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.

The guy's definitely a contender for the 2016 Darwin Awards.

I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You're not understanding.

Probably intentional on your part.

No I understand perfectly well. When "criminals" are just statistics you tar them all with the same brush, but when we actually look at an individual, you start contradicting yourself. Most people who break the law aren't career criminals either.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.

Please tell us you are joking.

Sorry, did you have something to add to the conversation besides patronising spam? I have already posted at length about how cars have changed (try reading the topic). However, "fundamentally" they are still four wheels, seats, steering wheel, driven by an internal combustion engine. If you are crossing the street and I run you over in a modern car or a 1930s sedan, you're not going to feel much difference.

This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one

Evidently, that's highly debatable.

There are registries depending on the kind of firearm and where you live. None of them appear to have had any effect on anything except making owning firearms subject to them a royal PITA, and in at least one case serving as a direct confiscation avenue. The ATF has had its NFA registry for decades, but if may have lost track of up to half of the machine gun records over time, people do routinely find papered weapons that aren't on the current registry and are saved from felony prosecution or losing their firearm by the ancient scrap of paper with a tax stamp on it. My father is *still* on CA's assault weapons registry, despite no longer living in CA for several years, having sold the rifles fifteen years ago, and notified the state DoJ in writing via certified mail multiple times. All evidence points to massive and widespread non-compliance with NY's registry. There's absolutely no evidence to support any sort of registry having a positive effect on homicide rates or that their administration is feasible, but they absolutely do make going through the process of owning these weapons incredibly odious.

I would just like to set a few misconceptions right in this thread.

There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.

In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.

Many of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic however report their "murders" completely differently. This varies from country to country, however one in particular (I'll let you get which one) includes ALL of these requirements: A murder is a death that is non natural, non suicide, non accident, not committed by the mentally ill, not committed by a minor, where the suspect is captured ALIVE, prosecuted, found guilty, and lives to use all their appeals.

Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder. Other countries don't do that, and we happen to have a cartel-run 3rd world country to our south that loves body dumps.


I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.

Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts. When done in this manner the method used makes less of a difference. Also of note is that men make up 40% of suicide attempts, but 80% of actual suicides. Men are more likely to be serious about suicide, and are more likely to retry it after a failed attempt. Coincidently men are also more likely to own guns, however, their success rate by all methods are greater than women. Areas of high gun ownership also are areas of low population density and often lower earnings. These areas also have higher male to female population ratios, older populations, and higher likelyhoods of single person living arrangements. In other words rural areas are poorer, less likely to be able to afford mental health, people live significantly farther from help, are less likely to be diagnosed, less likely to have friends/family around to notice symptoms of depression, and significantly more likely to feel isolated. All these factors skew the results to make it seem that guns cause suicide.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.

That's not terrubly hard as its only ~25 people a year. "Fairly deadly" when discussing firearms seems a bit strong.

Also bought a Savage .17 semi today. Have those ever been used in a crime? Probably? But if I ductape a knife on it and throw a pistol grip on it it's suddenly illegal. I think that's why most people that are against gun control are against it because of that. Ridiculous measures that do nothing to actually attack any problem. So I think people are open to gun legislation, but only when its actually sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL holy shoot where did you copy that from? Sounds super fun

I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.

The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.

About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.

4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.

In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.

Okay, but who are you trying to convince? I was the one who originally brought up and listed the safety improvements for people "inside" cars, so it was never something I disagreed with. Since it is an analogy, there will be some things that don't translate, however, given that many systems in modern cars are now computer controlled, and smart systems aren't common with guns, I disagree with you that there is no room for safety and security improvements with guns. Smart technology could open up a universe of safety features for firearms in the future.

The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one

Evidently, that's highly debatable.

There are registries depending on the kind of firearm and where you live. None of them appear to have had any effect on anything except making owning firearms subject to them a royal PITA, and in at least one case serving as a direct confiscation avenue. The ATF has had its NFA registry for decades, but if may have lost track of up to half of the machine gun records over time, people do routinely find papered weapons that aren't on the current registry and are saved from felony prosecution or losing their firearm by the ancient scrap of paper with a tax stamp on it. My father is *still* on CA's assault weapons registry, despite no longer living in CA for several years, having sold the rifles fifteen years ago, and notified the state DoJ in writing via certified mail multiple times. All evidence points to massive and widespread non-compliance with NY's registry. There's absolutely no evidence to support any sort of registry having a positive effect on homicide rates or that their administration is feasible, but they absolutely do make going through the process of owning these weapons incredibly odious.

I feel like we've had this conversation before. What can I say? The computer game industry crashed in 1983, did that mean there was no money in computer games? It picked up and now it's worth ~20 billion, computer games weren't a bad idea. Similarly, It sounds like your state registry doesn't work well, it is poorly implemented and enforced. While I can appreciate that might make you suspicious of registration, it doesn't make registration a bad idea. Having a decent paper trail is really important for fighting crime, it is how authorities have managed to clamp down on things like money laundering. If you ever want to tackle the black-market sale of arms in America, then you need to start keeping sufficient records. The current system and general attitude towards tracking guns in America, I personally view as criminally negligent. You have no idea how many there are, no idea who has them or where they are coming from, and no interest in finding out.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.

Okay, but who are you trying to convince? I was the one who originally brought up and listed the safety improvements for people "inside" cars, so it was never something I disagreed with. Since it is an analogy, there will be some things that don't translate, however, given that many systems in modern cars are now computer controlled, and smart systems aren't common with guns, I disagree with you that there is no room for safety and security improvements with guns. Smart technology could open up a universe of safety features for firearms in the future.

In the future, perhaps, but there's ultimately a key difference that is likely to permanently stifle it as a realistic element, which is that in a car, electronics are there to enhance performance, they improve the overall function of the vehicle, making braking safer, improving transmission operation, managing fuel input, managing speed on cruise control, etc, while in a gun, such technology would be there purely to hinder operation of mechanical elements that would otherwise work fine (and in almost all cases, better), without it.

Computerized elements work great in paintball guns where they are operating an electronic solenoid and the "trigger" is just hitting a microswitch, but firearms do not operate in the same manner and retrofitting such to existing designs would be totally impractical.

The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.

Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I've gone through a few legal definitions of riot and mob. I've also done various searches, checked the wiki, and other than one reference which defines one type of riot, "An immediate riot is unrest among a section of the population , nearly always in the wake of a violent episode of state coercion.".

Hang on, so the only actual outside source you’ve given to counter the popular conception of a riot as an immediate thing is one that says riots are an immediate thing. That’s a new kind of arguing.

Anyhow, if you’re arguing that a series of sporadic, stand alone instances can be called a riot and fit the same psychological behaviour as a riot, then please bring some actual statements to that effect.

Are you implying that the US has high levels of killing sprees?

I’m not implying it. I’m flat out stating it, because it is a thing that is true. The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.

Not that the US murder rate is about spree killing anyway, that’s a tiny portion of the total. But if we look at overall killings, we see the same thing – the US has a lot more killings than other developed countries.

As an example there are still many countries where you can't speak out against the government, they don't have free speech like the US. All those factor into them to create a different environment.

You might want to go look in to the rates of violent crimes in repressive countries. They’re a lot higher than the developed world.

I never said it was a major factor. I think you focused on one thing instead of understanding the whole social psychology behind what is being said. I wasn't specifically talking about murder in general. I was specifically talking about mass shootings and their increased rate, which is different than murder in general as well as suicides (which tend to account for the largest portion of gun violence). Crimes of passion and suicides obviously aren't effected by a riot/mob mentality, there is no manifesto, there aren't a few dozen photos of poses with the guns in classic poses of violent intent, there are records that they researched other shootings.

And here’s where we get to the weird focus of your premise. We know gun suicides, gun murders, gun woundings, spree killings and all other kinds of gun violence are higher per capita in the US than in other developed countries, by an order of magnitude. And we also know that the whole developed world has the internet and freedom of speech and all that stuff.

But you pick spree killings out of isolation, and start talking about how the internet and freedom of speech might increase spree killings. Once you apply the higher level facts it becomes a very silly premise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.

You read a bad article. The 'deaths from selfies' thing is contrived by including any death that happened to occur while a selfie was being taken. It includes people who had heart attacks while taking selfies, for instance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.

Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.

It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic. It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on. However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.

In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.

No, this is a junk claim that gets thrown around among gun rights advocates, but simply has no basis in reality. To account for differences in classification, a concept of 'intentional homicide' has been developed, with consistent definitions across countries.

The US intentional homicide rate is 3.8 per 100,000. Canada is 1.4. Australia is 1.1. Germany 0.8. UK is 1.0. France 1.0 Italy 0.9. I could go on.

Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder.

If you think that accounts for a 3 to 4 times difference in murder rates, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.

No, seriously. On any kind of intentional homicide, the US is three to four times as murderous. The presence of guns doesn't just change the method, they increase the likelihood.

Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts.

No, what makes sense is to compare actual rates of suicide per capita. The US is 12.1 Canada 9.8. Australia is 10.6. .1. Germany 9.2. UK is 6.2. France 12.3. Italy 4.7. So lower than France, and within reach of the other countries, the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as in the other list.

And now I'd just like to address a misconception that I've seen in this thread, that I see in every gun thread. Liking guns and supporting more open access to guns doesn’t require you to pretend that guns have no negative impact. That’s like arguing that because you like 40K there’s nothing wrong with the rules.

Accept that gun proliferation increases the rate of gun violence. The case is obvious and intuitive, and backed up clearly by the stats. Recognising that doesn’t mean you have to support gun control, because there are still very good arguments against gun control. But start from an honest base.

 sebster wrote:
Hang on, so the only actual outside source you’ve given to counter the popular conception of a riot as an immediate thing is one that says riots are an immediate thing.

I don't think you understood what I said. Riots is defined as, "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people.". No where in the studies or classifications does riots/mobs mention they only happen as a immediate reaction. I mentioned the only source, only one out of all the other sources that talked about a type called an immediate riot and it was in reference to a particular categorized type not as riots as a whole. It talked about an Immediate Riot and Historical Riot but I'm not familiar with source other than it is a french author. I couldn't tell you how accountable it was vs say wiki or the college courses and classes on collective behavior, crowd types, mobs and riots. All the other sources never mention or talk that a riot/mob can only be an immediate reaction.

 sebster wrote:
The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.

What and how are you defining killing spree?

 Dark Severance wrote:
I don't think you understood what I said. Riots is defined as, "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people.". No where in the studies or classifications does riots/mobs mention they only happen as a immediate reaction. I mentioned the only source, only one out of all the other sources that talked about a type called an immediate riot and it was in reference to a particular categorized type not as riots as a whole. It talked about an Immediate Riot and Historical Riot but I'm not familiar with source other than it is a french author. I couldn't tell you how accountable it was vs say wiki or the college courses and classes on collective behavior, crowd types, mobs and riots. All the other sources never mention or talk that a riot/mob can only be an immediate reaction.

You are yet to provide any evidence for your claim that anyone on Earth besides yourself would see similar actions taken by multiple people, across multiple states, spread months apart, and call that a riot.

The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.

What and how are you defining killing spree?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.

The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.

About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.

4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.

In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.

Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I would just like to set a few misconceptions right in this thread.

There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.

In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.

... ...

That is incorrect. Justifiable homicide is distinguished from murder statistics under the Uniform Crime Crime Reporting process.

The FBI reports 12,765 murders in 2012 plus 720 justifiable homicides, 410 by police officers and 310 by citizens caught up in a crime situation. You will note that the murder rate is 17.7 times higher than the justificable homicide rate. The FBI notes that 69% of homicides are carried out with guns.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expandhomicidemain#disablemobile

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.

You read a bad article. The 'deaths from selfies' thing is contrived by including any death that happened to occur while a selfie was being taken. It includes people who had heart attacks while taking selfies, for instance.

Not to mention that shark attacks are really quite rare, so something being more deadly than shark attacks is not very difficult. Cows are more deadly than sharks when you look at deaths caused by each.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.

Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.

It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic.

And she lost her concealed handgun license and got 18 months of probation, more than what you'd get for driving into oncoming traffic in most places (assuming nobody got hurt).

It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.

Maybe yes, maybe no, ultimately it comes down to if you have to pass a certification for it, it's no longer a right. That's simply a fundamental nature of what a right constitutes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

Here is my daughter, way too young to get a driver's license, learning to operate a backhoe.



She did not get a certification.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.

The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.

About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.

4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.

In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.

Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.

Unfortunately it's not just one person. Here in the US there are a couple states, and multiple cities, where owning a .50 rifle is not only illegal, but a felony punishable by several years in prison. There was a case a while back about a man with two houses, one in California, one in Utah. He owned a .50 rifle, and stored it in his Utah home. The state of California, where the .50 is illegal, charged him anyway, as in their opinion their laws prohibit California citizens from owning a .50, regardless of its actual location.

Also, I am jealous of the UK in your laws regarding sound suppressors. I here you can buy those over the counter. Here in the US we need to live in a designated area, fill out complicated paperwork, pay a heavy fee, wait quite a while for government approval, buy them from a specialized dealer, and then keep them within our state or residence.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.

In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.

No, this is a junk claim that gets thrown around among gun rights advocates, but simply has no basis in reality. To account for differences in classification, a concept of 'intentional homicide' has been developed, with consistent definitions across countries.

The US intentional homicide rate is 3.8 per 100,000. Canada is 1.4. Australia is 1.1. Germany 0.8. UK is 1.0. France 1.0 Italy 0.9. I could go on.

Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder.

If you think that accounts for a 3 to 4 times difference in murder rates, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.

No, seriously. On any kind of intentional homicide, the US is three to four times as murderous. The presence of guns doesn't just change the method, they increase the likelihood.

Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts.

No, what makes sense is to compare actual rates of suicide per capita. The US is 12.1 Canada 9.8. Australia is 10.6. .1. Germany 9.2. UK is 6.2. France 12.3. Italy 4.7. So lower than France, and within reach of the other countries, the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as in the other list.

And now I'd just like to address a misconception that I've seen in this thread, that I see in every gun thread. Liking guns and supporting more open access to guns doesn’t require you to pretend that guns have no negative impact. That’s like arguing that because you like 40K there’s nothing wrong with the rules.

Accept that gun proliferation increases the rate of gun violence. The case is obvious and intuitive, and backed up clearly by the stats. Recognising that doesn’t mean you have to support gun control, because there are still very good arguments against gun control. But start from an honest base.

There was an effort a while back to homogenize the definition of "murder" to only include intentional killings. However, even this was met with some problems. Many countries still don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill to be "intentional". Also, some countries are still only listing their convictions, not actual killings.

There is also the fact that the US is one of the most racially and culturally diverse nations on the planet. For all the good there is in that studies have shown that the more diverse a location is the more violent it is, regardless of other factors.

I'd also like to throw Japan's suicide rate of 26.1 into the discussion. That's well over twice that of the US. In fact, their suicide rate alone is higher than the US combined suicide/murder rate.

 sebster wrote:
By standard Bureau of Justice definition - "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders"

Actually no I'm trying to understand what you are talking about. It is clear we're talking about two entirely different things. I was specifically talking about mass shootings which aren't spree killings. They have completely different psychology and reasoning behind them. That is main issue with talking about gun violence is everyone tends to group everything together as one thing and there are multiple levels within it.

Can you provide some information on where you are getting your data for spree killings? I can't find a lists of them that compares the US to other countries statistics, as it looks like the FBI classifies spree killings like that but other countries don't seperate out their murders as clearly. There is a listing of sources I can confirm at gunviolencearchive.org but not a large amount if looking at spree killings.

 sebster wrote:
You are yet to provide any evidence for your claim that anyone on Earth besides yourself would see similar actions taken by multiple people, across multiple states, spread months apart, and call that a riot.

Honestly I figured you wouldn't take my word for it and would at least do some research on your own. I at least bothered to look and search for the information you provided to collaborate it. I'm also not claiming that all mass shootings are akin to riots. There is a sociology behind these people who aren't actually mentally ill as defined by current standards.







Threshold Models of Collective Behavior

Thesholds of Violence

The Social Roots of School Shootings


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

Can someone driving on a private road or property by driving a forklift, riding mower, etc kill or hurt someone on public property while never leaving private property?

 CptJake wrote:
Here is my daughter, way too young to get a driver's license, learning to operate a backhoe.

That was actually how I learned how to drive. Although in the country it was also fine driving on the public road as long as it was heading to one of the other properties. I learned to drive at 12 and at 14 was driving between the properties with the truck or tractor. State troopers would wave and we would talk but I never got a ticket for not having a license. Unfortunately that was at least over 20 years ago, it would be interesting to know if someone did the same thing today if it would be perceived differently.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.

This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.

Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.

It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic. It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on. However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.

Guns have always been deadly and dangerous. This was true back when the constitution was ratified and many of the people at the convention were well aware of the current firearm technology and how it was continually improving. The average pistol, either semi auto or revolver, are based on the same designs that were in use a century ago. In times of much higher gun ownership rates of firearms fundamentally the same as current models there was no impetus to put restrictive training requirements on our 2A rights and there's still no compelling reason to change now.

Property registries tend to have more to do with taxation than safety or crime prevention. The state wants you to register your car so they know where to send the tax bill, how much to charge and who to come after if it doesn't get paid. The state doesn't care about your driving record or ability or if you even have a license to drive. My state registration form is just an invoice listing the year make mode and VIN of my car the states estimated value of it and how much I have to pay. If the state didn't tax cars there wouldn't be a need to register them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one

Evidently, that's highly debatable.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.

How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?

The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.

Come on man, at least read your own posts, I've had more structured conversations with my dog.

You said: If you commit a crime you lose your guns. Since there is no logical connection between committing crimes and misplacing things, I assume that by "lost" you mean: someone in authority takes them away. I said: (after you commit a crime,) how do the authorities know what (and how many guns) you might have, if the guns aren't registered?

If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed. The same way law enforcement justifies searches for illegal drugs or other contraband. Prior to committing such a crime a citizen would be protected by his/her 4th amendment rights. Those same rights would prevent law enforcement from conducting searches to see if all guns got registered if we ever created a registry.

Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.

 Dark Severance wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

Can someone driving on a private road or property by driving a forklift, riding mower, etc kill or hurt someone on public property while never leaving private property?

In theory possibly. Someone here hit a power pole and knocked it over into the street with a bobcat a few months ago, someone could lose control of a vehicle and end up on public property, etc. Its also legal to use all sorts of heavy equipment on public streets without training or licensing, a wood chipper for instance.

 CptJake wrote:



Here is my daughter, way too young to get a driver's license, learning to operate a backhoe.

Nice

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then

Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.

Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then

Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.

Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.

You can't carry a firearm under your coat without a permit in most places either. Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds. Or even possess one unless you are 21 for a handgun, 16 to 18 in some jurisdictions for rifles.

Need we bring up the countless people that have intentionally used their car to kill so many people. Or the guy that demolished most of the uptown area of his town with his bulldozer.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed.

They are welcome to search my premises but they wouldn't know what to look for or find anything. For the record all my firearms aren't kept at my house. I made a decision while back when I found out my son had autism and removed them from the premises. It wasn't that I had fear they were unsafe or that he couldn't learn to use them properly and safely but there are other complications, it was easier to remove them. They were at my grandfathers until he past away now they are at my fathers and also my uncles property. Law enforcement would also be welcome to go back east to search there as well, but they wouldn't know which ones are mine. The only one they would probably be able to identify would be my pistol as that was what I registered with when I did have my concealed permit.

I am curious if you believe there is an issue or if you believe the current level of things are acceptable. If you do believe there is an issue, what do you recommend as ways to improve the situation?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds.

You would need to clarify by what you mean school grounds. Are we talking elementary, high school, college or something else? This is dependent on state/county laws, colleges can allow those with concealed permits to carry and some high schools have as well.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then

Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.

Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.

So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?

The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

True, but my point was that they aren't. If you want to operate a motor vehicle on a public street, thats heavily regulated, and is relatively easy to regulate. Outside of that however, regulation is minimal or nonexistent and becomes increasingly difficult. Firearms dont have an equivalent of public road usage, theyre not consuming a public good in the way a car is, which makes regulation of the same type very difficult.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed.

They are welcome to search my premises but they wouldn't know what to look for or find anything. For the record all my firearms aren't kept at my house. I made a decision while back when I found out my son had autism and removed them from the premises. It wasn't that I had fear they were unsafe or that he couldn't learn to use them properly and safely but there are other complications, it was easier to remove them. They were at my grandfathers until he past away now they are at my fathers and also my uncles property. Law enforcement would also be welcome to go back east to search there as well, but they wouldn't know which ones are mine. The only one they would probably be able to identify would be my pistol as that was what I registered with when I did have my concealed permit.

I am curious if you believe there is an issue or if you believe the current level of things are acceptable. If you do believe there is an issue, what do you recommend as ways to improve the situation?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds.

You would need to clarify by what you mean school grounds. Are we talking elementary, high school, college or something else? This is dependent on state/county laws, colleges can allow those with concealed permits to carry and some high schools have as well.

If you committed a crime that disqualified you from gun ownership it would be on your record and you would get a severe sentence if you were ever caught trying to purchase one or were caught having one in your possession so if they couldn't find any guns they needed to confiscate you would still be barred from using one. If you're found guilty of committing a crime severe enough to make you lose your 2A rights then you're probably spending some time in prison before you ever get the opportunity to illegally possess a firearm.

I don't see a problem with the way things are now. I don't have any concerns about the people I know who are armed or that people I don't know are armed. I find my town and state to be a very nice hospitable place with good people and that gun ownership here is fairly commonplace. There are some laws and restrictions that I feel are unnecessary and others that I don't mind but I don't think things would be much different if we got rid of those too.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.

Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.

I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then

Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.

Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.

So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?

The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.

Hang on, you state that for the Canadians, but didn't Barrack Obama have a stated intent to regulate gun laws and that has been frustrated at every step by republicans and others too feeble to stand up to special interest lobby groups?

In fact, I got piled on by a group for even suggesting that POTUS was unable, as an elected official carrying his mandate, to enact his stated aims.

Surely he too was elected, and reflected the will of the people of the US?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.

The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.

About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.

4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.

In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.

Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.

Unfortunately it's not just one person. Here in the US there are a couple states, and multiple cities, where owning a .50 rifle is not only illegal, but a felony punishable by several years in prison. There was a case a while back about a man with two houses, one in California, one in Utah. He owned a .50 rifle, and stored it in his Utah home. The state of California, where the .50 is illegal, charged him anyway, as in their opinion their laws prohibit California citizens from owning a .50, regardless of its actual location.

Also, I am jealous of the UK in your laws regarding sound suppressors. I here you can buy those over the counter. Here in the US we need to live in a designated area, fill out complicated paperwork, pay a heavy fee, wait quite a while for government approval, buy them from a specialized dealer, and then keep them within our state or residence.

Ye, lots of people don't understand that some areas UK gun law is more relaxed than the US. We have no specific rules on maximum caliber. The licencing is just the same as any other firearm, in that you just have to show you need it, which means a have a place to shoot, which depends on the gun.

On the suppressor, not exactly. For air rifles, yes, very easy to buy, which I believe is not the case in the US. For firearms they need to be on your licence and are treated as a firearm in their own right for licencing. However there is no additional cost and the justification for "need" is hearing damage risk or risk of noise annoying people when hunting. I have never heard of anyone being refused. Our system does have floors, including that some police forces that got in trouble for unreasonably refusing licences, who have now resorted to just processing very slowly, but it does have some good points. IMO neither the UK nore the US system is right, but somewhere between the two. I have no problem with the requirements for licencing before ownership, but I would like to be able to own a rifle without the need to either have lots of land or being an active member of a shooting club. I would like to be able to go to a range and shoot as and when I like, but there are many people I would not like to have access to guns who would if we had the US system.