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

[Dune]

Law Enforcement Officer Murders
During the last decade, 73% of persons identified in the felonious killing of police officers had prior criminal arrests, 56% had prior convictions, 23% were on probation or parole at the time of the killing and 5% had prior murder arrests. (FBI, "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted," 1993)

These are the percentages that can mean the difference between life and death for law enforcement officers. But these percentages are ignored by anti-groups and many in the media who instead focus on the meaningless differences between rifles with and without bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and folding stocks.

According to the FBI, firearms defined as "assault weapons" were used in 2-3% of officer killings over the last decade for which confirmed data are available (1984-1993). Preliminary FBI data for 1994 and 1995 indicate that approximately 15 assault weapons or post-ban versions of assault weapons were used in officer killings. Of firearms that were used to kill officers, most were of a wide range of other types. Between 1982-1993, of officers killed with firearms other than their own, more were killed with .38 caliber revolvers. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Guns Used in Crime," July 1995, NCJ 148201)

Rifle Use In Crime
More than 85% of the nearly 200 semi-automatic firearms affected by the assault weapons law are rifles, the general type of firearm least often used in crimes. Rifles of any type are used in 3% of homicides annually, while knives are used in 13%, bare hands are used in 5%, and blunt objects are used in 4%. The annual number of homicides committed with rifles has declined 36% since 1980, 13% in the last decade and 4% 1993-1994.

[lazs2]

gofaster you are being dishonest... those incidents you gave of cops being killed had nothing to do with assault guns and were in no way a danger to your family...  

you wanted to be a cop but only if there were no danger involved?   tell ya what... more than you don't want to be a cop... I don't want you to be one... a cop like you scares me a lot more than any chance of being sprayed by gunfire from criminals or neihbors.

but... you avoided my question...  which of my guns would an expert like you allow me to keep... go ahead and consult the web to get your answer if you like.

lazs

[Dune]

Originally posted by gofaster
The more likely response to an armed criminal is to turn and run away.

James Q. Wilson has to say from The New Republic, August 25, 1997 v217 n8 p38(4)

Using the data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) of 56,000 families, scholars have estimated that there are, at
a minimum, between 65,000 and 80,000 defensive gun uses per year. Some
estimates based on private polls suggest much higher defensive uses,
ranging up to 1.5 or even 2.5 million. The data supplied by private
polls are controversial, since so much depends on inferring
society-wide effects from the answers of a tiny number of
respondents. (If, to take a recent study, only 54 people out of 2,500
surveyed said they used a gun to defend themselves, then each of the
54 represents 68,000 Americans. Reporting errors--lies, exaggerations,
poor memory--on the part of just a few people can have huge effects on
the total number of defensive gun uses.) So consider instead the much
larger and more reliable NCVS, conducted by the Census Bureau,
according to which defensive gun uses in America are not trivial:
65,000 to 80,000 uses each year.

[Mini D]

Wow... an entire thread consisting of people trying to out-stupid gofaster and failing miserably.

Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
A: A criminial will be a criminal no matter what he is shooting and a sportsman will be a sportsman no matter what he is shooting.

MiniD

[capt. apathy]

I really thought the pistol grip 20 gauge would fit the bill.

Lazs says it's wrong, and I know he is a "Weapon Enthusiast" so I wanted his opinion.

nothing wrong with a shotgun (I prefer a 12 but a 20 would still get the job done).  I'd load it up with #4 shot if it was me, still does a nasty job on someone up-close.  for home deffence you don't need to make long range shots, and you shouldn't have to worry about #4 going into the neighbors house.

just don't buy into the tv myth that a shotgun will cover a large area.  at in-home ranges and #4 shot the bulk of your pattern will be about 1 1/2 inches.  you still need to aim carefully before firing.

and as with any gun you plan to use to deffend your family you should be very familir with loading and firing it (minimum of a couple hundred rounds fired).

having a gun that you can operate and are familir with is often more important than the exact type of gun.

[lazs2]

muck... the 30 30 is not very good in the house.   It's better than nothing but... it overpenetrates and is slow to get into operation and too long... you would be surprised at the things that get in the way when you are trying to swing it around plus.... house gunfights are close range... the barrel preceeds you.. the badguy can grab the barrel.

the 20 guage... still not a good choice for the last reasons..   too long and too much chance of it getting took away from you... also.. the only really effective rounds are double ought buck and slugs.   buck shot will spread some and cause collateral damage and slugs overpenetrate.

What I would suggest?   A handgun.

Something that will reliably function with rounds like magsafe or  glaser safety slugs... these bullets fragment on impact imparting all or most of their considerablre energy on what is hit and are the least likely to overpenetrate.

Revolver or auto is up to you... more practice is needed with the auto loader.   I would suggest 3 dot night sights.   I would suggest lots of practice with the chossen fireame and.....

Get a gun safe.   For handguns and to be safe from children (in the old days you just said "don't  touch")  .... you can get small beside lockboxes the use finger pressure in sequence on a keypad to open.    I would get a real gun safe for storage when away.

What do I use?   depends.   I use whatever gun I am messing with at the time... from Kimber custom eclipse in 45 to my bobbed to 4" Ruger Redhawk in 44 mag with hydrashock or winchester silvertip rounds.  I even have a 1917 Smith revolver in 45acp with full moon clips that I would feel well armed with... I never use the longguns even tho I have several shotguns in 12 and double ought buck rounds for em.

If there were rioting outside I would likely use the Garrand or mini 14 and tuck the 44 in my waistband.   Maybe the Kimber .... maybe the PPK in a sock too or maybe... ah hell just grab a bunch of em..

lazs

[lazs2]

capt apathy... according to real life shooting results (study done by Evan Marshal and Sanow).... the 12 guage (never mind 20 guage) shotgun is up to 98% effective in one shot stops (no further violent reaction, shot person does not get more than ten feet befor colapsing)...

#4 shot brings the effectivness down to 81%.   This is below the effectivness of many handgun rounds.    Still good but why take chances with the slow clumsy shotgun (in close quarters with many obstacles like in a house) when there are handguns available?

deja... the answer to the question was obvious as you pointed out...  our replies were to all the drivel that followed.
lazs

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by lazs2
muck... the 30 30 is not very good in the house.   It's better than nothing but... it overpenetrates and is slow to get into operation and too long... you would be surprised at the things that get in the way when you are trying to swing it around plus.... house gunfights are close range... the barrel preceeds you.. the badguy can grab the barrel.

the 20 guage... still not a good choice for the last reasons..   too long and too much chance of it getting took away from you... also.. the only really effective rounds are double ought buck and slugs.   buck shot will spread some and cause collateral damage and slugs overpenetrate.

What I would suggest?   A handgun.

Something that will reliably function with rounds like magsafe or  glaser safety slugs... these bullets fragment on impact imparting all or most of their considerablre energy on what is hit and are the least likely to overpenetrate.

Revolver or auto is up to you... more practice is needed with the auto loader.   I would suggest 3 dot night sights.   I would suggest lots of practice with the chossen fireame and.....

Get a gun safe.   For handguns and to be safe from children (in the old days you just said "don't  touch")  .... you can get small beside lockboxes the use finger pressure in sequence on a keypad to open.    I would get a real gun safe for storage when away.

What do I use?   depends.   I use whatever gun I am messing with at the time... from Kimber custom eclipse in 45 to my bobbed to 4" Ruger Redhawk in 44 mag with hydrashock or winchester silvertip rounds.  I even have a 1917 Smith revolver in 45acp with full moon clips that I would feel well armed with... I never use the longguns even tho I have several shotguns in 12 and double ought buck rounds for em.

If there were rioting outside I would likely use the Garrand or mini 14 and tuck the 44 in my waistband.   Maybe the Kimber .... maybe the PPK in a sock too or maybe... ah hell just grab a bunch of em..

lazs

That's good advice, Lazs. I look into the handgun. I know the permit is pretty expensive here in NYC, but it's worth it.

Meanwhile, my 20 gauge is pretty short. It's a pistol grip, so I can keep it close to my body.

Thanks again

[DmdNexus]

The entire point of the 2nd admendment was to allow the "people" to bear arms and raise millitia to fight against a governement out of control - the drafters were still rebels, they had just fought a revolution against a despot king. Peace and the union was still precarious, and the only thing that was keeping it in check was that every homestead had a flintlock over the mantle.

The 2nd admendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense... it's about the right to hold a revolution and over throw the government if it was screwing up - which it is now.

Well now, the civil war, the Michigan Millitia, WACO, white supremist and now the patriat act has pretty much put an end to separatist and anarchy in this nation.

Can't even make pipe bombs as a hobby any more - my gawd if Goddard was alive right now we'd never have a space program.

The problem is with these wacky people ruining it for everyone. Every school shooting there an assault rifle involved - so they are banned. Some kid goes on a bombing spree to make a smilely face, now pipe bombs are banned.

What's wrong with owning a .50 assault rifle? Yes it's military weaponry. But heck it's hard to hide!

Well any way none of this has to do with being a sportsman...

Technically speaking a "sportsman" was someone who slept with prostitutes, had nothing to do with game hunting and rifles.

Seriously... want to have some sport, invite your neighbors and church friends over for a party on a fullmoon, and at midnight,  have everyone stand out in the front yard with black and red hooded garb holding torches, slaughter a goat inside a candle lit pentagram... mumble something incoherent... like: "Amadeus, in sectum, rectus unum, dao gradious lector sanctimum luther virgil magnus edifusarium ardo mort"

The sport is protecting your right to continue to live in your neighborhood.

The sport is keeping your job.

The sport is reading all the wonderful stories about your escapades in the newspaper, and on TV.

The sport is consoling your children after they get beat up at school by who - American peace loving, Love-thy-neighbor Christians.

The sport is explaining to the news media, who label you as a satan worshipper that Satan has nothing to do with the party. It was just a midnight Goat BBQ.

the sport is explaing to the SPCA that the goat was humanly slaughtered for food... yes it had a face... but it was food... just like cows have a face, and so do pigs, chickens, lambs, ducks... and FISH! And dogs.... oops! Wrong country.

No one keeps a goat as a pet! It's food! daggnabit.

No I wont take any more of those pink pills! I don't care what the doctor says!

You are all crazy!

Hey has any one seen my pet turtle?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
which of my guns would an expert like you allow me to keep... go ahead and consult the web to get your answer if you like.

lazs

The one approved by the BATF.

By the way, heard a blurb on the news last night that the Florida legislature is considering a motion that would prohibit the sales of firearms through newspaper advertisements and require paperwork to be completed at gun shows before exchanging the merchandise.

I'm not trying to take away your guns.  I'm trying to keep excessive firepower out of the hands of the lunatic fringe.  All I asked was, should SKS assault rifles be illegal?

JFK was killed by a bolt-action rifle but we're still allowed to have them.

Lincoln was shot with a pistol.  

Andrew Jackson was nearly assassinated with a pair of pistols, but both failed to discharge a bullet.  And, best of all, Andrew Jackson was about to crack the assailant with his cane before being restrained.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by niknak
The only people who should not be allowed to own an assault rifle are nutters and phycos.

Anyone who wants to own an assault rifle must be at least a borderline phsycotic. Ergo the only people who should be allowed to own assault rifles are the people who don't want them.

I'll assume you are just trolling since you obviously did not read anything else in this thread.  

By your own logic  :  Anyone who is incapable of comprehending logic nor forming rational thought is a prime candidate to purchase a "assault weapon"  go get yours now!

[miko2d]

niknak: Anyone who wants to own an assault rifle must be at least a borderline phsycotic. Ergo the only people who should be allowed to own assault rifles are the people who don't want them.

 There is a need for armed protection/defence in a society. Some people have to do it.

 The people who do not believe themselves to be capable/responcible for such defence (but who may believe they can be capable/responcibe for electing overlords who would provide such defence) are deluded and should be denied a vote as self-admited mentally incompetent.

 miko

[lazs2]

gofaster... Soooo.... you would allow me to keep all ofr em since they are all legal and "approved" by the nazis in the batf?

the mini 14 is more powerful and holds more rounds and is quicker firing than an SKS... The Garrand is double the power of the sks and is semi auto.   The SMLE is double the power of the SKS and while not an autoloader....  

The examples you give and your reasoning all point towards outlawing the SKS for penetration or.... overpenetration... every one of my guns listed will out penetrate the SKS.

You claim that the ability to spray ammo around is also a consideration but the examples you give consist of only a few rounds fired.    Both the mini14 and Garrand are capable of the same rate of fire as the SKS.... they just do it better, with more power and more accurately.

I guess.... I am wondering why you have a hard on for the SKS (crappy llittle gun that it is) when you have no idea what it even is or how it compares to other guns that are legal.

When someone is so adamant about a subject that he knows little or nothing about  that he feels that the "his" thoughts are obvious and just need to be brought up.... well.... I would say that that person is probly listening to only one side of something.   surrounding himself with others who are like minded and close minded.    This person normally is shocked to find that all the "facts" he has been fed are mostly made up or missrepresentations.    Honest people simply take the lesson learned and try to get both sides next time or....

learn that liberals use this tactic as a matter of course and that distance  from them is best.
lazs

[gofaster]

I ignored most of the last of your post that delved into personal attacks and stuck with the relevant parts regarding opinion in the beginning.

Chiefly, I'm not adamant about gun control.  I simply asked, should the SKS assault rifle be illegal?  In my opinion, since it poses a threat to the safety of those entrusted with my protection, I would prefer to see it off the streets.  But does it pose any greater threat than any other lawful semi-auto weapons?  By your own admission and example, it does not.  So, because there are more powerful weapons available, should that mean that the SKS should remain freely available?

Secondly, the only weapons I believe the citizenry should be permitted to keep are those permitted under the laws as enforced by the BATF.  If you are in violation of the law, then, by definition, you are a criminal.  I do not endorse criminal activities.

Thirdly, I fully support the efforts of police and law enforcement so long as those efforts are not affront of the law.

To conclude, what separates criminals from sportsmen is the fact that sportsmen don't violate the law.

I'm not saying guns should be illegal.  I'm saying there's a limit as to how powerful a gun should be permitted in the civilian populace.  Full-auto has no useful place in society either (other than for movie-making special effects and war re-enactments).

So the next question is, what separates a patriot from a criminal?

[miko2d]

gofaster: So, because there are more powerful weapons available, should that mean that the SKS should remain freely available?

 That makes the law based not on some logical rules grounded in reality but arbitrary. Arbitrary laws mean tyrany.

Secondly, the only weapons I believe the citizenry should be permitted to keep are those permitted under the laws as enforced by the BATF.

 No question. Illegal activity should be.. illegal. On the other hand the laws as enforced under the BATF are unconstitutional.

I'm not saying guns should be illegal.  I'm saying there's a limit as to how powerful a gun should be permitted in the civilian populace.

 According to the founding fathers the civilian armed populace is the ultimate check on the aspiring domestic tyrants as well as deterrent to foreign agressors.
 That means they we should have the weapons at least equal in performance to those of the military and sufficient to defend against it - full auto, armor-piercing, anti-armor, etc.
 They wisely did not specify anything in the Constitution. BTW, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right, it just reaffirms it. We have that right (or are supposed to have it) because the Constitution does not explicitely grant the federal Government the right to regulate citizen's weaponry. Thus such right is reserved to the States or the People.

 miko