Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on November 16, 2008, 09:40:21 PM
-
This is probably the BEST article on the reason given AGAINST owning a firearm that I've seen so far.
Covers some interesting points on arguments against.
Hope you find it interesting and worthy of comment.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
OOPS need to add this?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
-
That reminds me, I need to send in my NRA form and get my FREE rosewood knife!
-
I don't own a hand gun, my choice. I have no problem with those that do. Frankly I have never been confronted by an anti gun promoter. I really don't think there is that many anti-gun enthusiast.
-
I don't own a hand gun, my choice. I have no problem with those that do. Frankly I have never been confronted by an anti gun promoter. I really don't think there is that many anti-gun enthusiast.
Perhaps you've not been in the correct area of our nation to meet them?
I've seen and heard a few!
-
I used to get it all the time when I worked in Detroit. I tried to get my side across but was allways shouted down. I know this sound strange, but there point of view is if the gun "looks" bad then it is. In part of the building the agents could not carry there service weapons because they scared the other government workers. That's right scared them, having the weapons in the holsters with the handcuffs and all the federal agents scared them, but the renta-cops that were for local security were OK. I finaly just gave up.
-
I found this interesting and actually pretty true:
(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.
-
hmm the topics a bit misleading - should be "Just another right-wing rant" :rolleyes:
-
hmm the topics a bit misleading - should be "Just another right-wing rant" :rolleyes:
Spoken like a true victim. If ANYONE can give me a logical, factual, reason why I shouldn't own any firearm I choose to use in whatever legal manner I choose to use it in, then I will give up all my weapons. Luckily for me, the only aurgument the anti gunners can give me are ALL based on emontional victim mentality and for me that's not going to get me to give up my guns.
-
:rofl
not sure exactly how being able to tell the difference between polemic and reasoned argument makes me a victim :huh if it had been a link to an article on how conservatism is a mental disorder, I would have called on the left-wing rant.
-
I don't think it's the self defense and all that people are raging about, it's the fact that we won't be able to go hunting any more.
-
That artical had nothing to do with right or left wing anything. It was actually pretty well written. I've had plenty of dealings with anti gun nuts and everything that artical spoke of is accurate as to how they perceive things.
They DO walk around with a victim mentality
They DO attribute firearms as being dangerous in and of themselves
They DO have an irrational fear of firearms based on looks (assault weapons, black guns, looks military, ext)
Most importantly they DO LACK the knowledge needed to make an INFORMED opinion, yet they want to impose their opinions on everyone else based on NOTHING but their emotional fears and hangups.
Victims aren't satisfied until everyone is as much a victim as they see themselves to be. That I would CHOOSE to arm myself and not be a victim scares them. How DARE I take a messure of control that they can't do for themselves and make them feel inferior for doing so.
Again it's not about left or right. It's about strength and weakness. The weak will always try to take from the strong through rules and laws so in the end they don't feel so weak.
-
I currently do not own a gun. When I have the money I'll get a shotgun for home defense and that's all I'll need.
-
Most importantly they DO LACK the knowledge needed to make an INFORMED opinion, yet they want to impose their opinions on everyone else based on NOTHING but their emotional fears and hangups.
This was plainly evident when the VP had his hunting accident. The number of people in this country who had no idea what a shotgun was, what bird shot was, and how you could get accidentally peppered when shooting in the brush was an eye-opener for me.
-
Unfortunately the people that make laws in this country are also MASTERS of 'projection' and use it to further their agendas and to satisfy their need to manipulate people in order to attain power.
I hope I didnt cross the line on political ban but its the truth.
-
Protect yourself..... there is no one else to do it. If you put yourself in the position of not being able to protect yourself, then you are the victim the criminals look for.
For those that think the Police are there to protect you, think again. The Police are there to help keep order and will show up after a crime has been committed to investigate.
-
Two Viking chieftans once got into a dispute, and having no other weapons, beat each other to death with the bitsand bridles from their horses.
This is what disturbs me the most about certain arguments from the gun grabbers...this animistic belief that the gun makes a non-killer into a killer. MUCH more ominous though is the reverse corollary, the idea that the lack of a gun would make a killer into a peaceable citizen.
-
Guns are as responsible for killing people as SPOONS are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell FAT!
For those that think the Police are there to protect you, think again. The Police are there to help keep order and will show up after a crime has been committed to investigate.
Shuffler i understand your point, but i disagree that police, if given the choice, will stand aside and do nothing to protect someone from a crime when given the preemptive chance.
unfortunately we do not live in the age of being able to tell the future and know in advance where and when someone was going to commit a crime of violence against an innocent person. so to imply that the police are anything less than the one person that would sacrife their life in defence of an innocent is degrading and insulting to the many police who have ever been killed or wounded in the line of duty.
a criminal always has the first move advantage, because until he makes that first move he is not a criminal. so that always leaves the police in the defencive position of playing catch up and follow behind.
i am not disputing the fact that the police are generally there only after the fact to clean up the mess and try to put the pieces together, but to imply that it is this why because the police have some agenda that intentionally prevents them from being there to stop a crime before it happens is unfair to them and the bravery they show on behalf of the general public everyday they show up for work.
i know my parents are safe at night because the police voluntarily exist to sacrifice themselves to protect them. the police, as people, will always have my respect and admiration. the laws and the law makers are those that truely deserve our disdain and disregard not those, who with tied hands, try to uphold those laws.
FLOTSOM
-
This is what disturbs me the most about certain arguments from the gun grabbers...this animistic belief that the gun makes a non-killer into a killer. MUCH more ominous though is the reverse corollary, the idea that the lack of a gun would make a killer into a peaceable citizen.
How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).
So the stats say the USA is suffering because of the availability of handguns, so the 'gun grabbers' have a point. Though I'll point out I don't think banning handguns in the USA is the fix, there's simply to many in the hands of the criminals for that to be viable.
-
Actualy those of us in the US for the most part don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our gun laws. It's an internal matter for us to deal with.
There are those of us that believe in the Consitution of our country and that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to be armed if we CHOOSE to be armed. Then there are those that think they have the right to make that choice for us, and THAT is what gives us the most grief. Freedom is ALL about being abe to make our own CHOICES and then live with them.
Laws that are passed for "our own good" are simply a way for those in power to excert more control over our freedom of choice.
Ultimately being armed allows those of us that choose to excercise our freedoms the means to prevent others from taking away our freedoms by force, and ANY limit to that basic freedom as outlined by the 2nd Amendent is un consitutional in my book, and I will not follow nor obey any "laws" that violate the Constitution. Not where my rights are concerned.
-
How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).
Different population make-up is most of it.
For instance, people of Japanese descent commit almost the same number of violent crimes in gun-free Japan and the gun-rich United States.
Furthermore, we don't just need guns to defend against gun violence. In a hypothetical society magically free of guns, the criminal has the natural advantage of the predator. He chooses his victim, time, place. What gives a housewife a fighting chance against a rapist with a steak-knife, or you a chance against a group of thugs with 2x4s? It sure the hell ain't a self-defense course from the YMCA. The personal firearm is the only weapon that potentially makes the carefully chosen victim as dangerous to the criminal as the criminal is to him or her.
Another thing you may not realize is that some of us are not committed to a "safer at all costs mindset". (You can imagine how disgruntled we have been since 9/11.) There is a (small) chance I will die from a gunshot wound delivered by a criminal. There is a much greater chance I will die in an automobile accident, swimming pool accident, or from medical malpractice. I live near a general aviation airport. There is a chance that one day a Cessna will come through my roof. Yet remarkably, I haven't erected any "spite poles" to create an "airplane free" zone over my house. Point being, if you give people a freedom, you are accepting that some people will use it badly. You either see freedom as an end unto itself or there is no limit on what can be done for the "common good".
Furthermore, I have seen my friends in the re-enactment community in the former British empire become chagrined as the attentions of those who have made guns virtually verboten have been turned to such things as swords and kitchen knives. Turns out that a member of a gang made up immigrant Southeast Asians in Australia cut off another gang-banger's hand with a cheap repro sword. OBVIOUSLY according to the prevailing mentality, that means it must be made difficult, expensive, or outright impossible for people to own sharp swords. Which are of course used by most to cut straw mats and what have you.
That is the thing about the "control freaks"...when X legislation fails to deliver utopia, they always assume the solution is more legislation. Negative feedback loop.
-
How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).
Well done. Call us nuts.
So the stats say the USA is suffering because of the availability of handguns, so the 'gun grabbers' have a point. Though I'll point out I don't think banning handguns in the USA is the fix, there's simply to many in the hands of the criminals for that to be viable.
Are we suffering because the availability of Handguns? Where are the stats that prove that violent crimes would not increase if law abiding citizens were not armed?
In reality, I'll take just the facts...
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
End of argument.
Btw...you might try this site. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
-
Vulcan i am sure that you live in peace and harmony on your little island(s) with a population of just under 4.5 million.
unfortunately here in America, with a population almost 80 times that of your island and consisting of over 300 million people of mixed ancestry values and beliefs, things are not as simple as in your home.
we have the right to bear arms because here, unlike in your country, our ancestors chose to take their rights and liberties back from those who would dictate terms of existence to them. they in their wisdom granted all future generations the right to keep and bear arms as protection against any future government becoming tyrannical or oppressive towards our population.
now unfortunately some people think that the use of these weapons against other citizens of the populace in acts of violence is a perfectly acceptable form of behavior. but i ask you this, should the rest of the citizenry surrender their rights because of this minority of miscreants? should the citizenry disarm and surrender its right to self protection because those few that chose to abuse the weapons that that very right allows them access to? or because those who live in a tiny population in the very corners of the world choose to judge us by the standards of their tiny population?
when was the last time your population felt the hand of tyrants that would smother and bleed the life from your people? when was the last time your people had to fight to break the chains of ownership that another nation would shackle you with? or would you have us be subjects to another and pledging to a queen that has never earned the right to command us?
but isn't that apart of your national heritage? don't you still pledge your allegiance to England and its queen? although that allegiance is merely symbolic in nature, it is a pledge of subjugation none the less.
as Americans we bend a knee nor bow our heads to no one. as Americans we need show no allegiance or respect to any figure of authority unless we as individuals chose to. that includes our president, if he doesn't earn my respect he has no right to receive it.
those without a means to protect themselves will always be the victims of those that chose to break the law. this unfortunately is the way man has been since the beginning of time. to blame the guns is simple minded at best. to remove the rights of the lawful because others chose to break the law is disgusting.
hell we still allow Muslims to fly on commercial airliners don't we? or should we punish them all and strip them of their rights as people because of the horrible actions and abuses of a few?
FLOTSOM
-
Different population make-up is most of it.
For instance, people of Japanese descent commit almost the same number of violent crimes in gun-free Japan and the gun-rich United States.
Furthermore, we don't just need guns to defend against gun violence. In a hypothetical society magically free of guns, the criminal has the natural advantage of the predator. He chooses his victim, time, place. What gives a housewife a fighting chance against a rapist with a steak-knife, or you a chance against a group of thugs with 2x4s? It sure the hell ain't a self-defense course from the YMCA. The personal firearm is the only weapon that potentially makes the carefully chosen victim as dangerous to the criminal as the criminal is to him or her.
Another thing you may not realize is that some of us are not committed to a "safer at all costs mindset". (You can imagine how disgruntled we have been since 9/11.) There is a (small) chance I will die from a gunshot wound delivered by a criminal. There is a much greater chance I will die in an automobile accident, swimming pool accident, or from medical malpractice. I live near a general aviation airport. There is a chance that one day a Cessna will come through my roof. Yet remarkably, I haven't erected any "spite poles" to create an "airplane free" zone over my house. Point being, if you give people a freedom, you are accepting that some people will use it badly. You either see freedom as an end unto itself or there is no limit on what can be done for the "common good".
Furthermore, I have seen my friends in the re-enactment community in the former British empire become chagrined as the attentions of those who have made guns virtually verboten have been turned to such things as swords and kitchen knives. Turns out that a member of a gang made up immigrant Southeast Asians in Australia cut off another gang-banger's hand with a cheap repro sword. OBVIOUSLY according to the prevailing mentality, that means it must be made difficult, expensive, or outright impossible for people to own sharp swords. Which are of course used by most to cut straw mats and what have you.
That is the thing about the "control freaks"...when X legislation fails to deliver utopia, they always assume the solution is more legislation. Negative feedback loop.
<SALUTE> BnZ very well said!
-
hell we still allow Muslims to fly on commercial airliners don't we? or should we punish them all and strip them of their rights as people because of the horrible actions and abuses of a few?
FLOTSOM
Quoted for truth. Every tyrannical imposition in the history of man has been justified initially on some basis that makes it seem ethical and necessary.
After all, most people did not accept the burning of witches or heretics because they were unsociable old hags or threats to the established power of the church. They accepted because they sincerely believed such acts were "protecting society" from Black magick and Divine disfavor.
-
blah blah...
but isn't that apart of your national heritage? don't you still pledge your allegiance to England and its queen? although that allegiance is merely symbolic in nature, it is a pledge of subjugation none the less.
as Americans we bend a knee nor bow our heads to no one. as Americans we need show no allegiance or respect to any figure of authority unless we as individuals chose to. that includes our president, if he doesn't earn my respect he has no right to receive it.
..blah blah
No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen. As for the rest... bollocks, my rifle has a suppressor on it, legal, didn't have to fill out any forms, pay any special 'tax'. Can you do the same legally? Nope didn't think so, so much for not bending your knees ;)
I'm not anti-gun, just merely pointing out your pro-gun argument is flawed and there are better ways to put it.
-
That reminds me, I need to send in my NRA form and get my FREE rosewood knife!
I looked at their website, I will definantly be joining soon. I like the Hearing aids plan. I currently own Oticon hearing aids and they are expensive $1000 for the set that I have. So that plan would benefit me a lot when my current pair kicks the bucket.
Arian
-
No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen. As for the rest... bollocks, my rifle has a suppressor on it, legal, didn't have to fill out any forms, pay any special 'tax'. Can you do the same legally? Nope didn't think so, so much for not bending your knees ;)
I'm not anti-gun, just merely pointing out your pro-gun argument is flawed and there are better ways to put it.
"Elizabeth II, as the Queen of New Zealand, is the Head of State and, in her absence, is represented by a non-partisan Governor-General. She has no real political influence, and her position is essentially symbolic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)
if she is your queen then you bend the knee when your told to.
you are free because you can mail order a sound suppressor for your rifle? can you carry it concealed, besides putting it in a suitcase that is? and if you had ever fired a rifle with a suppressor on it you would realize that unless it is a small (almost pistol caliber) round then even with the suppressor its loud enough to easily hear from a distance.
suppressors were intially out lawed in the US because they were as likely to blow up in the face of the person firing it as it was to shoot straight. the laws banning them were continued when improvements were made because if you are firing a weapon in a manner that is intended to be stealthy and hidden then your intentions cannot be legal. if you break into my house and i shoot you in the face then i shouldn't mind that the neighbors hear the shot. but at least as an American we have the right to own not only your rifle, but 20 hidden hand guns as well.
i dont see how shooting you loudly is bending a knee but if it makes you feel better then "LONG LIVE THE 45 CALIBER"
besides if i press the muzzle of a hand gun tightly against someones cranium, then i dont need a sound suppressor. :O
FLOTSOM
-
The first argument gun defenders go to is the 2nd amendment. I think the 2nd amendment is outdated and misused. It was written as an attempt to keep the citizens well armed against a tyrannical government. That is, the government is here to protect the people, but the people have the right to protect themselves from the government. I'm sorry but owning a few hand guns just isn't protection from the government. The US military is so strong and has access to so much firepower that it would make any armed militia just look silly. If we were really concerned with the 2nd amendment in its original intent, we would be arming ourselves with tanks and war planes.
Another argument will be that statistics show legal gun owners committing very few gun related crimes, but the bottom line is there are a lot of criminals out there that have guns too, that are committing crimes... where do you think they got all of these guns? Hint: they were legal bought/owned at some point. There is simply no arguing that taking away guns from everyone will make it a lot harder for criminals to get their hands on them.
The old stand by argument gun defenders turn to is using a gun as home defense. However there are some interesting statistics, one says for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann, 1998). Another stat says regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). A short barreled shotgun is THE best home defense weapon, arguing for the legality of other weapons for home defense is just stupid.
I'm all for gun rights, I own several hand guns, shotguns and rifles, and love collecting and shooting them, I'm even looking at buying a AR-15 soon. I'm just tired of seeing all the same arguments from 'our' side. Honestly these types of arguments make American gun owners in general look like a bunch of emotional, paranoid, red necks that probably should have their guns taken away. While the truth is most of us responsible gun owners don't have any illusions about protecting our families with automatic assault rifles or raising a militia against our government, we simply like collecting and shooting guns!
-
the laws banning them were continued when improvements were made because if you are firing a weapon in a manner that is intended to be stealthy and hidden then your intentions cannot be legal. if you break into my house and i shoot you in the face then i shouldn't mind that the neighbors hear the shot. but at least as an American we have the right to own not only your rifle, but 20 hidden hand guns as well.
i dont see how shooting you loudly is bending a knee but if it makes you feel better then "LONG LIVE THE 45 CALIBER"
besides if i press the muzzle of a hand gun tightly against someones cranium, then i dont need a sound suppressor. :O
As for suppressors, I want one just so I can plink with my .22 in my back yard without bothering the neighbors. Nothing illegal about that.
The rest of your comment is typical extremist illusion, that you need 20 hidden hand guns to be safe :lol. That is exactly the kind of talk that will stir up the other side to take away our guns. Besides if you have the IQ of at least a monkey and are defending yourself in your own house, you aren't going to pick up your .45 until you are out of 12 gauge shells.
-
No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen.
Just to be clear, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of New Zealand. However, the only relationship with the United Kingdom is that they happen to have the same Head of State.
Thankfully, the Monarchy is - for both countries - lacking in any real power, and is retained primarily for the purposes of attracting tourists.
-
As for suppressors, I want one just so I can plink with my .22 in my back yard without bothering the neighbors. Nothing illegal about that.
The rest of your comment is typical extremist illusion, that you need 20 hidden hand guns to be safe :lol. That is exactly the kind of talk that will stir up the other side to take away our guns. Besides if you have the IQ of at least a monkey and are defending yourself in your own house, you aren't going to pick up your .45 until you are out of 12 gauge shells.
honestly have you ever fired a 45? I'm not being a jerk, I'm asking because you obviously don't know much about it. a 45 does as much damage and carries as much stopping power as any 12 gauge at close range. if you get hit you sit down and stay there. hollow points will amputate limbs with one hit.
if your inside a house and shoot a 45 it will go through a wall and maybe a second one, but you wont have to replace a large section of wall after, just a touch of puddy and its all cleaned up. :aok
also a 45 or any hand gun is much easier to maneuver inside the confines of a door way or hallway or any enclosed eviorment. try and pull up your suppressed rifle if your ever being car jacked!
a 22 is a pistol round by the way. try a suppressor on something bigger, say a 303, 30/30 or your 12 gauge ect and you'll see that a suppressor doesn't help much if any.
but if you wanna try something neat, you can take a large potato and hollow it out on one end then stick the barrel of a shotgun in the hole. USE SHOT (BIRD PREFERRED) ONLY!!!!! amazing how quiet it is compared to having nothing. just remember to hollow it out, if you just stick it on the end of the barrel you risk causing enough back pressure in the barrel to make it explode in your face. Cherry watermelons work great to, messy as hell but funny!
i never said anyone needed the 20 hand guns, but the fact that an intruder doesn't know if you have them makes his job much harder much scarier. he doesn't know from what draw closet or small hiding place you could pull one from. knowing that you only have rifles, well indoors and at close quarters even with just a knife an intruder has the advantage. space and time of movement can be the enemy of anyone with a long weapon at close quarters.
i stand corrected about pledging to the queen, my point was that our ancestors fought a war to do away with kings and queens all together. i don't even have to acknowledge the president if i choose not to. as Americans we have the right to ignore anyone even our own government officials if we decide to. many died to ensure that we can never again be dominated by another power or forced to kneel at the feet of a tyrant.
Hog i would like to see how long any president stays in office that authorizes the bombing of any American city. i would really doubt they would find any soldiers willing to carry out the order. I'm just not seeing tanks in times square. our military is enormous, but it is very unlikely that any president could give the order to unleash it against the American populace at large. especially since the college kids were killed by the national guard back in the sixties, just not gonna happen.
hell people throw a tissy fit if swat teams are to obtrusive during an operation.
FLOTSOM
-
you are free because you can mail order a sound suppressor for your rifle? can you carry it concealed, besides putting it in a suitcase that is? and if you had ever fired a rifle with a suppressor on it you would realize that unless it is a small (almost pistol caliber) round then even with the suppressor its loud enough to easily hear from a distance.
....
the laws banning them were continued when improvements were made because if you are firing a weapon in a manner that is intended to be stealthy and hidden then your intentions cannot be legal.
If I had ever fired a rifle with a suppressor on it? Are you calling me a liar?
Notice I used the word suppressor, not silencer. I'm guessing you've never fired a rifle with a suppressor judging from your lack of knowledge around their use.
The suppressor takes a large amount of noise out of a shot, essentially only leaving the supersonic crack. It also takes same of the recoil out of the shot as well. Thus there are many benefits in using a suppressor. For example when hunting hearing protection is not required. If the shot is a short one then the supersonic crack is usually well muffled. It also masks the location of the shooter, handy when there are multiple targets. I shoot mainly feral goats, rabbits and hares (though deer is on the target list too). Goats will delay fleeing until they ascertain the direction of the threat, so a suppressor is extremely useful.
Many NZ hunters use suppressors now on everything from .22 through to 308's.
But, hey continue masturbating over your 20 hidden handguns you rarely if ever use :)
-
face it even with a suppressor a rifle of any sizable caliber is gonna be loud. but even if it was as quiet as a pin drop, I'm still not seeing you lift it up very quickly in a car jacking or in the doorway of a house with someone standing 2 feet in front of you. too big too slow, hand gun is the way to go at close quarters. each has its own place and each has its own benefits, but the option or the right to have both is best.
does sound like you are an active hunter though, start a thread and post some pics (no sarcasm). would love to see them.
FLOTSOM
-
face it even with a suppressor a rifle of any sizable caliber is gonna be loud. but even if it was as quiet as a pin drop, I'm still not seeing you lift it up very quickly in a car jacking or in the doorway of a house with someone standing 2 feet in front of you. too big too slow, hand gun is the way to go at close quarters. each has its own place and each has its own benefits, but the option or the right to have both is best.
does sound like you are an active hunter though, start a thread and post some pics (no sarcasm). would love to see them.
FLOTSOM
The point was not whether you could fit your 20 handguns with suppressors, the point was that though you think we bow down here in NZ whilst you do not in the USA, your rights seem impeded more than ours in some aspects of firearms :)
The suppressor takes an average rifle noise down to that of a 22 magnum. It makes a very big difference. Not to mention helps improve accuracy. They are becoming very very popular here (the only caveat with a suppressor is you must ALWAYS use it as it changes the PoI).
Here's a piccie of one of my favourite kills a stinkie old feral billie, it's a Savage Stevens 200 in 223, suppressed (obviously :) ):
(http://renaissance.xtreme.net.nz/ms/goat1.jpg)
-
The US military is so strong and has access to so much firepower that it would make any armed militia just look silly. If we were really concerned with the 2nd amendment in its original intent, we would be arming ourselves with tanks and war planes.
Currently, a militia is running the U.S. military ragged in Iraq and Afghanistan and has the public wanting to call the whole thing off.
The level of violence a government uses against citizens has direct consequences in the hearts and minds of the rest of citizenry. An unarmed rebel you can simply rough up, capture, or put away quietly. An armed and determined one you must kill...possibly creating a martyr and a domino effect whereby other citizens becomes dissenters.
You are right on one thing though...when the 2nd Amendment was written, citizens could own warships equipped with multiple banks of cannon. The natural implication of that is that a modern citizen could own a tank or warplane, not a concept I have a problem with. Now, I DO think there has to be a limit somewhere, in regards to nukes and nerve gas and what have you. I think the rule for balance should be that no arm of government should be allowed to possess, manufacture or purchase an armament the citizens are not allowed to possess.
I am highly suspicious of the rest of your post. It strikes me as what is called the "black" variety of propaganda...IOW the kind supposedly originating from within the group one is attempting to demoralize/deceive/destroy. If you are sincere, then read my first post and note that the crux of the reason I am against gun laws (and many other kinds of laws) has absolutely nothing to do with statistics.
-
The first argument gun defenders go to is the 2nd amendment. I think the 2nd amendment is outdated and misused. It was written as an attempt to keep the citizens well armed against a tyrannical government. That is, the government is here to protect the people, but the people have the right to protect themselves from the government. I'm sorry but owning a few hand guns just isn't protection from the government. The US military is so strong and has access to so much firepower that it would make any armed militia just look silly. If we were really concerned with the 2nd amendment in its original intent, we would be arming ourselves with tanks and war planes.
Another argument will be that statistics show legal gun owners committing very few gun related crimes, but the bottom line is there are a lot of criminals out there that have guns too, that are committing crimes... where do you think they got all of these guns? Hint: they were legal bought/owned at some point. There is simply no arguing that taking away guns from everyone will make it a lot harder for criminals to get their hands on them.
The old stand by argument gun defenders turn to is using a gun as home defense. However there are some interesting statistics, one says for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann, 1998). Another stat says regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). A short barreled shotgun is THE best home defense weapon, arguing for the legality of other weapons for home defense is just stupid.
I'm all for gun rights, I own several hand guns, shotguns and rifles, and love collecting and shooting them, I'm even looking at buying a AR-15 soon. I'm just tired of seeing all the same arguments from 'our' side. Honestly these types of arguments make American gun owners in general look like a bunch of emotional, paranoid, red necks that probably should have their guns taken away. While the truth is most of us responsible gun owners don't have any illusions about protecting our families with automatic assault rifles or raising a militia against our government, we simply like collecting and shooting guns!
IIRC many of those stats quoted in your post were shown to be cooked with little or even NO base.
They made em up...................
OH Come on now .... "four unintentional shootings" ???
As to tanks and such.
Part of the 2nd is SOME of our own military would refuse to attack their own people.
Ya sadly their are ALWAYS some that will attack anyone for any reason just because they're ordered to.
That type have been around for thousand of years and they always say "just following orders".
Hitler and his crew made good (perhaps BAD is a better term?) use of such while they were in power.
-
AKHOG,
You forget that the American military is not an autonomous organization from outside the country. It's made from the same citizenry as the main population. The members of it also do not swear allegiance to the President, Congress or the Supreme Court. They swear to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, not the government. It's a concept that many don't really grasp. They also swore to uphold the amendments to the Constitution since they are a part of it. It's hardly outdated and is certainly relevant even to today's world.
Second issue. If you do not like the arguments being used by the biggest and most effective organization dedicated to maintaining the right you enjoy exercising, why don't you provide another one. All I saw you say was you didn't like it yet you bring nothing to the discussion to add to protecting your right.
Flotsam,
I am a fan of the old .45 acp and have used it for years. I also have used a shotgun. I would never ever make the claims that you did in your post. The old .45 is a good round but doesn't have instant amputation capabilities and the 12 gauge is far more effective at close range. At 50 yards yep the .45 is more likely to be more effective unless the shotgun is firing slugs. No matter what round you use in a hand gun or shoulder fired weapon it's placement of the round that counts the most.
Given a close quarters combat with a potential range of just a few feet I'd be more comfortable with a hand gun than a long gun. A handgun simply gives more maneuver room inside. I've also been trained in clearing buildings and that kind of activity. It's not something I like.
-
The point was not whether you could fit your 20 handguns with suppressors, the point was that though you think we bow down here in NZ whilst you do not in the USA, your rights seem impeded more than ours in some aspects of firearms :) on this point i do concede, i guess both of our governments could use a little back the f**k off juice!
The suppressor takes an average rifle noise down to that of a 22 magnum. It makes a very big difference. Not to mention helps improve accuracy. They are becoming very very popular here (the only caveat with a suppressor is you must ALWAYS use it as it changes the PoI).
Here's a piccie of one of my favourite kills a stinkie old feral billie, it's a Savage Stevens 200 in 223, suppressed (obviously :) ): did it only take 1 shot to drop?? thats a big boy for such a small round! how much does he weigh? what was your range and how much difference does the suppressor make to aim adjustment?
(http://renaissance.xtreme.net.nz/ms/goat1.jpg)
Flotsam,
I am a fan of the old .45 acp and have used it for years. I also have used a shotgun. I would never ever make the claims that you did in your post. The old .45 is a good round but doesn't have instant amputation capabilities and the 12 gauge is far more effective at close range. At 50 yards yep the .45 is more likely to be more effective unless the shotgun is firing slugs. No matter what round you use in a hand gun or shoulder fired weapon it's placement of the round that counts the most.
Given a close quarters combat with a potential range of just a few feet I'd be more comfortable with a hand gun than a long gun. A handgun simply gives more maneuver room inside. I've also been trained in clearing buildings and that kind of activity. It's not something I like.
actually a guy that i knew from federal prison won a huge lawsuit (i think it was about 500,000.00 but cant remember the exact amount) because he was shot in the upper humorous just below the knuckle of the shoulder by a police officer with a .45 hollow point. it tore away most of the meat and shattered the bone on impact. it left a few strands of flesh holding his arm to his body but for all intents and purposes his arm had been amputated by the bullet.
he won his lawsuit because the cop was determined to be using bullets (large caliber hollow points) that were excessive. if he had been using a copper jacket or standard round nose then the guy would have been seriously wounded but he would not likely have lost his arm. in my opinion he pulled a gun on a cop he gets what he gets, but we live in a law suit driven society.
another guy i know lost his left foot because he was shot in the ankle with a .45 hollow point. destroyed all the bone on impact leaving only a sack of mush inside the skin. they cut the remainder off when he got to the hospital. (no lawsuit his brother accidentally shot him while target shooting drunk, redneck family)
yes i have known a bunch of dumbarses that have managed to get themselves shot. most of them very stupidly.
when a hollow point hits a bone it mushrooms to 10x its beginning size, makes one hell of a mess. if you still got your .45 acp get some hollow points. next time you go out target practicing take a large water melon with you. find a stick about an inch or an inch and a half in diameter and drive it through the middle of the water melon. stand back a couple of feet take aim and shoot the stick through the water melon and watch what happens. (bring a towel)
yes the 12 gauge is brutal at close range, i was taking nothing away from it. what i meant to imply was that the 45 although just a pistol round, was devastating in its own right. its a tough enough round that they made the Thomson submachine gun out of it. its one of the bullets that people just don't get up from.
i found my pair of .45 rugers to be wonderful little monsters. each one holding 16 alternating rounds (1 hollow point then 1 metal jacketed)
even if a person was wearing body armor, if you put 3 into their chest it would fracture the sternum and probably stop the heart just from the concussion. the big slow round might not get inside the armor, but the transfer of the concussion into the body will usually cause internal hemraging, organ bruising or a complete organ failure.
what did you do that you had building clearing training?
FLOTSOM
-
flotsom um guestimate 80-100kg's ish (I just rolled him down a gully afterwards, the billies are no good for meat). 1 shot drop, 70m, popped him in the top of the neck. You can go up to 75gr in 223, but I think that was a 64gr. Suppressor changes the PoI by about 4inches @ 100m, which is about average from what I understand (btw its not due to a loss in velocity but a change in barrel harmonics, apparently you pick up some speed with a suppressor).
-
if your inside a house and shoot a 45 it will go through a wall and maybe a second one, but you wont have to replace a large section of wall after, just a touch of puddy and its all cleaned up. :aok
Oh, thats another reason I want a shotgun instead. The birdshot isn't going to carry through a wall and kill my roomates or, if I ever have one, my family.
I'd hate to kill the intruder to find I'd caused a friendly casualty.
<S>
-
Oh, thats another reason I want a shotgun instead. The birdshot isn't going to carry through a wall and kill my roomates or, if I ever have one, my family.
I'd hate to kill the intruder to find I'd caused a friendly casualty.
<S>
even with birdshot the risk of passing through a plaster or sheet rock wall at close range would be very high. if your worried about this then use rocksalt. very unlikely that it any pellets would pass through a wall, but on the chance that a pellet does make it through it wont penetrate the flesh of even a child deep enough to be life threatening.
rock salt is the great nonlethal equalizer.
they also have bullets now that are made out of a compressed graphite power that upon impact with any solid object turns into dust. it works wonders on people, but it wont pass through even a soft surface intact. they have shown tests that show it will disintegrate upon impacting 3 sheets of paper. creates a very painful impact wound (like getting kicked by a horse) but doesn't penetrate the body very deeply, flesh wound at best. but it will not under any circumstances pass through a wall or a window or any other obstruction.
i mention this bullet because it was originally created for and tested in .45 caliber hand guns. it was intended for use by police departments (swat teams) in California as a non lethal alternative to live rounds in hostage situations. lessons the risk of killing accidentally a hostage.
FLOTSOM
-
honestly have you ever fired a 45? I'm not being a jerk, I'm asking because you obviously don't know much about it. a 45 does as much damage and carries as much stopping power as any 12 gauge at close range. if you get hit you sit down and stay there. hollow points will amputate limbs with one hit.
Um.....sorry no ;)
shamus
-
Um.....sorry no ;)
shamus
ok shamus ill bite, no? no what? be more specific.
-
The point was not whether you could fit your 20 handguns with suppressors, the point was that though you think we bow down here in NZ whilst you do not in the USA, your rights seem impeded more than ours in some aspects of firearms :)
The suppressor takes an average rifle noise down to that of a 22 magnum. It makes a very big difference. Not to mention helps improve accuracy. They are becoming very very popular here (the only caveat with a suppressor is you must ALWAYS use it as it changes the PoI).
Here's a piccie of one of my favourite kills a stinkie old feral billie, it's a Savage Stevens 200 in 223, suppressed (obviously :) ):
(http://renaissance.xtreme.net.nz/ms/goat1.jpg)
nice pic :aok
you might want too add that a suppressor really works better on bolt action rifles, not near as good on auto's although they can help over all and at long range the noise is decreased, most people that think (silencer) think that those guns in the movies are really that quite!
-
a 45 does as much damage and carries as much stopping power as any 12 gauge at close range.
FLOTSOM
More specific.
-
AKHog,
When you join any branch of the Military of the United States you swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign, and DOMESTIC.
The Second Amendment to the Constituition is not outdated and never will be; our Founding Fathers made this very clear.
-
Sorry I don't have time to reply to every comment, hopefully some other logical folks will come in here and help the conversation.
Flotsom, the short barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon. There is very little disadvantage in close combat, and the statistics prove that it is WAY more effective inside a house than any pistol. If you think otherwise then go right ahead, I don't have time to argue. I have shot a .45, I own a nice Colt 1911 in fact. Like I said, I wouldn't even think about using it for HD until I ran out of shotgun shells (not gona happen).
Rock salt or any non-lethals, forget about it. If you pull out your gun in a defense situation you should be ready to shoot and kill someone. This is a major idea in any self defense gun class that gets forgotten about too quickly. If you are not ready to kill the person then you are probably not on the side of the law.
Vulcan, why the hell would you shoot that animal and then just roll it down a gully to rot away? Seems like a big waste. If you must go kill things why not kill something that you can eat? I fly hang gliders over a mountain that regularly has dozens of pure white goats much like that one. They are beautiful to watch and amazing creatures, if I saw some dude shoot one and basically throw it away I'd definitely have some words. :mad:
-
AKHog,
When you join any branch of the Military of the United States you swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign, and DOMESTIC.
The Second Amendment to the Constituition is not outdated and never will be; our Founding Fathers made this very clear.
What does joining the military have to do with anything. You are right, the second is very clear.
"Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents." -wiki
Only recently in DC vs Heller (2008) has it been argued that self defense is protected by the 2nd amendment. The actual amendment reads as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does it say anything about self defense? And I back up my original point by saying this amendment is dated, because if we were really concerned about a well regulated militia to protect the free state, then we'd be arming ourselves with tanks and warplanes. When it was written, it was logical to think a militia with rifles and hand guns could fight a tyrannical government, that is simply no longer the case.
I think eventually DC vs Heller will be over ruled by the left and we will loose more gun rights in all states. The bottom line is, in my humble opinion, owning guns for self defense is not specifically protected by the constitution. I think the majority of people who have guns for self defense are living a dream and probably fantasize about 'protecting' their home and shooting someone more than they'd like to admit. Outside of living in a high crime area probably near a city, there statistically just isn't much reason to have a gun for self defense, your are simply more likely to hurt yourself or someone you know. A lot of guys are strait up arming themselves for 'when the zombies come' and actually think at some point in their lives will need assault rifles to protect themselves. These types of people do not live in reality, and do not think rationally when it comes to guns.
-
we'd be arming ourselves with tanks and warplanes.
True that! fighting a tank with a musket would suck, huh?
-
More specific.
to clarify, what i ment was that if you shot someone at close range with a .45 hollow point they were done. the massive damage the slug does when it hits flesh is disasterous to the victim. the size of a 12 gauge blast is obviousely going to be bigger, it fires a much bigger slug or shot package. but you will be just as dead or disabled if at equal distance and at the same impact location it was a .45 hollow point hitting you.
it is like the difference between getting run over by a bus or a train, there is only just so dead you can get :)
i take nothing away from the 12 guage, it makes a hell of a mess of anything it hits.
Hog you really need to show me where i can get those statistics from. im not argueing against the 12 guage shorty, i owned a remington riot control w/pistol grip for awhile. loved it. but when it comes to amount of ammo held rate of fire and time to reload my .45's were faster hands down, besides it was a b**ch sleeping with the remington under my pillow :)
FLOTSOM
-
to clarify, what i ment was that if you shot someone at close range with a .45 hollow point they were done. the massive damage the slug does when it hits flesh is disasterous to the victim. the size of a 12 gauge blast is obviousely going to be bigger, it fires a much bigger slug or shot package. but you will be just as dead or disabled if at equal distance and at the same impact location it was a .45 hollow point hitting you.
it is like the difference between getting run over by a bus or a train, there is only just so dead you can get :)
i take nothing away from the 12 guage, it makes a hell of a mess of anything it hits.
Hog you really need to show me where i can get those statistics from. im not argueing against the 12 guage shorty, i owned a remington riot control w/pistol grip for awhile. loved it. but when it comes to amount of ammo held rate of fire and time to reload my .45's were faster hands down, besides it was a b**ch sleeping with the remington under my pillow :)
FLOTSOM
Flotsom, I don't have the stats in front of me now, sorry. However I will point out this, simply look at what LEO carries. You'll find very few of them carrying the .45 anymore. Most of them carry a smallish caliber hand gun and any time a firefight might break out you'll see them grabbing the shotguns. I think the .40 S&W is the most popular law enforcement gun nowadays. In reality the .45 is just overkill in most situations, and you'd be better off with a better handling smaller caliber.
The reason the 12 gauge is better at home D is simply because in a very stressful situation where you may need to use a gun, the shotgun has a much higher chance of getting ammo to the target. Unless you are a trained professional, handling a high powered handgun in a high stress situation statistically doesn't lead to the best results. Hell my wife could fend off an attacker shooting the shotgun from her hip with very little training. THAT is why it is so effective.
As far as amount of ammo and reload time, if you are doing that you probably already lost. 5 rounds in a shotgun is PLENTY to get the job done. If you are worried about an organized team of professionals attacking you in your home, that don't all run away at the sound of you racking the shotgun, and don't run away after the first shot, then you are probably living in a fantasy (or you are involved with some bad people)!
-
BTW if you simply google "best home defense weapon" or something along those lines, you'll find the vast majority of the articles that were actually written by a gun expert agree, the 12 gauge is the best home defense gun. "Self defense" is another matter all together where the biggest consideration is carrying something on your person, in which case obviously there are better choices. However I will say again that the large majority of the average joe's who carry a concealed weapon for "self defense" are just living in some kind of fantasy. The chances of you using it effectively against an attacker are drastically overshadowed by much higher chances of you or someone you know being shot with that gun.
-
Flotsom, I don't have the stats in front of me now, sorry. However I will point out this, simply look at what LEO carries. You'll find very few of them carrying the .45 anymore. Most of them carry a smallish caliber hand gun and any time a firefight might break out you'll see them grabbing the shotguns. I think the .40 S&W is the most popular law enforcement gun nowadays. In reality the .45 is just overkill in most situations, and you'd be better off with a better handling smaller caliber.
The reason the 12 gauge is better at home D is simply because in a very stressful situation where you may need to use a gun, the shotgun has a much higher chance of getting ammo to the target. Unless you are a trained professional, handling a high powered handgun in a high stress situation statistically doesn't lead to the best results. Hell my wife could fend off an attacker shooting the shotgun from her hip with very little training. THAT is why it is so effective.
As far as amount of ammo and reload time, if you are doing that you probably already lost. 5 rounds in a shotgun is PLENTY to get the job done. If you are worried about an organized team of professionals attacking you in your home, that don't all run away at the sound of you racking the shotgun, and don't run away after the first shot, then you are probably living in a fantasy (or you are involved with some bad people)!
Agreed and i conceed to your wisdom on HD.
<SALUTE>
FLOTSOM
-
Agreed and i conceed to your wisdom on HD.
<SALUTE>
FLOTSOM
WOW you mean I won an internet argument??? I thought that was impossible!
Just kidding, <S> back at you and btw you can have a free and easy to use spell checker with firefox. ;)
-
Vulcan, why the hell would you shoot that animal and then just roll it down a gully to rot away? Seems like a big waste. If you must go kill things why not kill something that you can eat? I fly hang gliders over a mountain that regularly has dozens of pure white goats much like that one. They are beautiful to watch and amazing creatures, if I saw some dude shoot one and basically throw it away I'd definitely have some words. :mad:
Because they're a feral pest, they cause extensive erosive damage as well as property damage (they wreck fences). Maybe you should get down off your lofty hang glider and smell one sometime, the meat is not suitable for eating (not even pet food). Might pay to do some research before planting your foot so squarely in your mouth ;)
-
Because they're a feral pest, they cause extensive erosive damage as well as property damage (they wreck fences). Maybe you should get down off your lofty hang glider and smell one sometime, the meat is not suitable for eating (not even pet food). Might pay to do some research before planting your foot so squarely in your mouth ;)
Sorry, but strait out killing it and dumping its body still doesn't sit well with me. Let me get this strait, you want to kill it because it causes erosion, stinks and can't be eaten, and I'm the one with my foot in my mouth? From the quick research I've done I can't really see them being a big problem (care to provide links that prove me wrong?). As far as 'erosive damage' do you realize that they have been here for thousands of years causing erosion and this has never been a problem? Only when people build things on or around naturally eroding terrain is this a problem. Rain causes a LOT more erosion after all, what do you plan to do about that? Erosion is a natural part of the world and thinking we can change it by offing a few goats is just stupid. Wrecking fences, only when ranchers put up fences across their natural migration paths does it become a problem. Do you really think the most logical answer to this is to kill the goat? There are lots of animals that are not suitable for eating, lots of them stink too, is the answer to this kill them all because they are of little use to us humans?
I live in Wyoming where the majority thinks they should have the right to shoot and kill anything that comes on their property. I just get sick and tired of hearing the same old stupid arguments about killing wolves and the like because they are 'pests', when the truth is obvious, these people want to shot them for the simple sport of killing another living animal. They have been here for centuries and the problem has obviously been introduced by humans. It really just shows how egotistical, insecure and DUMB these types of people really are. I'm not saying you are one of them, or at least I hope your not.
Around here the Rocky Mountain Goat has been here a lot longer than we have, and is no pest as far as I can tell. I have been close enough to smell them, they aren't that bad, certainly not bad enough for me to want to kill them! In fact just this fall I was only about 30 feet above the ground, level with a ridge line high in the mountains, and was close enough that the goats actually saw me and watched me fly by. Maybe if you were exposed to animals in a different light you would have different feelings. I'm sure if you just tried you would find that you can enjoy nature more from behind a camera or from above in a glider than you ever will from behind a gun.
BTW your comments are offensive and generally negative, and show you really know nothing about me. If we are going to have a grown up discussion at least try to keep it civilized.
-
This is probably the BEST article on the reason given AGAINST owning a firearm that I've seen so far.
Covers some interesting points on arguments against.
Hope you find it interesting and worthy of comment.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
umm, yea, I'm not reading all that.
-
Sorry, but strait out killing it and dumping its body still doesn't sit well with me. Let me get this strait, you want to kill it because it causes erosion, stinks and can't be eaten, and I'm the one with my foot in my mouth? From the quick research I've done I can't really see them being a big problem (care to provide links that prove me wrong?). As far as 'erosive damage' do you realize that they have been here for thousands of years causing erosion and this has never been a problem? Only when people build things on or around naturally eroding terrain is this a problem. Rain causes a LOT more erosion after all, what do you plan to do about that? Erosion is a natural part of the world and thinking we can change it by offing a few goats is just stupid. Wrecking fences, only when ranchers put up fences across their natural migration paths does it become a problem. Do you really think the most logical answer to this is to kill the goat? There are lots of animals that are not suitable for eating, lots of them stink too, is the answer to this kill them all because they are of little use to us humans?
I live in Wyoming where the majority thinks they should have the right to shoot and kill anything that comes on their property. I just get sick and tired of hearing the same old stupid arguments about killing wolves and the like because they are 'pests', when the truth is obvious, these people want to shot them for the simple sport of killing another living animal. They have been here for centuries and the problem has obviously been introduced by humans. It really just shows how egotistical, insecure and DUMB these types of people really are. I'm not saying you are one of them, or at least I hope your not.
Around here the Rocky Mountain Goat has been here a lot longer than we have, and is no pest as far as I can tell. I have been close enough to smell them, they aren't that bad, certainly not bad enough for me to want to kill them! In fact just this fall I was only about 30 feet above the ground, level with a ridge line high in the mountains, and was close enough that the goats actually saw me and watched me fly by. Maybe if you were exposed to animals in a different light you would have different feelings. I'm sure if you just tried you would find that you can enjoy nature more from behind a camera or from above in a glider than you ever will from behind a gun.
BTW your comments are offensive and generally negative, and show you really know nothing about me. If we are going to have a grown up discussion at least try to keep it civilized.
I'm not so sure you're comparing apples to apples here. Vulcan is talking about feral animals, not native animals. The Mountain Goats you have in your beautiful state of Wyoming (I admit it, I'm jealous of where you live) belong there as part of the natural environment (as do the wolves, etc, you mention). They are part of the natural ecosystem, work with it, and are even vital in some mannor to its overall health.
Not so with feral and/or invasive species, like the goat Vulcan mentioned. Those animals have been introduced by man's activities into an ecosystem where they don't belong, and often prosper at the expense of native flora and fauna. They generally don't have natural predators in their new environment and reproduce rapidly, with little/no natural population control. Other examples of these species would be carp (of several varieties) European Starlings, English Sparrows, pigeons/rock doves/sky-carp, Eurasion Water Milfoil, Purple Loosestrife (probably a problem near you?) Zebra Mussels, sticklebacks, feral cats (domestic animals), feral hogs, pheasants, and a whole slew of others (some even consider non-native americans to be an "invasive species", hehe!)
Feral/invasive species are a major environmental concern, and are massively difficult/expensive to control. It goes way beyond finding a "use" for the dead critters. We can't just sit idle and wait until there's a "use" for a dead feral animal to solve the problem. The problem grows exponentially each year- any lost time in managing the problem could easily make managing it simply impossible.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not in favor of just killing animals "wastefully". I hunt and fish, and value the natural environment. But, sometimes doing "nothing" is more destructive than doing "something", even if it's a bit distasteful. In reality, the dead goat that Vulcan shot probably did more good to the ecosystem by rotting and feeding some scavengers than it ever could have done by living.
Even I've killed things with no intention of using them. I found a mouse in one of the traps in my kitchen today, and I doubt the wife will be thrilled if I put in the refridgerator to add to our supper menu. The fact that I don't really know how fresh it is won't help either... I also hit a skunk on the highway, and just left it. I didn't kill it intentionally (like I did the mouse), but I was driving intentionally, and was passing through some prime skunk habitat...
-
Well its my fault because I read right over the part where Vulcan said it was an invasive species, in which case I owe Vulcan an apology. In many cases in my personal experience this has not been the case. In my defense Vulcan did not list any the reasons mtnman did like over population or undue harm to the local ecosystem, instead he said they stink and cause erosion, not good reasons to kill something in my humble opinion. And if they are invasive, I still think there are probably better, more humane ways to deal with the problem rather than simply shooting them.
-
but certainly not as cheap as a 40 cent bullet. You dont factor the cost into what we are already having to pay
for all the other enviromental "fixes", why should we have to pay more?
-
Havent looked at the link. But ti doesnt matter.
Just needed to read the title You don't NEED a gun simplified. to be able to adequately respond.
I dont NEED religion
But I have the RIGHT to have one.
I dont NEED to be happy either
But I have the RIGHT to pursue that goal.
Im glad all of our rights arent based on need.
Or we wouldnt have very many
-
Sorry, but strait out killing it and dumping its body still doesn't sit well with me. Let me get this strait, you want to kill it because it causes erosion, stinks and can't be eaten, and I'm the one with my foot in my mouth? From the quick research I've done I can't really see them being a big problem (care to provide links that prove me wrong?). As far as 'erosive damage' do you realize that they have been here for thousands of years causing erosion and this has never been a problem?
....
BTW your comments are offensive and generally negative, and show you really know nothing about me. If we are going to have a grown up discussion at least try to keep it civilized.
Here's a link have a read: http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/conservation-revealed/feral-goats-lowres.pdf
Goats are an introduced species in NZ, as are rabbits, hares, possums, deer, rats, cats, ferrets, stoats etc. Have a read here: http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/animal-pests-a-z/
Reference to stinking was in regards to recovering meat. I do eat the meat if I can (basically it has to be young nannies, billy meat is not very nice), I especially like rabbit. The body gets dumped (usually down ravines, I try to keep it tidy out of sight of the farmers, they like that), but that usually gets consumed by feral pigs who do end up on the dinner plate.
I've been told off once or twice for not killing ENOUGH goats by other hunters (ie taking pity on some of them).
The more humane way our government deals with these pests is via 1080 poisoning, I suggest you read up on the effects of 1080 on animals versus a bullet to the head.
-
Havent looked at the link.
So why do you feel the need to comment?
But ti doesnt matter.
Just needed to read the title You don't NEED a gun simplified. to be able to adequately respond.
Wrong! You can't judge a book by its cover. Reading the title does not enable you to adequately respond. If you would have at least skimmed over the article you'd have a different opinion of it. (hint: its not an anti gun article)
BTW does NO ONE use spell check anymore? :rolleyes:
-
Here's a link have a read: http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/conservation-revealed/feral-goats-lowres.pdf
Goats are an introduced species in NZ, as are rabbits, hares, possums, deer, rats, cats, ferrets, stoats etc. Have a read here: http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-pests/animal-pests-a-z/
Reference to stinking was in regards to recovering meat. I do eat the meat if I can (basically it has to be young nannies, billy meat is not very nice), I especially like rabbit. The body gets dumped (usually down ravines, I try to keep it tidy out of sight of the farmers, they like that), but that usually gets consumed by feral pigs who do end up on the dinner plate.
I've been told off once or twice for not killing ENOUGH goats by other hunters (ie taking pity on some of them).
The more humane way our government deals with these pests is via 1080 poisoning, I suggest you read up on the effects of 1080 on animals versus a bullet to the head.
Vulcan I think I agree with you for the most part. It was my mistake that I overlooked your original post where you mentioned they were feral/introduced. Thanks for posting some links. I originally thought you were simply shooting these animals because they trampled fences and stunk. As silly as that sounds, people where I live shoot animals for less.
-
Even I've killed things with no intention of using them. I found a mouse in one of the traps in my kitchen today, and I doubt the wife will be thrilled if I put in the refridgerator to add to our supper menu. The fact that I don't really know how fresh it is won't help either... I also hit a skunk on the highway, and just left it. I didn't kill it intentionally (like I did the mouse), but I was driving intentionally, and was passing through some prime skunk habitat...
mtnman, read this you'll love it :) http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1223907120/0
-
AKHog, the two posts below were up before you made the following quote...
Sorry I don't have time to reply to every comment, hopefully some other logical folks will come in here and help the conversation.
I thought maybe you missed them, so here they are.
You forget that the American military is not an autonomous organization from outside the country. It's made from the same citizenry as the main population. The members of it also do not swear allegiance to the President, Congress or the Supreme Court. They swear to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, not the government. It's a concept that many don't really grasp. They also swore to uphold the amendments to the Constitution since they are a part of it. It's hardly outdated and is certainly relevant even to today's world.
Second issue. If you do not like the arguments being used by the biggest and most effective organization dedicated to maintaining the right you enjoy exercising, why don't you provide another one. All I saw you say was you didn't like it yet you bring nothing to the discussion to add to protecting your right.
When you join any branch of the Military of the United States you swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign, and DOMESTIC.
The Second Amendment to the Constituition is not outdated and never will be; our Founding Fathers made this very clear.
-
AKHog, the two posts below were up before you made the following quote...
I thought maybe you missed them, so here they are.
I saw those comments, just didn't really respond to Maverick.
Maverick, are you saying the military is the well armed militia that the 2nd amendment was talking about? I would disagree looking at the history that was influencing the authors of that amendment.
If the 2nd amendment was talking about a militia made up of civilians, which I think it was, then there is no arguing that we wouldn't stand a chance remaining 'free state' if our own military was used against us. In that regard the 2nd amendment is an outdated idea. I understand the military pledges to the constitution, but I think the 2nd amendment was written to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling the population using a military force, given the history. Even with such a good constitution outlining the governments role, I still think that these guys literally thought there was a chance it would eventually become a tyrannical government, and wrote the 2nd amendment to, at the extreme, allow people to have weapons to overthrow this type of government. In my opinion, to arm the people enough to discourage military control in this country hasn't been realistic for probably the last 80 years. I agree its highly unlikely the way the military is currently structured, however it was not out of the question for even the founders of this nation.
-
actually a guy that i knew from federal prison won a huge lawsuit (i think it was about 500,000.00 but cant remember the exact amount) because he was shot in the upper humorous just below the knuckle of the shoulder by a police officer with a .45 hollow point. it tore away most of the meat and shattered the bone on impact. it left a few strands of flesh holding his arm to his body but for all intents and purposes his arm had been amputated by the bullet.
he won his lawsuit because the cop was determined to be using bullets (large caliber hollow points) that were excessive. if he had been using a copper jacket or standard round nose then the guy would have been seriously wounded but he would not likely have lost his arm. in my opinion he pulled a gun on a cop he gets what he gets, but we live in a law suit driven society.
another guy i know lost his left foot because he was shot in the ankle with a .45 hollow point. destroyed all the bone on impact leaving only a sack of mush inside the skin. they cut the remainder off when he got to the hospital. (no lawsuit his brother accidentally shot him while target shooting drunk, redneck family)
I know of a guy that lost the use of his leg because he got hit with a .22 in the knee. I still wouldn't call it an amputation round though.
yes i have known a bunch of dumbarses that have managed to get themselves shot. most of them very stupidly.
when a hollow point hits a bone it mushrooms to 10x its beginning size, makes one hell of a mess. if you still got your .45 acp get some hollow points. next time you go out target practicing take a large water melon with you. find a stick about an inch or an inch and a half in diameter and drive it through the middle of the water melon. stand back a couple of feet take aim and shoot the stick through the water melon and watch what happens. (bring a towel)
Sorry but the BS flag is WAY up here. A hollow point does not expand to 10x. That would mean a .45 would expand to over 4.5" across. That doesn't happen at all. The .45 has a hard time expanding since it's a low velocity round. It works far better when you bring it up to about 1100 to 1200 FPS but that is beyond the average pistol balistics in the Government model and clones. The experiance I had with it showed it tended to pack the hollow and then function like a plain old ball round, even when shooting it at close range into dirt. Shooting a watermelon is not a proper media to demonstrate wound effects. A watermelon is not nearly as elastic as flesh and any hunter can tell you that shooting a 150 lb deer with a .308 (far more powerful than a .45) does not cause the deer to explode like a watermelon. The amount of meat lost is minimal especially compared to your watermelon example. There is a reason that there is something called ballistics gel used for that purpose.
yes the 12 gauge is brutal at close range, i was taking nothing away from it. what i meant to imply was that the 45 although just a pistol round, was devastating in its own right. its a tough enough round that they made the Thomson submachine gun out of it. its one of the bullets that people just don't get up from.
They made the Thompson for the .45 acp as it is a short pistol cartridge that was already in the inventory in the Military. That helps a lot in getting contracts when you are using current stocks of munitions since it simplifies logistics. The Thompson is a SMG or sub machine gun, The SMG from the fact that it shoots a small cartridge. That makes it far less powerful than the Garand or BAR, other weapons from the same time period. It does aid in carrying far more ammo as the shells are less bulky and weighty than the rifle cartridges.
i found my pair of .45 rugers to be wonderful little monsters. each one holding 16 alternating rounds (1 hollow point then 1 metal jacketed)
even if a person was wearing body armor, if you put 3 into their chest it would fracture the sternum and probably stop the heart just from the concussion. the big slow round might not get inside the armor, but the transfer of the concussion into the body will usually cause internal hemraging, organ bruising or a complete organ failure.
Sorry but the BS flag is way up there again. You do realize that there are records of folks with bullet resistant vests being hit with magnums (pistol) and rifle rounds and surviving without cardiac issues, loss of organs or other issues.
what did you do that you had building clearing training?
FLOTSOM
I was a LEO. Doing building searches was part of the job.
-
I know of a guy that lost the use of his leg because he got hit with a .22 in the knee. I still wouldn't call it an amputation round though.
loss of use and loss of limb are very different. when the bone is splintered into many tiny fragments and the flesh and meat of the limb is destroyed that is much different than a tiny wound that clipped a nerve
Sorry but the BS flag is WAY up here. A hollow point does not expand to 10x. That would mean a .45 would expand to over 4.5" across. That doesn't happen at all. The .45 has a hard time expanding since it's a low velocity round. It works far better when you bring it up to about 1100 to 1200 FPS but that is beyond the average pistol balistics in the Government model and clones. The experiance I had with it showed it tended to pack the hollow and then function like a plain old ball round, even when shooting it at close range into dirt. Shooting a watermelon is not a proper media to demonstrate wound effects. A watermelon is not nearly as elastic as flesh and any hunter can tell you that shooting a 150 lb deer with a .308 (far more powerful than a .45) does not cause the deer to explode like a watermelon. The amount of meat lost is minimal especially compared to your watermelon example. There is a reason that there is something called ballistics gel used for that purpose.
i have never heard of a .45 hollow point packing in, unless it was fired into dirt, and i cant think of why any sane person would want to fire a round into the ground at their feet. as well as the fact that compressed dirt has very different impact characteristics than flesh does.
10x was metaphorical in the sense that the round projects its pressure wave through the body at that many times the actual size of the bullet. have you ever measured the fracturing effect in the ballistic gel after firing into it? those lines will reach out 4.5 inches or more across and this is directly due to the low velocity and large diameter of the .45. and just to let you know, before the invention of ballistic gel water melons were used for testing bullets (as well as dogs and other similarly sized animals) for many years because the flesh of a water melon has the same tinsel strength as human flesh. not the same elasticity but the same tinsel strength. your .308 example is useless in this conversation, that is a rifle round (like the BAR and Garand) moving at a higher velocity through a longer barrel, and the bullet design is completely different the wounds are not even comparable in their characteristics
They made the Thompson for the .45 acp as it is a short pistol cartridge that was already in the inventory in the Military. That helps a lot in getting contracts when you are using current stocks of munitions since it simplifies logistics. The Thompson is a SMG or sub machine gun, The SMG from the fact that it shoots a small cartridge. That makes it far less powerful than the Garand or BAR, other weapons from the same time period. It does aid in carrying far more ammo as the shells are less bulky and weighty than the rifle cartridges.
actually they used the .45 because of a thing called the Blish lock, the guy who helped in the design of the Thomson created it. the .45 was found to be the round that worked best.
additionally the BAR was seen as a failure at cleaning out trenches during WWI, this failure was part of the inspiration behind the creation of the Thomson.
the garand didn't appear until many years later.
the bar is not actually a bigger round, it is 7.62 diameter round and the garand is the same (they will both fire the same bullet) the .45. is actually 11.43mm in diameter. but both the garand and the BAR are longer rifle rounds (51 and 63mm), having very different ballistic characteristics and alot more powder pushing them through a much longer barrel
Sorry but the BS flag is way up there again. You do realize that there are records of folks with bullet resistant vests being hit with magnums (pistol) and rifle rounds and surviving without cardiac issues, loss of organs or other issues.
do some checking into bullet resistant vest (without the plates) and I'm sure you ll soon learn that the biggest issue remaining to personal body armor is the transfer of the concussion or shock wave of pressure entering the body. put three rounds in quick succession into a vest and your going to see a much different result than tests rounds being fired one at a time with time in between. only the first shockwave gets dispersed through the vest after that its your body that absorbs the rest.
there are also cases on file of people being hit in a vest by only one round from a rifle or high caliber hand gun round and dieing from organs being ruptured organ failure and from internal bleeding.
I was a LEO. Doing building searches was part of the job.<SALUTE> you may not always have my agreeing opinion, but you will always have my respect!
FLOTSOM
-
mtnman, read this you'll love it :) http://www.fishnhunt.co.nz/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1223907120/0
Nice link Vulcan, lol! I'm not above eating such things myself, but generally just feed 'em to one of my birds nowadays. I don't even need to skin 'em, she'll just swallow them whole and can easily eat 8 per day...
-
loss of use and loss of limb are very different. when the bone is splintered into many tiny fragments and the flesh and meat of the limb is destroyed that is much different than a tiny wound that clipped a nerve
You might want to go back and read what I posted. I didn’t say anything about clipping a nerve, nor did I describe the wound. When the limb is gone you have most definitely lost the use of it.
Another situation that I was present at was the shooting of an Officer on my Department by an Officer from another Department. He was shot by a .45. It damaged the spine of the Officer that was hit but didn't amputate anything. He also survived, granted as a paraplegic, but he is otherwise healthy. Since the shot was in the main part of the body it should have destroyed the internal organs and killed him according to your claims but it didn't. He wasn't wearing a vest either.
i have never heard of a .45 hollow point packing in, unless it was fired into dirt, and i cant think of why any sane person would want to fire a round into the ground at their feet. as well as the fact that compressed dirt has very different impact characteristics than flesh does.
What you never heard of would likely fill the Library of Congress. Try sticking with something that you might actually know, tried or have researched. Secondly I never said that the bullet was fired into the dirt any where near feet, mine or anyone else’s. That’s an assumption on your part. I have fired the .45 hollow point into various media. Not once did it mushroom including in dirt. Dirt is a lot closer to bone than any watermelon I have ever seen.
You might want to look over a nice article related to the subject in the November Shooting Times magazine under the "going ballistic" column. It covers testing pistol hollow points and what it took to get one to expand reliably.
10x was metaphorical in the sense that the round projects its pressure wave through the body at that many times the actual size of the bullet
Sorry but that is not what you said. I’ll quote it again here. “Quote from: FLOTSOM on Yesterday at 10:28:24 PM "when a hollow point hits a bone it mushrooms to 10x its beginning size,"
This is a patently false statement and I already explained why.
You also need to look over some of the information regarding permanent wound cavity (destroyed tissue) vs temporary wound cavity. Even ballistic gel is not perfect but it's a darn sight better than watermelons.
The rifle analogy is perfectly viable as an example of even greater power (rifle vs pistol) not creating the damage you want to attribute to smaller cartridges.
additionally the BAR was seen as a failure at cleaning out trenches during WWI, this failure was part of the inspiration behind the creation of the Thomson
The BAR wasn’t a failure in WW1. It saw limited use due to not being developed and then issued until July 1918 shortly before the war ended. It was used in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.
I also didn’t say the Garand was made during WW1.
BTW the Garand and the BAR fired the exact same cartridge, what civilians know as the 30-06. I don't know where you got this from.
both the garand and the BAR are longer rifle rounds (51 and 63mm)
The Thompson also wasn't used in WW1 as it was still in prototype when the war ended. If you are going to use wikpedia as a resource you might want to read the article Regarding the cartridge issue which I brought up earlier.
"By late 1917, the limits of the Blish lock were discovered, and it had been found that the only cartridge currently in U.S. service suitable for use with the lock was the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol)"
That kind of mirrors what I said about the cartridge and it's relationship to the Thompson.
If you have a link to fatalities due to trauma transfer from a vest and hand gun hits please link it. I'd like to see it. The film that i have seen with actual shots on the vest, including multiples doesn't agree with your claim. The creator of the Second Chance ballistic vest (all soft armor) proved his work by shooting himself many times wearing the vest as a demonstration. You gotta love a guy that has that much faith in his product.
Here is another resource I found earlier, you might want to look it over. http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm The document is from the FBI training academy
-
You might want to go back and read what I posted. I didn’t say anything about clipping a nerve, nor did I describe the wound. When the limb is gone you have most definitely lost the use of it.completely and absolutely different, ask someone who has had the limb removed if they feel it is just unuseable
Another situation that I was present at was the shooting of an Officer on my Department by an Officer from another Department. He was shot by a .45. It damaged the spine of the Officer that was hit but didn't amputate anything. He also survived, granted as a paraplegic, but he is otherwise healthy. Since the shot was in the main part of the body it should have destroyed the internal organs and killed him according to your claims but it didn't. He wasn't wearing a vest either.the fact that he wasnt wearing a vest was shot only once and was shot through the back is another irrelevant and not on point discussion, what does that have to do with the concussion of three rounds into the chest of a vest? the discussion at the time was about the transfer of kinetic energy into the body, this doesn't happen the same way if the person is not wearing a vest. if you wanna quote me so strictly then start by reading that i said three rounds into the chest. obviously a center mass shot isn't gonna amputate a limb, never said it would.
What you never heard of would likely fill the Library of Congress. don't be throwing stones, Ive never met a cop who moonlighted as a rocket scientist :O :rofl Try sticking with something that you might actually know, tried or have researched. Secondly I never said that the bullet was fired into the dirt any where near feet, mine or anyone else’s. That’s an assumption on your part. I have fired the .45 hollow point into various media. Not once did it mushroom including in dirt. Dirt is a lot closer to bone than any watermelon I have ever seen.what have you fired? 20 30 rounds? i have fired 1500 rounds of .45 hollow point (bought a wooden case with multiple boxes of 50 rounds each) into about everything i could find to use as a target. now i must conseed the point that i didn't go dig too many of them out to see what happened, but of those that i did find none of them had failed to expand. this could have been caused by hitting the backing 8x8's behind the targets or by hitting the dirt embankment also behind the targets. i assumed it happened when hitting the targets, but i could be wrong in some cases. i never implied that water melon was like bone, once again if your gonna quote then stick to what i said. "tinsel strength of flesh" dirt has no characteristics matching that of bone, that one you need to prove.
You might want to look over a nice article related to the subject in the November Shooting Times magazine under the "going ballistic" column. It covers testing pistol hollow points and what it took to get one to expand reliably.
Sorry but that is not what you said. I’ll quote it again here. “Quote from: FLOTSOM on Yesterday at 10:28:24 PM "when a hollow point hits a bone it mushrooms to 10x its beginning size," your right i miss spoke, i was being to simplistic in my explanation but i have since corrected what my intended meaning was so if you don't have a better argument then move on
This is a patently false statement and I already explained why.
You also need to look over some of the information regarding permanent wound cavity (destroyed tissue) vs temporary wound cavity. Even ballistic gel is not perfect but it's a darn sight better than watermelons.i have read some of this, and you really need to get over your enmity with water melons. my point to initially mentioning them was for a back yard target practicing test, no real science just fun. but if your interested, this is where i learned a little about ballistic wounds from https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/2120/woundbal.pdf?sequence=1 one of the things you will find is that they put little credence into the information gained by using non-standardized ballistic gels
The rifle analogy is perfectly viable as an example of even greater power (rifle vs pistol) not creating the damage you want to attribute to smaller cartridges.completely different characteristics and yet again not on point
The BAR wasn’t a failure in WW1. It saw limited use due to not being developed and then issued until July 1918 shortly before the war ended. It was used in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.the BAR did not live up to the hype, there for it was a failure
I also didn't say the Garand was made during WW1. i didn't imply that you did
BTW the Garand and the BAR fired the exact same cartridge, what civilians know as the 30-06. I don't know where you got this from.not exactly the same though, one is longer than the other
The Thompson also wasn't used in WW1 as it was still in prototype when the war ended. If you are going to use wikpedia as a resource you might want to read the article Regarding the cartridge issue which I brought up earlier. again you miss state me. i did not say that the Thompson was used in WWI, the only weapon i said was used in WWI was the BAR. i will read the article you posted when i get a chance. if it is new and updated material then it will be a good read. i use wik to be certain of relevant dates and sizes that i don't know off the top of my head, is there a problem with that? is that some taboo place to look up things?
"By late 1917, the limits of the Blish lock were discovered, and it had been found that the only cartridge currently in U.S. service suitable for use with the lock was the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol)"
That kind of mirrors what I said about the cartridge and it's relationship to the Thompson.but it had less to do with what was in inventory and everything to do with the Blish lock.
If you have a link to fatalities due to trauma transfer from a vest and hand gun hits please link it. I'd like to see it. The film that i have seen with actual shots on the vest, including multiples doesn't agree with your claim. The creator of the Second Chance ballistic vest (all soft armor) proved his work by shooting himself many times wearing the vest as a demonstration. You gotta love a guy that has that much faith in his product.yes and we all know just how honest those tests are. he uses a .357 firing a under powered .38 round. i don't remember the name of the round, but its designed for paper target shooting not for bodies. maybe before you put your faith in them you should read this http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/zeppetella_trial__ex-exec_says_body-armor_firm_knew_vests_degraded.pdf gives you an idea about the integrity of the company and its propaganda
Here is another resource I found earlier, you might want o look it over. http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm The document is from the FBI training academygood article, don't know if i agree with it verbatim because its calling alot of very smart people very stupid. but it is well argued. you may also want to read this article. its about the standards for body armor http://www.cslj.net/library/dk_files/Law%20Enforcement/L%20E%20Technology/Other%20LE%20Technology%20&%20Equipment/2000%20NIJ%20Personal%20Body%20Armor%20Ballistics%200900.pdf
no matter what, be safe out there
FLOTSOM
-
As someone in this thread pointed out, it is an internal matter for those living in the us. If they need em to survive then let them have as many as they wish.
We dont need em to be safe from criminals or from "the government that is out to get us". Our freedom is not based on guns, but a transparent democracy and a fairly well functioning legal system. The police force may not be perfect, but if you add abit of common sense you can avoid crime :)
-
don't be throwing stones, Ive never met a cop who moonlighted as a rocket scientist
Flotsom your on thin ice here. We see far more shooting victims then any rocket scientist. Even one like you. And of every caliber, bullet type, and gun you can imagine. I used to work with a guy who was in on a shoot where the BG was hit 14 times by a Police 9mm round, and lived, that did great in BGel but sucked on the street. And a lot of them were torso shots. I once had a guy who was shot point blank in the head with a .45 and the bullet wrapped around his skull, never entering it, stayed inside his skin on the other side.
Kinetic energy in handgun rounds is way over-rated. You either hit the BG in the boiler room or you dont. Its that simple. The only possible exception I would consider is the 125 gr JHP .357. But everything else? Aim for the heart lung and keep pulling the trigger until you hear a click. Then run back and get a shotgun or rifle.
We have shoot-fests here. Hahahaha, I aint kidding. The kind where two or three cars pull up to a light, decide they don't like each others gang signs, and pull out handguns shooting each other as they are driving down the street. 10 mins later, after they dump the guns, a trauma unit gets 8 shooting victims. :lol I think we investigate and see a lot of shootings Flotsom.
-
Flotsom your on thin ice here. We see far more shooting victims then any rocket scientist. Even one like you. And of every caliber, bullet type, and gun you can imagine. I used to work with a guy who was in on a shoot where the BG was hit 14 times by a Police 9mm round, and lived, that did great in BGel but sucked on the street. And a lot of them were torso shots. I once had a guy who was shot point blank in the head with a .45 and the bullet wrapped around his skull, never entering it, stayed inside his skin on the other side.
Kinetic energy in handgun rounds is way over-rated. You either hit the BG in the boiler room or you dont. Its that simple. The only possible exception I would consider is the 125 gr JHP .357. But everything else? Aim for the heart lung and keep pulling the trigger until you hear a click. Then run back and get a shotgun or rifle.
We have shoot-fests here. Hahahaha, I aint kidding. The kind where two or three cars pull up to a light, decide they don't like each others gang signs, and pull out handguns shooting each other as they are driving down the street. 10 mins later, after they dump the guns, a trauma unit gets 8 shooting victims. :lol I think we investigate and see a lot of shootings Flotsom.
Please by no means take anything i have said as a slander or slur against anyone in the Law Enforcement Occupation. or from any other occupation that risks it's life to preserve the lives of civilian know it all dweebs like me.
my comment about being a rocket scientist was just a funny and not intended as an insult. that is how i took his comment about the library of congress, and how my retort was intended to be taken. (the laughing character after the comment was intended to express that)
i do not doubt that you have far more experience in the RW with gun shot wounds than i do. its been many years since Ive even touched a fire arm, so modern technology and wisdom on the subject is mostly voodoo and witchcraft to me. i have read some documents and articles that over time were brought to my attention mostly for the purposes of amusement and to try to maintain a basic understanding of the topics being discussed. but we both know that what they prove in a lab is not generally worth poop in the none controlled enviorment of the RW.
my comment about the ability of the .45 to kill someone wearing a vest was based upon old logic, when it was something i felt i needed to know. 13 or 14 years ago ballistic vest were not what they are today, so three rounds from a .45 into the chest of it would kill or seriously wound the person wearing it. but again, that is old logic, and obviously i am arguing it based on out dated information.
sometimes i am too argumentative. but again do not take that as disrespect! your is a profession that in my opinion deserves only the highest of honors. (an opinion that has gotten me into more than one argument with former affiliates of mine) but that doesn't change the fact that i am argumentative. and face it who likes being wrong in an argument?
So <SALUTE> to all of you in LE and similar jobs. my parents are safe because you willing go in harms way to ensure their safety.
FLOTSOM
-
The M1 Garand and the BAR both fire the .30-06 Springfield (7.62X63). There were some Garands made in .308 Winchester (7.62x51NATO) but they were in very limited numbers.
T
-
I dont NEED government but because we have government I NEED a gun to make sure the government doesnt become tyranical. Alone I cannot do much with a single gun (even a 50 caliber) but together the public can do away with any tyrant.
-
Thanks for the kind words. The thing is these vests do stop .45 rounds and do so fairly easily. Not only that but many coppers actually shot in the vest are able to still carry on the fight. Most guys have played ball, or grew up fist fighting, and blunt trauma just isn't something new to them. It sure aint to me, and I suspect it sure aint to you. Course Ive never been actually shot, only "shot at" numerous times. So I'm going from the words of guys who have been. Ive been very lucky. I never even wore a vest for my first 10 years and only started when they made it mandatory.
Thing is handguns just aint very good self defense weapons when compared to long guns. But they are better then nothing.
Nilson I congratulate you on your transparent Democracy and as a European I hope you dont have the mindset that History repeats itself. Twice we've had to go over there and straighten the place out. And Since "people are people" everywhere my guess is that your just more comfortable with their "Lies" "Politicians"then we are. And btw, we know all about "transparent Democracies". Were the ones that gave it to mainland Europe.
Please by no means take anything i have said as a slander or slur against anyone in the Law Enforcement Occupation. or from any other occupation that risks it's life to preserve the lives of civilian know it all dweebs like me.
my comment about being a rocket scientist was just a funny and not intended as an insult. that is how i took his comment about the library of congress, and how my retort was intended to be taken. (the laughing character after the comment was intended to express that)
i do not doubt that you have far more experience in the RW with gun shot wounds than i do. its been many years since Ive even touched a fire arm, so modern technology and wisdom on the subject is mostly voodoo and witchcraft to me. i have read some documents and articles that over time were brought to my attention mostly for the purposes of amusement and to try to maintain a basic understanding of the topics being discussed. but we both know that what they prove in a lab is not generally worth poop in the none controlled enviorment of the RW.
my comment about the ability of the .45 to kill someone wearing a vest was based upon old logic, when it was something i felt i needed to know. 13 or 14 years ago ballistic vest were not what they are today, so three rounds from a .45 into the chest of it would kill or seriously wound the person wearing it. but again, that is old logic, and obviously i am arguing it based on out dated information.
sometimes i am too argumentative. but again do not take that as disrespect! your is a profession that in my opinion deserves only the highest of honors. (an opinion that has gotten me into more than one argument with former affiliates of mine) but that doesn't change the fact that i am argumentative. and face it who likes being wrong in an argument?
So <SALUTE> to all of you in LE and similar jobs. my parents are safe because you willing go in harms way to ensure their safety.
FLOTSOM
-
I get a HUGE laugh out of people who, when there is a thread about guns in the United States, and they don't even live in the United States, feel compelled to post their opinion. :rofl :rofl :rofl
If someone posted a thread about guns and gun control in the UK, or Indonesia, or Belgium, etc, I'd do the right thing and shut my pie hole because I don't live there and it doesn't concern me.
As it is, in the US, we have a constitutional right to own firearms. Period.
If you live in a place in the US that bans firearms, you lives someplace that has decided to thumb it's nose at the constitition. Take a look at Chicago, for example. Handguns are banned---yet there were more murders with guns in Chicago this year than war deaths in Afghanistan. Yeah, that seems to work, right? Seems the old adadge is correct..."when guns are outlawed--only outlaws will have guns". Gangbangers in Chicago have ARSENALS, and now the local government there has made it illegal for the local residents to protect themselves from them. Sounds ignorant beyond belief to me.
I forsee some extremely bad civil unrest in the US in the next few years. I forsee riots and violence that will make 1968 look like a picnic. It will not be pretty. When it happens, you expect that the police will be Johhny-On-The-Spot to save your backside? Give me a break. I would much rather sleep soundly at night knowing this:
If you get over my 5' security fence...if you get past my 2 German Shepherd dogs...if you break into my house...I'm not going to be cowering in the closet with my cell phone crying to the cops (who might show up 5 hours after I am dead....maybe)...I'm going to take my 45 caliber with hollow points and blow your pumpkin clean off. Period.
If you don't want firearms, don't OWN firearms. That's the only gun control anyone needs.
I'd LOVE to see some joker try to impose gun control on Arkansas. It's never going to happen.
73
ROX
-
I get a HUGE laugh out of people who, when there is a thread about guns in the United States, and they don't even live in the United States, feel compelled to post their opinion.
I feel compelled to post when people post illogical and irrational arguments though. Which is quite common in gun threads. There is a lot of "Can't see the forest for the tree's".
You foresee widespread civil unrest and riots? Cool, lots of angry people running around with handguns. Hope you feel comfortable with that.
-
If someone posted a thread about guns and gun control in the UK, or Indonesia, or Belgium, etc, I'd do the right thing and shut my pie hole because I don't live there and it doesn't concern me.
lol I admire your restraint but you'd be pretty much the only one ;)
and Rich thanks alot mate, until you guys turned up in we'd just been just sitting around doing nuthin (well apart from crying like sissies) for the first 3yrs of WWI (4yrs) and the first 3yrs of WWII (6yrs) :aok its almost bewildering that the Germans couldn't overrun Europe, Africa and the Middle East completely, what with having no opposition at all.
Nice work on bringing democracy to Europe too. I always though we'd evolved it over thousands of years, really ramping it up in the age of enlightenment. I must have missed the early native american neocon movement, I've really got to go relearn some history (http://www.allstarsclan.nl/forums/style_emoticons/default/czytaj.gif)
-
I feel compelled to post when people post illogical and irrational arguments though. Which is quite common in gun threads. There is a lot of "Can't see the forest for the tree's".
You foresee widespread civil unrest and riots? Cool, lots of angry people running around with handguns. Hope you feel comfortable with that.
I don't know what country you are a legal resident of, but here in the US, (except if you live in someplace like Chicago) the Constitution says that citizens, who aren't felons, have the right to bear arms. It's a right. Some people exercise that right and some don't. Nothing illogical or irrational about that. It's the LAW.
I live in a country where we not only have law enforcement we also have people who have "concealed carry" permits. That means when a criminal goes into a bank, there might be an armed guard there--there might also be 4 people with concealed carry firearms. Criminal thinks twice about trying to rob it or take hostages because he might get airconditioned by lead. Criminal leaves.
Criminal walks into liquor store. There is no armed guard, but more than likely the store manager, watching from behind one-way mirrored glass, more than likely has a 9mm, and will blow his head off before calling the police. Criminal leaves.
I can't speak for other countries, or even other areas of my own country, but the crime rate here in Hot Springs, Arkansas is pretty low. In the surrounding areas (rural) it's even lower. Most people in rural areas around here have a firearm of some sort. It's a well established fact that even out in the rural areas, if you go breaking into someone's house, you will most likely get shot.
Yes, I forsee civil unrest in the US in the coming years that might lead some folks to use that confusion to break into homes for money or just to kill people. When that happens, I stand by my original post. If/when they break into my home with evil intent, the only problem I will have with killing them is having to clean up the blood later. Outside of the inconvienence of patching up the bullet holes in my brand new house and cleaning up all the blood...I am pretty comfortable with that.
BTW: Once again, this thread is about guns and gun control in the US. If you aren't a citizen of the US, you are more than welcome to go start a thread and comment about guns and gun control in your home country...because if you aren't a US citizen, your opinion in this thread means officially JACK.
ROX
Music Mountain
Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas
USA
-
BTW: Once again, this thread is about guns and gun control in the US. If you aren't a citizen of the US, you are more than welcome to go start a thread and comment about guns and gun control in your home country...because if you aren't a US citizen, your opinion in this thread means officially JACK.
The title of the thread doesn't say "Guns - US people only"; does it? No? So get over it, it's a public forum and he's just as entitled as you are to speak his mind. So GET OVER yourself. :devil
-
lol I admire your restraint but you'd be pretty much the only one ;)
Hi Holmes! :salute Sir.
I am a member of a number of other forums, a couple are predominantly guys from the UK and Canada, another is about 50/50 US and UK folks.
When the UK guys post about UK laws, regulations, and culture, I do not post my opinion because it does not apply to me and it's none of my business, and the other US guys don't do it either. It would be rude to butt in where something doesn't apply to me, it shows an ignorance to respect others laws, way of life and culture.
Also on those boards I have to say that the UK guys don't impress their beliefs on the US guys about our laws and culture either.
Maybe it's one of the few places left where courtesy still lives.
73
ROX
-
The title of the thread doesn't say "Guns - US people only"; does it? No? So get over it, it's a public forum and he's just as entitled as you are to speak his mind. So GET OVER yourself. :devil
The thread IS about guns and gun control in the US.
Lay off the weed and go re-read the posts.
(And the ankle humping keeps right on going)
ROX
-
You foresee widespread civil unrest and riots? Cool, lots of angry people running around with handguns. Hope you feel comfortable with that.
The most brilliant piece of film I have ever seen was from 'Boston Legal.' Watch wallet gun knee right foot left foot...
Look it up some time and you might figure out why I carry a gun and have legal automatic weapons. Not only is it a right to some it is a duty to exercise that right.
-
The thread IS about guns and gun control in the US.
Lay off the weed and go re-read the posts.
ROX
If by ankle humping you mean pointing out your pathetic self-importance problem, then I'll be humping away. You lay off the superiority shtick and maybe I'll quit smoking. :rolleyes:
I love how any time I call you out your best response amounts to "hippy". It makes me smile every time. :D
And anyways, I still don't see anything in the OP about this being a conversation limited to only US citizens. :devil
-
I don't know what country you are a legal resident of, but here in the US, (except if you live in someplace like Chicago) the Constitution says that citizens, who aren't felons, have the right to bear arms. It's a right. Some people exercise that right and some don't. Nothing illogical or irrational about that. It's the LAW.
Can you read? Start from the top sonny.
-
Can you read? Start from the top sonny.
The original poster cited an article about guns from an organization that is located IN WISCONSIN--USA.
I've been a gun owner since the Regan years.
How about you, Sonny?
The ankle humper isn't worth my time.
ROX
PS: wrag: the second link sent the my spyware into freak-out mode...there very well might be malware or spyware links on that site.
-
Can't argue with pure american illiteracy :D
-
The original poster cited an article about guns from an organization that is located IN WISCONSIN--USA.
I've been a gun owner since the Regan years.
How about you, Sonny?
The ankle humper isn't worth my time.
ROX
PS: wrag: the second link sent the my spyware into freak-out mode...there very well might be malware or spyware links on that site.
Using the bold all the time is funny too.
What does it matter what he thinks anyways? He doesn't vote here. He can't change your laws, we do that. Lay off playing "who can have an opinion here" cop. It's foolish.
-
The original poster cited an article about guns from an organization that is located IN WISCONSIN--USA.
I've been a gun owner since the Regan years.
How about you, Sonny?
The ankle humper isn't worth my time.
ROX
PS: wrag: the second link sent the my spyware into freak-out mode...there very well might be malware or spyware links on that site.
I've never gotten a spyware reaction from that site??? Seems odd?
-
Aww screw it. Both sides distort things to their advantage, and vehemently refuse to see any view but their own. Anti's, think every gun is a killing machine, that if you even look at a gun funny it will kill you and everyone you love, all on it's own. The Pro gun nuts have visions of dropping tangos, that invade their home. What a bunch of horse hockey it all is. IMHO both sides need to get hit upside the head with a clue by four.
Make up your own (insert your personal deity here) damn mind.
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/855/1001565tv4.jpg)
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/593/1001571lk4.jpg)
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1226/1001582ju7.jpg)
Fun for the whole family right there.
-
Can't argue with pure american illiteracy :D
Go to the ORIGINAL post. Click on the FIRST article link. Go to "HOME". Scroll to the bottom of the page
You will see that the article on guns originates from: P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Last I looked that was in the US.
Maybe I need to spend all my free time telling New Zealand how to run it's business, and how people in New Zealand should run their lives.
ROX
-
If you get over my 5' security fence...if you get past my 2 German Shepherd dogs...if you break into my house...I'm not going to be cowering in the closet with my cell phone crying to the cops (who might show up 5 hours after I am dead....maybe)...I'm going to take my 45 caliber with hollow points and blow your pumpkin clean off. Period.
Look it up some time and you might figure out why I carry a gun and have legal automatic weapons. Not only is it a right to some it is a duty to exercise that right.
Yes, I forsee civil unrest in the US in the coming years that might lead some folks to use that confusion to break into homes for money or just to kill people. When that happens, I stand by my original post. If/when they break into my home with evil intent, the only problem I will have with killing them is having to clean up the blood later. Outside of the inconvienence of patching up the bullet holes in my brand new house and cleaning up all the blood...I am pretty comfortable with that.
I feel compelled to post when people post illogical and irrational arguments though. Which is quite common in gun threads. There is a lot of "Can't see the forest for the tree's".
You foresee widespread civil unrest and riots? Cool, lots of angry people running around with handguns. Hope you feel comfortable with that.
Vulcan, forget about rational arguments with some of these people. They are literally arming themselves 'for when the zombies come'. They live in a fantasy and think they will have to protect themselves with automatic weapons at some point in the future. The idea they are going to protect their household with a colt 45 or automatic weapon is a classic and common reoccurring example of the fantasy. If they had any grasp of reality they would be going for the good old shotgun, which is proven to be much more effective but not nearly as fun to fantasize about. These are the types of people who accidentally kill their neighbor with their armor piercing bullets, or leave their .45 loaded in their night stand for 'protection', and their kids find it, and then we all get gun bans.
Honestly it makes people like myself, responsible knowledgeable gun owners in the United Sates (why does everyone refer to our country as a continent?), feel embarrassed to be associated with this type of extreme paranoid thoughts. Can't see the forest through the trees sums it up perfectly.
If some of you guys really feel you need to protect yourself to this extent, may I suggest a reality check. So far most of the fantasy home invader situations you have all used as examples would leave YOU in prison for murder. Good luck owning guns when you get out. In most states you really do need to be backed into your closet, have already tried to call the cops, and in immediate physical danger before you can legally protect yourself with a gun. The reason those laws are in place is because so many of you are so gun happy you'd shoot a crack head digging through your trash with your .50 cal. If you really feel threatened, I simply suggest moving. Hell I haven't even taken the key out of my ignition in my truck for 3+ years, and the front door to my house doesn't even have a lock. I live in one of the richest counties in the country and I can't remember a home invasion or a gun being used in a crime the entire time I've lived here.
-
Aww screw it. Both sides distort things to their advantage, and vehemently refuse to see any view but their own. Anti's, think every gun is a killing machine, that if you even look at a gun funny it will kill you and everyone you love, all on it's own. The Pro gun nuts have visions of dropping tangos, that invade their home. What a bunch of horse hockey it all is. IMHO both sides need to get hit upside the head with a clue by four.
Make up your own (insert your personal deity here) damn mind.
(images)
Fun for the whole family right there.
Iron, didn't see your post before I made my last reply, but you pretty much summed it up perfectly. Gun arguments are essentially pointless because so many people let their emotions override rational thoughts.
-
I love the "arming themselves for when the zombies come" take.
I have been a gun owner and target shooter for 30 years.
Most people around here are very much into hunting and target shooting, and many pass that on to the next generation.
The great thing about being a firearm owner in America is that you can use if for self protection if/when the time comes, but you had better be proficient (hunting/target shooting) with it long before that time comes.
One of the guys in my squad is a 5 time national target champion.
You will find a lot of black powder guys around here as well. Black powder deer season is VERY popular.
BTW: If you don't see the coming civil unrest that is building in our country---then WHO is living in the fantasy world? Evidently some people never turn on the evening news.
ROX
-
I love the "arming themselves for when the zombies come" take.
I have been a gun owner and target shooter for 30 years.
Most people around here are very much into hunting and target shooting, and many pass that on to the next generation.
The great thing about being a firearm owner in America is that you can use if for self protection if/when the time comes, but you had better be proficient (hunting/target shooting) with it long before that time comes.
One of the guys in my squad is a 5 time national target champion.
You will find a lot of black powder guys around here as well. Black powder deer season is VERY popular.
BTW: If you don't see the coming civil unrest that is building in our country---then WHO is living in the fantasy world? Evidently some people never turn on the evening news.
First of all, owning a firearm in America is not a protected right. Perhaps you are talking about the country United States of America?
"Arming yourselves for when the zombies come" isn't something I just made up, its exact terminology I see coming from some extremist. Its also a reoccurring theme or mentality I notice from many of the pro assault-rifle-for-home-defense types, even if not a direct thought it is a underlying force for the pro gun nuts. Unfortunately these types are usually the most outspoken type of pro gun people, as exemplified by this thread.
You make a valid point that I agree with, most gun owners are responsible and have a good grasp of reality. However so far most of the pro-gun views posted in this thread are NOT from those types of people.
Civil unrest is not going to lead you to protecting yourself with hand guns and assault rifles. I'm sorry but that is simply not going to happen. Do you even understand what situations an assault rifle is designed to be used in? Hint: its NOT for protecting yourself inside your house. If you think you're going to need it to drop tangos at mid to long ranges in the open public streets, the way it was designed to be used, then you are living in a fantasy.
I come from a long line of gun ownership too. My step father is a past Olympic team member and national champion for trap and target respectively. My biological dad was LEO. My mom blew away a skunk with a .357 when I was -1 month old, still in her womb. You get the picture. I love collecting and shooting all types of guns, especially high powered rifles. At no point in my history have I been taught that these types of long range high powered guns would be used against people. Even with all the gun exposure in my family we all have a good grasp of reality and understand these tools are not to be used as defense, that is what a simple pump action shotgun is for.
If you are talking about using these types of guns towards other people, you are no longer in the realm of home defense. I'm not sure exactly what you think the world is coming too, but I don't think you will ever need to use an assault rifle to insure the well being of your family. If civil unrest really lead to major rioting and crime in the streets, the national guard and military would be mobilized, temporary restrictions would be in place, and if you pulled out your assault rifle for protection you'd probably be viewed as a combatant and be shot on the spot.
-
First of all, owning a firearm in America is not a protected right. Perhaps you are talking about the country United States of America?
:huh
"Arming yourselves for when the zombies come" isn't something I just made up, its exact terminology I see coming from some extremist.
Well unless you have some kind of psychic powers that reveal what these extremists are going to say, I'd say you made that one up.
-
Who in their right mind would ever attempt to use an assault weapon for home defence? :rolleyes:
Please quote my post where ever I mentioned the term "assault rife". (Prior to this one, of course.)
The great thing about the USA is that I can be a gun owner for the reasons I want to be a gun owner, and if others don't like the reasons I choose to be a gun owner then they are cordially invited to go pound sand.
ROX
-
:huh
Well unless you have some kind of psychic powers that reveal what these extremists are going to say, I'd say you made that one up.
1. I'm just tired of people using America the continent, and the United States of America the country, interchangeably. I think it shows some sort of arrogance or at least some ignorance.
2. Its not something they ARE going to say, its something many of them already say. Like I just said before, this isn't something I made up, its actual terminology I've seen used. There are people out there that literally think they will need to protect themselves using high powered rifles against some sort of organized advancing force in the open streets, killing multiple people at long range, some of them wearing armor, to secure their own safety. While I agree anything is possible, planning for something as unlikely as this is similar and is as sensible as planning for being struck by lightning or being invaded by aliens.
-
Who in their right mind would ever attempt to use an assault weapon for home defence? :rolleyes:
A lot of people, actually. Its a fairly common argument for pro assault rifle types. My specific comment was a response to Challenge when he commented about the need to exercise the right to own automatic weapons (which I assume he means assault rifles).
I did not see you mention assault rifle specifically, but using a .45 for home defense is not much better, which I did see you mention. A lot of people will argue that they need hand cannons for home defense, yet it has been proven many times over that there are much better weapons for the job. For example something that will kill the intruder but not travel through 3 walls and kill your kids/neighbor, and something that does not need a high level of training to use effectively in a high stress situation.
Using home defense as the argument to owning high powered pistols or automatic rifles is not logical, yet it is the most used argument coming from the extreme gun nuts as to why they should own these guns. Hell the 2nd doesn't even mention home defense or anything like that.
-
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9955/firearmsshotgunm1897600yy5.jpg)
Now that is home defense.
The great thing about the USA is that I can be a gun owner for the reasons I want to be a gun owner, and if others don't like the reasons I choose to be a gun owner then they are cordially invited to go pound sand.
ROX
Amen, brother, amen.
The Anti's need to re-read (or read in most cases) the Declaration of Independence. Especially the part about, life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me the pursuit of happiness is shooting a sub MOA group at 100 yards, or watching my daughter blast out the 10 ring, with her .22 pistol.
-
1. I'm just tired of people using America the continent, and the United States of America the country, interchangeably. I think it shows some sort of arrogance or at least some ignorance.
2. Its not something they ARE going to say, its something many of them already say. Like I just said before, this isn't something I made up, its actual terminology I've seen used. There are people out there that literally think they will need to protect themselves using high powered rifles against some sort of organized advancing force in the open streets, killing multiple people at long range, some of them wearing armor, to secure their own safety. While I agree anything is possible, planning for something as unlikely as this is similar and is as sensible as planning for being struck by lightning or being invaded by aliens.
Well sir, America in itself is not a continent neither since you have North America and South America which are each continents. And usually, being as that the majority of the population on the bbs is from the United States of America, the term "America" is generally accepted to mean the United States of America because we Americans are lazy and do not feel like saying or typing all of it. :aok
As far as what the extremists are going to say or have already said, I was just saying that unless you have actually heard someone say it, you cannot predict what they will or will not say.
-
As far as the 2nd Ammendment having the words "for home defense" in it, you are correct.
The interpretation of what the 2nd Ammendment means has been debated for many years but not too long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on the 2nd Ammendment:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
They also had this to say:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense
and this
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:
that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
all of this is from Wikipedia which isn't always my number one source for factual information.
-
A lot of people, actually. Its a fairly common argument for pro assault rifle types. My specific comment was a response to Challenge when he commented about the need to exercise the right to own automatic weapons (which I assume he means assault rifles).
I did not see you mention assault rifle specifically, but using a .45 for home defense is not much better, which I did see you mention. A lot of people will argue that they need hand cannons for home defense, yet it has been proven many times over that there are much better weapons for the job. For example something that will kill the intruder but not travel through 3 walls and kill your kids/neighbor, and something that does not need a high level of training to use effectively in a high stress situation.
Using home defense as the argument to owning high powered pistols or automatic rifles is not logical, yet it is the most used argument coming from the extreme gun nuts as to why they should own these guns. Hell the 2nd doesn't even mention home defense or anything like that.
Let me get this straight....you are going to tell other people how they should be gun owners based on what YOU think they should do?
While you are at it...go into restaraunts and tell other people what YOU think they should eat...go into car dealerships and tell other people what YOU think they should drive...and by all means, go up to the General Topics threads and tell other people how YOU think they should play their $15 bucks.
Good luck with that.
ROX
-
ROX,
Why worry about AKHog's opinion? He is arguing from youth. In 30 years he might have enough personal experience to be intersting to argue with. It sounds like neither of you live in areas where you will have to worry about the ramifications of shooting zombies or perps or anything more than a rabbid raccoon. You sound like you have the miles on you to know something of which you speak.
During financial downturns, crime rates go up. Especialy in population centers with large minority populations like Oakland CA, where I live. I can see the new Catholic Cathederal from my home on Lake Merrit. I expect personal crimes here in Oakland to pick up like they do every downturn.
I've had to carry over the years here due to the crime rates associated with our large minority population in Oakland. I've only had to show my side arm once to give a knife weilding minority the option to runaway or die since I started carrying in 98. I came home at noon one day to find him using a butcher knife to cut all the flowers on my property. The local miscrents would take all of your flowers, fruit and vegetabels, then try to sell them outside of the local 7-11 a block away. He tried to bluff his way out of it. I showed him my glock and told him to run or die since he refused to drop the knife. The knife was cause since he was tresspassing and refused to drop it.
I gave him a way out because shooting him carried with it all of his low income relatives and black city council members in Oakland who would have camped out on my door step demanding I be hanged because I am white. I took a calculated chance that he and his freinds might come back when my wife was alone. She has a Kimber 1911. Fortunatly he and his cohorts stopped walking through my neigborhood after that.
ROX does AKHog live where he has to make decisions like this for his wife and himself? If not, it's just his opinion without much experience.
-
ROX,
Why worry about AKHog's opinion?
From what I've gathered, its the fact that since he doesn't live in the USA he isn't entitled to have an opinion on this article and especially isn't allowed to post that opinion here on the BBS.
Still not sure why ROX has decided he shouldn't be posting his opinion.
-
Honestly it makes people like myself, responsible knowledgeable gun owners in the United Sates (why does everyone refer to our country as a continent?), feel embarrassed to be associated with this type of extreme paranoid thoughts. Can't see the forest through the trees sums it up perfectly.
Nice to see someone gets what I'm pointing out.
Rox, fyi, what I posted was fact. The only opinion I posted was that you (well not you specifically, but you seem to fit the stereotype) should use better arguments for pro-gun - I even provided better reasoning for you to use. Because the stuff you currently come up with is irrational, and doesn't make any sense, it makes you look overemotional and uninformed. One day, when someone tries to ban guns and puts forward a rational, logical argument for doing so - you will lose.
-
Let me get this straight....you are going to tell other people how they should be gun owners based on what YOU think they should do?
No, I'm simply saying "home defense" is not a very good reason to own many of the guns we are talking about. They are simply not very good guns for a home defense situation. I'm saying when you argue you right to own a hand cannon or automatic rifle for the sake of home defense you are not giving yourself a good platform to stand on.
This recent DC vs Heller is going to be re-assessed in the next few years. I don't personally believe the wording of the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to own guns for home defense, even though that is at the front of all of the pro gun arguments. There are better arguments for owning guns, as Iron_Cross and Vulcan have pointed out.
Bustr, your story about the robber is a classic example of the misuse of a gun that will lead to more of our rights taken away. I don't know where you got your concealed license, but I doubt they teach you to 'flash your glock' in that class. In fact I think they would teach that if you carry a concealed weapon and draw it on anyone it should be a life or death situation. It was some crack head stealing your flowers, you approached him and he felt threatened, of course he's not just going to give you the knife! The better thing to do would have been to call the cops and monitor from a safe distance. I'm not a lawyer but I think if you shot him even after he lunged at you with the knife, most states law including cali would side with him in this case. Its not exactly like self defense when you confront him with a concealed weapon. Its outside, you approached him, you can run away, etc. After you shot him how would you really feel? I guess since he was a "minority" and you seem to have such a problem with 'them' in Oakland you'd probably be glad to see him gone. You said you gave him a 'way out' just because you didn't want to deal with the protests at your house! If there were no chance of a protest you would have just blown him away then? What stupidity. I really can't express in writing how self centered your story makes you sound. You should have your license to carry taken away with an attitude like that.
-
As an ex-LEO, I beg to differ with you.
ROX
-
While you are at it...go into restaraunts and tell other people what YOU think they should eat...go into car dealerships and tell other people what YOU think they should drive...and by all means, go up to the General Topics threads and tell other people how YOU think they should play their $15 bucks.
Try going into a chinese restaurant and ordering italian.
Try going into a car dealership and ordering a gas hog with no seatbelts or airbags.
Try going into a gun dealer and ordering a rifle with a silencer fitted (btw I can do that :D you can't)
You are being told what to do every day, whether you know it or not, freedom is an illusion, an abstract concept.
-
Try going into a chinese restaurant and ordering italian.
Try going into a car dealership and ordering a gas hog with no seatbelts or airbags.
Try going into a gun dealer and ordering a rifle with a silencer fitted (btw I can do that :D you can't)
You are being told what to do every day, whether you know it or not, freedom is an illusion, an abstract concept.
"Try going into a chinese restaurant and ordering italian."
What utter moron would do that?
"Try going into a car dealership and ordering a gas hog with no seatbelts or airbags."
What utter moron would do that?
"Try going into a gun dealer and ordering a rifle with a silencer fitted (btw I can do that :D you can't)"
What utter moron would do that?
I'm glad I don't live where you do.
Sounds like the place is chocked full of idiots.
ROX
-
lol I admire your restraint but you'd be pretty much the only one ;)
and Rich thanks alot mate, until you guys turned up in we'd just been just sitting around doing nuthin (well apart from crying like sissies) for the first 3yrs of WWI (4yrs) and the first 3yrs of WWII (6yrs) :aok its almost bewildering that the Germans couldn't overrun Europe, Africa and the Middle East completely, what with having no opposition at all.
Nice work on bringing democracy to Europe too. I always though we'd evolved it over thousands of years, really ramping it up in the age of enlightenment. I must have missed the early native american neocon movement, I've really got to go relearn some history (http://www.allstarsclan.nl/forums/style_emoticons/default/czytaj.gif)
RT go back to my post and see how I specifically used the term "mainland Europe". Do I have to explain to you what "mainland Europe" is or do you have a map handy. Better yet, look out the bloody window past the white cliffs on a clear day.
In the future when I say "we" in such I manner I mean "we". As in "We western allies" who saved "mainland" Europe from itself. Gawd even the bloody canucks chipped in. OK? Boy, theres nothing worse then a Limey whose been left out of a post.
Now tonights homework assignment is to say "mainland" three times, fast as you can, until you got it right. Nobody has shown more respect to the Brits on these boards then I.
Kinda funny when you think about it. Here Nilson is bragging about his "transparent Democracy" when our fathers fought, died, and paid for it far,far,far, more then his fathers did.
Back to gun control. Gun control sucks!
-
I'm glad I don't live where you do.
me too.
-
M1 Garand (otw), Charles Daily Pump 20, and a Semi Auto 12 Gauge, we're all set.
-
The way i see it, giving up guns is giving away all the peoples protection. Its another way the government can take you over. Without guns in the public the g-ment can do what ever they want. they can take over the whole nation and if you try to stop them they will kill you and there is no way to fight back. Look at china. The reason why its communist is because the people have no way of standing up to the g-ment. They have no guns or protection so tryin to get out of the communist society is vertually impossible. Its like tryin to fight against a bully who gets to use a gun and you have to use your hands. Would you do what he says? yes of course to stop from gettin shot. Taking away the right to bear arms is basically the next step towards socialism and if they take that amendment away the g-ment will be able to get away with anything. It may be kind of hard to understand. But this country WILL NOT stay capitalist if we are forced to submit our guns to the G-ment. Look at the proof from other countries who cannot have guns. They are just a bigger squeak to the G-ment and there is no way to fight back.
-
Look at china. The reason why its communist is because the people have no way of standing up to the g-ment.
Ahhh the sweet pinnacle of ignorance :D
May I suggest picking up a history book in the not so distant future. Right now your contending with Miss Teen South Carolina's speech.
-
my home defence
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/closeupsword.jpg)
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/sword.jpg)
obviously i took these pics offline, but its the exact sword i own!
folded 8-10 times, clay used in heat tempering to give a hard edge and soft spine,so the Hamon line is real.
insanly sharp,scary sharp!!!
-
Very nice sword sir. Craftsmanship looks amazing. While i would not use one, to each their own.
My thoughts on using a sword for home defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE
-
i know vulcan but giving away your guns is giving away your freedom. Why do you think the right to bear arms is the second amendment. Its more important then just owning a gun. The fathers did it for a reason
-
You will find a lot of black powder guys around here as well. Black powder deer season is VERY popular.
ROX
I'm a black powder shooter, more-so than a "modern" shooter. I hunt with my flintlock rifle- I grocery shop with the .270.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/AdamsRendezvous.jpg)
Arguments against gun ownership that have bothered me in the past were arguments against owning anything larger than a .50 (my rifle is a .54, my Brown Bess (musket) is a .75...), and depending on the wording, my muzzle-loaders are historical "assault weapons" or "military" weapons. The flintlock was used by the worlds military's (sp?) for over 260 years, no other firearm even comes close...
Heck, my shotgun shoots a projectile larger than .50 cal. Also, arguments against owning weapons that can shoot through a BP vest are troublesome. My .270 and 22-250 will go through more than 1/4" of steel at 200+ yards.
In addition, the powder I need to keep them functioning correctly is an "explosive", compared to modern powders which are "propellants". Flintlocks don't perform well with any of the modern "synthetics" I've tried.
Ink- Nice blade! I've got a beauty of a Bowie style knife (hand forged Damascus) that a friend made... Too big to lug around, but a work of art!
-
my home defence
obviously i took these pics offline, but its the exact sword i own!
folded 8-10 times, clay used in heat tempering to give a hard edge and soft spine,so the Hamon line is real.
insanly sharp,scary sharp!!!
Nice sword, but what would Indy do? :D
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/sword-fight.jpg)
-
Mtnman, ya damascus is very nice, its a little differant then my blade although they look very similure, with damascus they start out with around 512 layers of alternating hard and soft steels, and then forge that into the blade, i bought a $60 blade kit from Atlanta cutlery a dagger in damacus, i traded it to a sword shop for 3 high carbon steel swords, then he sold it for $300.
lol those who showed Indy... lol real life, if someone broke into my house i probably would not go for my sword, of course if the situation allowed it, it would be in my hands, but i would be more inclinded to confront them with my hands, or feet or elbows or knees heck my forhead or teeth, point is - my house not a smart one to try to rob.
<S>
-
my house not a smart one to try to rob.
well thats just because our lovely and brave Stacy would beat the intruder about the head and neck region with your recently, commencing at the sound of the breaking glass, poop filled diaper!
YOU WUSSY!!!!!!
loves to the FAMILY Brother
FLOTSOM
P.S. Our Knives are sharp! :O :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Yea, just all in good fun with the Indy vid. :aok
I must agree, with that sword, you could make "bad guy" Shish Kabobs. :D
Could you see the look on the police officers face when they came to the house :O
<S>
-
Last I read crime was much higher in England than in the US per capita. Gun and non gun. If you dig enough I think you'll find that most crimes involving a gun in the US... the gun is not registered or legal.
-
Ahhh the sweet pinnacle of ignorance :D
May I suggest picking up a history book in the not so distant future. Right now your contending with Miss Teen South Carolina's speech.
Due clue us all in oh master of history. And whats Miss Teen South Carolina got to do with it?
You must like to tickle us with the potential of your vast intellect when you post your one liners Vulcan. One day just spread your wings, write a whole paragraph, and try and make a point.
-
Last I read crime was much higher in England than in the US per capita. Gun and non gun.
Incorrect.
(I'm only posting and pointing it out because the comment was made about England and is not related to the US....I hope this is allowed)
-
well thats just because our lovely and brave Stacy would beat the intruder about the head and neck region with your recently, commencing at the sound of the breaking glass, poop filled diaper!
YOU WUSSY!!!!!!
loves to the FAMILY Brother
FLOTSOM
P.S. Our Knives are sharp! :O :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl you know it brother
:salute
-
I don't own a hand gun, my choice. I have no problem with those that do. Frankly I have never been confronted by an anti gun promoter. I really don't think there is that many anti-gun enthusiast.
i expect alot of them are dead
-
*sigh*
People just don't get it. They argue about whether the latest gun control scheme will increase or decrease crime 2%, or other such stats which I will freely admit are irrelevant to me.
I consider Liberty an end in itself. If they are allowed to slap all kinds of regulations or ban outright something so many enjoy as an innocuous hobby, then what CAN'T they do on some sort of trumped-up social utilitarian reason?
Like I say, the "regulator" types pass their legislation and it fails to deliver Utopia, so they stay in their negative feedback loop and write another regulation. The phrase "I keep cutting and cutting and it is STILL too short." come to mind. Better yet, "I keep pulling back on the stick and it STILL keeps spinning".
-
Due clue us all in oh master of history. And whats Miss Teen South Carolina got to do with it?
You must like to tickle us with the potential of your vast intellect when you post your one liners Vulcan. One day just spread your wings, write a whole paragraph, and try and make a point.
Please please tell me you're not thats stupid?
Ok, you are. Here's a couple of clues, google Miss Teen South Carolina "speech", and then google Chinese revolution. Come back to me with the stunning results.
-
i was being a dork. i think guns are great, i was just looking at MTNMAN's wishing i could do that.
-
Last I read crime was much higher in England than in the US per capita. Gun and non gun. If you dig enough I think you'll find that most crimes involving a gun in the US... the gun is not registered or legal.
Incorrect. The thing with comparing crime rates is quite often the worse the true crime rate the lower the reported crimes, and in countries with low crime rates there is a higher rate of reporting for more minor offences. Look at gun murder rates as true example, in the USA you're 29 times that of NZ - and NZ still has a relatively high gun ownership level (especially compared to the UK), forgot what it was vs the UK.
-
i was being a dork. i think guns are great, i was just looking at MTNMAN's wishing i could do that.
That particular one is a rifle I built from a "kit". Not a mostly-done kit, but one where I got a picture-plan, and a bunch of parts that could be used to build the rifle I wanted. I had to file-shape and polish the metal parts, inlet the barrel and all the parts etc. It took me over 300 hours and I spread that out over about 14 months. I could do it now in much less time, but I was scared of screwing it up. I spent a lot of time looking at it in the corner and thinking "Hmm, which part comes next, and exactly how do I get it to fit right?" It's a copy of a museum piece, an "early" Hawken's full-stock. The original was a percussion, but I built mine with a flintlock on it. I needed it to be a flintlock because I wanted it to have fast, reliable ignition, and I don't trust those new-fangled high-tech pre-cussion thingies. I'd rather stick with the old reliable rock-knocker. I've been shooting flinters for over 15 years, and in the field I'd never trust a percussion gun like I do a quality flintlock.
In contrast, my British Brown Bess was a more "normal" kit. I had to sand it, finish it, brown the metal parts, and assemble it. About 30 hours. Maybe less.
-
Theres quite a few blackpoweder shooters at the range I shoot at mtnman :) - many of them hunt with them too.
-
Here's another one I built. I bought the barrel, and built everything else from scratch. I have a coal forge, and used that for a lot of the parts. The barrel is 24" long, weighs 40#. The carriage weighs another 38#. It fires a 1" diameter, roughly 1/4# ball. Not terribly accurate, but I can usually hit a garbage can at 200 yards. It'll put a hole on a tree you can put your fist in at that range. Recoil will drive it back over three feet on mowed grass.
I haven't tried hunting with it yet. I've also found 10 .50 cal balls makes an interesting load.
They don't let me use it at the range, so I'm limited to the back yard (I live in the country). The first time I shot it in the yard, I literally rattled dishes in my neighbors cabinets 1/4 mile away, and they thought my propane tank had exploded...
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Picture043.jpg)
I do mention home protection at times as a way to justify purchases... I have the biggest gun on the block, hehe!
-
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Picture043.jpg)
I do mention home protection at times as a way to justify purchases... I have the biggest gun on the block, hehe!
Hee hee == can see it now.
"Mr Robber, can you move just a little to the right....back a bit....GREAT. Now smile and watch for the flash...."
-
Hee hee == can see it now.
"Mr Robber, can you move just a little to the right....back a bit....GREAT. Now smile and watch for the flash...."
:rofl
-
Please please tell me you're not thats stupid?
Ok, you are. Here's a couple of clues, google Miss Teen South Carolina "speech", and then google Chinese revolution. Come back to me with the stunning results.
"Thats stupid"? :rofl Whats ams I's supposeds tos googles everythings thats comes outs of yours mouths?
I donts much care abouts yours wells thoughts outs posts, nots thats you haves any, sos whats dos yous thinks I feels abouts yours silly ones liners ones?
What could Miss Teen Carolina say that "coulds" shock me? Ive been a hunter and shooter since I was 8yo and a Policeman in a blood soaked city, with strict gun control, for almost 25 years?
Yaknow Vulcan, wherever your from. Some people are so far behind in the race they think they are ahead. And the worst part about it is they often think they are so slick and smart. So go ahead baby, tell me all about gun control, crime, and life itsownself. Cause I dont know a thing about it. :P
-
That particular one is a rifle I built from a "kit". Not a mostly-done kit, but one where I got a picture-plan, and a bunch of parts that could be used to build the rifle I wanted. I had to file-shape and polish the metal parts, inlet the barrel and all the parts etc. It took me over 300 hours and I spread that out over about 14 months. I could do it now in much less time, but I was scared of screwing it up. I spent a lot of time looking at it in the corner and thinking "Hmm, which part comes next, and exactly how do I get it to fit right?" It's a copy of a museum piece, an "early" Hawken's full-stock. The original was a percussion, but I built mine with a flintlock on it. I needed it to be a flintlock because I wanted it to have fast, reliable ignition, and I don't trust those new-fangled high-tech pre-cussion thingies. I'd rather stick with the old reliable rock-knocker. I've been shooting flinters for over 15 years, and in the field I'd never trust a percussion gun like I do a quality flintlock.
In contrast, my British Brown Bess was a more "normal" kit. I had to sand it, finish it, brown the metal parts, and assemble it. About 30 hours. Maybe less.
An art form! Have to settle for hazel bows and diving knives over here.
-
I donts much care abouts yours wells thoughts outs posts, nots thats you haves any, sos whats dos yous thinks I feels abouts yours silly ones liners ones?
cue theme from deliverance....
-
cue theme from deliverance....
There he goes again. MR. Spock with a brain anuerism.
Blackpowder is just way to much fun. Get into it and you night never shoot a rifle again. It appeals to me the way bowhunting does. One shot, one kill. But even spinning metal with it is a hoot. I used to shoot with some guys right out of the 1700s flint and all. They wanted me to join up but just no time. Shooting is even more fun when you go back 200 to 300 years.
-
There he goes again. MR. Spock with a brain anuerism.
I'm not the one that sounds like I just stepped off a Jerry Springer Hillbilly special.
-
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq77/AAdeath/2208947456_5b56dc0a8b.jpg)
-
An art form! Have to settle for hazel bows...
Quite the art form there too!
I've got a small garbage can in my garage full of chert and obsidian for knapping my own points. I'm not as skilled as the average Neanderthal, but it sure is fun!
-
Incorrect. The thing with comparing crime rates is quite often the worse the true crime rate the lower the reported crimes, and in countries with low crime rates there is a higher rate of reporting for more minor offences.
After a great a few great Criminal Justice courses I have to concur about this. There sometimes exists very large discrepancies between reported crime rates and actual crime rates. The differences in statistics can also simply occur in how the crimes that are reported are handled or categorized.
Interesting subject to disscuss none-the-less.
::edit:: typo
-
Incorrect. The thing with comparing crime rates is quite often the worse the true crime rate the lower the reported crimes, and in countries with low crime rates there is a higher rate of reporting for more minor offences.
He finally bends his brow and he comes up with this. Have you lost your mind? They teach you this in school?
You think if somebody is shot, killed, raped, robbed,burgled, theft, they aren't going to report it in high crime areas? People can pick up their cell phones and make reports on the phone now days. My hands go numb from all the reports I write.
If theres any magic show going on its down at a Police stats office where they can go <poof> and turn water into wine.
I'm not the one that sounds like I just stepped off a Jerry Springer Hillbilly special.
Please please tell me you're not thats stupid?
Look again sweetie. offences
? :lol
-
He finally bends his brow and he comes up with this. Have you lost your mind? They teach you this in school?
You think if somebody is shot, killed, raped, robbed,burgled, theft, they aren't going to report it in high crime areas? People can pick up their cell phones and make reports on the phone now days. My hands go numb from all the reports I write.
If theres any magic show going on its down at a Police stats office where they can go <poof> and turn water into wine.
Look again sweetie. ? :lol
Wow. Your the pinnacle of civil debate, aren't you?
If our crime reporting is so infalliable than why would we employ two different statistical methods? The UCR and the NCVS?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/appendices/07-append04.html
Rich46yo, your arguments smack of elitism.
I'm not the one that sounds like I just stepped off a Jerry Springer Hillbilly special.
Vulcan, you aren't helping with this crap either.
-
Wow. Your the pinnacle of civil debate, aren't you?
If our crime reporting is so infalliable than why would we employ two different statistical methods? The UCR and the NCVS?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/appendices/07-append04.html
Rich46yo, your arguments smack of elitism.
Vulcan, you aren't helping with this crap either.
I wasn't talking to you Bong. Your argument smacks of nosiness. I don't even know what NCVS means or stands for, I'm just an uneducated ghetto beat cop. Hows that for "elitism"? But just maybe I have a bit of insight after these decades on the street side.
Stand up for Vulcan and you might be grouped with him. And he's a fool.
-
Take the time to read just a wee bit in the link and you'll find all you need to know about the NCVS. It even discusses it's differences with the UCR.
Was covered in the first week of my intro to Criminal Justice course. High School stuff.
As for my defending Vulcan; I stepped in to agree that crime reports and statistics are indeed often misleading.
I don't really want to take either of your sides anymore, your both arguing like 13 year olds would.
-
I don't really want to take either of your sides anymore, your both arguing like 13 year olds would.
Dont try and fool Uncle Rich. Uncle Rich knows you are reading this. Yes,yes,yes,yes,yes. You cant fool uncle Rich.
Take the time to read just a wee bit in the link and you'll find all you need to know about the NCVS. It even discusses it's differences with the UCR.
I just spent 25 years without even reading UCR. Why would I read NCVS, "whatever that is". Who cares?
Was covered in the first week of my intro to Criminal Justice course. High School stuff.
I spent my high school years killing brain cells. And the last 25 trying to keep alive the few I have left. Oh I took criminal justice in college :lol What can I say my friend? Except, "da class doan be ateachin da street".
As for my defending Vulcan; I stepped in to agree that crime reports and statistics are indeed often misleading.
"Misleading" doesnt even come close to describing this nonsense. Ive seen "armies" sent out to catch the rapist of a rich white girl and "armies of 1" sent out to catch the killer of some poor black kid who happened to live in the wrong zip code. I could fill a book on the crap Ive seen with stats, numbers, paper, and crime. Poor folks report crime too. We "society" just don't give a damn about it.
Anyway, have a nice day. Sorry if my style hurt your feelings.
-
I just spent 25 years without even reading UCR. Why would I read NCVS, "whatever that is". Who cares?
You don't have to read any NCVS report. But reading a simple description of what it is won't hurt and I would think you would care. Your the one picking a bone of contention with Vulcan about crime reporting and statistics.
Here, let me spoon feed it to you in case you decide to care about "whatever it is".
The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the Nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces valuable information about aspects of the Nation's crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the information they produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the Nation's crime problem than either could produce alone.
----------------------------------------------
The NCVS collects information on crimes suffered by individuals and households, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. It estimates the proportion of each crime type reported to law enforcement, and it summarizes the reasons that victims give for reporting or not reporting.
Anyway, have a nice day. Sorry if my style hurt your feelings.
Now I'm confused. Do you want disscussion or are you just here to troll? You try to make your point but when provided the opportunity to learn something new and relevant to the conversation you "don't care" or can't be bothered to read.
-
He finally bends his brow and he comes up with this. Have you lost your mind? They teach you this in school?
You think if somebody is shot, killed, raped, robbed,burgled, theft, they aren't going to report it in high crime areas? People can pick up their cell phones and make reports on the phone now days. My hands go numb from all the reports I write.
If theres any magic show going on its down at a Police stats office where they can go <poof> and turn water into wine.
Look again sweetie. ? :lol
Any law enforcement agency will tell you that reporting varies. For example a simple shove in a low crime area will be reported as an assault, in a high crime area it will most likely go unreported. Back to the donuts rich ;)
-
What are your qualifications to even have this discussion with me? Both of you. Vulcan and his lawyer.
None?
Then see below.
-
What are your qualifications to even have this discussion with me? Both of you. Vulcan and his lawyer.
None?
Then see below.
I claim 9 credit hours in Criminal Justice study and an interest in the subject we were discussing. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic though. Just like their isn't something about non-USA citizens posting, I didn't realize we were to be vetted before posting!
Dunno about Vulcan but he seems civil and willing to discuss the subject.
With the quality of your last couple of response's I'm really not seeing a point to this thread anymore.
-
With the quality of your last couple of response's I'm really not seeing a point to this thread anymore.
Me either, I have a response, but it's not worth typing.
-
Incorrect. The thing with comparing crime rates is quite often the worse the true crime rate the lower the reported crimes, and in countries with low crime rates there is a higher rate of reporting for more minor offences. Look at gun murder rates as true example, in the USA you're 29 times that of NZ - and NZ still has a relatively high gun ownership level (especially compared to the UK), forgot what it was vs the UK.
Yeah vulcan..... now try per capita. NZ has about as many folks as Houston Texas.
-
Yeah vulcan..... now try per capita. NZ has about as many folks as Houston Texas.
OK, your 29 times more likely to be murdered by a firearm in the USA PER CAPITA vs NZ PER CAPITA.
Happy now? Do you people not go to school in the South? The total murders rate vs NZ is actually 9,369:10, or in simple terms there are 936.9 (yes NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX POINT NINE) people in the USA killed by a gun for every person in NZ killed by a gun.
Now, the gun ownership rate in NZ is ~ 1 firearm for every 4 people. There's 4 million people, and 1.1 million firearms (and growing). So there's no lack of firearms, now you do the numbers and tell me why you're 29 times more likely to be shoot and die than me?
-
OK, your 29 times more likely to be murdered by a firearm in the USA PER CAPITA vs NZ PER CAPITA.
Happy now? Do you people not go to school in the South? The total murders rate vs NZ is actually 9,369:10, or in simple terms there are 936.9 (yes NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX POINT NINE) people in the USA killed by a gun for every person in NZ killed by a gun.
Now, the gun ownership rate in NZ is ~ 1 firearm for every 4 people. There's 4 million people, and 1.1 million firearms (and growing). So there's no lack of firearms, now you do the numbers and tell me why you're 29 times more likely to be shoot and die than me?
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? An area with more guns per capita has less firearm deaths per capita than an area with fewer guns per capita?
Could it mean that guns don't kill people, but are simply a tool used by bad people to do bad things? If we took the tool away, would they be good then? Or just use a different tool.
I must admit, I've used the top edge of a crescent wrench, or even the handle of a screw driver when my hammer was the better tool but wasn't easily available... And I once used a vise-grips to change a tire when it was discovered that the lug wrench had vanished. In the end, the tire was just as fixed as it would have been had I had the "better" tool. Could that mean that bad people would just use a different tool to accomplish they're bad act if we took the preferred tool away?
-
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? An area with more guns per capita has less firearm deaths per capita than an area with fewer guns per capita?
Could it mean that guns don't kill people, but are simply a tool used by bad people to do bad things? If we took the tool away, would they be good then? Or just use a different tool.
I must admit, I've used the top edge of a crescent wrench, or even the handle of a screw driver when my hammer was the better tool but wasn't easily available... And I once used a vise-grips to change a tire when it was discovered that the lug wrench had vanished. In the end, the tire was just as fixed as it would have been had I had the "better" tool. Could that mean that bad people would just use a different tool to accomplish they're bad act if we took the preferred tool away?
of course they would, i get sick of these people who try to tell us that guns are "bad", its a f#@king joke,
just like the neighbor i had who complained that i had piranha, in my house,"there such evil fish". same person called the cops because i had Alligators in my house!! to bad when the cops showed up, they were so impressed with my enclosure, they told me i did an incredible job, and they were not expecting to see what they did, they were told that they were loose and running around my house and were a danger to my kids! well the cops left and i kept my Alligators.
point being Ya if i let them run around my house they would have been dangerous BUT i did not, so they were not!!!!!!!
same thing with guns, except guns, its even more so such an idiotic idea that guns are "evil", and if you believe that guns are "evil" you are an idiot plain and simple!!!!!!
-
French saying : "People that know the least have the strongest opinions" :D
I was anti guns ownership, started top research about them, go to the range and gunshows. Last weekend as a matter of fact, I was at Salt Lake's gun show, a teen girl was waiting in line with an Ak47 on her back. Would have horrified me a couple of years ago, but now I felt "rock on kid".
It's like many things, you see half bred with guns that ruin it for everybody else.
-
OK, your 29 times more likely to be murdered by a firearm in the USA PER CAPITA vs NZ PER CAPITA.
Happy now? Do you people not go to school in the South? The total murders rate vs NZ is actually 9,369:10, or in simple terms there are 936.9 (yes NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX POINT NINE) people in the USA killed by a gun for every person in NZ killed by a gun.
Now, the gun ownership rate in NZ is ~ 1 firearm for every 4 people. There's 4 million people, and 1.1 million firearms (and growing). So there's no lack of firearms, now you do the numbers and tell me why you're 29 times more likely to be shoot and die than me?
The US has about 350 million folks including illegals. So about 87.75% more folks. So per capita the US would be much less than NZ.
-
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? An area with more guns per capita has less firearm deaths per capita than an area with fewer guns per capita?
mtnman, the USA has MORE deaths per capita. Even if you take more guns into account the USA still has 10x more deaths per capita.
Seriously, do you guys not understand per capita?
-
ink...we can tell the morons of this planet who feel compelled to nose in and meddle in other countries and other people's affairs from oceans away or down the street to BUTT OUT...but it won't do any good...
They know EVERYTHING, and that gives them the Cod given right to impress their beliefs on everyone else.
Really...all it shows is that they are bad neighbors--weather 14,000 miles away or 3 houses away.
I guess we should all go to foreign forums and start pontificating on how we think they should live their lives....
No wait...let's not.
That would be.....I don't know........
RUDE.
ROX
-
ink...we can tell the morons of this planet who feel compelled to nose in and meddle in other countries and other people's affairs from oceans away or down the street to BUTT OUT...but it won't do any good...
They know EVERYTHING, and that gives them the Cod given right to impress their beliefs on everyone else.
Really...all it shows is that they are bad neighbors--weather 14,000 miles away or 3 houses away.
I guess we should all go to foreign forums and start pontificating on how we think they should live their lives....
No wait...let's not.
That would be.....I don't know........
RUDE.
ROX
Given the USA like to stick it's nose into other countries business on a daily basis, trying to tell them how to write their laws and live their lives, you might want to stop and think about what you're saying. Posts on this BBS criticizing other countries, their citizens and the way they live are not unusual. Yet you don't like it the other way around.
It makes me sad this thread contains all of the poorly thought uneducated hipocritical tripe american's are often stereotyped with overseas.
-
Vulcan---We're not talking about what happens between governments --we're talking about people on this board who want to poke their nose in, pontificate and meddle in what others chose to do.
(This guy isn't the sharpest crayon in the box, is he?)
ROX
-
nm..not worth it
-
(http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/ee323/gtothet21/Windmill_beard.jpg)
-
Given the USA like to stick it's nose into other countries business on a daily basis, trying to tell them how to write their laws and live their lives, you might want to stop and think about what you're saying. Posts on this BBS criticizing other countries, their citizens and the way they live are not unusual. Yet you don't like it the other way around.
It makes me sad this thread contains all of the poorly thought uneducated hipocritical tripe american's are often stereotyped with overseas.
Funny how so many other countries don't like our meddling.... but they keep their hand out for more money. I personally fell we should keep our business here in the States and keep our money too.
-
Vulcan---We're not talking about what happens between governments --we're talking about people on this board who want to poke their nose in, pontificate and meddle in what others chose to do.
(This guy isn't the sharpest crayon in the box, is he?)
ROX
Rox, it appears from your posts that your literacy is somewhat challenged so I'll explain things for you.
I'm pro gun. I own a gun. My original post was pointing out that the reasoning on points being made was invalid, and illogical, and easily disproven and there are better ways to get your point across. In fact I agreed that the US situation for firearms is fairly unique and in no way think changing the laws would help you.
However, in a brilliant exhibition of illiteracy, grammar and language that would make Jerry Spring proud, and demonstration in the mathematics that has sent NASA probes slamming into the surface of mars you and a few others came out fighting and shouting me down rather than listening.
So, if some liberal starts passing gun laws in the future crippling your rights, I'll sit on the sidelines here laughing and telling you I told you so :)
-
Vulcan....since it appears you don't have the intellect to tie your own shoes...I'll type this R-e-a-l s-l-o-w, so who ever reading it to you can explain the more complicate over 4 letter words....
Unless you have already renounced your New Zealand citizenship, moved to America, become a nationalized citizen....
Nobody gives a chunky PILE what your thoughts are on American Gun laws....PERIOD. You are NOT a US citizen!
Please feel to stick you weapon.
The topic has always been gun laws in America (PLEASE read original article---published by a Wisconsin group). Please realize--your Anti-American axe to grind doesn't help either.
What a flippin' troll.
ROX
-
LOL ohhh I just don't know what to say except you should apologise to the rest of the US population.
-
Funny how so many other countries don't like our meddling.... but they keep their hand out for more money. I personally fell we should keep our business here in the States and keep our money too.
While I agree with you, and am also constantly frustrated with the world view of the US, I think I understand it. Everyone knows we are their Daddy. Where would they be if enemies were at their door with no fear of America stepping in? It's so frustrating for them they rebel by throwing out the same ol bashes of the Greatest Country in the world. I just remind myself that we have great people out there helping us hold this world together the best they can. So, we keep helping them when they need it cause that's what we do.
Is your bellybutton in a bind? Call us.
Everything a-ok, go ahead and trash us, we'll still be there when you need us. :salute
-
LOL ohhh I just don't know what to say except you should apologise to the rest of the US population.
The rest of the US population says pretty much the same thing.....
BUTT OUT!
If you don't like America, don't come here.
I find your Anti-American axe grinding in here insulting and offensive.
ROX
-
mtnman, the USA has MORE deaths per capita. Even if you take more guns into account the USA still has 10x more deaths per capita.
Seriously, do you guys not understand per capita?
I understood you perfectly Vulcan. You guys have more guns per capita, but fewer gun-related deaths per capita. That would seem to indicate that gun ownership doesn't lead to gun crime.
I think you missed something.
The second point of my response was that if people choose to do something, they will find a tool to make it happen, even if the tool they want isn't available. Hence- if someone wants to commit a crime, but doesn't have access to a gun, they'll still find a way to commit the crime.
An interesting "research project" might be to see if folks committed less crime before firearms were even invented. That could be a way to link crime to guns. Good luck with that.
-
i think what scares some people is that guns are too easy to kill with. You have to throttle someone with your bare hands you've got a few minutes to reconsider while youre doing it. Once you pull that trigger, a half second action, its all over. Note: i said people, not me, i like guns and wish i could own a rifle to play with.
-
You may be right Mechanic, but there are other fears.
What scares my nearly 70 year old mother would be someone telling her that she can't carry her KalTec .32 or her preferred 357. What chance does she have in a fight? I'm sure she has a better chance armed.
What scares me is that this is being challenged. So, yes, I am clutching onto my guns, and my constitution.
We benefit from our second amendment's statement that we can own guns for a specific reason. Here it is again...
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Because of these words, some states have avenues to get a concealled carry permit to legally carry a gun. I am glad I live in one of those states. I also believe that if another state wants to ban that right they can go ahead, and they have in New York State.
You may argue the definition, but I don't. I just keep shooting and cleaning my guns. I Keep them and myself in working condition in case anything comes up that may call for them. That doesn't mean self defense only. It feels good to know how to use a gun and respect it's power. It feels even better that it is there in case I need it.
-
What scares alot of the world is that American's seem live in a country where old age pensioners need to fight at all.
edit: dont get me wrong, armed grannies sounds awesome to me
-
What scares alot of the world is that American's seem live in a country where old age pensioners need to fight at all.
edit: dont get me wrong, armed grannies sounds awesome to me
Actually they don't need to fight for the vast majority of the time. They just want the option to be able to fight instead of just being a victim. Other folks want to remove that option because they are uncomfortable with it.
-
I understand that sentiment and respect it. Its almost like a warrior code. Some old guy 80+ can either say
'Ok, take my wallet i dont want any trouble'
or can say
'Screw you punk, over my dead body'
..and mean it.
It is a fine option to have in life, i truly mean that. Sad when a fifteen year old decides to take these matters into their own hands at such young age, but this happens in all countries with or without guns.
Samurai carried deadly weapons and if you attacked them it was your life or thiers. There is something primal and natural about the law on guns in America and this i agree with fully. What you must also accept is that not having guns the same code exists, it just takes more skill to stay alive.
-
i think what scares some people is that guns are too easy to kill with.
It's been awhile since I looked into it, so this may have changed, but last I heard guns were the #3 preferred weapon for murder, following blunt force instruments, and knives.
My understanding of it was in non pre-meditated cases, guns weren't usually immediately available, but heavy blunt objects almost always are. In pre-meditated instances, two desires rear thier heads. One, to get away with it, and two, to make it "personal". Knives accomplish both, guns not so much because of the noise and the attention it draws.
If that's still the case what does it accomplish to attack the #3 problem, while ignoring the two largest problems?
If we step away from murder and look at "accidental" deaths instead, guns fall even further behind. Falls in and around the home is #1, and motor vehicle accidents are leaps and bounds ahead of firearms.
What's going to be accomplished by removing firearms????
IMO, anyone lobbying for firearms restrictions had better have a pretty clean slate. Things like drinking to excess, or drinking at all before driving, smoking (especially in public, sharing your smoke), not wearing seatbelts, or helmets on motorcycles are bigger issues than firearms. Heck, eliminating backyard swimming pools and trampolines would probably have a bigger safety impact.
-
It's been awhile since I looked into it, so this may have changed, but last I heard guns were the #3 preferred weapon for murder, following blunt force instruments, and knives.
My understanding of it was in non pre-meditated cases, guns weren't usually immediately available, but heavy blunt objects almost always are. In pre-meditated instances, two desires rear thier heads. One, to get away with it, and two, to make it "personal". Knives accomplish both, guns not so much because of the noise and the attention it draws.
If that's still the case what does it accomplish to attack the #3 problem, while ignoring the two largest problems?
If we step away from murder and look at "accidental" deaths instead, guns fall even further behind. Falls in and around the home is #1, and motor vehicle accidents are leaps and bounds ahead of firearms.
What's going to be accomplished by removing firearms????
IMO, anyone lobbying for firearms restrictions had better have a pretty clean slate. Things like drinking to excess, or drinking at all before driving, smoking (especially in public, sharing your smoke), not wearing seatbelts, or helmets on motorcycles are bigger issues than firearms. Heck, eliminating backyard swimming pools and trampolines would probably have a bigger safety impact.
Here Here!!
Absolutely the best and most intelligent argument i have read!
:salute to you MTNMAN
-
gun crime stats aside, i still think grannies with guns is a must for this country.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw&feature=related
-
I understood you perfectly Vulcan. You guys have more guns per capita, but fewer gun-related deaths per capita. That would seem to indicate that gun ownership doesn't lead to gun crime.
I think you missed something.
The second point of my response was that if people choose to do something, they will find a tool to make it happen, even if the tool they want isn't available. Hence- if someone wants to commit a crime, but doesn't have access to a gun, they'll still find a way to commit the crime.
An interesting "research project" might be to see if folks committed less crime before firearms were even invented. That could be a way to link crime to guns. Good luck with that.
The big difference is the type of ownership and attitude to ownership in NZ. Handgun ownership is very low (due to gun laws), most ownership is rifles and shotguns. "Officially" the laws on MSSA's are restrictive, but all you have to do is modify the stock and put a small magazine on a semi and it's no longer classed as a MSSA.
The laws here are focussed more on safety, to get a firearms license involves a background check, safety test, inspection of premises for suitable storage, and a US$60 fee. Once you get your license it's valid for 10 years and renewals are easy. Because the license requires some effort it puts a lot of people of doing it on a whim.
I don't think firearms restrictions lower crime rates, as you say if someone wants to they will. I also agree that in the USA CCW laws do work to reduce crime. But if a crime is commited without a firearm then the likelihood of a death is greatly reduced. For example, if you caught someone breaking into your car in NZ, they are highly likely to simply run away, whereas in the USA the chances they could shoot you are far higher.
Problem is (that anti-gun people don't get when they look at our relatively low gun crime rates) that in NZ we've never had a gun 'problem' or high handgun ownership (especially in the hands of criminals). So would laws like ours work in the USA? No, because the environment at the time they were applied is vastly different <- that is the point the pro gun people in the USA need to highlight to the anti-gun people IMHO.
-
I understand your point Vulcan, and have long agreed.
In effect, tightening the laws here in the US has the effect of clamping down on the legal, law abiding citizen, while doing nothing to the criminals.
A case in point- the 10 round clip maximum, which has expired, allowed me only 10 tries to defend myself against what ever the criminal decided to bring. Laughable.
In reality, "they'll" never be able to purge the US of firearms. Even if all the law-abiding citizens turned theirs in, the criminals wouldn't. It'd be like putting a wolf in with the sheep, and padding the sheeps hooves so they wouldn't hurt the wolves by kicking them.
-
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A lot of people are getting confused by the words in here, so I'll break it down for people to better understand the whole meaning of it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" This is the big one a lot of people are getting confused on. Some think that the term Militia, means, should mean, or is superseded by the National Guard. It does not. The term militia was commonly used then to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. The National Guard, is more an adjunct to the regular Army. Yes, it is composed of ordinary citizens, and called upon in times of emergency, to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or military service, in times of emergency, but they are also committed to a term of service.
Let's look at the last part,
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Seems pretty clear there, no unambiguous language at all.
So lets put it all together.
"A well regulated Militia, (ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service,) being necessary to the security of a free State, (everyone should help defend against foreign invaders, and domestic, tyrants, to keep everyone's rights) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What are people not getting here?
-
I understand that sentiment and respect it. Its almost like a warrior code. Some old guy 80+ can either say
'Ok, take my wallet i dont want any trouble'
or can say
'Screw you punk, over my dead body'
..and mean it.
It is a fine option to have in life, i truly mean that. Sad when a fifteen year old decides to take these matters into their own hands at such young age, but this happens in all countries with or without guns.
Samurai carried deadly weapons and if you attacked them it was your life or thiers. There is something primal and natural about the law on guns in America and this i agree with fully. What you must also accept is that not having guns the same code exists, it just takes more skill to stay alive.
gun crime stats aside, i still think grannies with guns is a must for this country.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw&feature=related
Ok, you have a nice vid, but the samurai garbage is BS.
Are you saying those with skill should survive and the rest...oh well? The flaw is something those like you will never understand. Gunpowder has been discovered. People will always be able to make weapons, and Samuri's have many advantages in a fight as long as guns aren't present.
I'm starting to think I shouldn't even bother, but other sheep may be waiting to follow you.
-
Oh, just saw you are from UK. Enjoy your supersoaker water gun maybe Jack the Ripper's ancestors are afraid of water. :D