Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BiGBMAW on August 28, 2007, 04:18:37 PM
-
USA HAs a few Guns (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-08-28T174254Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true)
I thougth Swiss woudl have this...strange
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/266/range5bi.jpg)
-
also..funny ..It reminded me that I need a few more to have a rounded collection
I need a cowboy shooter...VAquero in a 357..(keep uniform with my other revolvers
also need a bolt .308 ..and a bolt 54r
My mossberg500 has soem age on it..would liek a new pump also
Ahh..I really want an over and under 12 guage..maybe even a 20guage too
also 1 more for now..I need a .22 pistol
-
The Swiss seem very secretive to me. I have a feeling they would never allow the rest of the world to know their true strength when it came to things like that.
-
<== 5 pistols and a rifle :D
-
A civvie AR15 (A forward assist and round handgaurd, but no elevation adjustment on the rear sight and a weird muzzle brake,:huh ), and a 1911-style pistol, single stack, adjustable rear sight, ambidexterous thumb safety, and recoil guide rod.
What do I win?
(naming the guns in the picture from what I can see, not what I have. In case someone might get the idea that Im so vaguely discribing my own firearms :lol )
-
2 x 12 gua. singles, a 16 gua. single & a 20 gua. single. 30-06, 22 single, 22 semi & 2 x 22 revolvers. Almost all are garage sale POS. I live in Ohio, no place to shoot.
9 guns in a household of 7; just doing my part.
-
I would have thought Israel to be ranked #1.
-
M1 Carbines: '43 and '44 Inlands
M1 Garand, SA '57
K98k RC '42
Finnish M39 '42
Russian M38 '44
Russian 91/30 '41
LeeEnfields:
No.1 MkIII - 1917;
No. 4 Mk.1 - 1944;
No.5 Mk.1 - 1945
Japanese Last Ditch model 99 '43?
Winchester 1894 30-30 '41
Browning Semi-Auto .22LR
Savage Safari .22LR
Marlin 883 .22WMR
Remington 11-48 16 gauge
Taurus .32SW Long
Colt Trooper III .357
Ruger Police Six .357
SA 1911 Milspec
10,000 rounds .22, .303, 30-06, 8mm, 7.62x54r, .30 carbine, etc.
On the List (in likely order):
CZ-82
Yugo AK47 underfolder
SA XD45
FN/FAL Carbine Kit Build
AR15A1 Build
I need a new safe; the old one has shrunk.
Charon
-
Personally I think a better study would have been how many of the population actually own guns as opposed to how many guns that are privately owned.
I'd be willing ot bet that probably household for household we are far from #1 in gun ownership worldwide
-
Not to worry folks...
lazs has debunked the left wing liberalist plot that IS the article in question:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=213754
lol
-
I'd be willing ot bet that probably household for household we are far from #1 in gun ownership worldwide
Low ball Brady figures are at about 30 percent, if I remember correctly. 40-50 percent not uncommon from pro sources. So at least 90 million households.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
M1 Carbines: '43 and '44 Inlands
M1 Garand, SA '57
K98k RC '42
Finnish M39 '42
Russian M38 '44
Russian 91/30 '41
LeeEnfields:
No.1 MkIII - 1917;
No. 4 Mk.1 - 1944;
No.5 Mk.1 - 1945
Japanese Last Ditch model 99 '43?
Winchester 1894 30-30 '41
Browning Semi-Auto .22LR
Savage Safari .22LR
Marlin 883 .22WMR
Remington 11-48 16 gauge
Taurus .32SW Long
Colt Trooper III .357
Ruger Police Six .357
SA 1911 Milspec
10,000 rounds .22, .303, 30-06, 8mm, 7.62x54r, .30 carbine, etc.
On the List (in likely order):
CZ-82
Yugo AK47 underfolder
SA XD45
FN/FAL Carbine Kit Build
AR15A1 Build
I need a new safe; the old one has shrunk.
Charon
Which one is your favorite and why?
-
Originally posted by Blooz
I would have thought Israel to be ranked #1.
I would think so as well if it were strictly a percentage of the population which were gun owners. I think this one says 'so many guns per so many people...'
So if 20 out of the hundred folks have 5 guns each ~ that right there is 100 guns for 100 people.
-
me:
SA XD45
Sig 229 .357sig
Sig 239 9mm
Walther PPK .380
Kel-Tec .380
Winchester 30-30
my pops:
Glock 23 40cal
Sears bolt action .22
my room mate:
SA XD40
Glock 22 40cal
Taurus 9mm (not sure on the model)
my grand-pops:
Colt 1911 (he lost it in WWII ;) )
Arisaka type 98 carbine (still with all the markings)
my sis:
Louiville slugger (thats all she needs)
-
Originally posted by moneyguy
my sis:
Louiville slugger (thats all she needs)
Don't mess with his sis:aok
-
My favorite is the M1 Garand. As George Patton said: "The greatest battle implement ever devised."
The M1 carbine has a reputation as a fun rifle to shoot, and it is, but the Garand is just so neat and smooth. Excellent, reliable and effective piece of engineering, wonderful dial-in sights, the gas operation tames the recoil, still a big boy round, the Garand ping from the ejected clip. A Cadillac of rifles (though like the caddy a bit heavy). Most of my surplus ammo is Lake City or Greek surplus which I have stocked up on while supplies last (and will likely get some more).
The Carbine is 2nd, and an awful lot of fun to shoot and probably more in a plinking environment. The CMP '43 Inland I have has all of the late rebuild features with the potbelly stock and much improved sights, but I haven't got to the range with it yet. The '44 is all early features and shoots fine.
Among the bolts, my favorite is the Enfield No. 5 Mk.1. It is my most accurate Enfield (the 1917 is really a bit rough but it did see action in WW1, and the No. 4 is OK). I have a replacement butt pad for the original leather one that had expired and it seems to mitigate the recoil. I find it pleasant to shoot. The rest of the bolts go out here and there as the mood dictates.
Among the pistols, the 1911 Milspec is the tops. You just have to feel the grip and John Moses Browning's spirit to know why :)
Most of my small "accumulation" is based on shooters with history. About 1/4 are gifts or inheritance. Some are rough, some are in excellent condition like the Garand. Since none are truly collectible in the antique roadshow sense, it's actually a cheap hobby. My latest, the 91/30 was $65 and being built in 1941 -- the stories it could tell. From the darkest days to maybe the streets of Berlin. It was also rearsenaled -- killing collector value -- but looks fantastic.
Charon
-
I make up for more than a few of those who are not capable of owning a firearm. I'm doing my best to keep the USA #1 in this category!
:aok :D
-
Charon,
No M1A1? I bedded my NM grade M1A1 in a MacMillon heavy stock along with a tasco tacticle scope. It drives tacks at 100yd and stays in an inch at 200yd. I have a 1942 M1 receiver that I sent to Springfeild to be refurbised to NM grade. It's too much fun shooting for respectable adults. With surplus 150 gr ammo and just about any brand cheap 150 gr ammo it holds about 1.5 inch at 100yd if I take care from a rest. I've had a Marine freind place 5 of 5 and 9 of 10 in the X ring with it off hand. Im lucky to hit paper off hand.....:cry
-
But you see even with all those guns the crime figures are still way higher than a country with a good national social/healthcare plan. Not even mentioning the especially high rate of gun related crime and accidents.
-
Our welfare state is the reason for our high crime rate, not our guns. People are taught they don't have to work for a living and that it's alright to steal from those who are willing to earn a living.
The ACLU has made sure that Americans have no sense of personal responsibility.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
USA HAs a few Guns (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-08-28T174254Z_01_L28348938_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLD-FIREARMS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true)
I thougth Swiss woudl have this...strange
It seems they only count guns in private ownership. The Swiss army rifles are the property of the Swiss state, even if they are kept at home by the soldiers. It's a skewed statistic.
My country, Norway, has 1.3 million weapons in private ownership in addition to the weapons kept at home by our "home guard" soldiers. Norway has a population of about 4.5 million people.
-
I think my country has some 5 people for each gun.
We have only 4 for each horse :D
-
hard to know how many guns there are in nz as the bulk of them arent required to be registered and a lot of those that are supposed to be registered arent. It's a guess, but its thought the number is around 1 million or so.. which equates to to about to about 1 gun per 4 people.. or 1 gun per 40 sheep
-
For myself, I have 3 Remington model 870 pump shotguns. In 20, 16, and 12 ga.
Add to that a Ruger 10/22 with 3/9 variable scope for plinking, and a cheap knockoff .22 revolver.
Three people currently living in the house and 5 guns, ohh that didn't count the sheridan blue streak air rifle either. :)
-
Originally posted by moneyguy
me:
SA XD45
Sig 229 .357sig
Sig 239 9mm
Walther PPK .380
Kel-Tec .380
Winchester 30-30
my pops:
Glock 23 40cal
Sears bolt action .22
my room mate:
SA XD40
Glock 22 40cal
Taurus 9mm (not sure on the model)
my grand-pops:
Colt 1911 (he lost it in WWII ;) )
Arisaka type 98 carbine (still with all the markings)
my sis:
Louiville slugger (thats all she needs)
I've heard that the p3at is caca, what has been your experience with it?
-
See Rule #7
-
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
Heh so Finland is actually the third most armed country in the world. :lol
I'm surprised by the result, that cant be true.. All of our gun owners are registered. Where is lazs now?
-
See Rule #7
-
See Rule #7
-
I don't know if the figures are right or not but the guy putting em out there is a left wing one world government UN whacko.
I think the numbers may be low since so many girlymen and wussies are afraid to admit they own em or that they might have "two dicks" who's only purpose is to "kill someone". LOL... what a wuss.
I have trimmed down my firearms to about a dozen or so interesting ones. Gave away a lot of em to family members who would use em and enjoy em.
I really only shoot 4 or 5 of em with any regularity. I reload so I always have a few thousand rounds of ammo for most of my guns.
The fun ones are the M1 garand... my cut down 4" ruger redhawk in 44 mag... my kimber 1911 in 45... my 1930's k22 smith in 22
I shoot the k22 a lot now.. set up an indoor range and shoot super colibris out of it (20 grain slug at 500 fps powered by primer only)
If you sweat blood the k22 will shoot em into a thumbnail sized group at 25'
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol
Or it's a substitute for a pathetically small one.
Actually, it's just the opposite. Those that are afraid of guns are the people who are insecure about their own sexuality.
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 guns between myself and my dad. 2 .22 rifles, 1 .22 handgun, 2 O/U's, 3 Pump shotguns, 2 garands, 1 1903, 2 pistols, 2 mn38's, 2 mn91/30's, 1 Marlin lever action... And I think I'm missing something.
-
No M1A1?
If I could get a good parts kit built to build up on a forged receiver, maybe. Or one of those once in a lifetime deals perhaps. I don't like to spend too much money on the hobby, and a FN/FAL would be pushing it hitting about $1000 the parts kit route with gunsmith assembly and refinishing. I also like ex military guns more than reproductions. Not much choice with the M-14 though or with a 1911 if you actually want to risk shooting a WW1-2 issued one today given the price.
It would jump to the top of the list if we got one of the versions of the Illinois AWB where they left the M1A1 on while eliminating rifles with "evil features" like pistol grips and Barrel Shrouds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U) :)
Frankly, the nearest rifle range is about 1.5 hours away and with a kid, house, work, wife, etc. my ability to take a day off to go shooting is hard to come by lately. Then we have deer season coming up which chokes the ranges with the dust off the Remchester and zero folk. Then there's winter. My ability to practice enough to make use of a match grade weapon is limited. But, I can get some reasonable groups somewhere at least close to the X ring.
Charon
-
Beeing ranked number one also means the US the country with the least crimes :aok
Isnt that the theory Lazs?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, it's just the opposite. Those that are afraid of guns are the people who are insecure about their own sexuality.
lol
Yeah..you just keep telling yourself that.
I suppose the same applies to cars...a guy who is afraid to own a sports car is insecure about his sexuality? Because clearly the only logical reason for not owning a sports car is because they are afraid of them, right?
And the middle aged man who buys a sports car isn't compensating?
lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Beeing ranked number one also means the US the country with the least crimes :aok
Isnt that the theory Lazs?
Indeed...more guns = less crime.
-
Check the link in the other thread on the same subject that I posted.
Doesn`t take a brain surgeon to see through the jist of the survey . It`s wide open. The professor peed on his own tennis shoes.
Nobody has a way of knowing how many guns are in this country or any other country.
He`s like a cat taking a dump on plywood. He can`t even cover it up. :)
-
that is the theory and it is a good one... it only works for here tho... you have to develop your own based on your culture and racial mix.
Here.. the more guns you add to a place the less serious crime.
Not that I care tho... I just care that I can stop any serious crime from happening to me and mine and in my presence.
I just want to shoot till the bad man stops being bad.
And yes... a fear of weapons is indeed a sexual problem.
lazs
-
Why must I allways extrapolate my ejaculations here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edevbgI4-dA
On a completely unrelated note...
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/2007/7-08-01-ResearchersFind.htm
-
lol
It's really funny watching all the gun nuts jizz all over themselves about America having the most guns and then having the entire atricle poo pooed by other gun nuts who claim it is a liberal propaganda article in the first place.
But, I'm not surprised that most here don't see the humour...or simply don't want to.
-
yeah suave.. I don't get it. would you explain it for me?
Seems to me that the "joke" was some line from some media that not everyone seen? sooooo... anyone who did not "get it" couldn't possibly have.
It's not like it was very funny even when you could see the source.
lazs
-
You have M1 Garand?
Sure enjoyable to fire, although a little bulky to carry. What do you use it for? Target practice?
(ohhhh, I'd love to have one, but wouldn't know what to do with it)
The caliber is enough for a polar bearBTW ;)
-
Originally posted by Curval
And the middle aged man who buys a sports car isn't compensating?
More likely he's finally making enough money to buy something he always wanted.
-
Umm..yea Toad...I'll change that to "except Toad".
;)
So, it might just be possible that not owning a gun is not related to a fear of them or any sexual "problem"?
-
I find this article to be particularly interesting:
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece
Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.
The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150. [Edit: Those are some good prices! I wish I could get commercial firearms that cheap.]
Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.
“Illegal firearms have become increasingly accessible to younger offenders who appear more likely to use these firearms recklessly,” a report on gun crime commissioned by the Home Office cautioned last year.
The research supports warnings from police chiefs in Merseyside and London about the spread of gun use in gangs and among teenagers.
Having virtually banned all legal gun ownership, the "ban is the cure" crowd is looking for other solutions:
Mr Hogan-Howe said that youths were being protected by a wall of silence, and he demanded a new law to compel the public to give information about gun crime.
Maybe they can be sent to Gitmo?
Welcome to our world. Fortunately, like in America, your chance of being a gun crime victim will be slim unless you take part in these gangland activities. However, since you have no legal household gun ownership the chance of a home invasion etc. will be much greater, but at least you won't have a gun that could potentially go off and kill or injure one of the potential victims out after your property.
Cahron
-
Society Is Safer WHen Criminals Dont Know Who is Armed
charon..whats teh Japanese Trench gun? shotty?
-
You have M1 Garand?
Sure enjoyable to fire, although a little bulky to carry. What do you use it for? Target practice?
(ohhhh, I'd love to have one, but wouldn't know what to do with it)
The caliber is enough for a polar bearBTW
Target practice, which is very much fun, and to connect with history. That's what I do with it. I also enjoy breaking it down and cleaning it (well, that can depend) and admiring the engineering. I'm not a hunter but I imagine it would be a bit marginal for polar for brown bear and while some hunt with it the weight is an issue of course. A weapon like a Garand, even if it isn't a top collector quality piece will not depreciate in value and my M1 was worth $200 - $300 more than my CMP price the moment I ordered it. This also give me some continued connection to the memories of my military service.
[EDIT: And it cost less than a bleeding edge video card that will be obsolete in 1 year after you buy it and useless 3 years later.]
These weapons are virtually NEVER used in crime, btw. I wonder how many zeroes would be after the decimal point before you found their percentage of usage.
Angus, you were an extra in the filming of of Flags of our Fathers. I bet that was fun. I can own the semi-automatic weapons you carried around during filming, take them to the range and shoot all day. To me, that is fun, and something I can do as my own time permits. It's my golf, or more appropriately perhaps, my P-51. I can also get the utility of self defense, and it represents a counterpoint to any potential tyrant along with 90 million other Americans. Not a big front burner issue today, but our peculiar systems helps keep it that way.
Charon
-
charon..whats teh Japanese Trench gun? shotty?
Actually it is a "last ditch" model 99 rifle my dad gave me that he had inherited from a friend of his who served on a carrier in WW2 and brought it back from the war. While Japanese Mausers-actions were generally some of the strongest ever made, the last ditch models were made when resources started to run low. Crude is an understatement (the sights are very basic, for example) and there are questions about metal quality and heat treatment with these weapons. I will never shoot it, but it is an interesting piece. For those in the know, it still has its "mum" as well.
Charon
-
Charon,
If I were to live in the US but did not own a gun should I then be labelled a liberal sexually inadequate wimp who is afraid of guns and begging for my home to be invaded? Just curious because that appears to be the generalisation I'm reading here.
I wonder what Skuzzy's thoughts are on this...being that he doesn't own a gun.
:)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Umm..yea Toad...I'll change that to "except Toad".
;)
[/b]
Right, Curval. There's nothing you'd like to have right now that you can't have because of income/children/wife ack limitations?
And when the monetary burden of raising children/renovating kitchens has passed you wouldn't consider buying some things you held off on buying earlier in your life?
So, it might just be possible that not owning a gun is not related to a fear of them or any sexual "problem"?
Sure. There's folks that don't own them that don't fear them or don't feel sexually inadequate. Owning a gun isn't really much different than owning a lot of things. Some people own golf clubs, some don't. I'd say it would mainly have to do with the individual's amount of interest in playing golf, wouldn't you?
Of course I personally find it pretty nice that my decision to own or not own a particular recreational item is my decision, not the decision of some petty little perfumed prince that happens to be the local constable.
-
Originally posted by Curval
So, it might just be possible that not owning a gun is not related to a fear of them or any sexual "problem"?
Sex and crime/self-defense are definitely related even if deeply subconsciously, unless you're living in Platonia or something.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure. There's folks that don't own them that don't fear them or don't feel sexually inadequate. Owning a gun isn't really much different than owning a lot of things. Some people own golf clubs, some don't. I'd say it would mainly have to do with the individual's amount of interest in playing golf, wouldn't you?[/b]
Of course I personally find it pretty nice that my decision to own or not own a particular recreational item is my decision, not the decision of some petty little perfumed prince that happens to be the local constable.
Well, maybe lazs et al will read your first paragraph (quoted) and challenge you on it, because the inference is clear that not owning guns is related to fear and sexual problems during this little discussion. Disagree, or would you like me to quote the text?
Your second (quoted) paragraph though puts you squarely back into the "we are better, tougher and more free because we have guns" camp.
WTG
-
Originally posted by Angus
You have M1 Garand?
Sure enjoyable to fire, although a little bulky to carry. What do you use it for? Target practice?
(ohhhh, I'd love to have one, but wouldn't know what to do with it)
The caliber is enough for a polar bearBTW ;)
Target practice, mostly. It's a blast to shoot. It's really not that heavy or bulky. Unless you are a girly man.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Beeing ranked number one also means the US the country with the least crimes :aok
Isnt that the theory Lazs?
Unless you come to visit, I don't see how it matters. I rarely hear of criminals
travelling from the US to Norway to commit gun crimes :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol
It's really funny watching all the gun nuts jizz all over themselves about America having the most guns and then having the entire atricle poo pooed by other gun nuts who claim it is a liberal propaganda article in the first place.
But, I'm not surprised that most here don't see the humour...or simply don't want to.
I'm not sure it's humor, but I have to wonder why the Euro crowd seems to
feel the need to comment on US gun ownership all the time. America rarely
forces Europe to arm itself, so I'm not sure where the interest comes from.
To be fair, they also appear to have the need to express their opinions on
our justice system and foreign policy too...you'd think nothing interesting goes
on in Europe at all.
-
Rino it's because people are wondering why you constantly crave for more guns when you already have a high amount of gun related crime.
-
Ripley,
Perhaps some of us do not understand where the average euro gets off commenting on something that is not in their country and does not affect them either individually or collectively in their country?
To me it makes as much sense as a paparazzi vulching the royals that the brits claim are only figure heads. I have no care whatsoever if a royal sun bathes in the buff or not or what they had for breakfast, yet there are tons of tabloids that make their living printing all about it.
-
Ripley the debate has been rehashed a hundred times. It is because the self-defense of law-abiding people is sacred enough that it is a worthy risk to allow citizens guns even if the criminals will get their hands on them too. Criminals will always be armed, but citizens will not always be able to defend themselves, even armed on par with criminals. Introducing guns means the odds are more even than without.
And there is the second amendment, in its original purpose as well, which is no less important than mere criminals on the loose.
The usual "euro"/non-american p.o.v. is that it is not worth arming citizens with a means to end criminals on the spot if those criminals have any chance of being armed too. Criminals are thus left to their trade which gives them the upper hand.
Even without guns, criminals most often have all the time in the world to do as much damage as they please while the "authorities" snail their way to the victim, if at all.
That just doesn't compute.
-
I like shooting the garand.. history... funkyness... and it is powerful and accurate and... you have to admire the craftsmanship put into firearms.
I can't imagine anyone not wanting to own and shoot firearms.. I can't imagine what kind of thinking would say "yeah.. I like em but I can't be trusted to own one."
I do not think that not owning guns makes you a pervert maybe but... repressing the desire to own one or... a fear of them... is most certainly very very sick.
to actually bother to tell others that they can't own em is beyond sick.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'm not sure it's humor, but I have to wonder why the Euro crowd seems to
feel the need to comment on US gun ownership all the time. America rarely
forces Europe to arm itself, so I'm not sure where the interest comes from.
To be fair, they also appear to have the need to express their opinions on
our justice system and foreign policy too...you'd think nothing interesting goes
on in Europe at all.
LOL
That is rich.
Tell you what...do a search on "Euro" or anything related and see how many opinions you US guys have on everything...from women to dental hygene, from gun ownership in Europe (or lack thereof) to the healthcare system in Europe, from the UN to lukfish....etc etc etc.
You Sir are a pot and I guess the Euros are the kettle.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Target practice, mostly. It's a blast to shoot. It's really not that heavy or bulky. Unless you are a girly man.
LOL, I walked with a Garand for days. I walked with a Thompson longer, and the Tommy, although heavier, was easier to carry, once you got used to it.
( I am talking of 10-12 hrs a day :D)
BTW, The M1 was so nice to shoot, no recoil to talk off, and not noisy. But the Tommygun, ohhhhh...mama!!!!!!
-
If I were to live in the US but did not own a gun should I then be labeled a liberal sexually inadequate wimp who is afraid of guns and begging for my home to be invaded? Just curious because that appears to be the generalization I'm reading here.
I have no issue with those who don't own firearms as long as they don't feel a need to take mine away. And no real concern over why they don't own a firearm.
From a home invasion standpoint such crime is exceedingly rare. But if such a thing were to happen you would likely spend hours praying you had one. I would imagine it is something Dr. Petit thinks about these days, and probably though about while he lay there helpless as his wife and two daughters were repeatedly raped:
The state medical examiner confirmed that Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled and that her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation. The deaths were ruled homicides.
The girls' father, Dr. William Petit Jr., a prominent endocrinologist, remained hospitalized with head injuries.
All three women were raped, sources familiar with the investigation told both the Waterbury Republican-American and Hartford Courant. Petit was beaten with a baseball bat, thrown down the basement stairs, and then tied up in the cellar.
The girls, sources told the Courant, were tied to their beds and raped repeatedly, then left to burn after gasoline was poured around their beds and ignited.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml
Oddly, the media generally failed to include the possibility of owning a firearm for protection in the aftermath of this crime, citing instead such powerful measures as "planting cactus in window boxes." It also got significantly less coverage than one might expect for such a sensational crime, but then it illustrated that there are times where your life and that of your loved ones are not able to be protected by the loving arms of the government.
"But three people died," Farr said. "We're not going to say, 'Those things happen.' We've got to see if there is anything we can do that would reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future."
I have 6 158 grain semi-jacketed .357 hollowpoints that would reduce the likelihood of this happening to my family, with a little luck thrown in. But wait, isn't passive cooperation the best approach... It is if they don't horribly abuse you and then kill you. I guess it didn't work here.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Angus
LOL, I walked with a Garand for days. I walked with a Thompson longer, and the Tommy, although heavier, was easier to carry, once you got used to it.
( I am talking of 10-12 hrs a day :D)
BTW, The M1 was so nice to shoot, no recoil to talk off, and not noisy. But the Tommygun, ohhhhh...mama!!!!!!
Well, the Garand did have recoil, but it doesn't feel like any other gun I've fired.
My father got issued a Tommy gun for a boarding party when he got reassigned to the navy. He always has a big grin on his face when he talks about the recoil and firing it fully automatic.
And while charon is weird sometimes, he does hit a great point. True freedom is true freedom of choice.
We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm. We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Your second (quoted) paragraph though puts you squarely back into the "we are better, tougher and more free because we have guns" camp.
WTG
I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote.
Originally posted by Toad
Of course I personally find it pretty nice that my decision to own or not own a particular recreational item is my decision, not the decision of some petty little perfumed prince that happens to be the local constable.[/color]
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote.
Yup. I'm in agreement. I prefer the way you said it though to be honest.
-
i never owned or fired a real gun or rifle in my whole life,
does this makes me a less worth human being? ;)
sorry to disturb this topic, but some statements here
are so laughable. I plan to visit the States in aprox two years,
it lookslike i can only enter it heavy armed to survive?? ;)
-
Laser:
"We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm. We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms."
The only difference on these gun-threads is where to draw the line.
Who can have a firearm and who not.
How you can screw up your rights to have one.
And what kind of firearms.
I am for instance, quite interested in guns. But I wouldn't want to hand out a Tommygun to just anybody.
But MAN, when the Tommy fires the volley. That is a racket! :aok
-
its very cheaply made. not a piece that one would want to take to the range for target practice a lot. it wont stand up to the abuse. its small enough to fit in my pocket. thats why i have it. i take it to the range sometimes and just put a couple rounds through it (3 or 4 usually).
-
Instead of going off half cocked :p I did a search and here is the relevant article. small arms survey (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2007/CH2%20Stockpiles.pdf)
It's only one chapter of the report and is an interesting read. I never imagined that 75% of all small arms in the world are in fact in the hands of private citizens althought the report points out the the United States gun ownership figures skews the figures. However I cannot find anything in it which criticises the US gun owning public. Maybe I didn't search hard enough.
It even has a case study for Ireland. I was surprised at the number of unregistered illegal guns supposedly in circulation, 150,000. But the next line is interesting in that is says the Garda (police) are only really interested in the 5000 or so guns in the hands of criminals. Presumably all the other unregistered, thus illegal guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens (law abiding that is except for having an illegal gun or two :lol ) Actually I know for a fact that many people do have unregistered guns, mostly handguns and others which they would have difficulty registering.
It has been
reported that Ireland issued 209,000 firearm licences in 2004, one for every 19 residents (O’Keeffe and Hogan, 2004).
Unregistered weapons are estimated to number at least 150,000, and this figure could be considerably higher, for a total of
at least 360,000 firearms in civilian control.
Garda spokespersons maintain that the organization’s most serious concern is not traditional shotgun ownership, but an
invasion of handguns and automatics smuggled in from Europe. Of greatest concern are some 5,000 firearms in the hands of
criminal gangs (McDonald, 2006).
Also it has an article on Germany where it says
Although gun ownership is widespread, Germany has relatively little gun crime. Firearm murders amount to 150–300 annually
and suicides total some 900 per year (Cukier and Sidel, 2005, p. 35). Gun ownership usually receives little attention, except in
the wake of mass shootings.
That paragraph could have been written by the NRA and is a classic rebuttal of the supposed dangers of widespread gun ownership.
I think perhaps the news organisations interpretation is what is at fault here. To me the report is less interested in legal gun ownership in America or elsewhere than in the small arms proliferation among criminals in countries all over the world. A case of media manipulation?
Here are the rest of the chapters.
small arms 2007 (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/yearb2007.html)
You really have to be careful of the misleading headlines.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Laser:
"We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm. We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms."
The only difference on these gun-threads is where to draw the line.
Who can have a firearm and who not.
How you can screw up your rights to have one.
And what kind of firearms.
I am for instance, quite interested in guns. But I wouldn't want to hand out a Tommygun to just anybody.
But MAN, when the Tommy fires the volley. That is a racket! :aok
Guns are denied to people who have been dishonorably discharged, most felonies, anyone who was involuntarily committed to a crazy house, some domestic abuse misdemeanors, and some types of guns to some types of immigrants. You can get your right to own guns back by petitioning the president or your governor.
Anyone over 18 can buy rifles and shotguns. Anyone over 21 can buy handguns.
The only restriction to what you can freely buy are Class 3 weapons. These are most notably machine guns, guns with barrels shorter then 18 inches, calibers over .50, and cannons. To buy one, you need to pay a 50 dollar tax (may be 5 dollars), but you are intimately investigated looking for any suspect reason why you shouldn't own a class 3 gun. Once you do get the clearance, you are still checked up on from time to time.
Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US. Most conservatives are downright terrified to call out the real cause of the crimes. Being labeled a racist is one of the most damning things someone can be called these days. It doesn't matter if the person is right, just the mere mention of a particular race or culture being the cause of something is enough to send some people off the deep end.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Charon,
If I were to live in the US but did not own a gun should I then be labelled a liberal sexually inadequate wimp who is afraid of guns and begging for my home to be invaded? Just curious because that appears to be the generalisation I'm reading here.
I wonder what Skuzzy's thoughts are on this...being that he doesn't own a gun.
:)
You're what gangstas calla target
-
Bet this guy wishes he had a gun.....
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/12/crocodilearm_wideweb__470x301,0.jpg)
hopefully he wasn't a leftie
(They sewed it back on;) )
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Guns are denied to people who have been dishonorably discharged, most felonies, anyone who was involuntarily committed to a crazy house, some domestic abuse misdemeanors, and some types of guns to some types of immigrants. You can get your right to own guns back by petitioning the president or your governor.
Anyone over 18 can buy rifles and shotguns. Anyone over 21 can buy handguns.
The only restriction to what you can freely buy are Class 3 weapons. These are most notably machine guns, guns with barrels shorter then 18 inches, calibers over .50, and cannons. To buy one, you need to pay a 50 dollar tax (may be 5 dollars), but you are intimately investigated looking for any suspect reason why you shouldn't own a class 3 gun. Once you do get the clearance, you are still checked up on from time to time.
Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US. Most conservatives are downright terrified to call out the real cause of the crimes. Being labeled a racist is one of the most damning things someone can be called these days. It doesn't matter if the person is right, just the mere mention of a particular race or culture being the cause of something is enough to send some people off the deep end.
I think the rule up here is "anyone" over 20 with a clear criminal record, a course, and 2 qualifying guarantors and an interview with the police chief.
There are automatic shotguns up to 3" with up to 5 shots, bolt action rifles, lever operated rifles (max .22 mag), automatic rifles (.22 max), but no handguns or machineguns.
So in short, what you can use nicely for hunting.
You will need a licence for hunting, and perhaps a course for the bigger prey, as well as a MINIMUM caliber. Humane killing issue.
Above 3 weapons you need to buy and show a legal locker for the storing.
(I want one for christmas)
As for this one:
"Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US."
I belive they have a point. With more in outr cirkulation at least, you would certainly have more corpses.
USA seperates it from the rest of the western world regarding crime rate AND weapon ownership BTW. The difference is actually stunning.
-
ghost.. the fact that you have never fired a gun does not make you anything except..
It makes you less experianced in modern history and it makes you unqualified to speak about guns.
It also makes you less able to defend yourself or others from bad people.
With any luck...you will never know how much of a mistake you have made... sorta like never buying flood insurance for your home.
angus... except for the shotguns... the guns you are allowed to have are like training guns for children. I learned to fire a 22 high standard and colt woodsman when I was 9 years old. I fired a thompson my grand father had when I was 11... it didn't have any real recoil in my opinion.
I fired 1911 45's all the time growing up.. you could buy em for $50 and loaded mags for a buck. I fired original black powder colts and remingtons and dueling pistols my grand dad had and a buttload of winchester and henry lever guns.
It is not so different today... you can by tokarevs and makarovs for dirt cheap and ammo by the thousand rounds... we have surplus high powered rifles for under $100 at sporting goods stores.
This is good... the more of my neighbors that are armed the better I feel. I don't want a bunch of "reasonable" hand wringers and do nothings around when things break down as they do from time to time... I want to shoot looters out from under their case of heinekin or boom box.
one only has to look at the real pictures of the aftermath of katrina to see how close to feral some people in the states are.
lazs
-
Lazs, you lost my point.
Firstly, a humble .22 is big enough to kill a bull.
Secondly, a .45 might not kill a Polar bear.
Thirdly, a .303 will.
And we are allowed to go bigger than that AFAIK.
For the Reindeers I am not sure of the minimum. It could be .223 but preferred is 30-06 or even bigger. I belive 30-06 is a common one, while .223 we use for sniping geese. (after all you want to eat them, not blow them up :D)
For Seals and the possible white and fluffy intruder (not common any more) you have very big calibers. I am not even sure if we have a max for that job.
If you call a 30-30 a training gun for children, I therefore emphasize that a single shot can drop a Polar bear. A .45 will drop YOU, but might not stop a charging bear. As for:
"This is good... the more of my neighbors that are armed the better I feel"
In my case, I am quite happy that most of them as well as most of my family are not armed at all. :D
-
In bear country I carry my 44 mag. Many carry 460 and 480 and even 500 magnums.
See.. we have a choice. Some don't always make wise choices but.. we have choice.
I fail to see why some of the guns you own are legal but some of the ones I don't wouldn't be. I could shoot dozens of your countrymen...maybe hundreds with the guns you are allowed to have yet be helpless against bad guys.
you have guns adequate for breaking the law and for serial killers and criminals but nothing a citizen can use well to carry and defend. Why can you own a bolt action 303 (the fastest working bolt in the world and 10 shot) but not a garand with it's 8 shot mag? Why can you own the most deadly close range firearm, a shotgun, that any criminal can cut down to pistol length in 15 minutes but no handguns for citizens to defend against him?
what kind of thinking is that?
lazs
-
Why can you own a bolt action 303 (the fastest working bolt in the world and 10 shot) but not a garand with it's 8 shot mag? Why can you own the most deadly close range firearm, a shotgun, that any criminal can cut down to pistol length in 15 minutes but no handguns for citizens to defend against him?
I was thinking that too. My Enfield No. 5 Mk1 is practically the assault rifle of bolt actions. The garand does have an edge on WW2 era bolt actions but they were plenty deadly 1914-1918 and 1939-1942. A lot of what I like about the garand is not lethality related either. England made the Enfield into the 1950s and India made it into the 1980s.
IMO so called "assault weapons" -- so called because the real ones are full auto -- would not necessarily be my first choice for a lot of extreme situations. The rounds lack both penetration and stopping power relative to your typical .30 cal weapon. They are lighter, but then in most of the worst case scenarios the concern is personal defense (not offense) and a pistol is easier to conceal and lighter still. And if it's ever Revolution #2 I would want something like black tipped AP 30-06 in a garand or bolt to deal with body armor.
Assault weapons really need the auto capability to be anything special. Probably why I haven't bought any yet along with the fact that most are basically commercial weapons today and lack the history.
What's funny too is Brady lists a variety of "assault weapon" incidents on their site. And it is not uncommon to find that the criminals used a variety of weapons, including "assault rifles" and "assault pistols" but the deadliest weapons used were shotguns.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for this one:
"Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US."
I belive they have a point. With more in outr cirkulation at least, you would certainly have more corpses.
USA seperates it from the rest of the western world regarding crime rate AND weapon ownership BTW. The difference is actually stunning.
The reason crime is so high here is the black and inner city culture. If you were to analyze crime rates outside of the cities, you'd see that it's actually very reasonable.
Don't forget, someone is going to commit a crime whether or not they have a gun.
-
From a U.S. point of view, it just takes a short read here to see why we need to hold on and protect the old parchment document with every thing within our power.
The kicking, screaming and lame excuses by those who have freely given up or lost their rights and have no choice makes it pretty clear.
Helpless and "at the mercy of is just that"........helpless.
-
Whats the problem....our Goverment is going to take away all our rights without firing a shot anyway....or....the slant eye country will just call in all our treasury bonds and just own our country:eek:
-
We also have an open border to our south. The police in many areas are not aloud to stop crime because that would mean they would have to arrest illegals, which would be seen as harassment.
-
One point is that you can't hose down a classroom with what we have, and you'll have trouble defending against multiple SWAT going after you.
I look at it as a privilege and a part of MY right not to have a possible anyone with a Tommygun :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
I look at it as a privilege and a part of MY right not to have a possible anyone with a Tommygun :D
.......and yet it is very possible. Only the law abiding abides by the law...in any country.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Well, maybe lazs et al will read your first paragraph (quoted) and challenge you on it, because the inference is clear that not owning guns is related to fear and sexual problems during this little discussion. Disagree, or would you like me to quote the text?
[/b]
I gave my opinion. As you know, opinions are like noses, everyone has one.
I may or may not be challenged on it; that would be unimportant. Approval/Disapproval was not my purpose when I posted that. I was merely stating my opinion.
If others think not owning guns is related to fear/sexual problems, well, that would be their opinion, wouldn't it? One of the nice things here in the US is that pretty much everyone accepts that people are entitled to their opinions. It's that free speech thing that so many non-US folks find confusing. Everyone is entitled to speak their piece, even if they hold an unpopular opinion. That clearly does not mean that such a person would not have other folks exercising their right to speak and disagreeing completely with the original speaker. It does not mean freedom from criticism.
I don't know about you but I expect to read a lot of different opinions on this BBS. Reading opinions that I don't agree with is part of the deal and no big thing.
One thing I always try to keep in mind though: my opinion may be wrong. So I try to keep an open mind when I read threads here. Never hurts to learn something new, does it?
Your second (quoted) paragraph though puts you squarely back into the "we are better, tougher and more free because we have guns" camp.
[/b]
I don't think so. As FBBone pointed out, it's more about choice although that is incomplete. It's about the choice I have to exercise one of my Constitutional rights.
A choice that does not exist for folks in some other countries. That too is fine by me. I'm happy where I live, I'm sure they are happy where they live, and best of all, I'm happy they live where they live. :)
I think you prefer the way Bone said it because the way I said it is a little too close to the uncomfortable truth. :)
Lastly, with respect to your comment on US folks feeling free to comment on Euros here, I'd point out that this is clearly a US-centric board.
While some non-US folks seem to make it their mission to come here to a US-centric board and point out the failings and shortcomings of the US and US citizens, I don't think very many of the folks on the AH BBS seek out a Euro or non-US centric BBS and go there to criticize.
Indeed, here on this US-centric board we do discuss non-US countries, customs and problems. Essentially though, this is amongst ourselves, in our own living rooms so to speak. I'm sure some of our non-US visitors find this offensive and we should perhaps be more thensitive.
I doubt if it could be considered nearly as offensive as some of the AH BBS US folks going to a Euro centric board and repeatedly pointing out the failings and shortcomings of Europe, however. Do you agree?
-
One point is that you can't hose down a classroom with what we have, and you'll have trouble defending against multiple SWAT going after you.
Fortunately, you're more likely to be hit by lightning that ever be involved in such an incident - a fact.
The deadliest weapons used in such events (when multiple weapons are present) tend to be a standard shotgun - a fact.
There are literally thousands of common activities that put you more at risk than the likelihood of being involved in a mass shooting - another fact.
For that matter, alcohol and arson from a more criminal perspective - another fact.
Terrorists don't even typically go the shooting route -- it's just not deadly enough - another fact (though maybe the whole victim disarmament zone concept will now start to get on their radar).
So called Assault weapons (actually ANY type of rifle) are used in homicide less than 2 percent of the time according to the FBI - fact.
The average number of shots fired in a crime, according to the FBI is about 3 and virtually any weapon carries more ammunition than that - fact. The weapon of choice with general criminal activity used to be a cheap revolver. The "glock" craze may have changed that, but apparently criminals are still not firing more rounds than you would with a revolver. Few gun control folk in the US advocate a ban on revolvers, or even semi-auto magazines below 10 rounds.
They are not trying to ban these weapons over here because of fact -- a real world need. They are trying to ban them simply because they think they can because people, by and large, are ignorant of the facts and driven by emotion. They can be easily manipulated by propaganda, TV shows and Movies. Simple as that.
Even Cho at Virginia tech didn't "hose" down a classroom. He locked everyone inside, and methodically went around, taking his time, shooting them one by one. Fortunately for him, it was a gun free zone, where you can't legally carry a weapon (even if you are licensed to do so in the state). Unfortunately for his classmates, he didn't pay attention to that regulation. Had he used a shotgun he wouldn't have had to shoot so many of them more than once -- amply illustrated at Columbine. Had a teacher or student possessed a legal weapon it would likely have ended much sooner with less loss of life. There are factual examples where this is the case.
BTW, no firearm was used in the rape and murder of the Petit family.
Charon
-
"I think you prefer the way Bone said it because the way I said it is a little too close to the uncomfortable truth."
No, I liked the way he put it because your comment was factually wrong and simply an attempt to be....a richard. :)
Note that Bone recognised your chest puffing attempt to show how much "better" you guys in the US as a result of your gun ownership. I'm sure that isn't what you meant to imply though...right?
As to your Euro-centric vs US board rant...I post here because I used to fly the online sim that everyone else here has or does.
Are you suggesting that non US people people who post in the O'Club should not have an opinion? We should simply stay silent and be greatful that you mighty US guys "allow" us to post? On the internet?
lol
What a wonderfully friendly concept.
"I doubt if it could be considered nearly as offensive as some of the AH BBS US folks going to a Euro centric board and repeatedly pointing out the failings and shortcomings of Europe, however. Do you agree?"
I have no idea. I don't come here to simply point out failing and shortcomings of Europe or the US...it is not my reason-d'etre as you seem to think it is.
Having read your post now a few times it appears that you are very tensitive about this particular topic and find it ironic that you accuse others of the same.
-
Ehm, charon, perhaps:
"Fortunately, you're more likely to be hit by lightning that ever be involved in such an incident - a fact. "
You actually are 10 times more likely to get shot dead in the USA than killed by a lightning. So stay away from Wyoming :D
(http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/1990-2003FatalityRate.gif)
You are also on a norm, 3 times more likely to get murdered than a European. As well as much more likely to end up in an armed robbery situation. And being raped. And bear in mind, that the "Euros" have a bigger headcount than the USA as well as living on smaller turf, as well as having more languages and multicultures.
Cause?
I mean, come on, how did all your presidents get shot anyway ?
(Okay, Kennedy got Sniped, but the others got shot with a handgun)
Linkie (I know many of you hate the info from Wiki, but I couldn't resist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Here:
"The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries,[6][7][8] with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005. This makes the U.S. have the highest rate of firearm related homicides among developed countries.[9][10] Many more suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 violence-related and 23,237 accidental gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000"
And why I ask again:
" In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties"
3.5 in the countryside? That's twice as high as in the UK yes?
Call me dull, but I see a simple relevancy between a lot of available firearms and corpses. Actually the non-gun-related murder rate in the USA is on pair with Europe.
Statistics suck don't they,,,,
-
Originally posted by Curval
No, I liked the way he put it because your comment was factually wrong and simply an attempt to be....a richard. :)
My comment is factually correct in most of the countries represented by non-US posters on this BBS.
At the end of the day, where firearm ownership is allowed at all, it comes down to one petty little perfumed prince of a law enforcement officer who makes the final decision. It is up to him and he does not have to show reason for denial. In many countries, his decision is final and cannot be challenged.
Note that Bone recognised your chest puffing attempt to show how much "better" you guys in the US as a result of your gun ownership. I'm sure that isn't what you meant to imply though...right?
[/b]
I challenge you to show where I said or even implied that "guys in the US as a result of your gun ownership" are "better". I just pointed out we have a Constitutionally guaranteed choice and I like it that way. It is better for me but it might not be better for you in Bermuda. It's a personal choice I have that I enjoy and appreciate. I especially appreciate the fact that some local cop can't rule over me and that there is a system in place to protect my rights and prevent such a person from abusing them. I think that is better, much better, but it is not a factor of gun ownership per se, it's a matter of Constitutional rights.
Are you suggesting that non US people people who post in the O'Club should not have an opinion? We should simply stay silent and be greatful that you mighty US guys "allow" us to post? On the internet?
lol
[/b]
Of course not. However, this is a perfect example of non-US folks not understanding free speech. You are free to speak your bit, no problemo. However, don't get your panties in a wad when others exercise their free speech to totally disagree with you.
I have no idea. I don't come here to simply point out failing and shortcomings of Europe or the US...it is not my reason-d'etre as you seem to think it is.
[/b]
Perhaps not your raison-d'etre but it seems you never miss a chance. :)
I think you realize how offensive it would be for some US AH BBS folks to go to a Euro board and constantly criticize, don't you? Poor form, eh, wot? Would certainly twist some knickers, I think. Yet you don't seem to understand it when that same reaction occurs here.
Having read your post now a few times it appears that you are very tensitive about this particular topic and find it ironic that you accuse others of the same.
Yep, that's me. Thensitive. I'm tho HURT.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that too.
Just trying to give you a glimpse of what it looks like from a different perspective. Feel free to ignore it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
My comment is factually correct in most of the countries represented by non-US posters on this BBS.
At the end of the day, where firearm ownership is allowed at all, it comes down to one petty little perfumed prince of a law enforcement officer who makes the final decision. It is up to HIM (emphasis mine) and he does not have to show reason for denial. In many countries, his decision is final and cannot be challenged.
Huge generalisation and wrong.
Please give me an example of who "him" might be...in a country represented by posters here please.
I challenge you to show where I said or even implied that "guys in the US as a result of your gun ownership" are "better". I just pointed out we have a Constitutionally guaranteed choice and I like it that way. It is better for me but it might not be better for you in Bermuda. It's a personal choice I have that I enjoy and appreciate. I especially appreciate the fact that some local cop can't rule over me and that there is a system in place to protect my rights and prevent such a person from abusing them. I think that is better, much better, but it is not a factor of gun ownership per se, it's a matter of Constitutional rights.
You challenge me?
I'll let Bone do the talking...he seemed to think you were doing some chest puffing:
"I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote."
Of course not. However, this is a perfect example of non-US folks not understanding free speech. You are free to speak your bit, no problemo. However, don't get your panties in a wad when others exercise their free speech to totally disagree with you.
lol
You are the one whose panties are wadding, with your long detailed posts.
Perhaps not your raison-d'etre but it seems you never miss a chance. :)
Good stuff...at least you do correct some generalisations you make. But, then you go and make another. Hilarious. I'm gonna have to start calling you General Toad....and not because of anything to do with the military.
I think you realize how offensive it would be for some US AH BBS folks to go to a Euro board and constantly criticize, don't you? Poor form, eh, wot? Would certainly twist some knickers, I think. Yet you don't seem to understand it when that same reaction occurs here.
Hypothetical situation:
Toad, you discover a new flight sim. You join and then begin posting on its BBS. It is a site owned by a guy sitting in....Germany....but is in English.
You make a few friends and have a few good laughs.
After a while though you start to notice thread after thread slagging Americans.
Do you:
(a) Recognise the fact that it is a Euro Centric site and leave.
(b) Recognise the fact that is a Euro Centric site but stay and cotinue to post but never defend America or Americans?
(c) Start adding your 2 cents?
Be honest...because I already know the answer.
Just trying to give you a glimpse of what it looks like from a different prespective.
Just trying to give you a glimpse of what it looks like from a different perspective. Feel free to ignore it.
SNAP!
Not to worry...I will. :)
-
with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005.
Happily, a large portion of these homicides were gang mebers killing other gang members. I'm fine with that. much tax payer money saved here.
-
England:
"A firearm certificate shall be granted where the Chief Officer of Police is satisfied that:
- the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which Section 1 of this Act applies, and
- is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm."
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/f_fit1.htm
All comes down to one little perfumed prince.
How would the Commissioner of Police in Bermuda react to a request by a Bermudan to own/carry a firearm? :)
Bone merely said what I said; we in the USA have a Constitutionally guaranteed choice regarding firearms. You are the one that attributes chest-puffing to such simple statements. You'll note I don't condemn the way other countries handle their firearms other than to say that I'm very glad it is not that way here. Is that chest-puffing?
If Britain wants to ban private ownership of handguns or if Bermuda wants to confiscate guns.. that is their choice. It doesn't affect me and I don't care. I feel sorry for those sportsmen that can no longer practice their sport but that's about the end of it.
I make detailed posts because the short ones are often deliberately twisted by others. I try to be clear and that requires detail.
As for your raison-d'etre here, I'll just say your posts speak volumes. A quick click of the search button will bring up your posting history and folks can evaluate for themselves. The written history is there.
If I were a visitor to a Euro BBS and folks started slagging the US, I'd present my opinion in a polite way. I'd realize others have their own opinions and I'd accept that people would sometimes disagree. I seriously doubt I'd go around accusing people of questioning my manhood over my position on some issue. I doubt I'd continually find fault with the Euro countries and I seriously doubt I'd get to be a poster that never missed a chance to jump in and slag back. In short, I'd post there like I post here.
Lastly, if it really bothered me I'd just leave the BBS. I doubt it would bother me much for all of the above reasons.
-
"If Britain wants to ban private ownership of handguns or if Bermuda wants to confiscate guns.. that is their choice. It doesn't affect me and I don't care. I feel sorry for those sportsmen that can no longer practice their sport but that's about the end of it."
So, time for so many on this BB to stop mocking the "Euros" for their "useless" gun control.
As for the sportmanship, - even little Iceland gives you a window for that. But you can't bring the gun home.....
It's a choice. It's where you draw the line. The Euros draw the line stiffer than the USA. The Euros have much better crime stats than the USA. The rest is up for conclusions. Like what kind of freedom is the worthiest. What did one grow up with anyway?
-
And Lazs:
"you have guns adequate for breaking the law and for serial killers and criminals but nothing a citizen can use well to carry and defend. Why can you own a bolt action 303 (the fastest working bolt in the world and 10 shot) but not a garand with it's 8 shot mag? Why can you own the most deadly close range firearm, a shotgun, that any criminal can cut down to pistol length in 15 minutes but no handguns for citizens to defend against him?
what kind of thinking is that?"
Did you never learn to read?
Why do you need a CONCEILABLE weapon for self defence? Since you have now comprehended that we do not have something above "baby size", what is banned is CONCEILABILITY and then the infamous ROF.
Do you wish for every citizen to carry a conceiled weapon? Maybe in your reality, but I'm quite happy that it's not so in mine.
Being able to conceile a weapon of high ROF is absolutwely the bandit's dream. And don't even try to tell me that you can hide a sawed off pump (I have a shotgun and the tools to saw it off and make ready in less than 5 minutes) as well as a nifty little Beretta,.........even the desert Eagle is dwarfed by it.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehm, charon, perhaps:
"Fortunately, you're more likely to be hit by lightning that ever be involved in such an incident - a fact. "
You actually are 10 times more likely to get shot dead in the USA than killed by a lightning. So stay away from Wyoming :D
(http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/1990-2003FatalityRate.gif)
You are also on a norm, 3 times more likely to get murdered than a European. As well as much more likely to end up in an armed robbery situation. And being raped. And bear in mind, that the "Euros" have a bigger headcount than the USA as well as living on smaller turf, as well as having more languages and multicultures.
Cause?
I mean, come on, how did all your presidents get shot anyway ?
(Okay, Kennedy got Sniped, but the others got shot with a handgun)
Linkie (I know many of you hate the info from Wiki, but I couldn't resist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Here:
"The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries,[6][7][8] with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005. This makes the U.S. have the highest rate of firearm related homicides among developed countries.[9][10] Many more suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 violence-related and 23,237 accidental gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000"
And why I ask again:
" In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties"
3.5 in the countryside? That's twice as high as in the UK yes?
Call me dull, but I see a simple relevancy between a lot of available firearms and corpses. Actually the non-gun-related murder rate in the USA is on pair with Europe.
Statistics suck don't they,,,,
First off, he didn't say that you are more likely to be struck by lightning, then to be murdered. He said that you are more likely to be struck by lightning, then to ever be a target of a mass murderer. Basically, what this means is that guns don't really promote mass murders, nor are the cause of simple murders.
Again, statistics are fine, but they mean nothing without conclusions. Also, over generalizations of statistics become meaningless. To link all of america with a problem that Black culture, as well as inner cities, is just foolish.
-
Originally posted by Toad
England:
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/f_fit1.htm
All comes down to one little perfumed prince.
How would the Commissioner of Police in Bermuda react to a request by a Bermudan to own/carry a firearm? :)
Bone merely said what I said; we in the USA have a Constitutionally guaranteed choice regarding firearms. You are the one that attributes chest-puffing to such simple statements. You'll note I don't condemn the way other countries handle their firearms other than to say that I'm very glad it is not that way here. Is that chest-puffing?
If Britain wants to ban private ownership of handguns or if Bermuda wants to confiscate guns.. that is their choice. It doesn't affect me and I don't care. I feel sorry for those sportsmen that can no longer practice their sport but that's about the end of it.
I make detailed posts because the short ones are often deliberately twisted by others. I try to be clear and that requires detail.
As for your raison-d'etre here, I'll just say your posts speak volumes. A quick click of the search button will bring up your posting history and folks can evaluate for themselves. The written history is there.
If I were a visitor to a Euro BBS and folks started slagging the US, I'd present my opinion in a polite way. I'd realize others have their own opinions and I'd accept that people would sometimes disagree. I seriously doubt I'd go around accusing people of questioning my manhood over my position on some issue. I doubt I'd continually find fault with the Euro countries and I seriously doubt I'd get to be a poster that never missed a chance to jump in and slag back. In short, I'd post there like I post here.
Lastly, if it really bothered me I'd just leave the BBS. I doubt it would bother me much for all of the above reasons.
The Chief of Police is not a prince or a constable. I cannot comment on whether or not he wears perfume. So, while you continue to be obtuse you also continue to be wrong.
Bore said (and I quote again):"I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote."
I've quoted it twice now yet you continue to argue the point.
The written history IS indeed there....anyone who reads it will see that virtually ALL of my posts were reactionary and not me starting anything.
Reactionary to precisely the thing you are accusing me of doing with respect to manhood etc....how many times have I been accused of being less than a man because I live in a country that has no guns? It is all there...anyone who wants to read it is welcome. My one little jab earlier in this thread is what you are basing your accusation on? PLEASE. Go read.
"I doubt I'd continually find fault with the Euro countries and I seriously doubt I'd get to be a poster that never missed a chance to jump in and slag back. In short, I'd post there like I post here."
LOL Comedy gold old chap. Comedy gold. You do all these things here...usually aimed at moi when you jump in to defend lazs or whomever after I have entered a discussion to do a similar thing. Especially now that Beet1e has been banned.
You are very good a pointing out slivers in my eye but ignore the big plank in yours.
Now, I'm off...wasted too much time on this thread as it is.
See you in the next bash thread Toad where I'm sure you will as polite and nice as you've been here.
:rofl
-
"Fortunately, you're more likely to be hit by lightning that ever be involved in such an incident - a fact. "
We have been over this before in great detail. http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=207531&referrerid=5405
1. I am talking about mass shooting events, the same ones the banners cite. I'll even walk you through it:
a.) you reference "hose down a class room." reading comprehension tells me you are referring to a mass shooting event, like the ones that rarely occur and are statistically insignificant with a gross population of 300 million considered but that get the full media circus treatment (unlike arson, for example). This also ties directly into our "weapon a=bad, weapon b=good discussion.
b.) The Brady bunch has totaled up about 70 people killed in such events in the past 20 years. About 4000 people have been killed by lightning during the same period.
You are also on a norm, 3 times more likely to get murdered than a European. As well as much more likely to end up in an armed robbery situation. And being raped. And bear in mind, that the "Euros" have a bigger headcount than the USA as well as living on smaller turf, as well as having more languages and multicultures.
Where total crime is concerned:
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
Source: BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
Where firearm crime is concerned:
You have previously refused to read posted studies from European bodies citing the differences between US inner city crime dynamics and European crime dynamics and how the US mode is moving to Europe. Even when I provide you with the specific pages to read. But hey, the link I posted earlier in this thread, which you likely didn't read either, shows that firearm crime has doubled in the UK since the ban, and that illegal smuggled arms can be bought by criminals for less that I pay legally at retail here in the US. It confirms the very same reasons that can be found in those studies I posted the the last thread that you refuse to acknowledge because they directly contradict your position.
Also from that BBC article:
Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
Where the "3 times more likely to be murdered is concerend..." and
"In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties"
3.5 in the countryside? That's twice as high as in the UK yes?
You have apparently never been to the US yet seem to know what life is like. Others have pointed that out to you as well, including Europeans who have actually been to the US. I have yet to even hear a firearm fired in anger, including years spent living in Chicago. The vast majority of people will live and die (of natural causes) with the same experience.
In the worst case scenario, 5.5 out of 100,000 people get killed by a firearm.
In the typical non criminal-on-criminal scenario perhaps 2-3 out of 100,000
In Europe perhaps 1.5 out of 100,000
Tell me. Is the difference great enough even in the worst case scenario to make any real difference to your daily life? Really. Especially since (using the same per capita data I posted before):
Risk by comparison x 100,000:
firearms - 5/2
Automobiles - 14
Tobacco - 650
Alcohol - 150
Heroin - 80 (fully banned, btw)
Cocaine - 4 (fully banned, btw)
You are 30 times more likely to have an alcohol related death (using the worst case firearm statistics) than firearm related, and guess what? The same holds true for Europe. As best as I can determine from a ranged of partial information you are (at least) 30 times more at risk from a liquored up receptionist in Europe than I am at risk from firearm violence in the US even if I were a gang banger. Unless you are a total hypocrite than you must be equally incensed about the ready availability of alcohol.
As your map suggests, there are some states where I'm more likely to get hit by lightning than others. There are some countries where I'm more likely to get eaten by a shark. Should I quake in fear walking down the street to see a tourist spot in Australia because of all the Great White shark killings and mailings that occur in Australia? Should I even be terrified to go for a swim in the ocean?
Outside of a limited number of urban communities in five counties there is virtually no firearm crime. Period. Statistics show that the vast majority of the cases (at least upwards of 80 percent into 90 percent) of firearm homicide involve both the shooter and criminal having extensive previous criminal histories. If you are not a gang banger or career criminal, you are not notably at risk. Retail professions do skew that somewhat, but then there are often policies in place that discourage self defense.
You fail to address why specific weapons like the assault rifles that are a direct part of this discussion should be banned, if they only make up less than 2 percent of firearm crime. Other than the fact that you don't trust yourself, your family or your neighbors with such weapons and it makes you FEEL uneasy.
Up until 1920 firearm ownership in the UK was easier than it was in the US. Still, the US had far more firearm homicides. No correlation based on the banning the "tool" aspect. Firearm crime has increased in the UK since the recent, almost total ban. No correlation based on the banning the "tool" aspect.
We have gone over this all before. You failed to address most of my support materials at the time, falling back to a gross statistic with no analysis of specific counter points. But hey, look at Europe today. They may not be quite there yet but they are working hard to catch up, bans and all. BTW.
Charon
-
well... charon said it so I don't have to.. got to figure out if he left anything out...
Oh... angus.. so you feel safe knowing that it is against the law for your criminals to use guns so that should be enough to stop em?
And of course I think people should be allowed to carry concealed handguns...
Lets take a situation with the best of each of our thinking involved....
Lets say that some nut decides to do a school shooting... unfortunately for him... he is aware that it is illegal for him to use a pistol soo.... thus being stopped dead in his tracks he can only get a 3" magnum 12 guage shotgun with a 6 round capacity and a bandolier of shotgun rounds... when he runs dry he has to spend seconds reloading...
Luckily he only has this underpowered weapon but he is still managing to kill everyone he sees..
now... you barricade yourself into a room with a whole group of people.
your scenario is to just wait to die.
Under the best of my concealed carry scenario... someone in the room has a handgun and.... knows how to use the damn thing.
In fact... several people out in the hall have concealed weapons and are at that very moment... putting fat round slugs into mister nutjob.
I fail to see how you have helped anyone with your laws. I can't help but see how my idea is better.
Do you know how many unjustified shootings are committed by concealed carry people here in the US by the way?
Looking at the katrina riots and looting... would you want or not want a firearm?
lazs
-
Here's another angle. Lets say that Iceland had the same firearm homicide rates as the US.
That would mean, say 16 people killed each year by a firearm. Of those, perhaps 10 people would be criminals killed by other criminals. If Iceland is in line with the rest of the world, during the same time period perhaps 480 people would die an alcohol related death. A high percentage of those would be "innocents" killed by a drunk driver. Off the top of my head, we get an approximate "Columbine" worth of kids killed each day from alcohol in the US. Not all in one place, but just as dead.
Now, exactly what should we be trying to ban first, for the good of society, the good of the children, whatever?
Personally, I vote neither, focusing on personal responsibility and punishing those who criminally misuse either a firearm or alcohol. Oddly, people don't seem to have a problem with this approach when it is the far more lethal alcohol involved, yet they really want to punish the tool and legal, responsible users when it is the firearm involved.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Here's another angle. Lets say that Iceland had the same firearm homicide rates as the US.
That would mean, say 16 people killed each year by a firearm. Of those, perhaps 10 people would be criminals killed by other criminals. If Iceland is in line with the rest of the world, during the same time period perhaps 480 people would die an alcohol related death. A high percentage of those would be "innocents" killed by a drunk driver. Off the top of my head, we get an approximate "Columbine" worth of kids killed each day from alcohol in the US. Not all in one place, but just as dead.
Now, exactly what should we be trying to ban first, for the good of society, the good of the children, whatever?
Personally, I vote neither, focusing on personal responsibility and punishing those who criminally misuse either a firearm or alcohol. Oddly, people don't seem to have a problem with this approach when it is the far more lethal alcohol involved, yet they really want to punish the tool and legal, responsible users when it is the firearm involved.
Charon
Drunk driving is banned. Nobody (at least not me) wants to even ban firearms, just control their ownership in order to keep them out of the wrong hands. As long as I know that a criminal or a mental patient can't easily to purchase a gun let alone legally own one, I'm happy.
The odds of facing an armed one drops significantly.
This is where we clash with conspiracy buffs like lazs who are constantly worried about bad daddies coming to take their toys away. :D
-
there is no conspiracy theory
..it has happened..they have bannd many forms of firearms..especially in Kalifornia
Turn them in-register-or remove form state And the sissies always are trying..next its "hi powered sniper rifles" or your grandpas 3-06..or registered ammo..or making all guns imprint serial numbers on spent casings...the lists goes on and on
-
Charon,
Here is the reason Angus gives us so much trouble concerning crime in Iceland.
1. Iceland is a homogenious population of caucasian northern european descendant people. Current population aprox: 300,000. More than half living in one major city on the island. The majority of "new and very VIOLENT" crime in the West(US & EU) is from non-caucasian immigration and young males of long time local non-caucasians.
Iceland is very careful about who it allows to take up house keeping on the island.
2. Iceland's population and crime statistics mirror that of the state of Maine who's population is 1.25M with a 96.9% caucasian population. Maine has a lower homicide rate. About 1.5 a year vs. 3 a year in Iceland.
3. Maine's constitution flat out prohibits the infringement of it's citizens right to keep and bare arms.
4. Mixed cultural\race populations have high crime rates. Homogenius populations have low crime rates. As you go south from the state of Maine the crime rates increase as the homogenious population percentage decreases. If you apply a microscope to the states south of Maine you will find those increases in crime rate are found in high population areas. Large cities with diverse non-homogenius populations. You also find a disproportinate number of crime types are commited by noncaucasians against noncaucasians.
You don't have to use Wikigarbigia to get all this information. It's available on every country, state and city home page. Wikigarbigia is edited to make certin statistics look roasy for vested parties.
-
I must restate my Alcohol figures. While looking for other statistics I came across the source of my relative risks figures cited earlier. What was not stated directly but what is apparent when reviewing those and other numbers is that the per capita figures are per capita related to number of users and not total population figures. Also, the 150,000 figure is a bit high compared to common figures I have come across that show a total of 75,000-85,000 alcohol deaths to common figures of 11,000 to 14,000 firearm deaths if you just consider homicides and accidents. Roughly 6 times as many alcohol deaths.
But, by the same token, I see national FBI figures that show a per capita TOTAL murder rate of 5.6 of which roughly 2/3 were firearm related. That would suggest a roughly 3.6 total firearm deaths per capita. Also, the figures I've seen from JAMA show 71 percent of the shooters having a previous criminal history and a variety of figures show 50 -75 percent averages for the victim having a criminal record (much higher is some urban areas). That would suggest something closer to a per capita risk to non criminals at 1 to 1.5.
BTW, you are at about 4 times the risk of being stabbed, and about the same risk (though slightly higher) of being either beaten to death with hands or beaten to death with a blunt object as you are being killed by ANY type of rifle.
So, to restate the Icelandic comparison with adjusted figures, you would have say 10 total firearm deaths if Iceland had the same worst case firearm death rates and 96 dead from alcohol if they were comparable to what you can find for alcohol deaths throughout the world. Doesn't change the point all that much.
Oddly, there is abundant firearm data you can find but it's hard to find alcohol statistics (per capita, hard numbers, etc) internationally beyond the UK. Other statistics as to the "leading cause of death" percentages seem to reflect a fairly common match though. Other bias issues include adding suicides to firearm deaths without correlating general suicide rates per capita internationally, classifying a 21-year old as a child (both DUI and firearm); adding homicides and manslaughter in with "accidental" deaths; including police killings of criminals under homicides (for example, 270 of the 11,000 noted above); etc. No consistency at all. In fact, it can be too easy to pick on the UK since the UK is apparently one of the rare countries that collects a depth of such data.
An interesting aside, the number of cited alcohol users is roughly the same as the number of legal gun owners in the US. I had always though there were more drinkers in the US.
Charon
-
This is where we clash with conspiracy buffs like lazs who are constantly worried about bad daddies coming to take their toys away.
As BiGBMAW points out it is not a conspiracy. I can link to a wealth of federal and state regulation and cases where licensing and registration moved directly into banning and confiscation.
Drunk driving is banned. Nobody (at least not me) wants to even ban firearms, just control their ownership in order to keep them out of the wrong hands. As long as I know that a criminal or a mental patient can't easily to purchase a gun let alone legally own one, I'm happy.
Drunk driving is banned just like murder, armed robbery and armed assault are banned. With drunk driving the focus is on punishing criminals for their behavior, either through a traffic stop or after an accident. With guns, the focus seems to be on banning the gun, which only impact the legal gun owner and not the criminal gun owner, where experience in the UK suggests they find a way to get a gun (even cheaper than I can legally) even if they are banned.
Or the focus on semi automatic rifles (assault weapons). For a variety of practical reasons they are seldom used in homicide. Far less than a knife and even less than hands or a blunt object. Yet they are No. 1 on the ban to-do list. Why, because those that want broader bans consider them to be easy meat, something they can do now while they work on the rest.
I have no problem with keeping firearms out of the hands of mental incompetents or violent criminal felons (not that they won't get them anyway). Of course, just where do you lose your right? Feeling a little down and go in for a few session?
Unli
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Drunk driving is banned. Nobody (at least not me) wants to even ban firearms, just control their ownership in order to keep them out of the wrong hands. As long as I know that a criminal or a mental patient can't easily to purchase a gun let alone legally own one, I'm happy.
The odds of facing an armed one drops significantly.
This is where we clash with conspiracy buffs like lazs who are constantly worried about bad daddies coming to take their toys away. :D
We already have laws in place to do that. We have had these laws for a very long time.
Criminals are criminals because they have no regard for the law.
-
Charon:
"So, to restate the Icelandic comparison with adjusted figures, you would have say 10 total firearm deaths if Iceland had the same worst case firearm death rates "
I get some 15. You just divide with 1000.
That is firearm homocide BTW. Well, it's August and we're sadly up to ONE.
We should then have had 52 registered gun violence crimes (I belive we are at nil), and 23 gun injuries (same), as well as 16 suicides from gun (we have one, the same one as in the murder).
As for Alcohol death, - that's normally an inwards issue. Like the suicides. You kill yourself. I'd rather adress the smokers then, for they are also responsible for other's deaths -by-puffs. However you seem to have a more frequent gun-related problem than death by alcohol anyway, 15+52+16? I'd say that's big enough for a problem.
BTW I used Euro-figures this time, not Icelandic. And as I stated, Europe has a nice recipy for trouble with multi-cultures, multi languages, eastern block mafia, and a denser and bigger population than the USA.
Anyway wasn't the thread about guns anyway? I'll skip the smokers.
-
Why nobody is worried that by owning a drivers license some authority will come and take the right away because they're registered. :rolleyes:
Much better to drive around with no license, free. And of course without a seatbelt huh, lazs, anyone? :lol
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Why nobody is worried that by owning a drivers license some authority will come and take the right away because they're registered. :rolleyes:
:lol
That`s a no brainer. Every thing you do concerning driving is taxed and is a money maker both State and Federal. It`s also ongoing....continuous...every day for the most part.
In other words, to make it simple, it`s a money machine and is not threatened, nor will it be.
Government doesn`t like to take a dump in their own Post Toasties.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Why nobody is worried that by owning a drivers license some authority will come and take the right away because they're registered.
that happens, you step out of line the man come and take your license away.
-
:huh Your licence is taxed???????
-
Originally posted by Angus
:huh Your licence is taxed???????
Everything concerning driving is taxed......and heavily. Your auto, highway usage state/federal, fuel, parts, tires, local road/bridge tax. You drive, you pay...out the yahoo.
-
Oh, the fuel. Nothing compared to ours... 2 $ per litre total.....
As for parts I presume that would be VAT?
And roads? Included in the fuel, or individual legs per entrance?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Everything concerning driving is taxed......and heavily. Your auto, highway usage state/federal, fuel, parts, tires, local road/bridge tax. You drive, you pay...out the yahoo.
Yeah, and let's not forget those 3000 mile oil changes. :rofl
-
ripley... as has been shown.. registration is indeed the first step in confiscation worldwide so far as firearms are concerned.
You CAN own an automobile here in the states with no registration and no license. You can drive it and race it and do anything you want with it except drive on public roads without any license or registration.
The same for motorcycles... many motorcycles never hit the public streets.
And no.. I don't believe in seatbelt or helmet laws.
Also.. you said that you don't want mental defectives to own firearms... we already have laws against that.
and of course.. there is that little 2nd amendment thing too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
Yeah, and let's not forget those 3000 mile oil changes. :rofl
Yep Beatle, just as prescribed by the new car manufacturer schedule for the one that I purchased.
I`m in Texas dipstick. Course I know you want understand that either.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, the fuel. Nothing compared to ours... 2 $ per litre total.....
Wasn`t discussing fuel price, but the tax envolved. You drive, you pay.
As for parts I presume that would be VAT?
Sales tax.
And roads? Included in the fuel, or individual legs per entrance
Highway road tax and for some of us local/county road/bridge tax.
You drive, you pay. It`s a money machine.
-
Originally posted by Curval
The Chief of Police is not a prince or a constable. I cannot comment on whether or not he wears perfume. So, while you continue to be obtuse you also continue to be wrong.
[/b]
The fact remains that the person that has the authority to issue or revoke a permit is appointed, not elected. That person does not have to explain or justify his decision. There are no defined standards for approval. For all intents and purposes, his decision is final.
I think a petty perfumed prince is pretty accurate. I would really dislike having a low-level government appointed functionary having that kind of authority over my Constitutional right.
Bore said (and I quote again):"I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote."
I've quoted it twice now yet you continue to argue the point.
[/b]
I continue to reply because you miss the point. There's no chest thumping here; it has nothing to do with macho. It's just obvious to the casual observer that having choice, having control of your own affairs is a better situation. It is my opinion that choice is a good thing in just about every area of life. Do you disagree?
The written history IS indeed there....anyone who reads it will see that virtually ALL of my posts were reactionary and not me starting anything.
[/b]
So you're justification for becoming exactly like those you oppose is that they started it first? You got down in the mud with them because they were already there? Time for a smiley: :lol
Reactionary to precisely the thing you are accusing me of doing with respect to manhood etc....how many times have I been accused of being less than a man because I live in a country that has no guns?
[/b]
That whole concept is so laughable that I amazed you feel the need to reply to such an accusation. Why DO you feel the need to reply?
LOL Comedy gold old chap. Comedy gold. You do all these things here...usually aimed at moi when you jump in to defend lazs or whomever after I have entered a discussion to do a similar thing. Especially now that Beet1e has been banned.
[/b]
Please quote me slagging anyone in this thread. So you've decided to pick up Beet1e's sword and shield and continue the good fight? I'd think that over. Beet was a troll and that about sums it up.
Again, please quote anything you find impolite that I've said in this thread.
-
Well... I don't think I have ever accused curval of being less of a man because he lives in a place where everyone is phobic about guns... I think it is less than human tho to deny or conspire to deny others the god given right to defend themselves.
And then there is the fact of the pink shorts and the whole moped thing....
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charon
As BiGBMAW points out it is not a conspiracy. I can link to a wealth of federal and state regulation and cases where licensing and registration moved directly into banning and confiscation.
Or you can look at England & handguns, Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and a few others.
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
Yeah, and let's not forget those 3000 mile oil changes. :rofl
It must be like the Bat Signal; a gun thread summons Beet1e up from the depths of the internet.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Charon,
Here is the reason Angus gives us so much trouble concerning crime in Iceland.
1. Iceland is a homogenious population of caucasian northern european descendant people. Current population aprox: 300,000. More than half living in one major city on the island. The majority of "new and very VIOLENT" crime in the West(US & EU) is from non-caucasian immigration and young males of long time local non-caucasians.
Iceland is very careful about who it allows to take up house keeping on the island.
2. Iceland's population and crime statistics mirror that of the state of Maine who's population is 1.25M with a 96.9% caucasian population. Maine has a lower homicide rate. About 1.5 a year vs. 3 a year in Iceland.
3. Maine's constitution flat out prohibits the infringement of it's citizens right to keep and bare arms.
4. Mixed cultural\race populations have high crime rates. Homogenius populations have low crime rates. As you go south from the state of Maine the crime rates increase as the homogenious population percentage decreases. If you apply a microscope to the states south of Maine you will find those increases in crime rate are found in high population areas. Large cities with diverse non-homogenius populations. You also find a disproportinate number of crime types are commited by noncaucasians against noncaucasians.
Angus, any thoughts on this? I'd wager the rate of firearms ownership in Maine is as high or higher than Iceland.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It must be like the Bat Signal; a gun thread summons Beet1e up from the depths of the internet.
Yep, it`s hilarious, but mostly pathetic.
-
he just can't get past the fact that he has a "junior member" tho...
Always gets caught before it matures.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
he just can't get past the fact that he has a "junior member" tho...
Always gets caught before it matures.
lazs
He is not smart enough to not get caught. ;)
-
(http://[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v113/kevykev/GunLineup005.jpg)[/IMG]
I must be adding to the U.S.A. gun numbers.
-
Nice collection of Mausers there. Did you have a single source or is this from a couple decades of collecting?
-
dude..I need a mauser...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Wasn`t discussing fuel price, but the tax envolved. You drive, you pay.
You drive, you pay. It`s a money machine.
That's what I meant. The majority of our fuel price IS TAX.
Sales tax.
That's VAT. In English English that is.
Highway road tax and for some of us local/county road/bridge tax.
That's what I call tax on certain legs. Like a certain speedway etc. Differes in Euroland between countries. Countries you see..
Yes, but whine, for driving in the USA is completely cheap compared to Europe for instance. In Europe it's a money machine for the governments. In many countries the money is used for structures demanded by more cars and traffic. After all, you have a bigger population on much less turf, estate prices higher etc, - just a crossing on the highway can be quite an issue!
-
Not sure what you are getting at Angus. No whine here.
If you will go back and reread I was answering a question and explaining the difference. A very big difference at that.
-
Yep... so why would we want to be like the your-0-peeans in anything? everything they do is worse.
Why would we want to have their gun laws?
lazs
-
Here are a few that I have. This is about a third of the guns I own.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/hope016.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/hope018.jpg)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/hope019.jpg)
-
cool toys.
Glad some of you are takin up the slack for those ten people out of 100 that dont own a gun.. frik-kin slackers!
er.
oh wait.
I dont own a gun!
OMG I'm UNARMED!!
-feels nekkid-
Whar's my Hawg-Laig??
-Frank aka GE
(I guess I should get a nice Remington 12gau pump .. sawed off of course)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep... so why would we want to be like the your-0-peeans in anything? everything they do is worse.
Why would we want to have their gun laws?
lazs
What exactly is worse? And they don't want your gun law as well :D
-
The "Family" has a bunker with tons of guns in it.
I have no idea what i would need a m60, law or m79 for.
I only hope the ammo lasts untill its needed, without blowing up in my face.
GunsGunsGuns!
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
I have no idea what i would need a m60, law or m79 for.
the revolution?
or maybe rabbits.. if they're big rabbits
btw will a law knock out a canadian lav or an m113?
-
so the only things we should be allowed to own are things we can prove a "need" for?
what is wrong with you girls?
lazs
-
acfireguy26,
What, no compass in the handle of that "rambo" toothpick?!?!?!?!:huh
-
Originally posted by bustr
2. Iceland's population and crime statistics mirror that of the state of Maine who's population is 1.25M with a 96.9% caucasian population. Maine has a lower homicide rate. About 1.5 a year vs. 3 a year in Iceland.
3. Maine's constitution flat out prohibits the infringement of it's citizens right to keep and bare arms.
4. Mixed cultural\race populations have high crime rates. Homogenius populations have low crime rates. As you go south from the state of Maine the crime rates increase as the homogenious population percentage decreases. If you apply a microscope to the states south of Maine you will find those increases in crime rate are found in high population areas. Large cities with diverse non-homogenius populations. You also find a disproportinate number of crime types are commited by noncaucasians against noncaucasians.
Angus, again, any comment on this? Especially #2; it would seem Maine is safer than Iceland.
-
What if there was suddenly a rash of crimes committed with golf clubs?
Clubs are inherently weapons after all, yet it so happens that there is a very popular sport fashioned around them. Would it be right to scream for heavy regulation of these sporting goods because some people are irresponsible with theirs? Would we need to give up anything that even resembles a club so that we can be sure we ourselves won't commit a crime with it?
I'd love to see a bunch of golf nuts freak out when their sport was pulled out from under them, but that would be wrong too.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
acfireguy26,
What, no compass in the handle of that "rambo" toothpick?!?!?!?!:huh
Thats the bayonet for my M4.