Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[Dune]

And you still haven't answered the question I asked above.  Which is more dangerous, the AR-15 or that BAR?

[lazs2]

curval... it will be difficult to find cops that have been shot at by "assault rifles" to ask how they feel about em (assault rifles) in the hands of law abiding citizens.   it will be difficult because they are so rare as to be allmost mythical.   It would be much easier to find cops that had been shot at with vastly superior (to assault rifles) hunting rifles...  

As dune so succinctly and accurately points out.... the standard deer rifle is 2-5 times more powerful than the so called "assault rifle".   I seriously doubt that any police are for banning hunting rifles.

oh... the LA police did indeed have firearms that were more than capable of penetrating any known body armor.   they had officers trained to use em.   they got stuck in traffic.  

Most police forces don't want to face the liability that having rifle power ammo (even sub rifle power like 223) wizzing around crowded cities so are hesitant to issue weapons to beat officers that would be effective against body armor... extra training etc.   All against the extremely low probability of running into bad guys in full body armor who were suicidal as well as homicidal.

I have yet to hear a reason that makes sense as to why these so called "assault weapons" are to feared.

Thing is... you don't want to get shot... not by anything.  One minute you are a handsome healthy young lad and they next... you are dead or maimed for life or crippled.    

We should avoid shooting people as much as we can but...   Right or wrong....Guns are the genie that can't be put back in the bottle.

but.. guns are for the most of us a means of diversion and entertainment... a link to a living history..  a facinating hobby... guns are the tools that shaped industry with the first assembly line and the first product with interchangable parts... they are works of art and works of the best craftsmanship man has to offer.  they have shaped the politics of the world.   They have allowed the weak to prevail over the strong.   They continue to deter crime and tyranny.   There is a cost but I consider it small in comparisson to the benifiets.

In the morning I will chrongraph 4 loads out my 45 Kimber that vary slightly in overall length (seating depth) and use different primers.  I loaded these rounds upstairs in an old single stage rockcrusher press a few hours ago.   When I find one I like I will take it to the range and shoot for accuracy.   This is fun for me.   Tonite I will reload the kimber with federal hydroshoks and set it by the nitestand.  I will most likely drive my Healey or the El Camino out to my jobsite or the local outdoor range to do this tesing.... I will more than likely break several laws having to do with "exhibition of speed" and 'speeding' getting there.

I realize that my time is about over.   my barbaric behavior, my way of thinking,will  soon give way to more 'progressive' thinking that the women and womenly men of my state deem appropriate behavior for humans...  I sure hope I'm wrong and the pendulum starts to swing back the other  way but..  it don't look good.

lazs

[wrag]

Curval the weapons used by the bad guys in L.A. are basicly under the control of a law written in 1934 .

In CA. you cannot get them, in Nevada you must have a county, a state, and a Federal permit/license, plus a safe or an entire room made into a safe, to even try to purchase fully automatic weapons.  Plus the Government can inspect your home anytime they wish!

Fully Automatic weapons are extremely controlled everywhere or they are totally illegal.

The bad guys had weapons that were illegal already in CA and several other states and very difficult to obtain in the remaining states.

The bad guys got the weapons illegally!!!!!!!

Look at England!  The crime rate there has increased 300% by some people reckoning.  The bad guys are still getting firearms.  This on an island where control should be easier!

The truely sad part of all this is bad guys will get and use weapons on us.  Doesn't matter if the weapon is a pipe or a bat or a knife or a firearm.  And I must add in that so many people seem to believe that their fellow Americans can not be trusted with the means to defend themselves even when the supreme court has ruled that they are responsible for their own protection.

Seem to recall nunchuks mentioned.  Hey those are basically outlaw in CA too!  See what happens if you use nunchuks in self defense in CA!  Heck just display em/play with em in public and see what happens!

As to a society, any society that has been armed for defense and has given up their weapons ... I can point to Carthage (among many others) and what finally happened to them.  Again read it!  It's History!  Carthage is reported to have burned for 17 days!  Who reported it?  The Romans.

Oh a little note ---> it was the Romans that insisted Carthage disarm and even promised to protect Carthage.  Nice job?

Why? Where? Who? is it that keeps insisting that to be considered civilized and progressive people must disarm themselves?  Must place themselves at the mercy, or whims of others?

I think history shows that their own governments have been the greatest killers of the people during the 20th century.  Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, etc.......

[Mini D]

Not much good fighting rhetoric using rhetoric wrag.  And bringing Britain into the argument... bad move.

MiniD

[medicboy]

Why is it that some people can't learn from history, even current history that is going on (ie: Aus, UK, Canada)  ??????

It boils down to this, bill of rights says we have these rights.  Most were laid out just a few years after our independance was secured.  Now I see that all of these special interest groups are heading to the courts to secure the actual meaning as long as that meaning fits with their beliefs.  Don't you think if the founding fathers wanted the bill of rights to be designed by future courts they would have never bothered setting these rights down in the first place.  NO!  They made it as simple as possible to understand so there will be no question.  Weather or not you like guns doesn't matter.  If you dont' like them don't buy them!  But don't try to tell the rest of us what we should have and shouldn't.  You don't know what is the best for me no matter what the situation may look like from you throne.

  If you care about your rights, if you like living in a free country,  you will not compromise on any of them, not just the ones you like.  Freedom is what this country is about.  Too many people are trying to tell the rest of us that their idea of freedom is the right one and we need to live by their rules because they know what is best for us.  These people need to travel to Washington D.C.  Walk up those big grey steps and read the actual words for themselves.  They start with "We the people..."   Not "I the king..."

[Curval]

I initially posted in this thread due to Tarmacs original posts.  I met him at the Con and found out he is heading to the Academy and was surprised he had that attitude about assault rifles.

It was all a rather civil conversation until the NRA fanclub started personal attacks.

I tried to get out of this thread when I posted this:  

Originally posted by Curval
I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US.  The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.

I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here.  I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me.

.

Mini D then jabbed me with this:

"But... feel free to present it in any light you see fit. Don't let the facts get in the way. No skin of my nose either.
By the way... didn't that happen in a state where "assault" weapons are banned?"

Then we began a back and forth jabbing match about the details of this incident.  

The whole "outgunned" thing came about from his link he posted to back up his argument and was actually quoted by a police officer.  

Dune seems to think that officer is a handsomehunk.  This is his perogative.

Until I hear an accurate account of what happened in that incident though I see no reason to continue any discussion on it.   The only "official" word on this is thus far CNN and apparently nothing they say can be trusted.  

I am not a poster child for the anti-gun lobby Medicboy, the only reason I get involved in these discussions is because I find the subject interesting.  

The regulations pertaining to guns where I was brought up is just totally different from yours in the US.  We went the complete opposite direction.  Gun crime in any form is virtually unheard of.

No judgement call, just facts.  

My first involvement in any sort of gun thread revolved around an incident in Grapevine when I watched three yahoos who had bought rifles attempt to put them back in the box after they had removed them, against store policy.  I was in line for the gun range at the time and it struck me that these three bumbling idiots had just purchased deadly weapons...probably on sale.  It gave me "pause" is all and I made my feelings known on this board.

Ever since I have been branded anti-gun.

[Mini D]

Hey... you brought the story up when arguing shear destructive firepower curval (not mentioned at all in that article btw).

And... that's a funny story curval... the part about the guys buying the guns.  How do you think the same morons got to the store?

This is something spook used to do too.  Its something, I'm somewhat releived, our constitution provides for.  Feeling that only certain people or certain types of people should own guns is simply the start.  Much like finding certain guns that are really the problem.  It makes it much easier to levy restrictions and justify increased restrictions.

woopie for your little island's ability to curtail gun violence by banning guns.  Quick question though... do your police officers have guns at all?  Does your government have them at all?  I mean... just for security precautions?

Any idea why bobbies in GB would need sidearms after firearms have been banned but didn't use them before the ban?

The idea of an uncheckable government scares me more than the thought of a gun falling "into the wrong hands".

MiniD

[medicboy]

Curval, I in no way have a problem with the fact you don't like guns, or don't really care for them I guess would be more accurate.    But gun owners have gotten a real bad rap by people sterotyping.   In the area I live now and the area I am moving to in a few weeks a very large portion of residents own guns.   Gun crime doesn't exist here either.   We average 1 murder a year in the entire county and only about every 3rd or 4th year is it the result of a gun shot.   I haven't treated a non self inflicted or accidental gun shot in years.  Home invasions and burglries are unheard of.  You can leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and not worry.   Irony playes into this, for example the area that the DC shooters (I refuse to lable a 30 yard shot as a sniper shot)   took place has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, do you think that maybe they picked this area because the chances of an armed civilan comming to the rescue were slim to nil?    The famed bank shoot out in hollywood:  well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16.  All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.  

Just because people own guns dosen't make them "psycho" or deranged killers.   So please stop lumping gun owners into one group.  I have a question for you, is ther still crime on your island, and are there still murders?  

My overall argument was about rights, your island never included gun ownership as a right so you never had to deal with losing it.  My thought is if we compromise on one right, the dominos start falling and it wont stop till you have to get a special permit to speak your mind.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Mini D
Hey... you brought the story up when arguing shear destructive firepower curval (not mentioned at all in that article btw).

Fortunately the guys must have been incredibly bad shots.  That or the cops were hunkered down really well.  They kept the cops at bay for quite some time before even more firepower was brought to bear on them, either in the form of better guns..or just more of them.

And... that's a funny story curval... the part about the guys buying the guns.  How do you think the same morons got to the store?

Pick up truck would be my guess.

This is something spook used to do too.  Its something, I'm somewhat releived, our constitution provides for.  Feeling that only certain people or certain types of people should own guns is simply the start.  Much like finding certain guns that are really the problem.  It makes it much easier to levy restrictions and justify increased restrictions.

What is something spook used to do?

woopie for your little island's ability to curtail gun violence by banning guns.  Quick question though... do your police officers have guns at all?  Does your government have them at all?  I mean... just for security precautions?

Yes, yes, I know.  We are a tiny little insignificant island and my opinion does count because of it.  I've been informed of this many times.

The only cops with guns are the Special Operations guys...sort of a SWAT team.  The only time I ever saw them was when shooting against them in a "falling plate" contest.  They beat us (Jr NCO team, I think).  

We have a reserve regiment.

Any idea why bobbies in GB would need sidearms after firearms have been banned but didn't use them before the ban?

Drugs are bad.  That point was made well in this thread already.

The idea of an uncheckable government scares me more than the thought of a gun falling "into the wrong hands".

Uncheckable how?
[/B]

[Curval]

Originally posted by medicboy
Curval, I in no way have a problem with the fact you don't like guns, or don't really care for them I guess would be more accurate.

It's not guns I don't like...just the stupid people who own guns.  Actually it's not that I don't like them, but knowing they are amongst me, based upon average numbers of stupid people in crowds, when I visit makes me nervous.

But gun owners have gotten a real bad rap by people sterotyping.

Addressed below.

The famed bank shoot out in hollywood:  well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16.  All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.

If this is the case then you have made a good point.  

Just because people own guns dosen't make them "psycho" or deranged killers.   So please stop lumping gun owners into one group.

Where have I said this?  I never said gun owners are psycho or deranged killers.  I have a nasty suspicion you are doing a bit of stereotyping here yourself.

I have a question for you, is ther still crime on your island, and are there still murders?

Of course there is still crime here.  Yes, there have been a few murders.   Just none with guns that I can recall since the incident below..

My overall argument was about rights, your island never included gun ownership as a right so you never had to deal with losing it.

Untrue.  My father had two guns in his closet when I was a kid.  Then the governor was shot and killed.  Since then, no guns.

My thought is if we compromise on one right, the dominos start falling and it wont stop till you have to get a special permit to speak your mind.

As yes, thanks for reminding me...I must renew mine on Monday down at the "Independent Thought Department".

[Dune]

Here is an interesting thread.  The website is "Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine".  Here is what LEO's had to say about the "Assault Weapons Ban":

http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300&whichpage=1

[Mini D]

Fortunately the guys must have been incredibly bad shots. That or the cops were hunkered down really well. They kept the cops at bay for quite some time before even more firepower was brought to bear on them, either in the form of better guns..or just more of them.

Ah... I see... you never saw the video.  You really don't have any idea what you are talking about in this whole thing.

They weren't hunkered down.  They were walking down the streets.  The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor.  Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them.  That was the end.

The weapons that can "kill indescriminantly" and poses massive destructive firepower did not kill anyone... despite several hundred rounds being fired.  The police officers were always very near the robbers despite them having those massive long range assault weapons.  What made this event memorable was the lack of effect the police weapons had on the body armor.  The media is the only one that chose to make assault weapons the issue.  The robbers could have had hand guns and it would have been the same.

So when this story is presented as some kind of "talk to the cops that were there and see what they'd say"... it implies you might have had some remote clue as to what really happened.  It implies that you believed the frustration they spoke of came from the weapons being used by the criminals and not simply because of the ineffectiveness of the police officer's weapons.  You were quite simply and quite clearly mistaken.

The rest of what you're now saying in regards to the truck driving idiots is pretty typical demo speak.  You really should try to avoid falling into such neat little stereotypes yourself... it takes away any credibility you might have had.

MiniD

[Dune]

Originally posted by Mini D

They weren't hunkered down.  They were walking down the streets.  The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor.  Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them.  That was the end.

That was actually one of their problems.  The robbers didn't have just one vest on.  They had layered several vests on themselves.  And, while they were something of a human tank, they couldn't move.  They were so weighed down that they couldn't get to their car and had to shoot it out.

BTW, after a little research I've found out how it ended.  A SWAT team responded to the calls.  Since the SWAT guys carry all their heavy hardware with them, they engaged the bad guys.  One of the bad guys killed himself when he realized he couldn't get away and the other was shot by the SWAT team when he tried to drive off.

[Ping]

I am slightly confused as to why Canada is being included in the Ban on Firearms in this topic.
 While we do have on oppressive Government as regards certain types of Weapons, and the Farce that is known as the National Gun registry, We are still very much Gun owners up here.
 I currently have 4 in my Locker as we speak. 12 g, BLR 22-250,
Marlin 80 22. , and a Moisin 1891/59.

LAZ: Can you give me your thoughts on the BLR 22-250 ?
 Just your general opinion, Good or Bad?

[cpxxx]

Just to make the point again as this lie was repeated again.  Banning certain types of gun did NOT lead to a 300% increase in gun crime in the UK or Australia or anywhere else. The two are unrelated. In fact if defies logic to relate the two. In fact it makes more sense to say that banning drugs lead to an increase in gun crime.  It's a very poor argument particularly as even with increased gun crime they are relaitively fewer than the US.

Like I said before I am not anti gun but I do believe the current situation in the USA does no one any favours, gun owners or the public at large.  The reality is that the USA in general suffers from a higher rate of gun deaths and gun crime than any other developed country, worse than Canada, Australia the UK etc. Even though in many areas there is minimal or no crime.  Some people suggest more guns is the answer, most suggest less. So what is the answer?

The constitutionally granted 'right to bear arms' is an accident of history and was clearly intended for the circumstances of the day. How can anyone rationally say today that owning a gun is patriotic and a bulwark against the goverment sending the 82nd Airborne against you?  Anyone who owns a gun saying they need it to protect themselves against the authorities or foreign aggression is a nut. Most gun owners are not nuts but guns are dangerous in the hands of angry people and nutcases.

 America still has one of the most liberal (ironic word that)l gun owning regime in the developed world.  But that's under threat because of constant misuse of legally held guns. Most of the high profile school massacres and work incidents are carried out with legally held guns. That I suspect is why assault rifles were banned in the first place.  Incidents like children shooting other children with their Father's gun and othe accidental killings are what bothers the public at large.


So my question is this how do you reduce gun deaths in general without penalizing law abiding gun owners?  Saying it's your constitutional right doesn't cut it. Any ideas?