/friends (In some cases). ... I'd be aiming for chest/head shots.

People are afraid of guns because they've never handled on in Real Life. It is irrational mass phobia that we're talking about. I always like to compare with a 10" chef's knife. You handle that every day in the kitchen, but if that thing ever goes up under your ribs, you're dead.

If things start getting stupid, I'll be getting 2 autoguns (one for me, one for the wife) and an assault shotgun (for the house).

In my house? Triple-tap (center of mass, center of mass, headshot) to put them down fast. If it's a home invasion and my family is on the line, I have no qualms about killing every single one of them if I have to.

sexiest_hero wrote:How about a limit on guns, like a hand gun for defense and a rifle for hunting, I'm not anti gun i'm anti assault weapon.

There is no need for these limits. And an assault weapon is just a rifle. I see no need to make any distinction or have any restriction. It's not the gun, it's the user.

legoburner wrote:It is going to be an interesting and disturbing day 10-15 years into the future when home 3D printing comes of age and people can print out any weapon they can conceive, including moving parts. Ammo might be a bit of a challenge but there will certainly be a surge in crazy bladed weapons and spring loaded, short ranged weapons. Still, at least we'll all be safe at home printing off wargaming models!

I am not afraid of plastic waepons. A gun with a polystyrene barrel? You might break the skin at close range, assuming that your plastic hammer and plastic spring can snap hard enough to fire the bullet, the firing chamber doesn't explode, the barrel doesn't instantly burst, and the bullet goes where you're pointing.

As for knives, I can already get several high-quality resin knives from Cold Steel that are far less expensive, far stronger, and far sharper than what that 3-D printer would cost. If we're talking swords, you go ahead with your bad self and make that polystyrene sword. If I'm armed with a taped wooden baseball bat one (illegal, BTW; get the shatterproof resin one from Cold Steel), I could beat your ass 8 ways to Sunday against any 3-d printed plastic weapon you can imagine.

Frazzled wrote:

Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better.

Really, just stop at this point.

What, you don't believe me? That's fine, I don't particularly care because at this point you're looking for reasons to get offended. I indirectly questioned your beliefs using admittedly obtuse terminology, and your response is now to try and shout me down. That says something about you I'm sure.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
People are afraid of guns because they've never handled on in Real Life. It is irrational mass phobia that we're talking about. I always like to compare with a 10" chef's knife. You handle that every day in the kitchen, but if that thing ever goes up under your ribs, you're dead.

If things start getting stupid, I'll be getting 2 autoguns (one for me, one for the wife) and an assault shotgun (for the house).

In my house? Triple-tap (center of mass, center of mass, headshot) to put them down fast. If it's a home invasion and my family is on the line, I have no qualms about killing every single one of them if I have to.

It isn't so much a fear of the weapons as it is a fear of the weapons getting into the hands of the wrong people (criminals, mentally unstable, postmen). Certainly some people may fear guns, but there is also a strong rational component to at least heavily restricting their sale. Unless you really want incidents involving the exchange of gun-fire to become statistically common events in major cities. You know, because that won't cause any collateral damage at all. :S

Also, if things get bad enough that you really need to use assault weaponry to ensure your security don't expect to last very long. Mobs have a tendency to turn on those who are either more powerful, or better off. There's also that trifling little matter of ammunition.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Indeed, I would have joined the services had my alternative options not been so much better.

Really, just stop at this point.

What, you don't believe me? That's fine, I don't particularly care because at this point you're looking for reasons to get offended. I indirectly questioned your beliefs using admittedly obtuse terminology, and your response is now to try and shout me down. That says something about you I'm sure.

Oh I believe everything your saying. But you're missing the forest for the trees.

Lets restate and paraphrase:
'lifer or burnout'
'number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist'
'when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. '
'would have joined had my alternatives not been so much better'

You're not seeing how this would torque off an exceedingly large portion of the US population?

dogma wrote:Certainly some people may fear guns, but there is also a strong rational component to at least heavily restricting their sale.

Unless you really want incidents involving the exchange of gun-fire to become statistically common events in major cities. You know, because that won't cause any collateral damage at all. :S

Also, if things get bad enough that you really need to use assault weaponry to ensure your security don't expect to last very long. Mobs have a tendency to turn on those who are either more powerful, or better off. There's also that trifling little matter of ammunition.

Well, I've actually spoken with some of these anti-gun people. And I've found that the best question to start the discussion is simply: "Have you fired a gun?"

Because, mostly, they think that guns are like TV & movies, and we all know how realistic *that* is... :S :S :S

You're aware that most of Texas is a "shall issue" state, and that guns are very common there? Same with the midwest (hunting)? In hunting season, you will see firearms everywhere. But shootouts aren't very common at all. It's not like TV.

@Fraz, how many gun battles have you had in your city lately?

As for the collapse situation, I'd rather try to defend my family and run out of ammunition, than bend over the table and take whatever they decide to dish out. At least I would have tried...

I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...

Frazzled wrote:I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...

Amen to that.
____

BTW, have you seen the firearms bloopers on youtube?

I keep thinking "hmm... maybe a bit less gun next time?"

Frazzled wrote:

Oh I believe everything your saying. But you're missing the forest for the trees.

What? You're offended because I have a critical opinion of the military? Come on man.

Frazzled wrote:
Lets restate and paraphrase:
'lifer or burnout'

Admittedly a poor choice of words that I have, for like the 4th time now, apologized for and contextualized.

Frazzled wrote:
'number of relatively wealthy, but less academically talented, kids who enlist'

Academically talented kids who want to join the services go to Annapolis, West Point, or the Air Force Academy. They do not enlist, at least not in appreciable numbers. Enlist is a very specific bit of terminology.

Frazzled wrote:
'when the reality and stigma of the military was far different from what is now. '

You really think that the majority of the US views the military in the same way as they did before Vietnam? There are disproportionate recruitment draws from the states in the South, and West of America. Pretty much from Arkansas to Nevada, stopping at roughly the Mason-Dixon. A region which also happens to be, with the exception of Texas, the most sparsely populated part of the nation. Prior to Vietnam these discrepancies did not exist. Tell me that isn't a change of heart.

Frazzled wrote:
'would have joined had my alternatives not been so much better'

They were much better. If I had enlisted I could have expected to see maybe 15k (knee injuries prevent me from serving in active deployment) in funds for college after getting out. The school I went to cost me roughly 40k a year in tuition. That isn't even a drop in the bucket so why would I bother? You might not like it that huge chunks of the nation think about their bottom line before their 'duty' but that's the way it is. Just look how opposed to new taxes the electorate is and you'll get another feel for this reality.

Frazzled wrote:
You're not seeing how this would torque off an exceedingly large portion of the US population?

Not really. I see one offensive comment which I apologized for and contextualized. Followed by three comments which are driven by a statistically minded perception of armed services recruitment. And a final statement about my personal economic reality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I've found in every instance, if you can get woman to shoot a handgun once, they love it. Nothing is more interesting than seeing a grandmother shoot a 1911 hogleg...

Amen to that.
____

BTW, have you seen the firearms bloopers on youtube?

I keep thinking "hmm... maybe a bit less gun next time?"

Don't need to. I've stood next to 'em.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, I've actually spoken with some of these anti-gun people. And I've found that the best question to start the discussion is simply: "Have you fired a gun?"

By your definition I probably am an anti-gun person, but I'm not afraid of guns. I've gone shooting several times. Its fun, but it has nothing to do with gun regulation.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Because, mostly, they think that guns are like TV & movies, and we all know how realistic *that* is... :S :S :S

True enough. Though most gun advocates have a similar perception of their own abilities to use a firearm in a threatening situation. Shooting with your adrenaline pumping is not conducive to accuracy, especially when you are being threatened.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You're aware that most of Texas is a "shall issue" state, and that guns are very common there? Same with the midwest (hunting)? In hunting season, you will see firearms everywhere. But shootouts aren't very common at all. It's not like TV.

Most states are 'shall issue' and almost all 'shall issue' states have pretty stringent regulations on who they 'shall issue' to. I don't particularly care that people have the ability to purchase weapons. I care about whether or not those weapons are funneled to people responsible enough to be trusted with them. Most gun laws are pretty well designed, but I take issue with organizations like the NRA that constantly fight to have them made less stringent.

Personally I would like to see a large excise tax on all non-hunting firearms (hunting weapons being long shotguns and low capacity semi-automatic/bolt-action rifles) as they are strictly luxury items with no purpose beyond amusement or killing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the collapse situation, I'd rather try to defend my family and run out of ammunition, than bend over the table and take whatever they decide to dish out. At least I would have tried...

Meh, that's your choice. It isn't a likely (even remotely) event anyway, so it doesn't matter.

dogma wrote:By your definition I probably am an anti-gun person, but I'm not afraid of guns. I've gone shooting several times. Its fun, but it has nothing to do with gun regulation.

OK, just checking. FWI, you're an outlier.

dogma wrote:Though most gun advocates have a similar perception of their own abilities to use a firearm in a threatening situation. Shooting with your adrenaline pumping is not conducive to accuracy, especially when you are being threatened.

True, and I hope never to be in a situation where it becomes necessary. But I'm very familiar with weapons, and a decent shot, so if push comes to shove, I'd hope I come out on top.

dogma wrote:Most states are 'shall issue' and almost all 'shall issue' states have pretty stringent regulations on who they 'shall issue' to. I don't particularly care that people have the ability to purchase weapons. I care about whether or not those weapons are funneled to people responsible enough to be trusted with them. Most gun laws are pretty well designed, but I take issue with organizations like the NRA that constantly fight to have them made less stringent.

Personally I would like to see a large excise tax on all non-hunting firearms (hunting weapons being long shotguns and low capacity semi-automatic/bolt-action rifles) as they are strictly luxury items with no purpose beyond amusement or killing.

I'm not sure you understand what "shall issue" means from a rights standpoint. It means that the burden is on the state to prove that somebody shouldn't be allowed to carry. As a result, concealed carry is strongly legal, such that, anybody, anywhere could be carrying.

As for people and usage, the big question is really whether the government bothers to fully and strongly enforce the laws already on the books. Such as possession and/or usage of firearms in the commission of a crime. When the government actually cares and acts to penalize criminals for being illegally armed, then firearms-related crime become much less of an issue.

At some point, that "tax" you want becomes unconstitutional restraint on our 2nd Amendment right.

dogma wrote:Meh, that's your choice. It isn't a likely (even remotely) event anyway, so it doesn't matter.

You never know. Later tonight, I'll post a link to someone's perspective in a post-collapse economy. They're pretty strongly pro-gun post-collapse. And they were sitting pretty right before the collapse.

Dogma has dug himself quite a hole here, but I think I get what he's trying to say. Allow me to interpret:

The modern military (post-vietnam) is an all-volunteer force. Not volunteer as in unpaid, but volunteer as in only those people that want to serve are involved. Patriotism, or a desire to serve, or a feeling of duty are always among the reasons that people join the military (as oppposed to working their way up a fast food franchise or going to the mill or similar options) are those that seek to use it for a career or those for whom joining the military is the best option for the skills, training and compensation they are looking to get.

His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.

I think its possible that Dogma still carries the idea that those in the military are there out of economic necessity, which many servicemen and veterans find insulting, when in actuality military service is one of the hardest ways to earn a living wage for privates, and I think he forgets that the military isn't dead end. It's very harsh in only promoting those with the skills and talent to move up, but hard working and talented people become senior NCOs and enjoy top market benefits and a healthy salary.

As for Frazzled: i think it's time to stop pretending that every person in the service is doing it out of a deep patriotice duty and nothing more. Yes, those that serve are putting their life on the line for the country and deserve the benefits they recieve, but it's not insulting to assume that the economic benefits are a factor in why people enlist. And yes, some do come from backgrounds where they have very few options. Others would rather take time off and do something productive before going back to school, and earn some money on the side. Others seek skills and training, or the GI bill to elminate or reduce college loan debt.

Dogma may have insulted you, but he didn't mean to, apologized, and tried to explain his position. Yes, his perceptions are wrong here, but you could have corrected them rather than yelling at him. As a poster here, much less as a mod, you could work harder to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it.

Polonius wrote:His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.

That is necessarily true as a strict consequence of AVF, by definition.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

The numbers show that, overall, the military is fairly reflective of the US as a whole, rather than having a heavy skew downward. In the AVF, many uneducated / undereducated / lower class simply won't qualify to meet standards.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.

That is necessarily true as a strict consequence of AVF, by definition.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

The numbers show that, overall, the military is fairly reflective of the US as a whole, rather than having a heavy skew downward. In the AVF, many uneducated / undereducated / lower class simply won't qualify to meet standards.

It's actually far easier to get into college than into the military. The number of people they turn away every year is staggering.

Polonius wrote:
His point was that the group of people for whom the military is the best option tend to be those people who have fewer options over all. That's not to say that they had no options, because I think the modern military is far more working and middle class than lower class in background.

It is, but the middle class is largely shrinking in terms of purchasing power. As is attested by the near $17,210, and growing, gap between mean and median household incomes. Which is a big problem for people who join up expecting to get money for college when they get out, only to find that the school they expected to pay for is still well out of their reach. For many recruits the options boil down to community college, technical school, and the military. They join the military because (aside from patriotism) they believe it will help them go to a 4 year institution, but when they end their tour they realize that joining the services has simply left them right back where they started.

Polonius wrote:
I think its possible that Dogma still carries the idea that those in the military are there out of economic necessity, which many servicemen and veterans find insulting, when in actuality military service is one of the hardest ways to earn a living wage for privates, and I think he forgets that the military isn't dead end. It's very harsh in only promoting those with the skills and talent to move up, but hard working and talented people become senior NCOs and enjoy top market benefits and a healthy salary.

I certainly do not think that all of the people in the military are there out of economic necessity. Nor do I believe that it is a dead end. My point was that, in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult. In that sense it is a severe misnomer to consider the armed services as a magical gateway to success as most people will not serve more than 1 tour of duty. Largely because they don't want to stay on any longer, but also because the services don't want them to. That is the great myth of the GI bill. It is not money which they will give to just anyone. It is entirely dependent upon the willingness of the service to accept any given recruit as a multiple deployment soldier. In many ways it is just another type of merit scholarship which is much more difficult to earn.

That's one of the issues with recruitment. The benefits are simply not competitive with similar options available to those people they are attempting to attract (4 year degree students). One way to fix this would be to allow the dispensation of the GI bill to technical schools, or other such institutions. Sure, there is the military tradition to account for, but that isn't really something that can be directly affected by policy choices. People will see the military however they choose, and react accordingly. What the services can do is increase the number of higher pay-grade personnel (Rummy wanted to do this before he got forced out) in order to encourage longer enlistment. This has the dual affect of increasing the readiness of our forces, and generally improving the perception of the services as a whole. The military will be a lot more attractive when the percentage of leaving soldiers going to school is significantly higher.

Edit: Thanks for being the voice of clarity, Polonius.

Hey in the military you should be used to people protesting against you, just look at such yearly protests at the school of americas on Ft. Benning in GA. In fact we fight to protect the rights of people to say things we don't agree with. I've been called worse thengs than a burn-out by people I agree with, so that's that.

I do belive that the government should pump more money into Recruitment training, and most importantly FAMILY AFFAIRS, the divorce rates suicide rates Post tramatic stress rates, and worst of all domestic violance rates are way too high.

I wish Rommy had won the primaries, I liked his Military stance as well.

Grignard: Essentially what I consider loose is someone being allowed to have a gun for no particular reason.
I have my gun for hunting, so I have to able to prove that I have somewhere to hunt, join a game preservation club to make sure I hunt responsibly, and get a cert from local Gardaí attesting to my good character.
Another thing I think is pretty loose is allowing automatic weapons to be sold. I think they should be sold, but only under the absolute strictest conditions, and you shouldn't be allowed keep them in your house.
My brother is a british military trained sniper, he likes to use a sniper rifle every now and then to keep his skills sharp. If he wants to do that (which I think is pretty reasonable, and probably fun) he can head to a specific place and rent one for a few hours for some practice. He doesn't need to own one to do what he needs, so he's not allowed.
On the other hand, some people would be allowed to own high powered rifles, for deer hunting and the like (which is mostly a public service over here because the natural predators or deer were hunted to death by the nobility around 1790, so they tend to get a bit out of control) but the vetting process is a lot more complex than it would be for my double barrelled shotgun for example.

While this is my opinion I still realise that the US is a very different place, my main point was that you guys and the swiss are not the only ones with guns

Da Boss wrote:Grignard: Essentially what I consider loose is someone being allowed to have a gun for no particular reason.
I have my gun for hunting, so I have to able to prove that I have somewhere to hunt, join a game preservation club to make sure I hunt responsibly, and get a cert from local Gardaí attesting to my good character.
Another thing I think is pretty loose is allowing automatic weapons to be sold. I think they should be sold, but only under the absolute strictest conditions, and you shouldn't be allowed keep them in your house.
My brother is a british military trained sniper, he likes to use a sniper rifle every now and then to keep his skills sharp. If he wants to do that (which I think is pretty reasonable, and probably fun) he can head to a specific place and rent one for a few hours for some practice. He doesn't need to own one to do what he needs, so he's not allowed.
On the other hand, some people would be allowed to own high powered rifles, for deer hunting and the like (which is mostly a public service over here because the natural predators or deer were hunted to death by the nobility around 1790, so they tend to get a bit out of control) but the vetting process is a lot more complex than it would be for my double barrelled shotgun for example.

While this is my opinion I still realise that the US is a very different place, my main point was that you guys and the swiss are not the only ones with guns

Yah, that is the core difference right there. I would hate the idea of having to justify to someone else why I wanted to do something, especially the police. I feel that it really isn't anyone's business because I've never been on the wrong side of the law. If I had a history of bad behavior, so to speak, that would be entirely different.

When you say automatic weapons, do you mean fully automatic or auto-loading. Being able to buy the first category I feel is loose ( Though I'm not necessarily against it), though I really don't see the sale of auto-loading pistols or rifles being terribly loose. I'm not particularly good with rifles, but I can pop rounds into a bolt action rifle pretty damn fast and still fire accurately, and pistols with a revolver mechanism are really not that much different than autoloaders as far as effective rate of fire. In fact, if I'm introducing someone to pistol shooting, I always give them my .38, because the point and click nature of the revolver is much less intimidating than the seemingly complex automatic.

Is Irish law about that very similar to the UK? I'm not really here to criticize other nation's laws, but I never could understand that you can purchase a shotgun without too much trouble, but pistols are a real no-no. It doesn't take a genius to attack that barrel with a saw, and they're definitely lethal weapons close up.

Again, I don't have any desire to take my guns to your nation, and I can respect your nation's views on that, I just don't particularly want them here . I think it is great that you can still go shoot though.

I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?

Surely an semi is all you'd need, as it allows for a decent enough rate of fire should things go really pear shaped?