Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on September 25, 2003, 02:54:37 PM
-
A: sportsmen don't shoot at cops. But how can you tell the difference until after the fact? Its not illegal to own an SKS assault rifle. Yet. Should it be?
Personally, I think there's a limit at which rifles beyond a certain capability are a bit of overkill, even for hunting. I don't know much about guns, but I can't think of any useful purpose for an assault rifle in the hands of civilians.
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2003/09/25/Southpinellas/Valor_medals_stir_wou.shtml
That night, Virden was on regular patrol in his squad car with rookie Officer Troy Gardner. A detective announced over the police radio that a Chevrolet Caprice wanted in a drive-by shooting was at 22nd Avenue S and Seventh Street. Virden saw the Chevrolet, pulled behind it and flipped on his lights and siren.
But the Chevrolet sped through four red lights and onto the interstate. With Virden close behind, two men in the Chevrolet sat in the open windows. They fired SKS assault rifles.
A bullet hit the squad car's spotlight. Another sailed through the windshield, hit Virden's ball cap and grazed his head. It pierced the plexiglass prisoner barrier and blew out the rear window.
Police Chief Chuck Harmon visited Virden in the hospital the night of the shooting. "It was frightening to see the copper jacket from the bullet lodged in his hat," Harmon said in announcing the awards in the Bayfront Center.
-
the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting
-
It's illegal to own an SKS in the great state of Cauleeforneeya.
-
An SKS is a low-powered rifle - using quite weak 7.62x39 round with a 120 grain low-velocity bullet. It is barely good for short-range hunting of a medium-size game.
It is not even qualified as an assault rifle because it does not have a detacheable magazine - has to be re-loaded with a clip. It is also quite long and rather heavy.
The only reason it is banned in many locales (NYC) is that it is a rifle that was actually used by some militaries.
Its only advanatges are reliability, extremely low cost for a semi-auto rifle (~$200) and cheap ammo - ~8 cents per round.
And it's not automatic - it's semi-auto.
miko
-
What's sporting about shooting bambi with an assault rifle on full auto?
Even worse, what's sporting about shooting bambi with an arrow, and having it run off and slowly bleed to death where it can't be found.
If you want sport, buy a turtle, take it to the local K school yard and let the kids play with it during recess, and then just before the bell rings beat it to a club with a club in front of every one.
The sport is deflecting all the hate mail and the national TV coverage you'll get.
The sport is defending your self against the SPCA, and all the other "we love animals" nuts who'll picket your house and yell at you as you drive to work, to the store, and where ever else you want to go.
The sport is defending your self against the blood sucking lawyers wanting to sue you for the "tramua" you inflicted upon young psychies.
Now that's a sports man and a real man.
-
I did a quick search and found this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873647858/ref=ase_gunnersden-20/103-1118545-4627065?v=glance&s=books
Seems the SKS can be made full-auto with "simple hand tools" for "recreational full-auto fire". But remember, this is just an academic study and you aren't supposed to actually do what the books says. ;)
You can also get 30-round quick-change magazines for it.
-
The SKS is a commie rifle that was obsolete by the time WWII ended. Don't know FL's gun laws, but they are not "assault rifles" under federal law. In fact, they are actually considered "curios & relicas", and if you have a C&R license ($30 fee and some paperwork/wait), you can have one shipped to your doorstep.
-
The second amendent doesn't say a thing about hunting. It does say something about security.
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with an assault rifle, I want the right to have one.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
What's sporting about shooting bambi with an assault rifle on full auto?
Even worse, what's sporting about shooting bambi with an arrow, and having it run off and slowly bleed to death where it can't be found.
If you want sport, buy a turtle, take it to the local K school yard and let the kids play with it during recess, and then just before the bell rings beat it to a club with a club in front of every one.
The sport is deflecting all the hate mail and the national TV coverage you'll get.
The sport is defending your self against the SPCA, and all the other "we love animals" nuts who'll picket your house and yell at you as you drive to work, to the store, and where ever else you want to go.
The sport is defending your self against the blood sucking lawyers wanting to sue you for the "tramua" you inflicted upon young psychies.
Now that's a sports man and a real man.
Oh where do I start? Full Auto weapons are illegal, unless you have a Federal Collectors Permit from the ATF.
Bow hunter's rarely lose their prey. The stalking, tracking and packing is 3/4 of the hunt.
As for the rest, please consult a local Psychologist or other Mental Health professional. You have some serious issues to work out.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
The second amendent doesn't say a thing about hunting. It does say something about security.
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with an assault rifle, I want the right to have one.
A single-action Winchester would work just as well, wouldn't it? Do you really need a full-auto SKS (oh, sorry, that book is just for academic study so yours would just be semi-auto) with a 30-round clip?
Incidentally, during my quick research about SKS assault rifles, I discovered there's an active market for silencers for them, too.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with an assault rifle, I want the right to have one.
Although I don't agree with people owning assault rifles, you make a good point. The hollywood shootout comes to mind, they even had full body armor.
-
Why would a single action Winchester work just as well as an SKS for home/national defense? There's a reason soldiers carry assault rifles and not hunting rifles.
-
LOL Nexus, you are a twisted bastard! That had me rolling. :D
-
The SKS is not an assault rifle; not by federal law, nor by the commonly accepted military definition. Is that clear enough? The term "assault rifle" gets so abused in the media - conflated with fully-automatic weapons and weapons of other illegal configuration - it is no wonder people are so confused on what the issue actually is.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with an assault rifle, I want the right to have one.
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with a nuclear bomb, I want the right to have one.
Signed,
Your loving raghead leader of Iran and "i love them 70s glases" nutcase of North Korea.
:D
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Until you can absolutely guarantee that no one will ever show up at my door with a nuclear bomb, I want the right to have one.
Signed,
Your loving raghead leader of Iran and "i love them 70s glases" nutcase of North Korea.
:D
And I wouldn't want a "nutcase" owning an assault rifle either. Current laws (at least in Michigan) don't allow for a person with mental problems to purchase a weapon, and likewise, a regime with a history of 'mental problems' shouldn't be able to either. And I think this is exactly the way it should be. You have no history of doing stupid things, there's no reason not to trust you with a weapon.
But then we get into issues of who decides what a mental problem is, and things get a little sticky.
-
Well Tarmac, would you agree that governments that generally behave aggresivelly and BREAK TREATIES AND PROMISES COULD BE CONSIDERED MENTALY UNSTABLE ???
I'll get you to frog bastard !!! :D
-
Lol, I see what you're getting at.
And yes, by that definition, maybe. All I can do is hope that the next presidential election fixes that instability problem we have here. :)
-
Oh yeah, and that mental instability you're referring to in certain countries is all the more reason that I think we need to be able to go out and buy assault rifles. :)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
The SKS is not an assault rifle; not by federal law, nor by the commonly accepted military definition. Is that clear enough? The term "assault rifle" gets so abused in the media - conflated with fully-automatic weapons and weapons of other illegal configuration - it is no wonder people are so confused on what the issue actually is.
Someone help me out here i'm ignorant on this subject. How does the law define "Assualt rifles"? If I was half as smart as a waterhead head cashier at the Wal-mart I would word the law so that "fully automatic" would define an assault rifle, not necessarily the make and model.
-
Tarmac-
If it ever comes down to you and the NRA defending the USA from whatever with your guns....we're already too far gone for you guys to save.
But whatever...knock yourself out.
I personally don't see why you need an M-60 to go deerhunting. I would get it if the deer carried guns too.
And what's with the silencers? Afraid you'll scare other deer away?
Hell, I own 2 guns. I don't hunt. I go to the A&P when I'm hungry. I keep a 20 gauge shotgun in my closet in case anyone breaks into my house and harms my family.
I had a 30/30. I brought it to be cleaned, and the smith told me if I fired it and missed, it could go through the neighbors house too. Translation: too much gun. It's unnecessary for it's purpose.
Tarmac, do you go to that survivalist training thing too? You know like the Michigan Militia and all? Just curious.
-
Who's to say what guns I should or should not have. Who's to say what religion I should or should not practice. Who's to say what kind of liturature I should or should not write.
This is Freedom...
Its been paid for in blood by my anscestors and yours.
It slaps them in the face everytime our constitution is chissled away at.
NOw that the patriotic rant is over with (I beleive in every word I said up there) Gun control is about controling fire arms of law abiding citizens. Its no secret that MOST violent crimes that are commited with guns are done by poeple who get this guns unlawfully.
Why control the guns, make new laws, or harrass normal law abiding citizens when most of the current laws WORK they just arnt enforced all that much.
Look at Canada, england, and especially austrailia...when they banned guns crime involving guns went up 300%
The constitution is a non-negotiable contract!
-
-------------------------------
An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.
--------------------------------
From:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Not the actual law, but I got tired of sifting through legal webpages.
-
But heres another point to consider.
I can almost guarantee, if you look up the records, most crimes are committed by illegal HANDGUNS. I would bet 90% are unregistered and therefore illegal.
I don't think the anti-gun lobby should be after the assault weapons. If you want to protect the public, find a way to enforce we already have regarding handguns.
(I still think autos are overkill, but it's not my hobby)
-
Originally posted by AcId
Someone help me out here i'm ignorant on this subject. How does the law define "Assualt rifles"? If I was half as smart as a waterhead head cashier at the Wal-mart I would word the law so that "fully automatic" would define an assault rifle, not necessarily the make and model.
1. Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(1) Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models);
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC70)
(4) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(5) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(6) Steyr AUG
(7) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 and
(8) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper
and Striker 2;
2. A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(1) a folding or telescopic stock;
(2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(3) a bayonet mount;
(4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor; and
(5) a grenade launcher;
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The constitution is a non-negotiable contract!
Actually, don't amendments change the constitution?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Tarmac-
If it ever comes down to you and the NRA defending the USA from whatever with your guns....we're already too far gone for you guys to save.
Tarmac, do you go to that survivalist training thing too? You know like the Michigan Militia and all? Just curious.
Heh, nope.
I don't own a gun. The extent of my firearms experience is taking my dad's shotguns out to the trap range, or when I was younger, duck hunting.
That being said, I do believe that it's important to be able to get one if I wanted it, for whatever reason.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
But heres another point to consider.
I can almost guarantee, if you look up the records, most crimes are committed by illegal HANDGUNS. I would bet 90% are unregistered and therefore illegal.
I don't think the anti-gun lobby should be after the assault weapons. If you want to protect the public, find a way to enforce we already have regarding handguns.
(I still think autos are overkill, but it's not my hobby)
Lol Muck, whose side are you on here anyways? :)
-
Originally posted by gofaster
A single-action Winchester would work just as well, wouldn't it? Do you really need a full-auto SKS (oh, sorry, that book is just for academic study so yours would just be semi-auto) with a 30-round clip?
Incidentally, during my quick research about SKS assault rifles, I discovered there's an active market for silencers for them, too.
If you knew what you where talking about you would know the following.
1) Silencers don't work on supersonic ( >1200FPS) rounds for rather obvious reasons.
2) Full auto (pull trigger = fires until empty or jammed) is way over rated in rifles. I would run towards the guy with full auto over the guy with semi any time.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Lol Muck, whose side are you on here anyways? :)
This may throw you off, but I'm on the side of...well, uh..keeping an open mind and being honest.
My honest assessment?
I think the guys who want the full auto's and semi-auto's and nickel plated thingy don't want to impress the deer. I'm guessing their repressed military guys who still want to play army. Hell, I like paintball, dressing up in camo and looking like a schmuck, too.
The gun nuts are not expecting the black helo's to land, or Al quaida to invade. Those that do are paranoid, and scare me.
Hunting is a cop out. You don't need a bazooka to take out a Mallard. Let's be real here.
But that being said, I'd bet if you look at the records, aside from a fre sensationalized cases, most crimes are committed by handguns. Why? Easy to conceal, easy to operate, easy to get. I'd bet coming in second would be shot guns. Why? Easy to get.
So keep the Auto gun laws as is. The law-abiding folks will fill out the paperwork, go through the waiting period, and then go blow Daffy and Bambi to kingdom come.
Your trying to regulate people by regulating their tools. I'd wager, if you outlawed every firearm in the world..I mean tool them all away, there's be some guy knocking over a liquor store with a butter knife. And you can't outlaw those. What would we spread marmalade with?
The crooks ain't buying their guns at Wal-mart folks.
-
If criminals threw lawyers at cops as they tried to escape, would we outlaw lawyers?
-
Originally posted by Drunky
If criminals threw lawyers at cops as they tried to escape, would we outlaw lawyers?
A man could dream.....
-
this thread is silly , everybody knows criminals arn't allowed to have guns.
-
My brother brought a CHI-COM SKS home from Vietnam, but he captured it in Cambodia. Its a nice, reliable weapon with folding pig sticker on the end and a built in cleaning kit in the wooden stock. It isn't full auto though.
-
gofaster: A single-action Winchester would work just as well, wouldn't it? Do you really need a full-auto SKS...
That's the issue of freedom. Once it is not up to a person to decide what he really needs, the actual topic becomes academic and the government a tyrany.
If you do admit he has a right to decide, than it ceases to be a legal argument and just becomes an issue of preference or taste. At $200 it also becomes academic. One can practice with a real round at only double the price of a good 22lr round. Why the heck not own one if you have room in a safe?
One would have to be crazy to have a defensive rifle that is not at least semi-auto. True - some people can achieve equal results with a lever or pump action. If they train constantly. And have use of both hands.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I think the guys who want the full auto's and semi-auto's and nickel plated thingy don't want to impress the deer. I'm guessing their repressed military guys who still want to play army. Hell, I like paintball, dressing up in camo and looking like a schmuck, too.
The gun nuts are not expecting the black helo's to land, or Al quaida to invade. Those that do are paranoid, and scare me.
Hunting is a cop out. You don't need a bazooka to take out a Mallard. Let's be real here.
The suitable/not suitable for hunting criteria is the argument brought up by gun control advocates. And it is irrelevant to the assault weapons and machine gun issues, because even people who own such firearms (such as myself) admit they have little value, if any, as hunting weapons. The point being that there are legitmate, legal reasons for owning such weapons that don't involve hunting at all.
-
muckmaw: The gun nuts are not expecting the black helo's to land, or Al quaida to invade. Those that do are paranoid, and scare me.
There are other much more likelier scenarios than those you cited. That is beside defence from common criminals.
Of course it is too much to expect you to actually read - and understand - the real arguments of those people whom you've already decided to be nuts.
BTW, if I were stockpiling weapons, I would be saying it's against Al-Qaeda too. Everybody seems to be doing that - starting with Bush.
miko
-
I can almost guarantee, if you look up the records, most crimes are committed by illegal HANDGUNS. I would bet 90% are unregistered and therefore illegal
what law is it that would make an unregistered handgun illegal? as far as I knew you only had to register them for concealed carry. purchases of new firearms or from licensed dealers are recorded and dealers are required to keep records, but except in some areas with an unhealthy paranoia towards pistols, I was unaware that we where required to submit any lists of guns owned (not damn likely).
-
The whole "assault rifle" mess is a huge morass. One part smoke screen put up by the media, one part pure BS put out by the anti gun lobby. 2 Parts of missmashed lousy writting by our own politicians & goverment.
What you have is such an unholy mix no one can touch the word without getting dirty.
Fact remains I have a simple .22lr semi auto that I used to hunt squirells, & gophers with that with the addition of a cheap plastic folding stock becomes an Assault rifle. Time to rewrite that bs and make it reasonable, & sensible.
On hunting, NO one is legally allowed to hunt big game with full auto in any state I'm familar with. Been that way for decades & I've got 14 years experience as a hunter safety instructor to back that statement up.
So leave hunting out of it period.
Frankly if you get caught with an illegal full auto you'd better shoot yourself with it. Darn sure you'd never see daylight again.
So whats left is a wide assortment of semi auto rifles that some say are "dangerous".
Well DUH! But so are the bolts, the levers, & the pump actions!
They are RIFLE's for pete's sake.
They are a tool, one that happened to be designed to kill. But still just a tool.
You don't see anyone writing regulations about hammers over 2 pounds do you?
Well take away the guns & the knifes & the hammers will be next.
I used to get real hot about gun control back when I was young. I'm a bit older now, & when they come for mine its still going to be a coin flip on how it goes.
Guy asking better ask nice is all I'll say.
The whole point of this is the sheer fact that I have guns keeps our goverment honest.
They know they can only go so far before a bunch of people say enough & take matters into their own hands.
AS IT SHOULD BE!
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I personally don't see why you need an M-60 to go deerhunting. I would get it if the deer carried guns too.
And what's with the silencers? Afraid you'll scare other deer away?
Oh, good stuff here...no bashing just good clean debate. Its gotta be a AHBB first! :D
seriously though, no one wants an assault rifle to hunt with (well a few might, but they are the extreme minority). An SKS is just a cheap worthless POS of a rifle. I had one, I sold it.
I know people who are licensed to have silencers and they are not used for hunting either. Kinda cool to here the action slide and the lead pop the target, but not have a loud report from the muzzle. Most people do these things for one reason....to see if they can. You see, they make their own silencers from scratch, each trying to come up with a better design. And yes, that is perfectly legal, since they paid the fee and had the big federal background check (but it was funny watching them wriggle with anticipation waiting for the permit to come.....4 months later).
The point is there is no reason to ban these sort of weapons. An AR15 is not the deadly weapon the early M16's were due to the twists of the riflings. They were changed due to international pressure because of the way the tended to "bounce" once they made impact (go in the thigh, come out the shoulder).
Bans seem rediculous to me (my red neck is showing) but I have no problem with controls. Want a full auto Uzi?....get a permit. Its not that hard to do, unless you are a criminal....but then if you were, you would just steal one or get it from a black market source.
Besides, a common deer rifle is a much more deadly weapon. Accurate and reliable, able to reach out and touch someone.....if you are using a full auto you are too close.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
The whole point of this is the sheer fact that I have guns keeps our goverment honest.
I was with ya right up to this point.
As a counterpoint, I offer Waco, Texas, April 19, 1993.
-
Waco?...try again
-
AFAIK, there is not a state in the Union that allows hunting with full-autos. And I'm not aware of any that allow you do use a silencer.
However, there many who use semi-auto's for hunting. Why not use a AR-15 for hunting javelina or white tails? And Browning sells lots of its semi-auto BAR's to hunters.
-
And, Ghosth is right. Government by the people?...only so long as the people can enforce it. And, as long as they can, they wont have to.
But thats not the point.
An SKS is a worthless rifle (I know some people love 'em, but I dont). why ban it? For $500 you can get a AR15 knock off that is so much better its rediculous. People who own SKS's use them as plinkers or as part of a collection. I can see a certain nostolgic attraction there. Just not for me. Now why would you want to start banning weapons? Do you carry a pocket knife? A rolled up newspaper can kill (now theres a thought, ban the press!) lol, just kiddin.
-
BTW, what's more dangerous? A semi-auto SKS shooting 7.62x39 rounds that probably couldn't hit a barn past 50 yards or a .460 Weatherby bolt-gun that's accurate out to 500 yards and would probably punch through body armor past 150?
And guess which one is a "hunting rifle"?
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Waco?...try again
Think about it.
Small arms mean absolutely dick.
-
Originally posted by Dune
AFAIK, there is not a state in the Union that allows hunting with full-autos. And I'm not aware of any that allow you do use a silencer.
However, there many who use semi-auto's for hunting. Why not use a AR-15 for hunting javelina or white tails? And Browning sells lots of its semi-auto BAR's to hunters.
well, yeah a BAR comes in many excellent hunting rounds. And yes for smaller game a .223 is good. Most folks prefer a bit more punch, and some over-do it (300 WinMAG?..geez) But, hunting with these rifles is not the point...anyone ever here of target shooting? You know, shooting for the fun of it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Think about it.
Small arms mean absolutely dick.
Ah, well ok...dont want to get into Waco.
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Waco?...try again
He's right BK.
They were armed to the hilt and the ATF went in and took 'em out.
Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?
Sure, we'd take some with us, but an AR-15 ain't much against an F-15.
Oh, Miko, BTW, if you want to debate with me, keep the snide little biatch like comments to yourself.
"Uuuuuhhh...Of course it is too much to expect you to actually read - and understand ...Uuuuhhh"
Wow, that was good. Really, it hurt. No, serious.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Ah, well ok...dont want to get into Waco.
No worries... I'm not arguing for or against the actions of the government at Waco. Just reminding you that they did all of that without one of these:
(http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/backgrounds/m1a1_wallpaper_sample.jpg)
-
Guys, I am not sure I believe all that stuff about Waco. And really, I dont want to discuss it.
Its the idea that we own guns to set up revolutions that bothers me, its not revolution I was speaking of. I dont know what I am trying to say. Its hard to describe a "feeling". I couldn't take out a tank with my .22 peashooter, all of us together couldn't do it. Its the guy driving that tank who sees us in his sights, and sees friends, family, neighbors, that matters. If I were some boob out to overthrow the Gov't then he would shoot. If I were just a guy who is standing up with his community and saying the gov't did wrong somehow, then maybe he wouldn't (I hope). Its the community of the nation that keeps the gov't on the straight and narrow (well, sort of) and its our constitutional right to bear arms. Thats a big part of it, IMO. I believe many people own guns because they can, and I believe they should be able to. I also believe that if you dont want to, thats your business. The point that many here have made, that we dont need this or that gun and should not be allowed to own one bothers me. What I use them for is irrelevant, most of my guns may never get fired again, but I am keeping them. Keep your guns safe if you have them, keep yourself safe.
BTW Sandman, I think I misunderstood what you were saying anyway, sorry
Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?
Muck, I do believe that, because as I illustrated above its the people of this country who would be doing it. On many levels the South was wrong when they seceded from the union, but it was a test of the national community, the state communities, etc. that showed the strength of our system in the end. It was not the "Gov't" that defeated the rebels, it was the national community. If I thought we had no such ability to actually be "the voice" of our nations conscience I dont know if I could get out of bed in the morning. and dont take it personal, but I am at a loss to explain why banning guns is a bad idea, or why i feel that way.
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
It was not the "Gov't" that defeated the rebels, it was the national community.
You do realize that Union conscription took place between 1863 and 1864?
Approximately 15,000 of the draftees actually served.
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
But, hunting with these rifles is not the point...anyone ever here of target shooting? You know, shooting for the fun of it?
For fun? You mean you can own a gun and have fun with it? You mean to tell me that you can buy a gun and not be living in constant fear of having to defend yourself against a criminal and/or the government? Or be some insane, crazed killer of people and God's finer creatures? Get out!
;)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
.
Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?
Just like they did the Viet Cong? And there weren't 60 million of them with over 200 million guns.
;)
-
Yes. (15,000 or 150,000?)
The draft was instituted and they served. It was a mistake in my opinion, and unnecessary, stemming from desperation and lack of patience on the Gov'ts part. I get your point though ;)
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Yes. (15,000 or 150,000?)
I believe it was 15,000 that served but approximately 250,000 were actually drafted.
-
Ridgecrest, huh? I grew up in and around Bakersfield.
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Ridgecrest, huh? I grew up in and around Bakersfield.
Yeah... been here about 13 years... I've grown attached to it.
-
A small squirrel told me that the 2nd ammendment wasn't to defend against the British. The Simpsons were wrong about this.
The founding fathers were very suspect of a strong centeralized governement and included the 2nd ammendment as a way for the inidividual people to defend themselves against another possible tyrinnical monarchy.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No worries... I'm not arguing for or against the actions of the government at Waco. Just reminding you that they did all of that without one of these:
(http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/backgrounds/m1a1_wallpaper_sample.jpg)
We seem to be having trouble against the tankless Iraqi resistance.
Waco is not necessarily a good example of an armed resistance movement against the govt. They stayed put in a fixed location. Even if they did have tanks, they'd of lost. The govt would have brought to bear even more force. They also had very little numbers as well.
Imagine what a large (lol, highly unlikely actually given our relative freedom to supposedly choose our own govt.) percentage of the populace that were armed with only small arms could accomplish being somewhat organized and very mobile and hidden.
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
The point is there is no reason to ban these sort of weapons. An AR15 is not the deadly weapon the early M16's were due to the twists of the riflings. They were changed due to international pressure because of the way the tended to "bounce" once they made impact (go in the thigh, come out the shoulder).
I'm going by long term memory here.
Eugine Stoner was the head designer for a proposed USAF survival rifle which would be named AR-15. Fired a 55 grain projectile through a 1 in 14" twist barrel. He found that at that twist the bullet was on this side of stable so it would tumble on impact.
The USAF General in charge of procurement recommendations really loved the rifle after test firing it, and recommended it whole-heartedly.
McNamara desided to recommend it for all armed services as a service rifle as it would save dollars. (What a clown, remember the F111B project for the Navy?)
Well problem with the 1 in 14" twist was the bullet was unstable during winter testing as the bullets were tumbling in air before hitting target.
The twist was tightened to 1 in 12" to somewhat stabilize the bullet to keep from tumbling until it hit its taget.
The testing in Vietnam proved that the "tumbling effect" was way too unpredictable. Many rounds fired in small brush (leaves, twigs, etc.) would all too often cause the premature tumbling action, throwing off accuracy. All too often, those enemy that were hit, the bullets did not tumble often enough. Unfortunetly, the bullets tended to fragment to a point that they had very low penetration effect against thin metal (sheet metal, etc.).
Post Vietnam, the bullet's weight was increased to 62 grains and now had a steel core. Optimal stabilization twist was then found to be 1 in 7". Trouble with that tight a twist was the severe barrel wear. Seems that the barrels needed changing out after about 3000 rounds.
Final twist settled on for good wear and stabilization is 1 in 9".
It wasn't because of allied political pressure.
Sorry, in a rush here and didn't have time to refresh my memory.
Regards.
-
Originally posted by Dune
You mean to tell me that you can buy a gun and not be living in constant fear of having to defend yourself against a criminal and/or the government?
Some manage not to be in constant fear without the firearm. ;)
-
Imagine what a large (lol, highly unlikely actually given our relative freedom to supposedly choose our own govt.) percentage of the populace that were armed with only small arms could accomplish being somewhat organized and very mobile and hidden.
WOLVERIIIIIIINES!!!!!!!!!
-
<- has SKS with 50 round drrum :)
-
Originally posted by Ossie
WOLVERIIIIIIINES!!!!!!!!!
You read my mind, Ossie.
Remember that movie?
How did it end, again?
And they did all that with hunting rifles, and the AK's they took off the russians they killed!
WOLVERINES!!!!
(God, I freakin hated C. Thomas Howell...little putz)
-
what is a "single action winchester"? An sks is not an "assult rifle"... An SKS can't be made into a full auto any easier than most other semi autos... turning semi autos into full autos is a recipe for unreliability.
The 2nd wasn't to protect our right to hunt bambi.
muck.. you have chossen the wrong firearms for the job... better than nothing but pretty bad.
The "assault rifle" ban had to do with appearance, perception and hysteria. Very few crimes were ever committed with the so called assault rifles. Even the DC sniper would have been better served with any of a number of other more accurate rifles.
The people that are trying to ban guns are the people that know worse than nothing about em... They are prone to exageration and missinformation allong with neurosis... they are the true "gun nuts"...
Anyone who knew anything about the suject would say this thread proves it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Heh, nope.
I don't own a gun. The extent of my firearms experience is taking my dad's shotguns out to the trap range, or when I was younger, duck hunting.
That being said, I do believe that it's important to be able to get one if I wanted it, for whatever reason.
Trap shooting with a shotgun is something I've wanted to try. Tracking the moving target with a limited firing window and one, maybe two good cracks at hitting it. That sounds like a pretty good challenge; very sporting.
But I certainly wouldn't take an SKS semi-automatic (remember, the book is only for scientific study so we won't actually make the rifle full-auto ;) ) with a 30-round clip and silencer.
Erlkonig posted up:
1. Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(1) Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models);
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC70)
(4) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(5) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(6) Steyr AUG
(7) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC DC-9, and TEC-22 and
(8) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper
and Striker 2;
2. A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(1) a folding or telescopic stock;
(2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon;
(3) a bayonet mount;
(4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
flash suppressor; and
(5) a grenade launcher;
The SKS has attachment points for 2.(3) and 2.(5).
-
Originally posted by john9001
this thread is silly , everybody knows criminals arn't allowed to have guns.
Actually, they can still buy them second-hand from classified ads without the messy paperwork.
An honest citizen buys a gun, decides he needs the money more than the gun, puts up an ad, a convicted felon shows up and buys it and the honest citizen is none the wiser.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Who's to say what guns I should or should not have.
The ATF. You can have your gun, just so long as it doesn't pose a threat to my family. Assault rifles most certainly pose a threat to my family.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why would a single action Winchester work just as well as an SKS for home/national defense? There's a reason soldiers carry assault rifles and not hunting rifles.
Soldiers face multiple threats, sometimes with armour. A single-action Winchester will stop a home invader. It will also stop a coyote, put down a rabid dog, knock off a snake, and other various productive uses. You don't need a full-auto 30-round clip to kill a midnight intruder.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what is a "single action winchester"?
[/i][/b]Maybe I chose the wrong term. I was thinking of the rifle used by Chuck Connors in "The Rifleman". The western-style stock lever action. load*, aim, fire, eject, load, aim, fire.
*By a strange twist of message board editting, this BBS would allow me to use the proper term of noseing a weapon.
Originally posted by lazs2
The "assault rifle" ban had to do with appearance, perception and hysteria. Very few crimes were ever committed with the so called assault rifles. [/i]
Assault rifle kill count (not including the DC sniper)
http://massmurder.zyns.com/sort_firearms_assault_rifle.htm
-
gofaster... how does an "assault weapon" pose a threat to your family... or more correctly... how does the so called assault weapon in my house pose a threat to your family? How does it pose more of a threat than a criminal does to your family or the woman in the escalade driving down your street with the cell phone in her ear?
but the assualt weapon.... is it the pistol grip that is the threat? maybe the flash supressor or the bayonet lug? Lots of people get bayoneted every year with bayonet equipped assault weapons i suppose. Semi auto? lot of hunting and even trap guns are semi auto. Overpenetration? Every hunting rifle overpenetrates more than the assault rifle...
"The Rifleman" you are talking about a lever action. Lever action guns are inherently inaccurate and have relatively weak actions that won't accept the high powered rounds required for dangerous game... the 95 was decent and there have been some inroads recently but good bolrt and semi autos are superior to lever guns. Lever guns do well against people tho... they are short, light and have high capacity magazines and are chambered for cartriges ideal for killing soft skinned game like humans. They are poor choices for home defence tho as they overpenetrate and are still too large for moving around with in a home... not a good choice.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gofaster... how does an "assault weapon" pose a threat to your family... or more correctly... how does the so called assault weapon in my house pose a threat to your family? How does it pose more of a threat than a criminal does to your family or the woman in the escalade driving down your street with the cell phone in her ear?
I would most certainly consider an assault weapon in anyone's home a threat to my family. A threat to police is a threat to my safety, since the police are the first line of defense for a law-abiding citizen.
That night, Virden was on regular patrol in his squad car with rookie Officer Troy Gardner. A detective announced over the police radio that a Chevrolet Caprice wanted in a drive-by shooting was at 22nd Avenue S and Seventh Street. Virden saw the Chevrolet, pulled behind it and flipped on his lights and siren.
But the Chevrolet sped through four red lights and onto the interstate. With Virden close behind, two men in the Chevrolet sat in the open windows. They fired SKS assault rifles.
A bullet hit the squad car's spotlight. Another sailed through the windshield, hit Virden's ball cap and grazed his head. It pierced the plexiglass prisoner barrier and blew out the rear window.
Police Chief Chuck Harmon visited Virden in the hospital the night of the shooting. "It was frightening to see the copper jacket from the bullet lodged in his hat," Harmon said in announcing the awards in the Bayfront Center.
I don't know you from Martin Bryant. http://massmurder.zyns.com/martin_bryant.htm
As for the cell phone menace, we're slowly reigning those marauding desperadoes in!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html
-
As for your link to the horrors of hordes of assult rifle weilding criminals running rampant in the U.S. slaughtering people.... I see something like 70 deaths in 25 years.... Yep.... 25 years...
bet ten times that many died from knife assaults in that time period or from being beaten to death.... hundreds of times that many have died because they were assualted and couldn't defend themselves.
So how big a threat are assualt weapons to your family? I mean put in perspective. Your neighbors swimming pool is more of a threat.
lazs
-
BlkKnit: An SKS is a worthless rifle (I know some people love 'em, but I dont). why ban it? For $500 you can get a AR15 knock off that is so much better its rediculous.
The rifle is very cheap, the ammo is very cheap, the rifle is extremely reliable. The performance is adequate and accuracy is sufficient at 150 yards.
A couple of SKS are perfect and affordable weapons to use for plinking and keep in your house in case SHTF and you need to arm someone friendly.
muckmaw: They were armed to the hilt and the ATF went in and took 'em out.
They had smallarms and ATF rolled in with the tanks and set the compound full of civilians on fire.
Anyway, what are you arguing about? That people should be free to own anti-tank weaponry like swiss? Can't argue with that.
muckmaw: Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?
Depends what you mean by populace. A small group - sure, most of us - never.
We have more and better weapons - especially sniper weapons - than Iraqi and more expertise in using them. It is highly unlikely that any military or even combined militaries of all the countries on Earth would be able to occupy US - unless the weapons are confiscated first.
but an AR-15 ain't much against an F-15
An F-15 has to land sometime.
muckmaw: Oh, Miko, BTW, if you want to debate with me, keep the snide little biatch like comments to yourself.
"Uuuuuhhh...Of course it is too much to expect you to actually read - and understand ...Uuuuhhh"
Oh, yeah - look who is talking, a hyppocritical crybaby. You started your debate by declaring your opponents as "nuts" and attributing to them obvious nonsense.
Maybe if you want to debate with me you should not call me "nuts" before the argument even starts.
When you start a discussion by denigrading your opponents as idiots, that means you dismiss their point in advance, without reading it.
As for understanding, not just reading - that's simple. People often write in public forums not exactly what they think. Those involved or those who care to think a bit easily understand what is going on. Sure, all militias claim they are arming against Al-Qaeda invasion.
Guess what, the weapons preapared against Al-Qaeda invasion will be as good for any other scenario.
Most likely scenario they consider is not foreign invasion or resistance to their own government - it's the breakdown of civil order.
BlkKnit: An AR15 is not the deadly weapon the early M16's were due to the twists of the riflings.
Not true. It is teh same weapon. The terminal performance of the bullets does not depend on spin and twist, only on the bullet shape and composition. All military bullets "flip" inside the body because sharp nose causes the center of gravity back.
Bullet stability depends on the spin and density. Changing the wtist from 14" to 12" allowed the 55 grain projectile to stay stable in relatively dence cold air.
The density of human tissue is so much greater than the density of air that the trivial difference in spit means nothing once the bullet hit.
The russian 5.45x39 flips inside a body but does not fragment due to low velocity and strong steel jacket (cheaper than copper).
The deadly action of 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Rem) is due to fragmentation. The bullet flips withing 3 inches of penetration and breaks apart into many pieces, shredding tissue and creating wounds very hard to treat.
It happens reliably at speeds above 2600 fps - which means at ranges up to 200 yards from the standard 20 inch barrel.
The military 5.56x45 round from any AR or Mini-14 (like I have) certainly fragments as advertised - it has been researched and tested many times.
Of course I am talking about military ammo or reproduction. It is designed to fragment - due to weak copper jacket and canellure further weakening the bullet.
Lot of commertial .223 ammo will not fragment as easily or at all due to stronger jackets, abcense of cannelure or just weaker propellant charge.
miko
-
Go faster.... would you rather the guy had a 7600 Remington in 308?
I have a Ruger mini 14. It isn't an assault rifle. I don't use it for home defense either. I have a 1942 M1 Garrand and a 1943 SMLE. Would you allow me to have these weapons?
So... How many cops have been killed by assault weapon weilding perps while trying to save your family lately?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So how big a threat are assualt weapons to your family? I mean put in perspective. Your neighbors swimming pool is more of a threat.
lazs
My neighbor's swimming pool won't go through a double-layer of glass, a 1/4" of plexi, and another double-layer of glass while racing down a dark interstate road. Neither will a knife.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So... How many cops have been killed by assault weapon weilding perps while trying to save your family lately?
lazs
Most recently:
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_police/memorial/marrero.asp
Full list:
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_police/memorial/index.asp
I actually had plans to become a cop, but decided it wasn't worth the risk.
On average, one police officer is killed in the line of duty every 52 hours. There are 65,000 criminal assaults against police officers every year, resulting in more than 23,000 injuries.
Source: http://www.tampagov.net/dept_police/memorial/index.asp
-
Gofaster,
I see what you mean and see where you are mistaken. It's the same mistake people were commiting for millenia despite warnings all those times.
There is danger in the world. There is risk. You cannot eliminate it with some simple law. It may seem to you that you do when you concentrate on visible and ignore what you do not see but you are really moving the risk in another area where it is not watched as carefully and may be even greater.
Governments often promised people security in exchange for surrender of the guns. The governments also killed many more hundreds of millions of people in 20th century than any criminals, rebels, etc.
An armed neighbour may be a slight risk to you - as well as a neighbour who has kids, car, elecricity, fire or any other potentially destructive force.
On the other hand an armed and weapons-proficient neighbour with a spare SKS (for you?) can be a great factor reducing your other risks.
miko
-
lazs2: So... How many cops have been killed by assault weapon weilding perps while trying to save your family lately?
gofaster: Most recently.../b]
gofaster - you are avoiding a question and using it as an opportunity to spew emotional rhetoric that has nothing to do with substantiation of your cause or the question asked.
In general - such a great number of policemen killed by criminals calls for arming the law-abiding citizens, not disarming them.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
lazs2: So... How many cops have been killed by assault weapon weilding perps while trying to save your family lately?
gofaster: Most recently.../b]
gofaster - you are avoiding a question and using it as an opportunity to spew emotional rhetoric that has nothing to do with substantiation of your cause or the question asked.
In general - such a great number of policemen killed by criminals calls for arming the law-abiding citizens, not disarming them.
miko
How can my pointing an example of the risk assault rifles pose to my family be deemed to be avoiding a question? He wanted to know what the risk was, so I said "Here ya go." Lois wasn't stabbed. She didn't drown. She wasn't conked on the head with a hammer. She was gunned down in the parking lot of an apartment complex 3 blocks away from where I buy my groceries.
I didn't see any citizens charging out of their doorways with their guns drawn. They were all heading the other way.
Same with the north Hollywood shoot-out.
http://users.snowcrest.net/marnells/officer.htm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/
I don't recall seeing many citizens grabbing their rifles and taking shots at the perps in the 44-minute shooting spree. I think the notion of an armed citizenry rising up to stop a crime is a bit outdated. The more likely response to an armed criminal is to turn and run away.
-
Miko-
Read my post again. If you re-read it you'll see that I was not insulting anyone. Perhaps I should use "Weapon Enthusiast" instead of "Gun Nut". Ahh, whatever. On sencond thought, don't. You're not worth the effort. You talk to much, and listen too little.
Lazs-
VERY IMPORTANT: What do you mean I have the wrong tool for the job?
Perhaps you can recommend something? Here's what I need. Something I can store for extended periods of time, not used regularly, easy to secure from a 3 year old, easy to ready in the middle of the night when awoken by an intruder, and good for close in fire, with little chance of collateral damage.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Here's what I need. Something I can store for extended periods of time, not used regularly, easy to secure from a 3 year old, easy to ready in the middle of the night when awoken by an intruder, and good for close in fire, with little chance of collateral damage.
My first thought was pistol-grip shotgun, but the collateral damage issue makes me lean towards a .22 Ruger pistol. The small shell shouldn't exit the body, but still provide a level of safety from intrusion. Its also small enough to be hidden away in a locked box/gun case and stored in a closet or under a bed.
But hey, I don't really know much about guns so I'll let the others give some advice.
Also, while we're on the topic, as a first-time shooter, where would I go for lessons?
-
muckmaw:
Perhaps you can recommend something? Here's what I need. Something I can store for extended periods of time, not used regularly, easy to secure from a 3 year old, easy to ready in the middle of the night when awoken by an intruder, and good for close in fire, with little chance of collateral damage.
lol a golf club
-
Originally posted by Trell
muckmaw said:
Perhaps you can recommend something? Here's what I need. Something I can store for extended periods of time, not used regularly, easy to secure from a 3 year old, easy to ready in the middle of the night when awoken by an intruder, and good for close in fire, with little chance of collateral damage.
Trell responded:
lol a golf club
Actually, I use an aluminum baseball bat. Works well against dogs who maul 4runners, too! :mad:
-
The only people who should not be allowed to own an assault rifle are nutters and phycos.
Anyone who wants to own an assault rifle must be at least a borderline phsycotic. Ergo the only people who should be allowed to own assault rifles are the people who don't want them.
-
I really thought the pistol grip 20 gauge would fit the bill.
Lazs says it's wrong, and I know he is a "Weapon Enthusiast" so I wanted his opinion.
-
gofaster: How can my pointing an example of the risk assault rifles pose to my family be deemed to be avoiding a question? He wanted to know what the risk was, so I said "Here ya go." Lois wasn't stabbed. She didn't drown. She wasn't conked on the head with a hammer. She was gunned down in the parking lot of an apartment complex 3 blocks away from where I buy my groceries.
You are not being honest here. It is perfectly clear from your responce that you understand he is asking about the number of policemen killed by rifles.
I responce you post the cites and quiote large numbers: On average, one police officer is killed in the line of duty every 52 hours. There are 65,000 criminal assaults against police officers every year, resulting in more than 23,000 injuries. which implies they were killed with the assault rifles, or at least considerabe number of them.
That is not true and you well know it. Even in that perticular case of Lois Marrerro there is no information what she was killed with. You list a whole bunch of items with which she was not shot but you do not state that she was shot with a rifle. So how could it be "pointing an example of the risk assault rifles pose"?
You poster a valid link before - specificaly about the assault weapons-related murders. Since 1982 to now excluding the DC snipers it adds up to 62. That is 62 too many but a muniscule fraction of people killed by handguns, edged and blunt weapons, etc.
Anyway, that is a valid statistics and you did not need to misrepresent the facts with teh officers.
Asle, nobody listed here is defencive use of weapons (including rifles) which happens about 2 million times a year and prevents thousands of deaths.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
gofaster: How can my pointing an example of the risk assault rifles pose to my family be deemed to be avoiding a question? He wanted to know what the risk was, so I said "Here ya go." Lois wasn't stabbed. She didn't drown. She wasn't conked on the head with a hammer. She was gunned down in the parking lot of an apartment complex 3 blocks away from where I buy my groceries.
You are not being honest here. It is perfectly clear from your responce that you understand he is asking about the number of policemen killed by rifles.
Unfortunately, that level of specificity isn't available (at least, I haven't found it yet). I can cite 2 specific examples.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/19/Pasco/Indictment__Murder_in.shtml
http://www.emergency.com/flcopsht.htm
As for Marraro, witness account here:
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA9NPZDI0D.html
I suspect it was an automatic handgun that was used, but the article doesn't say.
-
Semi-Automatic Firearms
(Including the most current crime data from the FBI)
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. The first semi-automatic rifle, a Mannlicher, was introduced in 1885; the first semi-automatic pistols in the 1890s; and the first semi-automatic shotgun, the ever-popular Browning "Auto 5," was patented in 1900. Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. president 1901-1909 and an NRA Life Member, hunted with a semi-automatic rifle. Today, Americans own approximately 30 million semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns -- approximately 15% of privately owned firearms in the United States.
Semi-automatic rifles, including many defined as "assault weapons" by the 1994 federal gun-ban, are used for formal marksmanship competitions, recreational target shooting and hunting. Semi-automatic shotguns are very widely used for hunting as well as skeet, trap and sporting clays shooting. Semi-automatic handguns are used in formal marksmanship competitions, as well as for recreational shooting and some hunting. Many semi-automatic firearms, including some affected by the federal assault weapons law, are highly valued by gun collectors. They are also commonly kept and, as witnesses testified during hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives Crime Subcommittee in 1995, used for protection against criminals.
How Semi-Automatic Firearms Operate
Like all firearms other than fully-automatic machineguns, semi-automatics fire only once each time the trigger is pulled. All semi-automatic firearms function in the same fashion; the energy produced when a round of ammunition is fired is used to cycle the firearm's internal mechanism, thereby ejecting the empty case of the fired round and reloading a fresh round into the firearm's chamber.
"Gun control" activists falsely claim that semi-automatics "spray fire," like machineguns. One even boasted that "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
When gun-ban supporters are forced to admit that semi-automatics are not machineguns, they claim semi-automatics are "easy to convert" into machineguns. This, too, is false. Any firearm that would be "easy to convert" would not be approved by the BATF for sale to the general public. Additionally, any firearm part "designed and intended...for use in converting" a firearm into a machinegun is restricted under federal law. (Title 26, ß5845(b), U.S.C.) Illegal possession of either an illegally converted machinegun or an illegal conversion part is a federal felony punishable by 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Semi-Automatic Firearm Attachments & Ammunition
"Gun control" advocates claim, without basis, that various attachments common to military-style semi-automatic firearms provide advantages to criminals. It is on the basis of the presence of these attachments on a semi-automatic firearm that it is prohibited as an "assault weapon" under federal law. These attachments have been common to firearms (semi-automatic and not) for decades, however, with no evidence of their appeal or utility to criminals. Indeed, though "gun control" advocates claim that the attachments make a firearm more "crime-like," they remain silent about the far greater number of non-semi-automatic firearms to which the same attachments are common.
Detachable magazines, including those capable of holding more than ten rounds, were introduced more than a hundred years ago and are generally not a factor in crime. Police report that when criminals fire shots, they fire no more than a few rounds on average. Flash suppressors are found only on rifles (the category of firearm least often used in crimes), and perceptibly reduce the visible signature of rifle shots at a viewing distance of 100 yards or more, while virtually all criminal gunfire occurs within a few feet of its intended victims. Bayonet lugs are found on many millions of bolt-action rifles, as well as on "assault" type semi-automatics. Few, if any, violent crimes have been committed with bayonets affixed to rifles, of course. Even if a folding stock is used on a rifle or shotgun, federal law requires that the firearm be at least 26" in overall length.
Semi-automatics -- "assault weapons" or not -- use the same ammunition as other firearms, ammunition that has been in common use for decades. Medium-power .223 Remington and .308 Winchester rifle rounds used in most "assault weapons" were introduced in 1963 and 1952, respectively. The 7.62x39mm, .30 carbine and .30-'06 Springfield rifle calibers used in other "assault weapons" were introduced in 1945, 1941 and 1906, respectively; the .45 ACP and low-powered 9mm pistol calibers were introduced in 1906, 1905 and 1903, respectively; 12 gauge shot shells in 1868; the low-powered .22 rimfire round before the Civil War. The power of a firearm is not a priority for most criminals, however. A study for the Department of Justice found that of 13 attributes felons look for in a handgun, a handgun's "large caliber" ranked 9th. (J. Wright, P. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, 1987)
Assault Weapons and Crime
Confronted with FBI data showing that rifles of any type are used in only 3% of homicides, gun-ban sponsor Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told the San Diego Union-Tribune (1/30/94) "I don't doubt that at all. ..t is probably less than 3%." On CBS's "60 Minutes" (2/5/95) she said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Even the Washington Post, which supports the ban, admitted "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control." (9/15/94)
State and local police reports indicate that less than 1% of violent crimes are committed with assault weapons. Criminologist Gary Kleck has determined that less than 0.5% of all violent crimes involve assault weapons. In a survey of State Prison Inmates, less than 1% of criminals reported having carried a "military-type" weapon when they committed the crimes for which they were incarcerated. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Guns Used in Crime," July 1995)
Washington, D.C. -- None of D.C.'s 3,600 homicides 1985-94 involved any kind of rifle. Rifles of any description are used in about 0.15% of robberies and assaults. (Metropolitan Police Department of D.C.)
Florida -- A 1989 Florida Legislature commission found that during the previous 4 years, assault weapons were used in 2.5% of firearm homicides, 0.2% of firearm assaults, and 0.02% of firearm robberies.
California -- A statewide survey of law enforcement agencies conducted by the California Department of Justice revealed that only 3.7% of firearms used in homicides and assaults (roughly 1% of all homicides and assaults) and less than 1% of firearms seized by police for any reason were assault weapons. "It is clear from this data that assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide cases submitted to city and county (forensics) labs," the report stated. "Many of these weapons are infrequently seen by law enforcement." The report pointed out that "When this new 'assault weapon' legislation was proposed (1989), the California Department of Justice, Forensics Services (BFS) records indicated that the incidence of 'assault' weapon use was very low."
"Confirmation that 'assault weapons' are unusual in firearm assaults comes from the scarcity of representative specimens in crime laboratory collections," according to the report. "Firearm examiners generally agree that these weapons are infrequently encountered in casework relating to homicides and assaults." In conclusion, the report stated that "the incidence of the use of 'assault weapons' is very much lower than is represented in the media and in political statements." (California Criminalistics Institute, Calif. Dept. of Justice, "Report On A Survey Of The Use Of 'Assault Weapons' In California In 1990," 7/17/91)
Data from police experts were deliberately avoided by politicians pushing California's 1989 assault weapon bill, however, as an internal memorandum to Calif. Asst. Atty. General Patrick Kenady noted: "Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the legislation would be based."
New Jersey -- "There is not a really high percentage of crimes committed with assault firearms." (N.J. Attorney General's office) "Assault weapons are used in an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." (Trenton Deputy Police Chief Joseph Constance)
Virginia -- A survey of inmates during November 1992-May 1993 found that none of the adult offenders had carried an "assault rifle" at the scene of a crime.
Massachusetts -- Between 1986-91, 0.5% of homicides involved "assault" rifles. (Mass. State Police)
Connecticut -- Of 11,002 firearms seized by police between 1988-92, only 1.8% were assault weapons. (Connecticut State Police)
-
Law Enforcement Officer Murders
During the last decade, 73% of persons identified in the felonious killing of police officers had prior criminal arrests, 56% had prior convictions, 23% were on probation or parole at the time of the killing and 5% had prior murder arrests. (FBI, "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted," 1993)
These are the percentages that can mean the difference between life and death for law enforcement officers. But these percentages are ignored by anti-groups and many in the media who instead focus on the meaningless differences between rifles with and without bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and folding stocks.
According to the FBI, firearms defined as "assault weapons" were used in 2-3% of officer killings over the last decade for which confirmed data are available (1984-1993). Preliminary FBI data for 1994 and 1995 indicate that approximately 15 assault weapons or post-ban versions of assault weapons were used in officer killings. Of firearms that were used to kill officers, most were of a wide range of other types. Between 1982-1993, of officers killed with firearms other than their own, more were killed with .38 caliber revolvers. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Guns Used in Crime," July 1995, NCJ 148201)
Rifle Use In Crime
More than 85% of the nearly 200 semi-automatic firearms affected by the assault weapons law are rifles, the general type of firearm least often used in crimes. Rifles of any type are used in 3% of homicides annually, while knives are used in 13%, bare hands are used in 5%, and blunt objects are used in 4%. The annual number of homicides committed with rifles has declined 36% since 1980, 13% in the last decade and 4% 1993-1994.
-
gofaster you are being dishonest... those incidents you gave of cops being killed had nothing to do with assault guns and were in no way a danger to your family...
you wanted to be a cop but only if there were no danger involved? tell ya what... more than you don't want to be a cop... I don't want you to be one... a cop like you scares me a lot more than any chance of being sprayed by gunfire from criminals or neihbors.
but... you avoided my question... which of my guns would an expert like you allow me to keep... go ahead and consult the web to get your answer if you like.
lazs
-
Originally posted by gofaster
The more likely response to an armed criminal is to turn and run away.
James Q. Wilson has to say from The New Republic, August 25, 1997 v217 n8 p38(4)
Using the data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) of 56,000 families, scholars have estimated that there are, at
a minimum, between 65,000 and 80,000 defensive gun uses per year. Some
estimates based on private polls suggest much higher defensive uses,
ranging up to 1.5 or even 2.5 million. The data supplied by private
polls are controversial, since so much depends on inferring
society-wide effects from the answers of a tiny number of
respondents. (If, to take a recent study, only 54 people out of 2,500
surveyed said they used a gun to defend themselves, then each of the
54 represents 68,000 Americans. Reporting errors--lies, exaggerations,
poor memory--on the part of just a few people can have huge effects on
the total number of defensive gun uses.) So consider instead the much
larger and more reliable NCVS, conducted by the Census Bureau,
according to which defensive gun uses in America are not trivial:
65,000 to 80,000 uses each year.
-
Wow... an entire thread consisting of people trying to out-stupid gofaster and failing miserably.
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
A: A criminial will be a criminal no matter what he is shooting and a sportsman will be a sportsman no matter what he is shooting.
MiniD
-
I really thought the pistol grip 20 gauge would fit the bill.
Lazs says it's wrong, and I know he is a "Weapon Enthusiast" so I wanted his opinion.
nothing wrong with a shotgun (I prefer a 12 but a 20 would still get the job done). I'd load it up with #4 shot if it was me, still does a nasty job on someone up-close. for home deffence you don't need to make long range shots, and you shouldn't have to worry about #4 going into the neighbors house.
just don't buy into the tv myth that a shotgun will cover a large area. at in-home ranges and #4 shot the bulk of your pattern will be about 1 1/2 inches. you still need to aim carefully before firing.
and as with any gun you plan to use to deffend your family you should be very familir with loading and firing it (minimum of a couple hundred rounds fired).
having a gun that you can operate and are familir with is often more important than the exact type of gun.
-
muck... the 30 30 is not very good in the house. It's better than nothing but... it overpenetrates and is slow to get into operation and too long... you would be surprised at the things that get in the way when you are trying to swing it around plus.... house gunfights are close range... the barrel preceeds you.. the badguy can grab the barrel.
the 20 guage... still not a good choice for the last reasons.. too long and too much chance of it getting took away from you... also.. the only really effective rounds are double ought buck and slugs. buck shot will spread some and cause collateral damage and slugs overpenetrate.
What I would suggest? A handgun.
Something that will reliably function with rounds like magsafe or glaser safety slugs... these bullets fragment on impact imparting all or most of their considerablre energy on what is hit and are the least likely to overpenetrate.
Revolver or auto is up to you... more practice is needed with the auto loader. I would suggest 3 dot night sights. I would suggest lots of practice with the chossen fireame and.....
Get a gun safe. For handguns and to be safe from children (in the old days you just said "don't touch") .... you can get small beside lockboxes the use finger pressure in sequence on a keypad to open. I would get a real gun safe for storage when away.
What do I use? depends. I use whatever gun I am messing with at the time... from Kimber custom eclipse in 45 to my bobbed to 4" Ruger Redhawk in 44 mag with hydrashock or winchester silvertip rounds. I even have a 1917 Smith revolver in 45acp with full moon clips that I would feel well armed with... I never use the longguns even tho I have several shotguns in 12 and double ought buck rounds for em.
If there were rioting outside I would likely use the Garrand or mini 14 and tuck the 44 in my waistband. Maybe the Kimber .... maybe the PPK in a sock too or maybe... ah hell just grab a bunch of em..
lazs
-
capt apathy... according to real life shooting results (study done by Evan Marshal and Sanow).... the 12 guage (never mind 20 guage) shotgun is up to 98% effective in one shot stops (no further violent reaction, shot person does not get more than ten feet befor colapsing)...
#4 shot brings the effectivness down to 81%. This is below the effectivness of many handgun rounds. Still good but why take chances with the slow clumsy shotgun (in close quarters with many obstacles like in a house) when there are handguns available?
deja... the answer to the question was obvious as you pointed out... our replies were to all the drivel that followed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
muck... the 30 30 is not very good in the house. It's better than nothing but... it overpenetrates and is slow to get into operation and too long... you would be surprised at the things that get in the way when you are trying to swing it around plus.... house gunfights are close range... the barrel preceeds you.. the badguy can grab the barrel.
the 20 guage... still not a good choice for the last reasons.. too long and too much chance of it getting took away from you... also.. the only really effective rounds are double ought buck and slugs. buck shot will spread some and cause collateral damage and slugs overpenetrate.
What I would suggest? A handgun.
Something that will reliably function with rounds like magsafe or glaser safety slugs... these bullets fragment on impact imparting all or most of their considerablre energy on what is hit and are the least likely to overpenetrate.
Revolver or auto is up to you... more practice is needed with the auto loader. I would suggest 3 dot night sights. I would suggest lots of practice with the chossen fireame and.....
Get a gun safe. For handguns and to be safe from children (in the old days you just said "don't touch") .... you can get small beside lockboxes the use finger pressure in sequence on a keypad to open. I would get a real gun safe for storage when away.
What do I use? depends. I use whatever gun I am messing with at the time... from Kimber custom eclipse in 45 to my bobbed to 4" Ruger Redhawk in 44 mag with hydrashock or winchester silvertip rounds. I even have a 1917 Smith revolver in 45acp with full moon clips that I would feel well armed with... I never use the longguns even tho I have several shotguns in 12 and double ought buck rounds for em.
If there were rioting outside I would likely use the Garrand or mini 14 and tuck the 44 in my waistband. Maybe the Kimber .... maybe the PPK in a sock too or maybe... ah hell just grab a bunch of em..
lazs
That's good advice, Lazs. I look into the handgun. I know the permit is pretty expensive here in NYC, but it's worth it.
Meanwhile, my 20 gauge is pretty short. It's a pistol grip, so I can keep it close to my body.
Thanks again
-
The entire point of the 2nd admendment was to allow the "people" to bear arms and raise millitia to fight against a governement out of control - the drafters were still rebels, they had just fought a revolution against a despot king. Peace and the union was still precarious, and the only thing that was keeping it in check was that every homestead had a flintlock over the mantle.
The 2nd admendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense... it's about the right to hold a revolution and over throw the government if it was screwing up - which it is now.
Well now, the civil war, the Michigan Millitia, WACO, white supremist and now the patriat act has pretty much put an end to separatist and anarchy in this nation.
Can't even make pipe bombs as a hobby any more - my gawd if Goddard was alive right now we'd never have a space program.
The problem is with these wacky people ruining it for everyone. Every school shooting there an assault rifle involved - so they are banned. Some kid goes on a bombing spree to make a smilely face, now pipe bombs are banned.
What's wrong with owning a .50 assault rifle? Yes it's military weaponry. But heck it's hard to hide!
Well any way none of this has to do with being a sportsman...
Technically speaking a "sportsman" was someone who slept with prostitutes, had nothing to do with game hunting and rifles.
Seriously... want to have some sport, invite your neighbors and church friends over for a party on a fullmoon, and at midnight, have everyone stand out in the front yard with black and red hooded garb holding torches, slaughter a goat inside a candle lit pentagram... mumble something incoherent... like: "Amadeus, in sectum, rectus unum, dao gradious lector sanctimum luther virgil magnus edifusarium ardo mort"
The sport is protecting your right to continue to live in your neighborhood.
The sport is keeping your job.
The sport is reading all the wonderful stories about your escapades in the newspaper, and on TV.
The sport is consoling your children after they get beat up at school by who - American peace loving, Love-thy-neighbor Christians.
The sport is explaining to the news media, who label you as a satan worshipper that Satan has nothing to do with the party. It was just a midnight Goat BBQ.
the sport is explaing to the SPCA that the goat was humanly slaughtered for food... yes it had a face... but it was food... just like cows have a face, and so do pigs, chickens, lambs, ducks... and FISH! And dogs.... oops! Wrong country.
No one keeps a goat as a pet! It's food! daggnabit.
No I wont take any more of those pink pills! I don't care what the doctor says!
You are all crazy!
Hey has any one seen my pet turtle?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
which of my guns would an expert like you allow me to keep... go ahead and consult the web to get your answer if you like.
lazs
The one approved by the BATF.
By the way, heard a blurb on the news last night that the Florida legislature is considering a motion that would prohibit the sales of firearms through newspaper advertisements and require paperwork to be completed at gun shows before exchanging the merchandise.
I'm not trying to take away your guns. I'm trying to keep excessive firepower out of the hands of the lunatic fringe. All I asked was, should SKS assault rifles be illegal?
JFK was killed by a bolt-action rifle but we're still allowed to have them.
Lincoln was shot with a pistol.
Andrew Jackson was nearly assassinated with a pair of pistols, but both failed to discharge a bullet. And, best of all, Andrew Jackson was about to crack the assailant with his cane before being restrained.
-
Originally posted by niknak
The only people who should not be allowed to own an assault rifle are nutters and phycos.
Anyone who wants to own an assault rifle must be at least a borderline phsycotic. Ergo the only people who should be allowed to own assault rifles are the people who don't want them.
I'll assume you are just trolling since you obviously did not read anything else in this thread.
By your own logic : Anyone who is incapable of comprehending logic nor forming rational thought is a prime candidate to purchase a "assault weapon" go get yours now!
-
niknak: Anyone who wants to own an assault rifle must be at least a borderline phsycotic. Ergo the only people who should be allowed to own assault rifles are the people who don't want them.
There is a need for armed protection/defence in a society. Some people have to do it.
The people who do not believe themselves to be capable/responcible for such defence (but who may believe they can be capable/responcibe for electing overlords who would provide such defence) are deluded and should be denied a vote as self-admited mentally incompetent.
miko
-
gofaster... Soooo.... you would allow me to keep all ofr em since they are all legal and "approved" by the nazis in the batf?
the mini 14 is more powerful and holds more rounds and is quicker firing than an SKS... The Garrand is double the power of the sks and is semi auto. The SMLE is double the power of the SKS and while not an autoloader....
The examples you give and your reasoning all point towards outlawing the SKS for penetration or.... overpenetration... every one of my guns listed will out penetrate the SKS.
You claim that the ability to spray ammo around is also a consideration but the examples you give consist of only a few rounds fired. Both the mini14 and Garrand are capable of the same rate of fire as the SKS.... they just do it better, with more power and more accurately.
I guess.... I am wondering why you have a hard on for the SKS (crappy llittle gun that it is) when you have no idea what it even is or how it compares to other guns that are legal.
When someone is so adamant about a subject that he knows little or nothing about that he feels that the "his" thoughts are obvious and just need to be brought up.... well.... I would say that that person is probly listening to only one side of something. surrounding himself with others who are like minded and close minded. This person normally is shocked to find that all the "facts" he has been fed are mostly made up or missrepresentations. Honest people simply take the lesson learned and try to get both sides next time or....
learn that liberals use this tactic as a matter of course and that distance from them is best.
lazs
-
I ignored most of the last of your post that delved into personal attacks and stuck with the relevant parts regarding opinion in the beginning.
Chiefly, I'm not adamant about gun control. I simply asked, should the SKS assault rifle be illegal? In my opinion, since it poses a threat to the safety of those entrusted with my protection, I would prefer to see it off the streets. But does it pose any greater threat than any other lawful semi-auto weapons? By your own admission and example, it does not. So, because there are more powerful weapons available, should that mean that the SKS should remain freely available?
Secondly, the only weapons I believe the citizenry should be permitted to keep are those permitted under the laws as enforced by the BATF. If you are in violation of the law, then, by definition, you are a criminal. I do not endorse criminal activities.
Thirdly, I fully support the efforts of police and law enforcement so long as those efforts are not affront of the law.
To conclude, what separates criminals from sportsmen is the fact that sportsmen don't violate the law.
I'm not saying guns should be illegal. I'm saying there's a limit as to how powerful a gun should be permitted in the civilian populace. Full-auto has no useful place in society either (other than for movie-making special effects and war re-enactments).
So the next question is, what separates a patriot from a criminal?
-
gofaster: So, because there are more powerful weapons available, should that mean that the SKS should remain freely available?
That makes the law based not on some logical rules grounded in reality but arbitrary. Arbitrary laws mean tyrany.
Secondly, the only weapons I believe the citizenry should be permitted to keep are those permitted under the laws as enforced by the BATF.
No question. Illegal activity should be.. illegal. On the other hand the laws as enforced under the BATF are unconstitutional.
I'm not saying guns should be illegal. I'm saying there's a limit as to how powerful a gun should be permitted in the civilian populace.
According to the founding fathers the civilian armed populace is the ultimate check on the aspiring domestic tyrants as well as deterrent to foreign agressors.
That means they we should have the weapons at least equal in performance to those of the military and sufficient to defend against it - full auto, armor-piercing, anti-armor, etc.
They wisely did not specify anything in the Constitution. BTW, the 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right, it just reaffirms it. We have that right (or are supposed to have it) because the Constitution does not explicitely grant the federal Government the right to regulate citizen's weaponry. Thus such right is reserved to the States or the People.
miko
-
I might as well just say this once gofaster, because you have not demonstrated anything other than obtuse behavior in this thread (as lazs pointed out... and you seemingly tried to play off as a personal attack).
The SKS is the topic of dicussion here. The nearest I can tell it is only brought up because someone fired it at a police officer and someone thinks it looks scary. It was not full auto. It did not demonstrate any extraordinary capabilities. What is there that needs to be banned about this weapon? You've cited nothing other than potential and paranoia because you couldn't find any actual examples to support your views.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I might as well just say this once gofaster, because you have not demonstrated anything other than obtuse behavior in this thread (as lazs pointed out... and you seemingly tried to play off as a personal attack).
The SKS is the topic of dicussion here. The nearest I can tell it is only brought up because someone fired it at a police officer and someone thinks it looks scary. It was not full auto. It did not demonstrate any extraordinary capabilities. What is there that needs to be banned about this weapon? You've cited nothing other than potential and paranoia because you couldn't find any actual examples to support your views.
MiniD
Right. The SKS is the topic of discussion here. So should it be illegal? I bring it up because of the recent news article about its use against a police officer. You bring up the same point I've been asking about - does it possess extraordinary capabilities? As you and Lazs have stated, it does not possess anything greater that isn't already available in other guns.
So, if the SKS were to be made illegal, shouldn't those other weapons be illegal as well? As Miko2D pointed out, arbitrary laws mean tyranny. We would have to round up all weapons as powerful as an SKS. But then we'd disarm the citizenry.
Therefore, it should not be illegal to own an SKS assault rifle, since more powerful weapons are perfectly legal.
And to think it took this long for me to come around.
-
well.. I'm amazed. After all those irrelevant links and arguements he came about and bowed to logic.
-
So why not ban more powerful guns?
I'm still not quite sold on that one.
-
You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction. It's about human behavior not whatever tool that is available.
Certain people will do certain things under certain circumstances. There are plenty out there who will kill or rob because it's in their nature to take advantage of others when they feel it's to their advantage. Having one weapon or another has little to no influence on this action since the perp is acting because they think they have the advantage and expect to get away with what they are doing.
The primary deterent for those who think this way is the perception of risk being higher than the perception of potential gains. If you were a house robber and one house had a alarm system and you know the owner has a gun and the other house had neither , where would you go?
When it comes down to it. The more lawfull gunowners there are and the more its common knowledge the less crime. This has been shown in repeated studies and seems rather logical.
regards
-
gofaster: So why not ban more powerful guns?
I'm still not quite sold on that one.
If you do not believe, contrary to multiple historical examples, that a government could not at some point become a danger to it's citizens and needs to be held in check, you will probably not be sold ever.
Ultimately it comes down to the personal values and perception, not facts. You may be ready to completely entrust your and your progeny's safety to a power-hungry scoundrels elected by the dumb mob. Others may not.
Just in case there is a chance, read the Founding Fathers.
miko
-
I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.
He will be attending the police academy soon.
Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
When it comes down to it. The more lawfull gunowners there are and the more its common knowledge the less crime. This has been shown in repeated studies and seems rather logical.
This logic applies only in the US.
-
now Im confused? Are you saying that we should ban more powerful guns than the SKS or... the 7.62 by 39 round it shoots? if so... you are asking for a ban on allmost all rifles in existence... certainly every hunting rifle in existence.
I am asking.... why ban any rifle? why not allow more law abiding citizens easier access to say... machine guns?
I guess I simply don't get your point or.... if I have then your point is completely bizzare and without any kind of logic.
It apears that you know nothing at all about firearms. Is this a fair assesment?
lazs
-
I know a lot of cops since they use my facility. They not only condone firearms ownership by citizens.... they suggest it.
lazs
-
we've lost way more cops (in oregon anyway) in the last few years to drivers plowing into them on traffic stops. since cars are killing more cops than guns maybe we should ban cars before guns.
the point is you aren't gonna have a safe world. and if someone is determined to do you harm they will find a tool. people are killed in prison every year and inmates are not allowed to own any type of firearm.
it's hard to put it any better than Archie Bunker in an old episode of 'all in the family'. when presented with the number of people killed every year by handguns. "would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows"
-
Originally posted by Curval
Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?
I'm a criminal prosecutor and a member of the NRA. Does that count?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.
He will be attending the police academy soon.
Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?
I don't think I'd change my mind about assault rifles Curval. I may ask "why did *that* person have an assault rifle" if the shooter had a history of mental instability or other indicator that they would use it inappropriately. But I can't imagine anything that would make me want to take assault rifles away from law-abiding, stable US citizens. On the other hand, I have no problem with submitting to a background check/psych evaluation and waiting a few days to buy a weapon.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
it's hard to put it any better than Archie Bunker in an old episode of 'all in the family'. when presented with the number of people killed every year by handguns. "would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows"
Am i the only one here that used to love this show?
it is a show that speaks the truth with out the political bs
its only job was to make people laugh
-
Originally posted by Curval
This logic applies only in the US.
Why?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It apears that you know nothing at all about firearms. Is this a fair assesment?
lazs
Yep, that's a fair assessment. Where could I go to learn?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I know a lot of cops since they use my facility. They not only condone firearms ownership by citizens.... they suggest it.
lazs
Firearms..maybe.
Do they condone the use of assault rifles? Ask them for me next time...I'm genuinely curious.
Tarmac..not picking on you man, just curious...and thanks for the response.
Now..you don't "think" it would change your mind. I think that is an honest answer because it hasn't happened yet. There is clearly an element of doubt.
You go on to say that you might ask "why" that person had an assault rifle. Asking that question may prove to be difficult if one of those bullets should hit you.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
The primary deterent for those who think this way is the perception of risk being higher than the perception of potential gains. If you were a house robber and one house had a alarm system and you know the owner has a gun and the other house had neither , where would you go?
I see your logic but you make it sound like I'm in an arms race with my neighbor. By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal. So really, as a novice gun user buying a first gun, I should skip all the small stuff and go straight to the big hardware.
Conversely, if I have big hardware and the criminal knew it, wouldn't I become a more likely target for attack since he knew I had big hardware that he could steal?
Also, if I took the security measures to protect my big hardware, such as burglar bars, alarms systems, motion sensor lights, and a dog, to keep the bandit at bay, then I wouldn't need the big hardware to begin with, since there would be no way for him to get in before the cops arrived.
I know your point was that a gun owner makes a less likely target, but what's the optimum for home security?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Why?
Because you have a gun culture in the US. Guns have been illegal here for years, before that ownership was only possible with a permit.
If you were to make guns legal here individuals would be so badly trained in their usage that people would get hurt by accident more than on purpose.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I found it interesting that Tarmac supports the right of an American to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy himself an assault rifle.
He will be attending the police academy soon.
Will his opinion change if he is fired upon by a person with an assault rifle in the line of duty after he graduates?
You can ask this question to folks who frequent The High Road forums (http://www.thehighroad.org). They are a collection of folks who are knowledgeable of firearms, firearms laws, useage, etc. and include members of the law enforcement. My impressions from reading posts there for a couple years generally point me to believe that law enforcement's attitute towards private gun ownership has a lot to do with the area they are serving. Those in the cities tend towards more restrictions, those in more rural areas tend towards less. Even so called "assault" weapons. Remember, the current ban on "assault" weapons which sunsets next year is based on appearances - not function. A stock mini-14 fires the same cartridge as an AR-15 and is also semi-automatic - put the two next to each other and ask the average person which one is the "assault" weapon and they'll point to the AR.
If he is undergunned as a LEO in such a confrontation, the "upper management" is responsible for not providing him with the right tools to handle the confrontation. As when agencies began switching from revolvers to semi-autos, and body armor became more prevalent, law enforcement agencies need to keep on top of things. I'm fairly sure many agencies have gone from issuing shotguns in patrol cars to issuing AR's or some other carbine weapon. Our policemen and women deserve to have the tools they need to serve and protect.
mauser
-
Originally posted by mauser
If he is undergunned as a LEO in such a confrontation, the "upper management" is responsible for not providing him with the right tools to handle the confrontation. As when agencies began switching from revolvers to semi-autos, and body armor became more prevalent, law enforcement agencies need to keep on top of things. I'm fairly sure many agencies have gone from issuing shotguns in patrol cars to issuing AR's or some other carbine weapon. Our policemen and women deserve to have the tools they need to serve and protect.
Local law enforcement in an arms race with the population it is supposed to protect.
-
Mauser...one question. WHY would he be undergunned?
edit...Gofaster beat me to it...an arms race with the population...well put man.:D
-
Is it an arms race with the general population (who are law abiding citizens in general)? Or an arms race with those like organized crime, drug cartels, gangs? Although the general population may be prohibited in owning so called "assault" weapons, who is to say the aforementioned won't be able to get them? Maybe if you (like me) live in the middle of a big ocean you could control smuggling, but with the way things are on the mainland, I don't think you can guarantee that. As it is now, border patrols in the south are undergunned against drug runners. You can't be saying that they shouldn't NEED to have the latest tools right? It's already happened that criminal elements are armed and some are fairly well armed. Why would you deny Law Enforcement the tools that will help them maintain order?
mauser
-
Originally posted by Curval
Tarmac..not picking on you man, just curious...and thanks for the response.
Now..you don't "think" it would change your mind. I think that is an honest answer because it hasn't happened yet. There is clearly an element of doubt.
You go on to say that you might ask "why" that person had an assault rifle. Asking that question may prove to be difficult if one of those bullets should hit you.
No problem. I would much rather be objectively asked and have the opportunity to explain my views than be lumped into a category (ie "gun nut") based on someone's suspicions.
When I spent a summer in England, I genuinely enjoyed firearms discussions with the locals (especially cops)... both hearing their views on why their own system, and their views and stereotypes of our people and system. While I usually did not find anyone who genuinely agreed with what I said, I think both sides usually came away from the discussion with a little more insight into the other side's position.
And yes, I can't say for sure that being shot at (knock on wood here) wouldn't change my mind about weapons. But I don't think I would blame the gun, I would blame the person and possibly the laws that allowed that individual to get the weapon.
And on the job, guns don't scare me nearly as much as cars do. At least against a person with a gun I have some options, be they negotiation, other officers, or my own gun. On the other hand, a car coming at me at 60 miles an hour is pretty non-negotiable.
But like you point out, all this would be academic if the **** did hit the fan. But there are multiple types of **** that can hit the fan, and assault weapons don't constitute a very common type of poo.
-
Originally posted by mauser
Is it an arms race with the general population (who are law abiding citizens in general)? Or an arms race with those like organized crime, drug cartels, gangs?
Good point.
We need to give the cops the tools they need to defeat the big hardware of the criminals.
So the cops get bigger guns than the general population.
If the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the general population from an oppressive government, wouldn't the general population need to keep pace with the bigger guns of the cops?
I guess that's the biggest reason to permit assault rifles to be sold to the general population - to keep us on par with the criminals and the cops.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Because you have a gun culture in the US. Guns have been illegal here for years, before that ownership was only possible with a permit.
If you were to make guns legal here individuals would be so badly trained in their usage that people would get hurt by accident more than on purpose.
Training and education is quite effective most anywhere I'd imagine. I can't see how folks would be particulary ignorant if things where set up properly.
regards
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I see your logic but you make it sound like I'm in an arms race with my neighbor. By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal. So really, as a novice gun user buying a first gun, I should skip all the small stuff and go straight to the big hardware.
Conversely, if I have big hardware and the criminal knew it, wouldn't I become a more likely target for attack since he knew I had big hardware that he could steal?
Also, if I took the security measures to protect my big hardware, such as burglar bars, alarms systems, motion sensor lights, and a dog, to keep the bandit at bay, then I wouldn't need the big hardware to begin with, since there would be no way for him to get in before the cops arrived.
I know your point was that a gun owner makes a less likely target, but what's the optimum for home security?
Don't take this an an offense but I'm rather sure you don't see my logic. No criminal is going to break into someones house if they expect that they have a chance to lose more than they have to gain especially when they have other options that offer much less risk. If this potential robber had actually spent the money on a mini 14 they would still be far better off going across the street to the poor sap without the alarm system and weapon. (deterent). be mindful that a percieved deterent is nearly as effective as a actual one since it's the perception of risk that affects behavior of people. Alarm systems are more about deterence than effective shields. Most commercial systems are far from effective if one truely wants to gain entry. See my point above.. It's about deterence and signifcant risk of death is far more effective than than a loud noise.
regards
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Training and education is quite effective most anywhere I'd imagine. I can't see how folks would be particulary ignorant if things where set up properly.
regards
You are kidding right?
Not even the cops carry guns here.
Why would we bother to educate people on how to shoot clean and maintain weapons now? What exactly would be the point?
-
By that logic. if I have a .22 pistol and he has a Mini 14, I'm the more likely target for an attack by a criminal.
I'd take a .22 pistol in my own house over a mini-14 on someone elses property any day.
the homeowner with a .22 has a deffinate advantage in his own home. he knows where every blind spot and peice of furniture in his house are.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Local law enforcement in an arms race with the population it is supposed to protect.
Where? The average officer in a car is armed with a semi-auto handgun and a shotgun. And a radio. And probably more ammunition. Some officers are armed with AR-15's. Swat teams have all kinds of weaponry.
In your original post, you had what? two men in a car. The story says they were armed w/ SKS's. I wonder if there were two or one. Either way they were being chased by two officers, both armed with handguns and shotguns.
And, once again, I offer the facts I provided. A miniscule number of crimes are committed with "assault rifles". Most are handguns and a few shotguns. The same weapons carried by every officer. And I would suggest that the majority of LEO's have more training than your average bad guy. Plus they tend to show up in bunches.
This "arms gap" is crap.
And you ask how law enforcement feels about armed civilians? Right now my office is prosecuting a person for killing a deputy in the line of duty. And it has not changed my mind. Nor the minds of the officers I've spoken with.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You are kidding right?
Not even the cops carry guns here.
Why would we bother to educate people on how to shoot clean and maintain weapons now? What exactly would be the point?
Not sure where "here" is but it's not particulary relevant. What you are missing is that a firearm is a tool much like any other. they are very safe to use as long as they are not missused. I have shot many hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo in my life and have never shot at anyone. You make the assumption that people own firearms to either victimize others or to prevent from being a victim. The facts are that far less than a thousandth of one percent of shots fired in the US are shots fired in those circumstances. The point being they are missing out of dozens of sports and opportunity as well as the safety one can be afforded by proper ownership. It's not just one issue.
-
Gofaster... you're typing alot without really saying anything... but I get the feeling you're pretty much dancing around something. Seems you're trying to lay a trap for gun-rights advocates to fall into and then throw out what you're really trying to say.
If you're in here debating over "bigger guns", then you are showing you don't really know anything other than what you've been told by the extreme left. Either that, or you could tell us all what kind of gun you don't mind having fired at you.
Police don't need bigger guns than the criminals. Criminals don't need bigger guns than the police. The decision for some police units to switch from shotguns to Mini-14s or AR-15s was not driven by what the criminals were armed with, but rather what they might be protecting themselves with.
So... if you want to start learning about firearms, I suggest you take some firearms safety courses, read up on the subject from enthusiasts (as opposed to those against it) and actually try to learn something. That way you don't have to show up here and come off as someone that is pleading ignorance when it suits him.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
You make the assumption that people own firearms to either victimize others or to prevent from being a victim.
Where do I say this?
I merely said your logic applies in the US because there is a gun culture there.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The decision for some police units to switch from shotguns to Mini-14s or AR-15s was not driven by what the criminals were armed with, but rather what they might be protecting themselves with.
You seem very certain about this, can you back it up?
You are contradicting some other posters who seem very knowledable on the subject.
Any police officers here who could rule on this?
-
On those gun-enthusiast forums I frequent, every so often someone asks what would LEOs do if the government decided to confiscate (forceably if required) all firearms from the population. Those who respond generally say it either won't happen, or if it came to that they wouldn't do it. Why? They are members of their community, and have friends and family who they probably thought about when they decided to serve. Such a law would put them in a very bad position to have to go to a fellow gun club member or sibling for example to take away their weapons. Not to mention that a lot of them believe in the Second Amendment anyway (like Dune mentions).
mauser
-
Actually I think people who want to own an assault rifle at home like an M-16 or AK-47 are mentally childish in some way (unless your law enforce offzr, cop). Why would you want to own a military assault weapon if your a civilian. Are they such seductive pieces of weaponry that one cannot resist owning one? Hey I like guns as much as the next guy but would not want to live next to someone whos got an AK-47. If he has one then I got to have one. I think handguns and rifles are cool though. Actually Im saving up for a Sig-Sauer myself.
Airsoft, same thing. Just people who want the real thing I guess but would settle for retarded plastic toy guns. I wouldnt want to live next to a guy who owns an airsoft M-16 and a real handgun. Hes probably trigger happy or something.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Look at Canada, england, and especially austrailia...when they banned guns crime involving guns went up 300%
Interesting debate and free of some of the rhetoric you usually get. But I must object to that statement although it is often trotted out in these debates. Yes gun crime did go up in these countries and here too. It seems a gangster is shot dead eveyr week these days. But that's not because guns were banned. It's a drug issue not a gun issue. Gun crime has gone up everywhere these days. Here in Ireland all handguns and large calibre rifles were banned in the 70's when the troubles started in Northern Ireland although ironically, not in Northern Ireland itself. It was a knee jerk reaction to stop weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The same knee jerk reaction applied in the UK and Australia because of gun massacres there and it must be said those like Columbine in America too. But it certainly did not CAUSE an increase in gun crime. It is also popular policy in these countries. It's worth mentioning again that normal uniformed police officers here and in the UK are still unarmed despite the supposed increase in gun crime.
It is also worth pointing out that gun crime is lower in all these countries than in America. The higher rate of gun crime in the US in general however is related to greater availability of guns even though paradoxically in areas with the greatest gun ownership, gun crime is low. That I believe is more to do with the area and the people living there than guns. I think it's fair to say that outside big cities crime in general is low, even lower than in similar areas in the UK.
None of that means I'm anti gun. I don't own a gun because of the ridiculously restirictive gun laws in this country. But I do shoot, trap shooting and .22 rifle occasionally. I am all in favour of responsible gun ownership, the likes of Lazs and Muckmaw being a good example. It's a hobby, an interest. I do think the the home defense notion is overplayed. The tragic truth is that a handgun in the house is often more dangeous to the owner and his/her family than any intruder. There is also the agrument that the intruder is in fact looking to steal the gun hence the need for a gun cabinet.
But as someone said it's often about perception, Lazs' Garand may in fact be more dangerous and effective than any non auto assault rifle. But assault rifles look more dangerous, that fact scares the unitiated and excites the crazies. Hence the ban. The SKS looks more dangerous than it is.
The fact is because of the second amendment more guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Remember the right to bear arms equally applies to citizens who are criminals too. That I think was not it's intention. My attitude is that gun control is needed to restrict the availability of guns to criminals and the mentally unstable. Unfortunately that means hassle for ordinary citizens who want to own guns. It's a no win situation. But for gun enthusiasts to hide behind the second amemdment is a mistake. Rights can be revoked if enough people wish it. Democracy is a doube edged sword.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Where do I say this?
I merely said your logic applies in the US because there is a gun culture there.
True, though it does not invalidate what I am saying either right?
-
Originally posted by type_char
Actually I think people who want to own an assault rifle at home like an M-16 or AK-47 are mentally childish in some way (unless your law enforce offzr, cop). Why would you want to own a military assault weapon if your a civilian. Are they such seductive pieces of weaponry that one cannot resist owning one? Hey I like guns as much as the next guy but would not want to live next to someone whos got an AK-47. If he has one then I got to have one. I think handguns and rifles are cool though. Actually Im saving up for a Sig-Sauer myself.
Airsoft, same thing. Just people who want the real thing I guess but would settle for retarded plastic toy guns. I wouldnt want to live next to a guy who owns an airsoft M-16 and a real handgun. Hes probably trigger happy or something.
There might be some truth to this but you are dramaticaly overstating this to the point of being materially untrue. Your position seems more based on ignorance than observable fact. I'm not saying you are stupid, we are all ignorant of plenty of things. What I'm saying is you are catagorizing the majority over the smallest of the minority.
-
I want one of these. For hunting of course.
Have to change .gif to .mpg
Weapon of choice (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/338893/faff82f6.gif)
-
"The tragic truth is that a handgun in the house is often more dangeous to the owner and his/her family than any intruder"
This is more propaganda than truth. The reasons for the danger are all easily preventable With proper precautions ownership is almost entirely without threat and has many benefits. I once had a doctor try to lecture me into destroying my firearms collection because he stated that JAMA determined that they where a threat to my life. The root of his arguement was that if was to decide to kill myself then I would most likely choose a gun to do it. It did not dawn on him that if I was to kill myself a gun might be ones first chioce but there are hundreds of other ways in which to kill oneself. Not to mention I had no indicators of suicidal tendencies. Since anyone who can't utilize deductive reasoning should not be making life and death decisions with my life, I fired him.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You seem very certain about this, can you back it up?
You are contradicting some other posters who seem very knowledable on the subject.
Any police officers here who could rule on this?
Not a police officer, but there are a few here in this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37813&highlight=LEO+patrol+rifle
It doesn't really answer the question on why the switch, but rather correctly goes over how patrol rifles are not a new concept, and they aren't necessarily there to replace shotguns but are another tool in the toolbox. Different tools required for different situations. Sorry for the mislead.
mauser
-
Originally posted by type_char
Actually I think people who want to own an assault rifle at home like an M-16 or AK-47 are mentally childish in some way (unless your law enforce offzr, cop). Why would you want to own a military assault weapon if your a civilian. Are they such seductive pieces of weaponry that one cannot resist owning one? Hey I like guns as much as the next guy but would not want to live next to someone whos got an AK-47. If he has one then I got to have one. I think handguns and rifles are cool though. Actually Im saving up for a Sig-Sauer myself.
I don't understand this way of thinking at all. When I hear this my first response is, "Have you ever shot an AK or M-16?"
You're saying that you like pistols and rifles and shooting them is fun. So it's ok to have one. But the same damn thing applies to any gun! Is it fun for me to shoot my Ruger 22 pistol? Yep. Is it fun for me to shoot my Winchester .300 H&H Mag rifle? Yep. Is it fun for me to shoot my FN-FAL? Yep. Is it fun for me to shoot my licensed fully-auto Uzi? Yep.
Is one more deadly than the other? No. Despite what Handgun Control Inc and Dianne Fienstein may tell you, they are not. Is my Uzi more deadly than my .416 Rem Mag? Not necessarily. It may shoot full auto, but the rifle is 4x as powerful and out to much longer ranges.
People who say that one gun is more deadly than the other so we should ban that gun are usually the people who have no clue in Hell what they're talking about.
In fact when people start up with the "childish mentality", that's usually a sign that you might as well stop the conversation. You've just switched from logic to fantasy.
-
One of the most deciding scenes was where bank robbers wrapped in bullet proof vests walked down a city street while police officers fired shotguns and pistols at them with zero effect. A single rifle round of virtually any caliber except .22 and .177 would have taken the guys down. Shotguns are not necessarily effective against vehicles from ranges greater than 30 yards. A .223 is. Notice, the rifles being used are a very small caliber... not some massive "we need more firepower" solution.
BTW mauser... that article was a bit screwy and the responses were just as grand. ".308 is a rifle... .223 is a carbine" or... "I think carbine has more to do with barrel length."
MiniD
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It seems a gangster is shot dead eveyr week these days. But that's not because guns were banned. It's a drug issue not a gun issue. Gun crime has gone up everywhere these days.
Exactly. Crime and gun crime are not the fault of the guns. They are the fault of the criminal who uses a gun as a tool to commit the crime.
The higher rate of gun crime in the US in general however is related to greater availability of guns even though paradoxically in areas with the greatest gun ownership, gun crime is low. That I believe is more to do with the area and the people living there than guns. I think it's fair to say that outside big cities crime in general is low, even lower than in similar areas in the UK.
Once again, the point being that gun crime and crime has nothing to do with availibility of guns. If number of guns=more crime. Rural America would look like a Mad Max movie.
It's a hobby, an interest. I do think the the home defense notion is overplayed. The tragic truth is that a handgun in the house is often more dangeous to the owner and his/her family than any intruder. There is also the agrument that the intruder is in fact looking to steal the gun hence the need for a gun cabinet.
This is a myth. Look at the facts in my above posts. Even conservative numbers place defensive gun uses at around 60,000 a year.
Plus, let's look at who commits murders. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
But as someone said it's often about perception, Lazs' Garand may in fact be more dangerous and effective than any non auto assault rifle. But assault rifles look more dangerous, that fact scares the unitiated and excites the crazies. Hence the ban. The SKS looks more dangerous than it is.
Very true. Perception rather reality.
The fact is because of the second amendment more guns are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Remember the right to bear arms equally applies to citizens who are criminals too. That I think was not it's intention. My attitude is that gun control is needed to restrict the availability of guns to criminals and the mentally unstable.
Do you realize that is already the case? In the US, anyone convicted of a felony no longer has the right to possess any type of firearm. It is called the loss of civil rights (they also cannot vote among other things). They are called prohibited possessors. Same thing applies to those declared mentally incompetant. Any felon who has a gun in his possession is already committing a crime before they do anything else.
-
Dune,
I agree with what you said up till you said, is one more deadly than the other, no.
Some guns are more deadly than others. I grew up during the times when Arms amd Ammo and other REAL gun magazines were prevalent. Im confortable with the notion that guns could be in my life, I've just chosen to not own a gun till now. Im looking for a new hobby, a challenging one and shooting stuff at the range is challenging. And yes, I have shot some ar-15s, shotguns, and HKs in the past when they were still legal around here. And yes, they are fun to shoot, even in semi auto. Some guns are more dangerous than others as are some people. Are you dangerous, I dont know you but you own an UZI so I know youre probably trigger happy.
:D
-
Actually, I think I said not necsasirly (sp)
Originally posted by type_char
I dont know you but you own an UZI so I know youre probably trigger happy.
:D
Answer to A:
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
And to B: Yes, unless I'm shooting for score :D
-
On the issue of the availability of firearms making suicide more likely I would like to offer the following observations.
I teach school in a small community of approximately 500 people. In the last ten years, there have been several suicides. Two were middle-aged women who overdosed. One was a young man who hanged himself. Another, upon being diagnosed with cancer for the second time in his young life (25), plugged the cracks in his bedroom windows and under his door, drank paint thinner, slashed his wrists, and shot himself. Still another, who had a history of mental disturbance, attempted suicide on three separat occasions, slashing her wrists, taking an overdose, and, finally, shooting herself. Then there was a husband and father who shot himself after an argument with his wife. Lastly, a former student of mine, depressed and strung out on drugs, had an argument with his wife and shot himself.
All of these attempted suicides were successful. These people used several different methods to achieve their goals. Even those with guns would have found a way in the weapon had not been available.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Dune
Crime and gun crime are not the fault of the guns. They are the fault of the criminal who uses a gun as a tool to commit the crime.
Poor, poor guns. So maligned, so misunderstood.:(
-
Originally posted by Mini D
...
BTW mauser... that article was a bit screwy and the responses were just as grand. ".308 is a rifle... .223 is a carbine" or... "I think carbine has more to do with barrel length."
MiniD [/B]
Yep, the article that was the first post of that thread was screwy, just as the responses showed. I didn't have the time to cut and paste in the responses from the officers that replied, which is what I wanted to show. As for some of the other replies like the ones you quoted, well, it is a BBS ;) .
mauser
-
When I was about 10 or 11 years old, I got my arse beat up by a 6 foot 5 something man. Yep he beat my arse to a pulp, though I never passed out or fell on the ground. I took it real good then I walked home. Me and some friends were lighting firecrackers on his street. It was the 4th of July so alot of stuff was going off here and there. He came out of his house and cursed at us and said, get the f*k off my street you f*king n*. So we lit a few more then ran like hell. While on another street, feeling like we got away, I was bounced by this guy and he beat the crap out of me while calling cursing at me, n*,f*king little n*s. When I got home, I told my father, he called the cops. My father never sued him cause he was afraid of retribution from this crazy jerk. I sort of lost repect for my father after that. Anyways the point here is that I was so angry, if I had a gun, I probbaly would have walked back over there and shot his arse. I think thats the number 1 reason why I chose not to own a gun as I became an adult because I know better. However its been a very long time since that happened and I've learned alot of self restraint. I am saving up for a sig, then next I want a Bren Ten or at leat a colt 10mm. Um, yum. And definately a Glock of some sort.
-
Ok... the "arms race"... the arms race between the cops and the crooks is more about stopping power than anything else. Handguns are not perfect stoppers... they run from 25-96% 1 torso hit stops.
The cpos used to use 38 specials and a lot of cops were killed after they shot the bad guy. they were stabbed, bluedguened, run over or shot...
Enter the 357 mag.. all hail the king of handgun stopping power... 96% with the right loads... bad guys expire or at least stop being mean.
Problem... most people, including cops can't seem to master the 357... some of this is perception based on unrealistic testing (people actually did better in gunfights than on paper)... heavy recoil... high muzzle flash. What to do?
Back to the old .45 acp... same problem... people have trouble with the recoil...
enter the high capacity 9mm... no recoil.. but.. with service loads not much better stopper than the 38 and... with the drug population... bad guys are soaking up a lot of 9mm ammo without expireing or ceasing to do mean things.
enter 40 smith and wesson and AR 223... perfect.
enter hydra shok and other types of sophisticated ammo.... back to square one. Most everything works now... pick what ya like.
The good thing about autoloaders for cops is that with multiple bad guys... you have a lot of rounds in the gun and fast access to a lot more. Bad thing is.... everyone shoots more for less result.
2.5 shots per fite for revolvers
2.7 for 45acp
5.5 for 9mm
As for protection in the home.. works for me but.... what's more important is it works for you... just me having a gun makes you safer. In the U.S crooks don't like to hit homes with people in em because of the possibility of an armed homeowner. I am your deterent.
Certainly alarms and prison bars on your home will work as will guards with metal detectors. they will not guarantee but will deter. Personally... I like to take a more active role in mine or my families protection.
lazs
-
Oh... curval. If I asked what type of semi automatic 223 with high capacity mag I should buy, the cops I know would say... "I don't know that much about guns but this AR seems pretty good." I have never heard a cop say that he was afraid of citizens with assault rifles.
deja... I get the same feeling about gofaster... he seems to think he is laying some kind of trap but I still haven't seen hjis point. He just seems like every other "ban em all" guy... he knows nothing about em except that they have potential for evil and he feels that the best way to get rid of guns as a whole is to do it incrimentally "surely you don't need (place gun of the month in this spot) to (place hobby of the month here)?"
90% or so of all people murdered are murdered by someone they know. Most people who kill themselves with a firearm do it at home... Keep this in mind when you read the statement that you are more likely to kill yourself or someone you know with a firearm. The woman who has shoots her estranged husband as he breaks down the front door..who has a restraining order because he beat her half to death a dozen times in the past...
most cops see the crap that we don't sitting here in front of the glowing monitor.... that's why they say "get a gun and learn how to use it properly"
lazs
-
When I was about 10 or 11 years old, I got my arse beat up by a 6 foot 5 something man. Yep he beat my arse to a pulp, though I never passed out or fell on the ground. I took it real good then I walked home. Me and some friends were lighting firecrackers on his street. It was the 4th of July so alot of stuff was going off here and there. He came out of his house and cursed at us and said, get the f*k off my street you f*king n*. So we lit a few more then ran like hell. While on another street, feeling like we got away, I was bounced by this guy and he beat the crap out of me while calling cursing at me, n*,f*king little n*s. When I got home, I told my father, he called the cops. My father never sued him cause he was afraid of retribution from this crazy jerk. I sort of lost repect for my father after that. Anyways the point here is that I was so angry, if I had a gun, I probbaly would have walked back over there and shot his arse. I think thats the number 1 reason why I chose not to own a gun as I became an adult because I know better. However its been a very long time since that happened and I've learned alot of self restraint. I am saving up for a sig, then next I want a Bren Ten or at leat a colt 10mm. Um, yum. And definately a Glock of some sort.
which is why we don't let 10 & 11 year olds go buy guns.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have never heard a cop say that he was afraid of citizens with assault rifles.
Have any of them been shot at by one? That would be the "kicker".
I know very little about handguns, but I have shot Mini Rugers,M16s, and even a GPMG (general purpose machine gun...British Army issue). I have seen what the rounds do to various types of targets, including concrete block. It is a very good reminder of one's own fragile mortality.
-
Have any of them been shot at by one? That would be the "kicker".
again though the thing is the definition of "asault rifle". it has nothing to do with the power of the round, rate of fire, acuracy, or anything really relivant to the use/power of the gun. it is based more on the look of the stock than the action.
the term "asault rifle" deffines a feeling people who know nothing about guns get when they see it. it's just another example of how our society in general is moving to put apearance over substance.
when I was a kid I hunted with an old bolt-action springfield .30-06. not an "asault rifle" by any deffinition.
if I had someone taking shots at me I'd rather he had an sks or the like than that old springfield. with the springfield odds are he'd hit me.
-
I asked this question before and I'll ask it again: What kind of gun is it OK to be shot with?
Curval, you're limited experience with firearms has aparently taught you very little. A .223 is not a very destructive round. It is simply a riffle round. Most other riffle rounds are more destructive. But... when you decide to say what kind of "destruction" weapons are capable of, you mention only "assault" riffles. It's pretty typical these days.
Of course, most people are capable of recognizing that being shot at reflects poorly on the person doing the shooting, not the weapon being used.
MiniD
-
I have no idea what a .223 round would do to a human body.
An assault rifle would have to be at least a 5.56mm round in my opinion...a military weapon. That would be my definition of an assault rifle and this caliber is the only type of weapon I have fired.
The GPMG was 7.62mm and would break apart the concrete blocks with ease.
Should they be readily availiable on the market too? Not too good for hunting...but really good at scattering civilians and police officers.
-
There is no reason they shouldn't. Automatic firing weapons have been heavily regulated for some time in the U.S... and they seldomely show on the radar for gun statistics so they are pretty much a moot point.
After that... it doesn't matter what the gun is, the effect is the same... no matter what people try to tell you . Once you start with "it's this gun" and get people to buy off on it, you then have a clear path to "well... this gun has every bit the destructive power..."
You say there is no reason to have those weapons and I maintain there is no reason to ban them. One is the view of someone that never had a right not really understanding what it means, the other is the view of someone seeing a constant gradual assault on a right that they've had all their lives.
MiniD
-
I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US. The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.
I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.
I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here. I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me.
-
The cops were shooting from as close as 20 feet. No police officers were killed... I believe only 2 were injured. I actually aluded to this scene above. This had nothing to do with the ease of obtaining or use of assault weapons. Most officers interviewed were frustrated that their handguns and shotguns were completely ineffective against the body armor the robbers were wearing.
But... feel free to present it in any light you see fit. Don't let the facts get in the way. No skin of my nose either.
By the way... didn't that happen in a state where "assault" weapons are banned?
MiniD
-
My mistake: 10 police officers were injured. The only fatalities were the bank robbers.
A cnn article on it (http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/)
A quote from the article:Stunned officers were out-gunned to such a degree that at one point they burst into a gun store, and walked out with more powerful guns and ammunition.
Police "came in a panic because their weapons weren't good enough to fight these people," said the store's president, who would identify himself only as Bob.
"These people had body armor and they needed something that would break body armor," he said. "We supplied them with slugs that would at least break bones on someone wearing body armor."
It's a classic CNN situation. "Outgunned" and "assault weapons" are key phrases that are inserted whenever a certain effect is sought.
MiniD
-
Shortly after the North Hollywood shootout, the police bought a stock of M16's to augment their typical shotgun armament.
In that shooting, it was the armor that kept the criminals from being taken down. They could have been carrying pistols, or a "non-assault" rifle (ie semi-auto, full rifle round) and the police wouldn't have taken them down any sooner.
There are two equipment factors that made the North Hollywood shootings possible:
1. criminals with body armor
2. police with weapons that couldn't pierce body armor
Notice I didn't mention assault weapons. Like I said earlier, the criminals would still have done what they did, assault rifle or not. The body count might have been lower, but it wouldn't have prevented the entire incident.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I have no idea what a .223 round would do to a human body.
An assault rifle would have to be at least a 5.56mm round in my opinion...a military weapon. That would be my definition of an assault rifle and this caliber is the only type of weapon I have fired.
The GPMG was 7.62mm and would break apart the concrete blocks with ease.
Should they be readily availiable on the market too? Not too good for hunting...but really good at scattering civilians and police officers.
We all know what a AR-15 looks like, so I wont bother posting a picture of it. It shoots the 5.56m or .223 cartridge. The NATO standard M885 bullet weighs 62 grains (or 1 Grain = 0.0648 grams) and leaves the muzzle at a velocity of about 3,025 feet per second.
This is a Browning BAR (for Browning Automatic Rifle):
(http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/images/031001m.jpg)
It is the most popular semi-auto hunting rifle used in the US today. (I used to own one before I went to Winchester bolt-guns) It has a three round magazine and is usually very accurate out of the box. It comes in a variety of calibers, but for this instance, we'll go with the largest, the .338 Winchester Magnum. (BTW, you can buy this rifle at any gun store in the US. It's only a hunting rilfe after all). You can, from Federal Ammunition, buy, over the counter at any gunstore, a .338 cartridge loaded with 225grain Barnes X-Bullets which are solid bullets. They have a muzzle velocity of 2800fps.
Now children, let's compare the two bullets using a ballistic calculator (and remember, both come out of a semi-auto weapon and the BAR is as accurate if not more so):
AR-15 - .62grn @ 3025fps = 1259ft/lbs of energy
BAR - 225grn @ 2800fps = 3916ft/lbs.
And let's throw in what's known as the Taylor KO ratio (this is a formula invented by a famous big-game hunter to show which bullets have a better chance of killing a thick-skined animal)
AR-15 = 5
BAR = 30
Once again, which is more dangerous and which do you think should be sold to the public?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But... feel free to present it in any light you see fit. Don't let the facts get in the way. No skin of my nose either.
MiniD
And these are facts huh? You gonna back that up or should I just assume the word of MiniD is the word of God?
-
Ahh..nice edit MiniD.
But thanks for making my argument. I guess CNN is just doing what I did and misrepresented the "facts".
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
which is why we don't let 10 & 11 year olds go buy guns.
Even as an adult, Im still very apprehensive about owning a gun. If I werent I would probably have a bunch of guns. Then there was that time when some crooks broke into my car and I went outside and caught them and gave chase with my car. The morons ended up crashing their own car and the cops came and apprehended four little thugs with a trunk full of Kenwoods and Alpines. I was a good distance behind them so they just crashed on their own. Anyways, what if I had a gun in that situation? This was a long time ago as well during a time when people kept breaking into our cars. So to be honest, I dont know if its a great idea for myself to own a gun cas I would rather not go to jail forever for something stupid. Then again, I would like to have some form of defense in case of a breakin and just for shooting at the range. Probably wont own three guns, maybe just one but then Im not sure. I know anything can happen because of stuff like this.The overall point is that stupid people still ruin it for the rest.
-
Char, I can understand your feelings.
I have a friend who owns quite a few guns. Guns of all types. His wife was a state trooper at one time and he works for the gov't. He's ex-military and is very good with weapons. I asked him once why he doesn't have a concealed carry permit (they are availible with a training class and a background check here in Arizona).
He told me it's becuase he has a temper and doesn't want the temptation. He knows his limitations and doesn't put himself in a situation where it might cause him problems. He also doesn't let that keep him from enjoying shooting sports.
My point is this, he is aware of himself and is responsible enough to do this. Which makes him the type of person who should be able to own any gun he wants. Because he's aware of their capabilities and gives them the respect they deserve.
-
Hmmm I seem to recall that there is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
I suggest you read it. It states that the rights herein are inalienable. I also suggest you read some of the statements made by Thomas Pain, Thomas Jefferson, ETC.....
I'm inclined to think that this was the intention of the 1st 10 amendments to the bill of rights.
As to why anyone would need an "Assault Rifle" (here i have to pause because to my knowledge there is NO SUCH THING, it is a Fraze dreamed up by someone named Sugerman with the intention of demonizing firearms.) YOU DO!
Why? because even if you don't like it, even if you don't want it, you are in the militia! READ it! The information is out there! U.S. Army manuals contain the info. Even lays down the age of those that must serve.
And the oath reads "against all enemies foreign and domestic".
Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers for a better understanding of the constitution, and in particular the 2nd amendment, and it's purpose!
The people of Germany trusted their government and gave it more and more power just as we are doing. I shudder to think of what could be if an unscrupulous individual gets into power with the controls our government now has in place!
Do you really believe the world is all nicey nice???
Do you really believe there are no bad people???
The supreme courts has said/ruled that the Government/law enforcement is NOT required to protect you! The responsibility for you and your families protection lies upon YOU!
GO AHEAD ASK ME WHY :D (history repeats itself so you'll get allot of history)
-
Well if I lived in the country side outside of the city, I would definitaly own a few guns and definatly a rilfe/shotgun and lots of ammo. Maybe even an AR-15 if I live in the woods out of nowhere for bigfoot protection. Since I live in the city, I would perhaps keep one gun at home and the rest at the range so I dont have trigger happy thoughts. I would keep a bat or some nunchucks available first and make the gun a bit less convenient to prepare for action. I admit it, I think I am trigger happy to some extent.
As a kid, I had a collection of gun magazines that was two feet thick.
-
ROFLMAO, You people are too funny. Ok background: Paramedic for 10 years, degree in criminal justice and have worked as a swat medic. Life member of the NRA, and the North American Hunting Club. Proud gun owner, none of which have ever injured or killed another human , but have placed a lot of food on my families table.
Go faster: I get the impression that you believe it is the cops job to protect you and your family... this is a fatal mistake. 99% of the time the cops don't get called until after the crime happens. They might catch the guy in the end, but that won't do your family any good. In the last 10 years as a medic, most of the gunshot victoms I have treated (say 90%) are self inflicted and intentional, meaning suicide. People that really want to die will get the job done any way possible and these gun shot stats should not be included in your #'s. The vast majority of assult inflicted injuries done with a "deadly" weapon are done with a knife. What do you want to do now, ban people from owning knives, what whould we chop our vegitables with or carve our steaks with???? A gun is a tool, it is no more deadly than a hammer or a skill saw, in fact I am willing to bet more people are hospitalized by power tools than guns. I know more people die from automobile related incidents than from guns. Just yesterday I went on a car crash, high speed head on, 2 dead, 4 critical. Cause: On old man that leaned over to get his glasses off the seat next to him... Maybe we should ban old people!!!!! In fact the last set of stats from the US dept of health I saw said mistakes made by Doctors were responsible for way more deaths than guns... Maybe we should ban doctors!!!
My point is this, try blaming the real problem instead of an inaminate object. Guns don't go running down the street shooting people, there is always a finger on that trigger and that finger is connected to the real problem. If (and this could never happen) we banned all guns and all the bad guys turned in their guns, do you think this will turn them into good guys??? Or will the # of fights, roberies, rapes, home invasions say the same or even go up? You see my point? The people that commit these crimes are still the same.... In fact, ya some will turn to knives and fists to get done what they want done, but some will go down to the hardware store and buy the stuff to make a bomb, now would you rather get attacked by someone with a gun or a bomb???
That said, I dont own any "assault weapons". Every game animal I have taken has been taken with a bolt action rifle. I dont have any use for a semi auto rifle, I feel strongly that rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. I live by one shot, one kill. I however don't have a problem with people owning "assault rifles". If you live in an area that you have to worry that much about people comming after your family, than move to a better part of town or the state. I would feel a lot safer walking around florida than LA, florida is a shall issue state and there are many law abiding citizens carrying concealed guns there to protect you. In california only the criminals are aloud to carry guns...
MUCKMAW: in your situation the first line of defense should be a very big DOG, it will also double as a great playmate for your 3 year old. Golf clubs, baseball bats and other simmilar things are very poor items for defence. #1, try to swing a golf club in your hall way... Not easy. #2: you have to get close enough to use them, that puts you in hand to hand combat range... very bad situation. I don't recomend you using any gun unless you are willing and able to practice and care for that gun right. Letting a gun sit around for long periods of time then expecting it to work right when its all on the line is a recipe for disaster. Put the best bolt locks on your doors, buy an alarm system (this will make almost all intruders run) and get a large dog that is protective of the family (ie: not a lab, way too friendly, something like a german shepard)
-
Originally posted by medicboy
ROFLMAO, You people are too funny. Ok background: Paramedic for 10 years, degree in criminal justice and have worked as a swat medic. Life member of the NRA, and the North American Hunting Club. Proud gun owner, none of which have ever injured or killed another human , but have placed a lot of food on my families table.
Go faster: I get the impression that you believe it is the cops job to protect you and your family... this is a fatal mistake. 99% of the time the cops don't get called until after the crime happens. They might catch the guy in the end, but that won't do your family any good. In the last 10 years as a medic, most of the gunshot victoms I have treated (say 90%) are self inflicted and intentional, meaning suicide. People that really want to die will get the job done any way possible and these gun shot stats should not be included in your #'s. The vast majority of assult inflicted injuries done with a "deadly" weapon are done with a knife. What do you want to do now, ban people from owning knives, what whould we chop our vegitables with or carve our steaks with???? A gun is a tool, it is no more deadly than a hammer or a skill saw, in fact I am willing to bet more people are hospitalized by power tools than guns. I know more people die from automobile related incidents than from guns. Just yesterday I went on a car crash, high speed head on, 2 dead, 4 critical. Cause: On old man that leaned over to get his glasses off the seat next to him... Maybe we should ban old people!!!!! In fact the last set of stats from the US dept of health I saw said mistakes made by Doctors were responsible for way more deaths than guns... Maybe we should ban doctors!!!
My point is this, try blaming the real problem instead of an inaminate object. Guns don't go running down the street shooting people, there is always a finger on that trigger and that finger is connected to the real problem. If (and this could never happen) we banned all guns and all the bad guys turned in their guns, do you think this will turn them into good guys??? Or will the # of fights, roberies, rapes, home invasions say the same or even go up? You see my point? The people that commit these crimes are still the same.... In fact, ya some will turn to knives and fists to get done what they want done, but some will go down to the hardware store and buy the stuff to make a bomb, now would you rather get attacked by someone with a gun or a bomb???
That said, I dont own any "assault weapons". Every game animal I have taken has been taken with a bolt action rifle. I dont have any use for a semi auto rifle, I feel strongly that rapid fire is the crutch of an incompetent marksman. I live by one shot, one kill. I however don't have a problem with people owning "assault rifles". If you live in an area that you have to worry that much about people comming after your family, than move to a better part of town or the state. I would feel a lot safer walking around florida than LA, florida is a shall issue state and there are many law abiding citizens carrying concealed guns there to protect you. In california only the criminals are aloud to carry guns...
MUCKMAW: in your situation the first line of defense should be a very big DOG, it will also double as a great playmate for your 3 year old. Golf clubs, baseball bats and other simmilar things are very poor items for defence. #1, try to swing a golf club in your hall way... Not easy. #2: you have to get close enough to use them, that puts you in hand to hand combat range... very bad situation. I don't recomend you using any gun unless you are willing and able to practice and care for that gun right. Letting a gun sit around for long periods of time then expecting it to work right when its all on the line is a recipe for disaster. Put the best bolt locks on your doors, buy an alarm system (this will make almost all intruders run) and get a large dog that is protective of the family (ie: not a lab, way too friendly, something like a german shepard)
Very good post and advice.
as far as a dog goes try an Akita i have one and nothing gets past her LOL.(http://home.comcast.net/~c.hambleton/wsb/media/134502/site1005.jpg)
-
Arent you leaving California. Jeeze, perhaps you should try to spend more time in the city. California aint so bad you know.
:)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Arent you leaving California. Jeeze, perhaps you should try to spend more time in the city. California aint so bad you know.
:)
Yep, Oct 25th is my last day working here in the "golden" state. After a 10 day elk hunt in Idaho, I will be comming back to get the wife, kid and the rest of my stuff and moving to Montana.
I was born in Riverside, I know what the "city" is like, no thanks wouldn't do that again, ever. BTW Montana is a shall issue state as well, very low incidents of violent crime there, just the occasional fight. Definatly no gang bangers.
-
I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US. The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.
I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.
I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here. I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me.
in that shoot-out the cops went to a nearby gun store to get more powerful weapons (which they couldn't have done where these weapons not legal) to use against the criminals (who where bank robbers, so I doubt if they'd have used lesser weaponry if the ones they where using where decided to be ileagal. why would a criminal care if he broke 1 more law?)
to those who remember the news footage from this. did they get "assault rifles" from the store? It's been a while but I thought they used regular style hunting riffles.
-
Originally posted by Curval
But thanks for making my argument. I guess CNN is just doing what I did and misrepresented the "facts".
LOL! "facts"? You use that term losely don't you?
They weren't outgunned, but that's the phrase you and CNN chose to use. Why? There were 200 officers... how could 2 people have them outgunned?
Oh... wait... the assailants had body armor that was inpenetrable with pistols and shotguns. That seems to have made the difference. That seems to be what created the scene. That seems to be why the standoff occured. But I'll be damned if anyone said that other than a witness. It was because the police were "outgunned" and because the robbers used "assault weapons". Weapons that did not kill any of the 10 police officers they hit. Weapons that didn't kill anyone despite several hundred rounds being fired.
You do know this thread was actually about assault weapons... right? And you know you were talking about the destructive power of assault weapons when YOU reffered to this scene... right?
MiniD
-
PS... you also know those weapons being used were already illegal in california... right?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
PS... you also know those weapons being used were already illegal in california... right?
MiniD
Relevance? They are legal in Nevada right. Just a short ride to Cali from there.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! "facts"? You use that term losely don't you?
MiniD..you were the one who said "Don't let the facts get in the way. " and then you quote a source that backs up my point about them being outgunned and then accuse me of using the term "facts" loosely. Forgive me for finding that funny.
Tell ya what...quote me a source that says they weren't outgunned and then we can haggle over facts. Or are you somehow a better source than CNN?
-
mini, you can feel free to quote me. I would bet that on the subject of guns I am a better source than cnn.
I find it funny that these people go to anti-gun groups (whos members presumably don't own guns) for their source of knowledge on gun related issues.
-
LOL! You aren't really arguing that because CNN says it... it is fact are you curval?
Really... read the article and tell me what cause the "outgun" situation... was it guns or body armor? Really curval... try and think for yourself on this one because rhetoric is making you look like a handsomehunk right now.
MiniD
-
Curval, you cannot say they were outgunned. There were at least 30, perhaps as many as 50 so let's say 40, police officers at the scene. Each one armed with a semi-auto handgun of 9mm or better. There's one shotgun per car usually, but many ride alone, so let's say there were 20 shotguns. Against two men with semi-auto rifles.
That's about 60 pistols and shotguns against 2 semi-auto rifles. If .223 semi-auto rifles were so powerful that 2 of them would put 40 trained officers, armed with over 60 of their own weapons, in an out-gunned state, the Geneva Convention would have outlawed AR-15's years ago.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! You aren't really arguing that because CNN says it... it is fact are you curval?
Really... read the article and tell me what cause the "outgun" situation... was it guns or body armor? Really curval... try and think for yourself on this one because rhetoric is making you look like a handsomehunk right now.
MiniD
That is not what I am saying at all. I'm just confused as to why you think YOU are a better source than CNN. Were you there?
It was a combination of both. I saw the footage after it happened. The guys were blazing away with automatic weapons. Most of the cops had hand-guns...which is why they raided that shop.
Why don't we ask Mr. McBride: "Added the LAPD's McBride: "We have many suspects who have multiple guns, and they continue to out-gun us and fire at us at will."
Is he a handsomehunk too?
Maybe apathy is a better source than him...I don't know.
You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point.
-
Mini D - They weren't outgunned, but that's the phrase you and CNN edit: and Mr McBridechose to use. Why? There were 200 officers... how could 2 people have them outgunned?
Dune - There were at least 30, perhaps as many as 50 so let's say 40, police officers at the scene.
Which is it boys?
-
Curval, you are the person that brought up this incident that is basically an issue of body armor while arguing about the destructive capabilities of assault weapons. Don't try to pin the "getting signals crossed" thing on me.
A situation in which assault weapons were not the issue was used as a "talk to police offices that were there" example of how destructive assault weapons are.
Come now Curval, you aren't going to try and go on pretending you didn't have your head up your bellybutton on this one are you?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Curval, you are the person that brought up this incident that is basically an issue of body armor while arguing about the destructive capabilities of assault weapons. Don't try to pin the "getting signals crossed" thing on me.
A situation in which assault weapons were not the issue was used as a "talk to police offices that were there" example of how destructive assault weapons are.
Come now Curval, you aren't going to try and go on pretending you didn't have your head up your bellybutton on this one are you?
MiniD
What you keep ignoring is the fact that you have not backed up your claim that this was solely an issue of body armour and not the police being outgunned with anything...nothing, zippo zilch. Your argument is just "I'm right and you are wrong". I say it was a combination of body armour and the fact that the police were outgunned.
You argue one side and post a link that contracticts yourself which includes quotes by a police officer and you claim that my head is up my ass. Again I can only laugh.
LOL!
-
You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point.
I disagree, I think he makes a very valid point. the point I see is that while the guns where outlawed it didn't stop outlaws from having them.
-
Originally posted by Curval
What you keep ignoring is the fact that you have not backed up your claim that this was solely an issue of body armour and not the police being outgunned with anything...nothing, zippo zilch. Your argument is just "I'm right and you are wrong". I say it was a combination of body armour and the fact that the police were outgunned.
You argue one side and post a link that contracticts yourself which includes quotes by a police officer and you claim that my head is up my ass. Again I can only laugh.
LOL!
Tell me how 2 guys can out-gun scores of police officers. Please curval, though I know you didn't use the term... you sure as hell argue it enough.
These cops that were "out-gunned" were able to go into a store and re-arm then come back and kill the assailants... is it because they went in and bought some assault rifles? I doubt it since the store is not allowed to carry them. They gave them slugs for their shotguns because why? Come on now Curval... share with everyone.
It can't be that the story used the key term "assault weapon" and you are simply trained to translate that to "outgunned". Nah.
I can hear your muffled laugh from here. Either that or you have indigestion. You are being a classic example right now curval... well... to be honest I expect no less from you. Thank you for helping take away credibility from the "ban guns" argument.
MiniD
-
BTW curval, the article cited served 2 points. It showed nobody was killed by the "assault weapons" that are somehow more increadibly destructive and effective than normal weapons. AND it showed that "out-gunned" is thrown in by the gun control crowd regardless of the situation.
You chose to call it "fact" because CNN said it.
MiniD
-
Just to point out, I guessed at 40. I have no idea how many officers showed up but I bet it was at least 40. If it was closer to 200, so what? It just goes to further prove D's and my point.
Besides, there is no context to what the officer said. Is he saying that when compared one to one, the bad guy had him out gunned? "Assualt weapon" to pistol? Ok, I can buy that. But, if he's saying that those two "assault weapons" outgunned every officer who responded to the scene put together, then I'll say it.
He's a handsomehunk.
Either way, we'll never know unless one of us asks him. Or takes the opinion of someone who has a lot of experience with firearms. And we already know that you don't like that idea.
:rolleyes:
-
And you still haven't answered the question I asked above. Which is more dangerous, the AR-15 or that BAR?
-
curval... it will be difficult to find cops that have been shot at by "assault rifles" to ask how they feel about em (assault rifles) in the hands of law abiding citizens. it will be difficult because they are so rare as to be allmost mythical. It would be much easier to find cops that had been shot at with vastly superior (to assault rifles) hunting rifles...
As dune so succinctly and accurately points out.... the standard deer rifle is 2-5 times more powerful than the so called "assault rifle". I seriously doubt that any police are for banning hunting rifles.
oh... the LA police did indeed have firearms that were more than capable of penetrating any known body armor. they had officers trained to use em. they got stuck in traffic.
Most police forces don't want to face the liability that having rifle power ammo (even sub rifle power like 223) wizzing around crowded cities so are hesitant to issue weapons to beat officers that would be effective against body armor... extra training etc. All against the extremely low probability of running into bad guys in full body armor who were suicidal as well as homicidal.
I have yet to hear a reason that makes sense as to why these so called "assault weapons" are to feared.
Thing is... you don't want to get shot... not by anything. One minute you are a handsome healthy young lad and they next... you are dead or maimed for life or crippled.
We should avoid shooting people as much as we can but... Right or wrong....Guns are the genie that can't be put back in the bottle.
but.. guns are for the most of us a means of diversion and entertainment... a link to a living history.. a facinating hobby... guns are the tools that shaped industry with the first assembly line and the first product with interchangable parts... they are works of art and works of the best craftsmanship man has to offer. they have shaped the politics of the world. They have allowed the weak to prevail over the strong. They continue to deter crime and tyranny. There is a cost but I consider it small in comparisson to the benifiets.
In the morning I will chrongraph 4 loads out my 45 Kimber that vary slightly in overall length (seating depth) and use different primers. I loaded these rounds upstairs in an old single stage rockcrusher press a few hours ago. When I find one I like I will take it to the range and shoot for accuracy. This is fun for me. Tonite I will reload the kimber with federal hydroshoks and set it by the nitestand. I will most likely drive my Healey or the El Camino out to my jobsite or the local outdoor range to do this tesing.... I will more than likely break several laws having to do with "exhibition of speed" and 'speeding' getting there.
I realize that my time is about over. my barbaric behavior, my way of thinking,will soon give way to more 'progressive' thinking that the women and womenly men of my state deem appropriate behavior for humans... I sure hope I'm wrong and the pendulum starts to swing back the other way but.. it don't look good.
lazs
-
Curval the weapons used by the bad guys in L.A. are basicly under the control of a law written in 1934 .
In CA. you cannot get them, in Nevada you must have a county, a state, and a Federal permit/license, plus a safe or an entire room made into a safe, to even try to purchase fully automatic weapons. Plus the Government can inspect your home anytime they wish!
Fully Automatic weapons are extremely controlled everywhere or they are totally illegal.
The bad guys had weapons that were illegal already in CA and several other states and very difficult to obtain in the remaining states.
The bad guys got the weapons illegally!!!!!!!
Look at England! The crime rate there has increased 300% by some people reckoning. The bad guys are still getting firearms. This on an island where control should be easier!
The truely sad part of all this is bad guys will get and use weapons on us. Doesn't matter if the weapon is a pipe or a bat or a knife or a firearm. And I must add in that so many people seem to believe that their fellow Americans can not be trusted with the means to defend themselves even when the supreme court has ruled that they are responsible for their own protection.
Seem to recall nunchuks mentioned. Hey those are basically outlaw in CA too! See what happens if you use nunchuks in self defense in CA! Heck just display em/play with em in public and see what happens!
As to a society, any society that has been armed for defense and has given up their weapons ... I can point to Carthage (among many others) and what finally happened to them. Again read it! It's History! Carthage is reported to have burned for 17 days! Who reported it? The Romans.
Oh a little note ---> it was the Romans that insisted Carthage disarm and even promised to protect Carthage. Nice job?
Why? Where? Who? is it that keeps insisting that to be considered civilized and progressive people must disarm themselves? Must place themselves at the mercy, or whims of others?
I think history shows that their own governments have been the greatest killers of the people during the 20th century. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, etc.......
-
Not much good fighting rhetoric using rhetoric wrag. And bringing Britain into the argument... bad move.
MiniD
-
Why is it that some people can't learn from history, even current history that is going on (ie: Aus, UK, Canada) ??????
It boils down to this, bill of rights says we have these rights. Most were laid out just a few years after our independance was secured. Now I see that all of these special interest groups are heading to the courts to secure the actual meaning as long as that meaning fits with their beliefs. Don't you think if the founding fathers wanted the bill of rights to be designed by future courts they would have never bothered setting these rights down in the first place. NO! They made it as simple as possible to understand so there will be no question. Weather or not you like guns doesn't matter. If you dont' like them don't buy them! But don't try to tell the rest of us what we should have and shouldn't. You don't know what is the best for me no matter what the situation may look like from you throne.
If you care about your rights, if you like living in a free country, you will not compromise on any of them, not just the ones you like. Freedom is what this country is about. Too many people are trying to tell the rest of us that their idea of freedom is the right one and we need to live by their rules because they know what is best for us. These people need to travel to Washington D.C. Walk up those big grey steps and read the actual words for themselves. They start with "We the people..." Not "I the king..."
-
I initially posted in this thread due to Tarmacs original posts. I met him at the Con and found out he is heading to the Academy and was surprised he had that attitude about assault rifles.
It was all a rather civil conversation until the NRA fanclub started personal attacks.
I tried to get out of this thread when I posted this:
Originally posted by Curval
I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US. The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.
I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.
I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here. I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me.
.
Mini D then jabbed me with this:
"But... feel free to present it in any light you see fit. Don't let the facts get in the way. No skin of my nose either.
By the way... didn't that happen in a state where "assault" weapons are banned?"
Then we began a back and forth jabbing match about the details of this incident.
The whole "outgunned" thing came about from his link he posted to back up his argument and was actually quoted by a police officer.
Dune seems to think that officer is a handsomehunk. This is his perogative.
Until I hear an accurate account of what happened in that incident though I see no reason to continue any discussion on it. The only "official" word on this is thus far CNN and apparently nothing they say can be trusted.
I am not a poster child for the anti-gun lobby Medicboy, the only reason I get involved in these discussions is because I find the subject interesting.
The regulations pertaining to guns where I was brought up is just totally different from yours in the US. We went the complete opposite direction. Gun crime in any form is virtually unheard of.
No judgement call, just facts.
My first involvement in any sort of gun thread revolved around an incident in Grapevine when I watched three yahoos who had bought rifles attempt to put them back in the box after they had removed them, against store policy. I was in line for the gun range at the time and it struck me that these three bumbling idiots had just purchased deadly weapons...probably on sale. It gave me "pause" is all and I made my feelings known on this board.
Ever since I have been branded anti-gun.
-
Hey... you brought the story up when arguing shear destructive firepower curval (not mentioned at all in that article btw).
And... that's a funny story curval... the part about the guys buying the guns. How do you think the same morons got to the store?
This is something spook used to do too. Its something, I'm somewhat releived, our constitution provides for. Feeling that only certain people or certain types of people should own guns is simply the start. Much like finding certain guns that are really the problem. It makes it much easier to levy restrictions and justify increased restrictions.
woopie for your little island's ability to curtail gun violence by banning guns. Quick question though... do your police officers have guns at all? Does your government have them at all? I mean... just for security precautions?
Any idea why bobbies in GB would need sidearms after firearms have been banned but didn't use them before the ban?
The idea of an uncheckable government scares me more than the thought of a gun falling "into the wrong hands".
MiniD
-
Curval, I in no way have a problem with the fact you don't like guns, or don't really care for them I guess would be more accurate. But gun owners have gotten a real bad rap by people sterotyping. In the area I live now and the area I am moving to in a few weeks a very large portion of residents own guns. Gun crime doesn't exist here either. We average 1 murder a year in the entire county and only about every 3rd or 4th year is it the result of a gun shot. I haven't treated a non self inflicted or accidental gun shot in years. Home invasions and burglries are unheard of. You can leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and not worry. Irony playes into this, for example the area that the DC shooters (I refuse to lable a 30 yard shot as a sniper shot) took place has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, do you think that maybe they picked this area because the chances of an armed civilan comming to the rescue were slim to nil? The famed bank shoot out in hollywood: well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16. All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.
Just because people own guns dosen't make them "psycho" or deranged killers. So please stop lumping gun owners into one group. I have a question for you, is ther still crime on your island, and are there still murders?
My overall argument was about rights, your island never included gun ownership as a right so you never had to deal with losing it. My thought is if we compromise on one right, the dominos start falling and it wont stop till you have to get a special permit to speak your mind.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hey... you brought the story up when arguing shear destructive firepower curval (not mentioned at all in that article btw).
Fortunately the guys must have been incredibly bad shots. That or the cops were hunkered down really well. They kept the cops at bay for quite some time before even more firepower was brought to bear on them, either in the form of better guns..or just more of them.
And... that's a funny story curval... the part about the guys buying the guns. How do you think the same morons got to the store?
Pick up truck would be my guess.
This is something spook used to do too. Its something, I'm somewhat releived, our constitution provides for. Feeling that only certain people or certain types of people should own guns is simply the start. Much like finding certain guns that are really the problem. It makes it much easier to levy restrictions and justify increased restrictions.
What is something spook used to do?
woopie for your little island's ability to curtail gun violence by banning guns. Quick question though... do your police officers have guns at all? Does your government have them at all? I mean... just for security precautions?
Yes, yes, I know. We are a tiny little insignificant island and my opinion does count because of it. I've been informed of this many times.
The only cops with guns are the Special Operations guys...sort of a SWAT team. The only time I ever saw them was when shooting against them in a "falling plate" contest. They beat us (Jr NCO team, I think).
We have a reserve regiment.
Any idea why bobbies in GB would need sidearms after firearms have been banned but didn't use them before the ban?
Drugs are bad. That point was made well in this thread already.
The idea of an uncheckable government scares me more than the thought of a gun falling "into the wrong hands".
Uncheckable how?
[/B]
-
Originally posted by medicboy
Curval, I in no way have a problem with the fact you don't like guns, or don't really care for them I guess would be more accurate.
It's not guns I don't like...just the stupid people who own guns. Actually it's not that I don't like them, but knowing they are amongst me, based upon average numbers of stupid people in crowds, when I visit makes me nervous.
But gun owners have gotten a real bad rap by people sterotyping.
Addressed below.
The famed bank shoot out in hollywood: well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16. All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.
If this is the case then you have made a good point.
Just because people own guns dosen't make them "psycho" or deranged killers. So please stop lumping gun owners into one group.
Where have I said this? I never said gun owners are psycho or deranged killers. I have a nasty suspicion you are doing a bit of stereotyping here yourself.
I have a question for you, is ther still crime on your island, and are there still murders?
Of course there is still crime here. Yes, there have been a few murders. Just none with guns that I can recall since the incident below..
My overall argument was about rights, your island never included gun ownership as a right so you never had to deal with losing it.
Untrue. My father had two guns in his closet when I was a kid. Then the governor was shot and killed. Since then, no guns.
My thought is if we compromise on one right, the dominos start falling and it wont stop till you have to get a special permit to speak your mind.
As yes, thanks for reminding me...I must renew mine on Monday down at the "Independent Thought Department".;)
-
Here is an interesting thread. The website is "Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine". Here is what LEO's had to say about the "Assault Weapons Ban":
http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300&whichpage=1
-
Fortunately the guys must have been incredibly bad shots. That or the cops were hunkered down really well. They kept the cops at bay for quite some time before even more firepower was brought to bear on them, either in the form of better guns..or just more of them.
Ah... I see... you never saw the video. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about in this whole thing.
They weren't hunkered down. They were walking down the streets. The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor. Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them. That was the end.
The weapons that can "kill indescriminantly" and poses massive destructive firepower did not kill anyone... despite several hundred rounds being fired. The police officers were always very near the robbers despite them having those massive long range assault weapons. What made this event memorable was the lack of effect the police weapons had on the body armor. The media is the only one that chose to make assault weapons the issue. The robbers could have had hand guns and it would have been the same.
So when this story is presented as some kind of "talk to the cops that were there and see what they'd say"... it implies you might have had some remote clue as to what really happened. It implies that you believed the frustration they spoke of came from the weapons being used by the criminals and not simply because of the ineffectiveness of the police officer's weapons. You were quite simply and quite clearly mistaken.
The rest of what you're now saying in regards to the truck driving idiots is pretty typical demo speak. You really should try to avoid falling into such neat little stereotypes yourself... it takes away any credibility you might have had.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
They weren't hunkered down. They were walking down the streets. The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor. Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them. That was the end.
That was actually one of their problems. The robbers didn't have just one vest on. They had layered several vests on themselves. And, while they were something of a human tank, they couldn't move. They were so weighed down that they couldn't get to their car and had to shoot it out.
BTW, after a little research I've found out how it ended. A SWAT team responded to the calls. Since the SWAT guys carry all their heavy hardware with them, they engaged the bad guys. One of the bad guys killed himself when he realized he couldn't get away and the other was shot by the SWAT team when he tried to drive off.
-
I am slightly confused as to why Canada is being included in the Ban on Firearms in this topic.
While we do have on oppressive Government as regards certain types of Weapons, and the Farce that is known as the National Gun registry, We are still very much Gun owners up here.
I currently have 4 in my Locker as we speak. 12 g, BLR 22-250,
Marlin 80 22. , and a Moisin 1891/59.
LAZ: Can you give me your thoughts on the BLR 22-250 ?
Just your general opinion, Good or Bad?
-
Just to make the point again as this lie was repeated again. Banning certain types of gun did NOT lead to a 300% increase in gun crime in the UK or Australia or anywhere else. The two are unrelated. In fact if defies logic to relate the two. In fact it makes more sense to say that banning drugs lead to an increase in gun crime. It's a very poor argument particularly as even with increased gun crime they are relaitively fewer than the US.
Like I said before I am not anti gun but I do believe the current situation in the USA does no one any favours, gun owners or the public at large. The reality is that the USA in general suffers from a higher rate of gun deaths and gun crime than any other developed country, worse than Canada, Australia the UK etc. Even though in many areas there is minimal or no crime. Some people suggest more guns is the answer, most suggest less. So what is the answer?
The constitutionally granted 'right to bear arms' is an accident of history and was clearly intended for the circumstances of the day. How can anyone rationally say today that owning a gun is patriotic and a bulwark against the goverment sending the 82nd Airborne against you? Anyone who owns a gun saying they need it to protect themselves against the authorities or foreign aggression is a nut. Most gun owners are not nuts but guns are dangerous in the hands of angry people and nutcases.
America still has one of the most liberal (ironic word that)l gun owning regime in the developed world. But that's under threat because of constant misuse of legally held guns. Most of the high profile school massacres and work incidents are carried out with legally held guns. That I suspect is why assault rifles were banned in the first place. Incidents like children shooting other children with their Father's gun and othe accidental killings are what bothers the public at large.
So my question is this how do you reduce gun deaths in general without penalizing law abiding gun owners? Saying it's your constitutional right doesn't cut it. Any ideas?
-
ping... I have only ever had one 22-250.. a bull barelled Savage. I know very little about rifles and am not all that interested in them compared to handguns. Dune or deja can probly help ya more than I can.
From readers here to that deformed POS moore... they all point out the murder rate in the U.S. but no one points out who is doing the murdering. Who exactly is murdering who? moore insinuates that the white guys are "frieghtened" of blacks and are buying all the guns and shooting black people... this of course is not what is happening. Drug dealers and criminals are shooting each other. Take that segment out of the equation and, per capita... The U.S. doesn't look so dangerous so far as firearms go. People murder people for the money.... Take the profit out of it and it will settle down to a few mentally disturbed shootings a year... Just like everywhere else.... there, see.. I just answered the question mike moore was too stupid and too close minded to see right in front of his face... Course.... he probly supports the illegal drug industry so.... in effect... is doing more to further homicide in the U.S. than I am by being a gun owner.... It is he that should feel guilty not me or Kmart. But.... taking responsibility for his own actions or not looking the other way when his friends support homicide here is way too much to ask of him.
Canada is just starting... they don't have enough money for drugs and the border below them isn't third world... Why smuggle drugs to Canada from the U.S.?
Mexico is a porous border that floods us with drugs and cheap Military full auto AK47's Ak's go on the world market for around 20 bucks and sell for 200-800 to criminals in the States who don't have access. Law abiding citizens don't buy em.
The LA shootout was criminals with full auto guns... criminals and political nuts as well as garden variety mentally disturbed will continue to get full auto weapons and there will be "incidents". Probly as the stress level increases worldwide... there will be incidents.... less if you live on an island of course.
lazs
-
cpxx... name one other country that has such an isatiable appetite for drugs... name one that has a 1500 mile long porus border with a third world country that produces thousands of tons of drugs a year and sells them across the border at 400-1000 times their cost.
preventing homicides in the U.S? simple... solve the drug problem or the drug profit problem or whatever you want to call it. Untill then forget it.. Nothing needs to be done. The criminals will continue to murder each other and the occasional bystander.
You won't be able to stop the occassional nutjob or political loony from shooting up a crowd... but so what? It doesn't happen enough to get drastic about and most of them are on drugs anyhow and.... the real big slaughters in the U.S by nut jobs don't use guns anyhow.
But... We can do something....We can make concealed carry permits easier to get... that will save lives... all the school shootings were stopped with a gun. When the colubine kids knew guns were coming they shot themselves.... most do... if they thought that 10% of the teachers might have had concealed carry permits.... they probly wouldn't have even brought their guns to school.
Take the drugs out of the equation and make it so the nutjobs don't have any shooting galleries filled with helpless little screaming bunny rabbits.... (they don't shoot up shooting ranges or police stations or military bases).....
You do that and you won't have a problem that is significant enough to restrict firearms in any way.
lazs
-
Let me ask you people that think guns are the problem.... even that POS moore asked why Canada has so many guns and doesn't have the problems the U.S. has....
What do yu think the homicide and crime rate of Canada would do if all of a sudden the U.S. became a third or fourth world nation? A nation of arms brokers and drug manufacturing labs and nothing much else? Where working at a fast food place in canada could give you enough to support a family of 6 back in the States? Where the sale of one ounce of speed to a canadian would give you enough to live on for a couple of months.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... I see... you never saw the video. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about in this whole thing.
They weren't hunkered down. They were walking down the streets. The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor. Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them. That was the end.
The weapons that can "kill indescriminantly" and poses massive destructive firepower did not kill anyone... despite several hundred rounds being fired. The police officers were always very near the robbers despite them having those massive long range assault weapons. What made this event memorable was the lack of effect the police weapons had on the body armor. The media is the only one that chose to make assault weapons the issue. The robbers could have had hand guns and it would have been the same.
So when this story is presented as some kind of "talk to the cops that were there and see what they'd say"... it implies you might have had some remote clue as to what really happened. It implies that you believed the frustration they spoke of came from the weapons being used by the criminals and not simply because of the ineffectiveness of the police officer's weapons. You were quite simply and quite clearly mistaken.
The rest of what you're now saying in regards to the truck driving idiots is pretty typical demo speak. You really should try to avoid falling into such neat little stereotypes yourself... it takes away any credibility you might have had.
MiniD
Mini D, can't you read?
I said the COPS were hunkered down, not the guys who robbed the bank. Please don't mistake your lack of reading and comprehension for a vaild point and a way to discredit me. You just look foolish.
I'm wondering if you saw the video. For someone with such an incredible memory you omitted to mention that one guy killed himself, and that a SWAT team member took out the second guy.
Dune, did that SWAT officer kill the last guy from 30 yards? I'm curious. If he didn't then Mini D's accusations of me not seeing the video will truly show who is full of it.
I don't honestly remember, it has been a long time since that incident.
What is demo speak? I told you a true story...look it up on these boards if you like. Try to stop with the personal attacks Mini D, stick to the point of the debate.
-
curval... the bad guys did what guys with full auto weapons do best.... they kept heads down. They were not incredibly bad shots they were just on full auto. if someone could have gotten off an aimed shot then any round the police carried would have ended the fight. Any shot to the head or legs would have ended the fight instantly, in the case of the former, or ended it a little later in the case of the latter.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... the bad guys did what guys with full auto weapons do best.... they kept heads down. They were not incredibly bad shots they were just on full auto. if someone could have gotten off an aimed shot then any round the police carried would have ended the fight. Any shot to the head or legs would have ended the fight instantly, in the case of the former, or ended it a little later in the case of the latter.
lazs
Agreed lazs..although I think their legs were protected too. Your right about the full-auto too, no argument here. It is still lucky they didn't kill anyone given the sheer number of rounds they fired.
Yup, they kept heads down...hunkered down in fact.
-
Wow... lazs and curval... you are both quite wrong.
The cops did get off multiple shots. It is not that they were too afraid to shoot. The robbers had several layers of armor around their entire body. Nothing was working. It's not that the cops were too afraid to shoot.
This is getting downright silly curval. The story was not a case of unusualy firepower. There were two criminals with guns. Auto or not that can be dealt with and has in the past. The body armor was a totally new one and the reason they were able to just walk down the street unscathed.
But here you are somehow... any way... please god let it be... trying to make it sound as if the automatic weapons were the difference here... what made it such a store. Sorry, but you're really stretching on this one.
MiniD
-
deja... a head shot woulda ended it. Cops are trained to fire at center of mass. No one knows how many times the bad guys were hit but it wasn't that many considering how many rounds were fired.
Again... head or neck woulda done it... hand shot woulda dissabled as would feet.
lazs
-
the thing that I find so amazing that the anti's completely dismiss facts that get in the way of their argument.
england bans guns and gun crime goes up. -
it's a fluke, any coralation defies logic.
in areas in the US where more people own guns there is less crime.-
another statistical anomoly, "I'm certain that those people are just less violent, it has nothing to do with the gun"
in spite of the fact that "assault rifles" are banned in california, and full-auto guns are banned (without extensive permits), fellons managed to get these illegal guns from illegal sources, and wheren't concerned with the laws banning them, reinforcing the belief that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns"-
"You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point. "
it's easy to feel you're right if you just dismiss out of hand any facts that go against your argument. it's one thing to doubt someone elses facts, or point to other factoers that wheren't taken into consideration while developing statistics. but to just say over and over, that "I know the facts point that way and I have no other explaination for it, but they must be wrong because they go against my point"
-
Just when I think I can walk away, something brings me back.
Capt. the point was and still is irrelevant because this entire discussion started as a result of a St. Petersburg, Florida news article. The issue was the banning of assault weapons as a result of an incident that happened there...it was not limited to California. So, I assumed it was a countrywide discussion. In that regard the point that the guns were used in a State where they were, in fact, illegal is moot if you can purchase such weapons in other states.
Clear?
Now, I granted Medicboy his point that the AKs used were from Mexico, here:
The famed bank shoot out in hollywood: well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16. All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.
If this is the case then you have made a good point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This point was made AFTER Mini D's clever remark about them being illegal in California.
You guys should also be made aware of your stereotyping and take out the preverbial "plank" out of your eyes before pulling the sliver out of mine.
You have lumped me in with the "anti's" when I have already told you why I am involved in this thread.
Mini D did the same thing, I suspect, when he referred to "typical demo speak". He's throwing me in with the democrats I suppose. This is funny because I don't live in, or involve myself in the politics of, your country. I'm also an extremely "consevative" when it comes to ecomomic issues. You cannot fit me into any US political party line.
Medicboy also veered down the road of stereotyping me as thinking gun owners are all murders and thugs.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Curval is in no way a threat to gun ownership in the United States......its just plain ridiculous.
OKAY?
-
"The constitutionally granted 'right to bear arms' is an accident of history and was clearly intended for the circumstances of the day. How can anyone rationally say today that owning a gun is patriotic and a bulwark against the government sending the 82nd Airborne against you? Anyone who owns a gun saying they need it to protect themselves against the authorities or foreign aggression is a nut. Most gun owners are not nuts but guns are dangerous in the hands of angry people and nut-cases. "
Hmm I don't think the 82nd Airborne would necessarily commit such an act. Funny thing but I don't think any of em would want to attack possible family members or neighbors or other Americans. Ya know rumor has it thats why the Chinese used mongolian troops at Tienanmen Square (ok I know spelling). The Chinese protesters were unable to talk to the mongolian troops. That single person facing down the column of tanks thing was something! You gonna point at Waco now? That is a real can of worms if ya really want to open it. It's still being argued. And allot of the information never made it to the general public due to the media not saying.
Accident? So Switzerland is and accident also? What about your own monarch's actually giving their own people the right to defend themselves? Didn't they actually make it LAW? (Kinda what started things over here when the troops came for the arms. Seems these silly colonist had the impression they were British Subject with British Rights!) And the scramble for arms just after Dunkirk? Some actually were sent from America to England. DANG FUNNY how useful those silly colonist weapons were then?
Any weapon is dangerous in the hands of the angry or nut-case.
As to protecting themselves hmmm... funny thing about that what was it hmmm... at the beginning it was about 10 handguns used by some jews in Warsaw that seemed to turn the tide for a time. Word is politics got involved and the Allies that were near to them didn't show.
And we should probably forget the Afghans and the Soviet Union thing huh? I mean they don't fit in either.
And we should probably forget most of the arab/muslim world and ignore them huh? (even if they are all mostly armed with something)
And we should forget the WWII response of the Japanese General when asked why they didn't invade the U.S.
"Just to make the point again as this lie was repeated again. Banning certain types of gun did NOT lead to a 300% increase in gun crime in the UK or Australia or anywhere else. The two are unrelated. In fact if defies logic to relate the two. In fact it makes more sense to say that banning drugs lead to an increase in gun crime. It's a very poor argument particularly as even with increased gun crime they are relatively fewer than the US."
Lie? Are you sure it's a lie? Are your sure it hasn't happened? Crime rates haven't increased? Home invasion robberies haven't increased?
The actual statistics DID increase after the banning of certain [?] (thought it was very nearly all) firearms.
Don't recall anyone saying it was "gun" crimes increasing just crimes. But do recall the bad guys are reported to have MORE guns NOW! Also do I recall correctly a female media person murdered with a "gun" at her front door?
"America still has one of the most liberal (ironic word that)l gun owning regime in the developed world. But that's under threat because of constant misuse of legally held guns. Most of the high profile school massacres and work incidents are carried out with legally held guns. That I suspect is why assault rifles were banned in the first place. Incidents like children shooting other children with their Father's gun and other accidental killings are what bothers the public at large."
Actually in most of the High profile cases the weapons are taken illegally, and of course used illegally.
This better not be a regime (at least if my understanding of the word is correct).
Again the term "Assault" rifle did not exist until, I believe it was, a certain Josh Sugerman, coined the Fraze with the intention of demonizing firearms. I think he was working for Handgun control, or some other anti-gun org. at the time. Looks like he succeeded.
cpxxx for the record.....
I freely confess I have taken exception, perhaps wrongly, to what I perceive as your attitude as well as the manner you seem to have chosen to display it. IMHO what was said could very easily been said in a different manner. Considering the differences in our cultural heritage perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Otherwise this will go into Rights verses privileges, subjects verses citizens, etc.. etc.. and nothing, in the end, will be proved or solved.
Also there is going to be some individuals calling me for my reaction here. Not so much that I've said anything wrong but more along the lines of i'm wasting everyones time.
-
Mini D did the same thing, I suspect, when he referred to "typical demo speak". He's throwing me in with the democrats I suppose. This is funny because I don't live in, or involve myself in the politics of, your country. I'm also an extremely "consevative" when it comes to ecomomic issues. You cannot fit me into any US political party line.
very few of us can fit completely into 1 political party. I believe in a lot of the things the republican party says they stand for (family values, keep the gov't out of our lives, anti-abortion, protect the right to bear arms, ending gov't sponsored discrimination) they just don't put much effort into the things we agree on.
I never labled you a democrat or a republican, but from your posts on the issue, I don't feel I was out of line in assuming you where anti-gun.
as far as the AK's being ilegal in the whole US or just Cali, it doesn't really matter, SAM's are ilegal for private ownership just about everywhere, but if you have the money you can still buy them. so wether these guns where bought legally in mexico and smuggled in. or bought legal in Nevada, or ilegal everywhere but stolen from a military base and sold on the blackmarket, it doesn't matter, they where still ilegal and it didn't stop the crooks from getting them. it just proves that you can make any damn law you want and the only people you restrict are law abiding people.
-
england bans guns and gun crime goes up.
"England" didn't ban guns, it restricted handguns even more than they were already. And gun crime went down following the ban, not up. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Lie? Are you sure it's a lie? Are your sure it hasn't happened? Crime rates haven't increased?
There was a change to the way crimes were recorded in England and Wales in 1997/98, which increased the recorded level of crime. The more accurate British Crime Survey, which questions people about actual crimes they have experienced, has shown a broad reduction in crime.
As regards gun crime, the number of offences has increased, but by far the largest category is air weapons, ie mainly kids trespassing with an air rifle, shooting at signs, windows etc.
The number of handgun robberies is lower now than it was in 1993.
Two statistics can give you an idea of how frequently guns are used in crime in England and Wales.
Firstly, the number of people convicted or cautioned for an offence under the firearms act:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Cautioning(1)
rate (2001) %
Possession of firearms with intent to
endanger life or injure property
207 240 225 111 79 73 - 18%
Using firearms with intent to resist arrest
15 9 9 10 8 7 - 14%
Possessing firearms at time of
committing, or being arrested for,
an offence
61 77 84 70 95 81 - 23%
Possessing firearms with intent to
commit an indictable offence or
resist arrest
82 71 86 62 78 77 - 8%
Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence
188 223 295 449 465 560 - 32%
Possessing firearms or ammunition
without certificate (Section 1)(2)
647 705 484 411 365 280 - 42%
Shortening a shotgun
24 14 8 2 2 4 - 25%
Possessing shotgun without
certificate
700 609 425 239 336 346 - 67%
Selling firearms to person without a
certificate
18 29 20 16 9 6 - 100%
Possessing or distributing
prohibited weapons or ammunition
1,002 1,053 1,303 1,038 891 899 - 16%
Carrying loaded firearm in public place
151 174 180 133 114 117 - 44%
Possession of firearms by persons
previously convicted of crime
152 151 157 143 138 116 - 4%
Other indictable offence
34 43 37 40 25 34 - 44%
Sorry about the table, but the numbers are actual figures for each year 1996 - 2001, the last number is the percentage of people who recieved a police caution.
A police caution is basically a warning from the police, which remains on file for a few years. It's used in less serious cases.
Bear in mind that a criminal, say a drug dealer or robber, will be charged with one of the more serious offenses in that table. A retired soldier with an old gun in the attic will recieve a caution under one of the lesser offences (Possessing or distributing
prohibited weapons or ammunition).
That probably equals under 1,000 genuine criminals convicted of possesion of a firearm in a year.
Secondly, the number of policemen shot and killed a year.
In America, the figure is around 50 per year (70 last year, excluding 9/11). In england and Wales, which has about one sixth the population, the figure is usually 0 per year.
In fact, the last time a policeman was shot dead in England and Wales was 1995. In 8 years, the figure is 1 death. Adjusting for population, that should give America 6 deaths in the last 8 years.
Instead, the figure is around 400.
Home invasion robberies haven't increased?
Burgularies have been going down for a number of years.
The "ban" on hanguns in the UK had no effect on crime, except to make another Dunblane style attack less likely. Handguns were rare enough anyway, the idea that banning them could cause crime to rise is just bizarre. No burgular/robber in the UK used to be worried about encountering someone with a handgun anyway.
-
http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html
-
thats a much better way to disagree with a post than just saying it's irrelivant.
however you say
The "ban" on hanguns in the UK had no effect on crime, except to make another Dunblane style attack less likely.
except the one statistic that would seem most relivant to that event says otherwise
Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence
188 223 295 449 465 560 - 32%
also do you have any figures on actual crimes? by that I mean that the statistics are for crimes that are mostly just crimes because of gun regulation, or what they think you might intend to do with the gun.
I didn't see any statistics in your post for things like number of armed robberys per year, or number of people shot or killed by guns.
-
Wrag, you are mistaken my friend, about the Government sending troops. There are several examples, but I will quote you one in which I was present - although I was locked up on a construction site on the Detroit River for 2 days at McClouth Steel, my buddy in the 101st Screaming Eagles later told me all about manning his post with a 50 cal maching gun on the streets of Detroit. My point is, the government does deploy troops.
I don't think this is an example of troops employed improperly. It is just an example of troops being employed....
Also, I don't agree with the conclusions below about those who engage in riots. I think rioting is a group mentality phenomenon, with no real order or group consensus about why they are rioting.
A Firebell in the Night
By William M. King, Afroamerican Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder
At 2320 on Monday, 24 July 1967, Lyndon Johnson, at the request of then Michigan governor, George Romney, ordered 4700 members of the 82d and 101st Airborne units, who had begun arriving in the area earlier in the day, into Detroit to supplement 7000 National Guardsmen already in the city. Twice before, under Eisenhower in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, and under Kennedy in Oxford, Mississippi in 1962, troops from these two divisions had been called into action to protect life and property and restore civil order that was beyond the ability of local authorities to handle. Detroit, with 7200 persons (most of them young black males) in temporary detention, 43 dead, 33 of them Afroamericans, and 50 millions of dollars in property damage, was but the loudest cry for justice in America by black people in this fifth year of urban unrest that had begun with Harlem in 1964. This decision was taken after some negotiation between the president and the governor to avoid nullification of extant insurance polices that would occur if the locals declared that the riot was beyond their ability to control. Clearly, in a capitalist society, property, being more important than human life, must be protected at all costs.
The triggering event for Detroit was a raid on a "blind pig", an after-hours joint in the black community early Sunday morning, 23 July 1967. The after-action analyses and investigations made clear that the police arrived with inadequate intelligence about the resources they would need to quell the disturbance they had catalyzed. Their continued presence in the area, the fact that the police force was 95 per cent white and their track record of acting like an occupying army in the provinces, gave impetus to the need of the citizenry to vent the frustration and rage that had intensified over the years as a consequence of tilting against the racial barriers white America had thrown up in education, employment, housing, government and the media in an attempt to make the fact that the economic order of this society was incapable of responding to the needs of all its constituents. Indeed, we had designed a society that was predicated on the principle of exclusion and then we had sought to rationalize away its inequities by blaming the victim for not being able to compete, overlooking the differential distribution of opportunity the land in accordance with certain ascriptive criteria over which the victims of American democracy, as Malcolm pointed out, had no control. It is not so much the fact of oppression that destroys a people as it is acceptance of that oppression made manifest in disingenuous social policies and practices that in the case of Detroit and other cities of long hot summers were symbolized in the presence and conduct of the police who are charged with maintaining law and order.
Clearly, the conduct of black people during that five day period of barely controlled chaos was exacerbated by the "revolutionary" climate of opinion that had been building in Black America since World War II, which I contend is second in significance only to the War Between the States in understanding the history of black people in the United States. By the beginning of the 60s, there was sufficient momentum in the struggle by black people for self -determination, for the objective of black control of black communities, that any attempt to thwart that realization without the use of massive force was bound to inflame extant passions and heighten tensions in the community. Moderate leaders who entered the riot area were as ineffective as Martin Luther King, Jr had been in Watts in 1965 necessitating a show of massive force to reimpose that thin veneer of civilization that distinguishes us from other members of the animal kingdom. And so, some 12 hours after the raid that initiated the riot as an event, it having become evident that things were getting out of hand, Romney mobilized the Michigan National Guard and ordered them into the city, heavily armed and without any training in riot control tactics that would prove most tragic in the hours and days ahead.
What existed in Detroit during the riot was an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty fed by rumors and fear. Not unlike in the bush, in Vietnam, the guardsmen saw themselves surrounded by an enemy they did not understand; an enemy that appeared willing to sacrifice itself to achieve its objective of ridding its turf of oppressors and exploiters who did not belong. All those folk ever did was take from the community. Seldom did they give anything back. As in the jungle, there was no front line against which to focus the forces that had been brought in to quell the disturbance. Detroit had become a place, during this most recent rebellion, where everyone was at risk, civilians and soldiers alike.
The national guard, virtually all white, young and inexperienced, possessed tremendous firepower which they used indiscriminately. They shot out the streetlights making it difficult to distinguish the friendlies from the foe. Backlit by burning buildings, their pale faces, like in the jungles of Southeast Asia, made them easily identifiable targets of opportunity for the supposedly large numbers of black snipers that crept across the rooftops firing down into their massed numbers causing them to break discipline in the belief that their numerical and technological superiority could put things right again. They could not and so federales were sent in albeit with unloaded weapons, because the President did not want it said that any of his boys had killed anyone, to demonstrate the national commitment to restoring order. As Johnson would say later, "No society can tolerate massive violence anymore than a body can tolerate massive disease. And we shall not tolerate it." But the actual truth of the matter was that large numbers of Americans were disturbed by what they were seeing on their TV screens. The political climate of the country had begun to shift, becoming more conservative, retreating within itself as a way of coping with the changes that were occuring daily. The reins of power were slipping away. A sense of impotence and ennui were loose in the landand TET was yet to come.
And then it was over. Whether it was due to exhaustion or the presence of some 17,000 law enforcement personnel is still not clear. But it was over. No new programs would be created. The war would see to that. Many of the young brothers who had taken part in riot activities would soon find themselves fighting again; this time in a war whose objectives were not as clear as they had been in Detroit. And they would take with them changed attitudes, a new and different consciousness that the big green machine would respond to with great difficulty further straining an army that, unacknowledged, was already in a state of collapse.
The primary significance of Detroit and the numerous other riots that took place between 1964 and 1967 was that they were all for naught. The sought-for change of national will called for by the Kerner Commission did not and has not yet come to pass. Indeed, if we might conclude anything, it is that, relatively speaking, the status of inconsistency and black powerlessness that was present in the United States before the riots is still with us today. The deaths, the arrests, the destruction of property in the community, much of which was owned by outsiders, was an injudicious use of the talents of black people forced by a society to resort to extreme means to seek a just end. Like the firebell in the night, the riots were the acts of a desperate people who sought only to acquire what others before them had achieved but which had been denied them: some semblance of influence or control over the events effecting their lives. Perhaps, though, they were better off in one manner of speaking. They did not need to create a series of illusions to shield them from the awful truths of their powerlessness. Yet they did make an attempt to point out, to make known to those with the means to make alterations in the asymmetry of life chance, that there is a danger in keeping a people powerless for too long.
-
except the one statistic that would seem most relivant to that event says otherwise
Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence
Intent to cause fear is hardly the same as Dunblane, that's covered by "Possession of firearms with intent to
endanger life or injure property".
The odd thing about intent to cause fear is that many of those "firearms" were probably replicas, hence the intent to cause fear. British police like to "overcharge", and would go for an intent to endanger life if possible.
Obviously, you can't endanger life with a replica.
Replica guns and air guns are classified as firearms if used as such during a crime. There's a fairly famous case of a man in the UK convicted of armed robbery, after using a banana in a bag and claiming it was a gun.
also do you have any figures on actual crimes? by that I mean that the statistics are for crimes that are mostly just crimes because of gun regulation,
I gave these figures because they show the oft repeated claim that there are large numbers of ilegal guns in Britain are false. If there were large numbers of criminals with guns, then you would expect to see large numbers of people being charged and convicted of possesion of firearms.
The actual number of crimes committed with "firearms" is fairly hard to pin down, partly because they lump air weapons and firearms together for many of the categories, and partly because the way they record crimes has changed.
Offences with air weapons have gone up hugely, but I think that's mainly because such "crimes" went un-reported before. It used to be that a kid could go out in to fields with an air weapon, now thanks to the hysteria about uns whipped up by the media, some idiot will se him and phone the police, who have to respond.
The kid gets a warning for armed trespass, and another "firearms" offence is recorded.
Also, the vast majority of handguns used in robberies in the UK are replicas, but they are still recorded as firearms crimes.
There's no doubt the number of murders with guns has gone up, to 96 last year. That's about as much to do with the "ban" on handguns as the fall in 1997/98/99 was.
-
There's no doubt the number of murders with guns has gone up, to 96 last year. That's about as much to do with the "ban" on handguns as the fall in 1997/98/99 was.
the above quote proves my point exactly. now here is the very hart of the issue. most people who state a reason for being anti-gun do so on the basis that they believe it's the guns that kill people. you don't often hear people say that guns should be banned because people might have a shotgun too short, or resist arrest with a gun in their pocket, the big worry is that if guns are legal people will be killed with them.
and here the statistics prove the point that outlawing guns (or restricting or outlawing certain types of guns), does nothing to make people safer. quite the contrary, gun related deaths went up when peoples right to own them legally was restricted.
number of people killed by guns is a direct and to the point statistic as far as the effectiveness of gun law in deterring violence. however you dismiss this statistic out of hand because it just doesn't fit into the way you see the issue (never considering that your view may be wrong), and you can't provide any reason why you think this statistic could be in error.
for example, the statistics you posted of changes in gun crime could be easily explained (as you mentioned) by changes in what is considered a crime.
however number of people killed with a gun is a fairly hard statistic, there's not too many ways to interpret a corpse with a bullet hole in it.
-
Originally posted by Dune
Here is an interesting thread. The website is "Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine". Here is what LEO's had to say about the "Assault Weapons Ban":
http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300&whichpage=1
Thanks Dune... I liked the response from user "712."
mauser
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I never labled you a democrat or a republican, but from your posts on the issue, I don't feel I was out of line in assuming you where anti-gun.
as far as the AK's being ilegal in the whole US or just Cali, it doesn't really matter, SAM's are ilegal for private ownership just about everywhere, but if you have the money you can still buy them. so wether these guns where bought legally in mexico and smuggled in. or bought legal in Nevada, or ilegal everywhere but stolen from a military base and sold on the blackmarket, it doesn't matter, they where still ilegal and it didn't stop the crooks from getting them. it just proves that you can make any damn law you want and the only people you restrict are law abiding people.
On the first point, I guess you missed it that I was in line at the GUN RANGE in Grapevine.
Or this "It's not guns I don't like...just the stupid people who own guns. Actually it's not that I don't like them, but knowing they are amongst me, based upon average numbers of stupid people in crowds, when I visit makes me nervous."
From this you have assumed I am anti-gun?
Just because I am not agreeing with every point made by the pro-gun lobby and because I question the logic of totally unrestricted selling of all types of guns doesn't make me anti-gun. To immediately jump to that conclusion is called "stereotyping", something I have been accused of by at least three people in this thread.
Now...as to your second point, this is a much better argument, but somewhat similar to Medicboy's point, which I conceeded.
I'm here to discuss the issues...not to get gang-banged by a bunch of pro-gun enthusiasts.
-
Originally posted by mauser
Not a police officer, but there are a few here in this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37813&highlight=LEO+patrol+rifle
It doesn't really answer the question on why the switch, but rather correctly goes over how patrol rifles are not a new concept, and they aren't necessarily there to replace shotguns but are another tool in the toolbox. Different tools required for different situations. Sorry for the mislead.
mauser
Just to support Mauser's point, the LAPD up-gunned to patrol rifles after a policy change as a result of the north Hollywood bank-robbery shootout. I would suspect that this influenced other police units to change their policies as well.
http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/
Shotguns are good for some situations, rifles are good for others.
-
Hmm... and still no one comes up with a reason to ban the so called assault rifle... it isn't used in any crimes now so why bother? Incremntalism.
As for troops attacking citizens... it has happened before and will happen again. Not all the troops... some will defect... lines have been drawn before.. we have a history of war with brother against brother in this country... We have a history of troops attacking the populatin or vice versa.
Some guy stole a tank one time and drove around LA crushing cars and such. It could happen again. Probly not worth putting an anti tank missle in the trunk of patrol. cars tho.
england.... so banning handguns hasn't increased gun crime significantly? It certainly hasn't decreased it tho.... so what's the point? has overall homicide gone down since the ban? Crime has gone up because of the way it is reported? How do you report a burglary now in england compared to before? Burglaries are up in england and worse.. in england they don't fear the homeowner so they do it while he is home... I guess in england it is fair that the young and strong should prey on the weak. No thanks... I would like to have the crooks worry.
But... no one has addressed the issue. How would england or Canada be if they had Mexico along 1500 miles of their border and they had the money to spend on drugs that we have? Mr moore never touched on that because it is a sore spot for him and his lefty, loady friends... it is they who are supporting the death rate in the U.S. not some homeowner with a gun.
Nice to sit on an island or up North with the U.S as a buffer and condem a country that has the third world at it's border and on it's streets... Nice to be economically so bad off that it isn't worth the trouble to smuggle CHEAP drugs and guns into the country...
lazs
-
curval... it's that you sound condencending... so what if you went to some rent a gun carnival one time. It's not what most of us gun owners are into and we certainly wouldn't be happy with that as our only outlet. I like to shoot by myself or with friends and any gun I want... I want to transport em in my car from my home. I want to load my own ammo and take my guns home and cean em there. I want to shoot anywhere that it is safe and not at a range. I shoot at the range very seldom.
And... your stupid people thing... again.... condencending. sign of youth... as I get older I am either getting more stupid or more tollerant of stupid people.. Turns out some of the people I thought were stupid do a lot of things better than I do... I don't know that I want a smart person who doensn't know anything about guns handling one around me... I know a few people with fairly low IQ's that I would trust without question with loaded firearms around me.... The miltiary would seem to point to me being correct more than you.
lazs
-
-
You are right dowding... you should be bored by this thread since you are anti gun and anti rivate ownership of guns... you have what you want in your country so there is no need to even show up in this thread. Another country talking about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about (and wish to know nothing about) shouldn't attract you at all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Gofaster... you're typing alot without really saying anything... but I get the feeling you're pretty much dancing around something. Seems you're trying to lay a trap for gun-rights advocates to fall into and then throw out what you're really trying to say.
If you're in here debating over "bigger guns", then you are showing you don't really know anything other than what you've been told by the extreme left. Either that, or you could tell us all what kind of gun you don't mind having fired at you.
Police don't need bigger guns than the criminals. Criminals don't need bigger guns than the police. The decision for some police units to switch from shotguns to Mini-14s or AR-15s was not driven by what the criminals were armed with, but rather what they might be protecting themselves with.
So... if you want to start learning about firearms, I suggest you take some firearms safety courses, read up on the subject from enthusiasts (as opposed to those against it) and actually try to learn something. That way you don't have to show up here and come off as someone that is pleading ignorance when it suits him.
MiniD
You're close, but not quite there yet.
You are correct. You're the first person that has actually made a useful suggestion - that citizens should take a firearm safety course. If it were me, it would be done as a high-school elective course, like driver's ed. Now, if I want to learn about firearms, where would I go? The closest I've come to firearms education was shooting bolt-action .22s at Boy Scout camp (probably the best part of Camp Flaming Arrow other than listening to Dr. Demento via a radio antennae strung up a pine tree). The instructor showed us how to load the cartridge into the breech, aim, and fire, but we never cleaned the rifles. We weren't even allowed to clear the jams (and there were quite a few). Would a gun range offer classes, even if I don't own a gun? There's nothing offered at my local community college.
However, I disagree with you about one thing. Police most certainly do need to have more firepower than the criminals they are trying to apprehend. Call it an arms race, call it gun control, but either way I want my local boys in blue to have the ability to take down a perp without the perp having the upper hand in a gunfight.
When I read the article about the cop getting his head creased by an SKS, the thought that first popped into my head was "what the heck are SKS's doing out on the streets?". When respondents stated that there were more powerful guns allowed on the streets, the next thought I had was "what have we become?".
-
gofaster... contact the NRA.. they have excellent gun safety course and can put you in touch with the right people. Before they were chased out the NRA had marksmanship and safety courses at schools and groups like the boy scouts. I got a merit badge in marksmanship and was able to shoot through a school program... we also had boxing. we can't have these things now because... because... well, who knows?
I would suggest that anyone interested in firearms join the NRA. It is only $35 a year and they send out an excellent magazine every month that is very informative about firearms and safe handling etc. Their web site is also useful.. I would challenge even the most ardent anti gun person to find anything evil in the NRA publications.
and as far as all these powerful weapons on the street and "what have we become?".... we have allways had these powerful weapons on the street and the rate at which they are used has not changed nor is it significant... less than 3% rifle use in crimes is pretty low to worry about eh?
lazs
-
You are right dowding... you should be bored by this thread since you are anti gun and anti rivate ownership of guns... you have what you want in your country so there is no need to even show up in this thread. Another country talking about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about (and wish to know nothing about) shouldn't attract you at all.
You're babbling man. "Another country talking about a subject..." - eh? Are you America personified? Talk about illusions of grandeur.
Why am I anti-gun, out of interest? Do condescend to enlighten me as to my own thoughts on the subject. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
deja... I get the same feeling about gofaster... he seems to think he is laying some kind of trap but I still haven't seen hjis point. He just seems like every other "ban em all" guy... he knows nothing about em except that they have potential for evil and he feels that the best way to get rid of guns as a whole is to do it incrimentally "surely you don't need (place gun of the month in this spot) to (place hobby of the month here)?"
Ok, some good points here.
(a) I'm not laying a trap. I'm trying to find a resolution. Budda became enlightened speaking to a brick wall, but I prefer to learn by examining counterpoints.
(b) This is the 3rd time you've correctly pointed out that I know nothing about guns, and yet you still haven't offered to inform as to where I would go to get educated about them. So, I will ask you, again, for the third time, where would I go to take a firearms class?
(c) Nothing wrong with finding the border of gun control laws incrimentally. Better to do it in small increments than in one fell swoop. I'd rather see it done bit by bit.
-
dowding... you don't know anything about guns. I would be glad to talk to you in person or on the phone... at the end of the conversation I am convinced that even you would admit that you don't know anything about guns in America.
So why bother to pop in and.... yawn. everyone else seemed interested. The fact that you have no interest means that you know everything there is to know about guns in America (or want us to think you do) or.... have no interest... in which case... why bother.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... it's that you sound condencending... so what if you went to some rent a gun carnival one time. It's not what most of us gun owners are into and we certainly wouldn't be happy with that as our only outlet. I like to shoot by myself or with friends and any gun I want... I want to transport em in my car from my home. I want to load my own ammo and take my guns home and cean em there. I want to shoot anywhere that it is safe and not at a range. I shoot at the range very seldom.
And... your stupid people thing... again.... condencending. sign of youth... as I get older I am either getting more stupid or more tollerant of stupid people.. Turns out some of the people I thought were stupid do a lot of things better than I do... I don't know that I want a smart person who doensn't know anything about guns handling one around me... I know a few people with fairly low IQ's that I would trust without question with loaded firearms around me.... The miltiary would seem to point to me being correct more than you.
lazs
lazs...what you see as being condecending, in this thread, is purely a reaction to Mini Ds attacks and his Oregon fan club that jumps to his defense. Please look at my post where I explain to Medicboy why I got involved in this thread to begin with and why I kept on posting about the Hollywood incident. It's all about nit-picking with Mini D.
I have no issue with you, or your desire to shoot your guns. I thought we were clear on that.
The stupid people incident as you know is an old one and what prompted me into this whole gun debate. Far from being a sign of youth my concerns are much more related to signs of maturity. I never gave guns a second thought when I travelled to the US, other than finding a gun range to pop a few caps (which I am unable to do at home.) Having two children and a wife travelling with me in the States now makes me more aware of the number of yahoos that own guns in your country and it concerns me.
I suppose if they had a "Rent a Gun" place in the US airports for visitors then I may be able to feel the same level of security you do. Otherwise I will simply have to live with my fears and hope that if gunfire erupts anywhere near my vicinity that the only people blasting away are fully trained in their use and are as good a shot as you are.
-
I was yawning at your attitude - the 'don't dare say anything about America, but I'll talk all day about how crap other countries are'. It never changes.
Now, I'll ask you again. Why am I anti-gun and what leads you to this conclusion?
-
go faster... I answered you... if you have some predjudice against the NRA then you could contact your local range and people would be more than glad to help you but most use NRA guidlines in any case... If you lived near me I would be more than glad to help you in any way that I could. I have done this for a lot of people.
As for incramentalism... here we butt heads.. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the current laws on firearms except that they are too strict and that the important ones are not enforced. I see not particular gun as being more evil than another. I would like to see more progressive laws on concealed carry. I belive it should be easier to get a concealed carry permit in most states. I would like to see teachers with concealed carry permits at schools.
lazs
-
Gotcha curvall. And just so you know, Apathy and I send e-mail back and forth coordinating our attacks on you. Lazs only participates because we are all on the west coast and still feel the need to defend one another. We're all really good buds.
Either that or you've been so pathetically stupid with virtually every argument you've presented in this thread that people felt the need to respond.
BTW... did you read this link (posted above): http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm
You probably won't want to... it doesn't really support anything you've said. It may be better for you just to continue pleading ignorance.
BTW... you might also want to stop trying to fit into stereotypes curval. Eventually the truth always comes out... People just think that everyone else is too stupid to own a gun. Then... they talk about how patronizing or condescending anyone is that tries to argue with them. Oh... wait... it's not how stupid "everyone else" is... it's only how stupid "some people" are. Keeping lieing to yourself if it makes you sleep better at night.
And Lazs... give dowding a break. Arguing about gun rights in GB vs the US is pretty damn silly no matter which directing its coming from. It's hard to think that only applies when one side of the fence is doing it. I kinda hope dowding remembers that the next time beetle get's started and he can't help but chime in.
MiniD
-
curval... good enough but.. the guys who were involved in the LA shootout were anything but normal gun owners and I would say that they probly weren't stupid. As for your example in the gun store.... I may be stupid but... I don't get it. What were the guys doing that was so wrong? putting a gun back in a box? you have to realize that gun stores have the rules changed on em every month or so by the powers that be.... I am safe at gun handling but I never know what is the current way I am supposssed to act in a gun store. Safe handling has nothing to do with half the rules and they confuse everyhone.... not just stupid people.
so dowding.... you aren't against private ownership of guns as it in America?
lazs
-
Originally posted by medicboy
It boils down to this, bill of rights says we have these rights. Most were laid out just a few years after our independance was secured. Now I see that all of these special interest groups are heading to the courts to secure the actual meaning as long as that meaning fits with their beliefs. Don't you think if the founding fathers wanted the bill of rights to be designed by future courts they would have never bothered setting these rights down in the first place. NO! They made it as simple as possible to understand so there will be no question. Weather or not you like guns doesn't matter. If you dont' like them don't buy them! But don't try to tell the rest of us what we should have and shouldn't. You don't know what is the best for me no matter what the situation may look like from you throne.
If you care about your rights, if you like living in a free country, you will not compromise on any of them, not just the ones you like. Freedom is what this country is about. Too many people are trying to tell the rest of us that their idea of freedom is the right one and we need to live by their rules because they know what is best for us. These people need to travel to Washington D.C. Walk up those big grey steps and read the actual words for themselves. They start with "We the people..." Not "I the king..."
Actually, the Bill of Rights was written to be intentionally vague so that the interpretation could be tailored to suit a developing society. The interpretation of those rights comes via court decisions. Its only logical that the courts would be the way to secure interpretations favorable to the person seeking a change or clarification to the interpretation.
So, really, you're right that the Bill of Rights was written in a way that was simple and easy to understand. Unfortunately, its the way those rights are understood that is not so easy to comprehend. That's why there were decisions such as Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka (14th amendment - equal protection under the law), Miranda vs Arizona (5th and 6th amendments - freedom from self-incrimination and right to an attorney), Gideon vs Wainright (6th amendment - right to an attorney), and Texas vs Johnson (freedom of speech). In each of these cases, the citizen was seeking an interpretation of the Constitution that was favorable to him (or her). That's what the courts are for.
Protecting my freedom is why I vote. Protecting my freedom is why I have access to the courts. I don't need a gun to protect my freedom. But if you feel a gun would help you protect your freedom, then I can support that.
-
Nope - I think you should be able to own what you like, but that it should be registered. Kind of like with a car and pretty much like what we had prior to Dunblane. I don't think assault rifles should be allowed except at registered gun-clubs, but private ownership of hand-guns I have no problem with.
Personally I don't feel the need to have one, but that's primarily because I would rather spend my money elsewhere. I also don't feel my security is threatened to an extent where I would need a gun.
Is that anti-gun? I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
go faster... I answered you... if you have some predjudice against the NRA then you could contact your local range and people would be more than glad to help you but most use NRA guidlines in any case... If you lived near me I would be more than glad to help you in any way that I could. I have done this for a lot of people.
I think we're both victims of crossed postings. I must've been typing at the same time you were hitting the "Submit" toggle. I'll check the NRA site and see if there's an NRA-certified course nearby. The closest range, if I remember correctly, was shut down due to excessive traces of lead on the property - OSHA and EPA violations. I can't remember if the owners were going to decontaminate the land and stay in that location or just sell the location for commercial development, pack up, and move farther out.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for incramentalism... here we butt heads.. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the current laws on firearms except that they are too strict and that the important ones are not enforced. I see not particular gun as being more evil than another. I would like to see more progressive laws on concealed carry. I belive it should be easier to get a concealed carry permit in most states. I would like to see teachers with concealed carry permits at schools.
lazs
I prefer incremental changes. Take a little, see what happens, then stop if the small change was all that needed to be done. That change could be a relaxing of gun laws or stricter gun control. Either way, its better to change a little than to change a lot (unless there's an extenuating circumstance, such as acts of terrorism).
I most definitely see some guns as being more lethal than others. I'm not nearly as afraid of a bolt-action .22 Marlin as I am a semi-auto SKS.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Either that or you've been so pathetically stupid with virtually every argument you've presented in this thread that people felt the need to respond.
Careful, you might hurt my feelings.
:rolleyes:
Personal attacks are normally signs of weakness. In your case bitterness could be added.
BTW... did you read this link (posted above): http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm
You probably won't want to... it doesn't really support anything you've said. It may be better for you just to continue pleading ignorance.
I just read it. I fail to see how it backs up any of your points.
BTW... you might also want to stop trying to fit into stereotypes curval. Eventually the truth always comes out... People just think that everyone else is too stupid to own a gun. Then... they talk about how patronizing or condescending anyone is that tries to argue with them. Oh... wait... it's not how stupid "everyone else" is... it's only how stupid "some people" are. Keeping lieing to yourself if it makes you sleep better at night.
There are stupid people in the world, agreed? Given the number of guns in the US it is logical that there are alot of stupid people with guns. It is statistics, not stereotyping. What YOU did was stereotyping and you accuse me of doing so. I called you on it and your answer is to attack. It really is a sign of weakness.
[/B]
:rolleyes:
-
and here the statistics prove the point that outlawing guns (or restricting or outlawing certain types of guns), does nothing to make people safer.
Britain had some of the toughest gun laws anyway. Saying a "ban" didn't make things better in Britain can't be compared to America, which has some of the laxest gun laws in the world.
It's rather like saying a speed limit of 65 mph on motorways/freeways/autobahns would cut accidents.
Trying that in Britain, where the limit is 70, wouldn't make much difference, and wouldn't give you an accurate idea of the effect it would have in Germany, where in places there are no limits.
quite the contrary, gun related deaths went up when peoples right to own them legally was restricted.
No, it initially went down. Neither the fall afterwards, or the subsequent rise, were down to the tightening of the restrictions. Guns were already tightly controlled, certainly enough to stop widespread use of legally aquired arms in crime.
number of people killed by guns is a direct and to the point statistic as far as the effectiveness of gun law in deterring violence
I agree.
The figure in England and Wales last year was 96. The figure in America, with about 6 times the population, was 8,719 (2001, 2002 figures are higher)
Adjusting for population, the American figures would be 600 if they were in line with Britain. Instead they are 8,719.
however you dismiss this statistic out of hand because it just doesn't fit into the way you see the issue (never considering that your view may be wrong), and you can't provide any reason why you think this statistic could be in error.
I don't dismiss it. I think it's the central point. The rate of murders with firearms in America is about 15 times higher than Britain, after adjusting for population.
-
Nashwan: Adjusting for population, the American figures would be 600 if they were in line with Britain. Instead they are 8,719.
The rate of murders with firearms in America is about 15 times higher than Britain, after adjusting for population.
The statistics you cite is meaningless.
For all the scientific talk, it compares apples and oranges.
The "adjusting" that is done is not adjusting at all - just an arithmetical multiplication.
Guess what, american population is not just a multiplication of the british population. It has a very different ethnic and cultural layout. And the murder rates differ enourmously by ethnicitly and cultural group.
If you compared likewise populations - say, murder rate among people of european descent in US with the same group in UK, you would get much less discrepancy.
The US rate would likely still be greater - for the most part due to non-linear nature and pronounced threshhold properties of social problems - but nowhere nearly as great as the one you've posted.
miko
-
Personal attacks are normally signs of weakness. In your case bitterness could be added.
You see... I don't deny that I am issuing personal attacks against someone that is being ignorant and believes he isn't doing that very thing himself. just read it. I fail to see how it backs up any of your points.
I kinda figured this. Except how it talks about bullets hitting the perps, just mushrooming and dropping to the ground. Nothing at close proximity there... I'm sure. :rolleyes: There was no way for the cops to get close. :rolleyes: Of course, it could have been that the officers simply were not equiped to handle body armor... but hang onto that "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame" belief.There are stupid people in the world, agreed? Given the number of guns in the US it is logical that there are alot of stupid people with guns. It is statistics, not stereotyping.
This is what I find funny about you Curval. You see... now you are talking in general terms and pretending you're not really being insulting. Of course, earlier you were citing a 1 minute scene in which you determined individuals not smart enough to own firearms based on your immense expertise. Afterall, if they were what you consider to be dumb at a gun counter, they are most likely driving a truck and are most likely the type of hicks that you feel shouldn't own a gun. But that's not really stereotyping.
Statistics are a cool way for people to aply a set of rules to someone the statistics are likely to aply to... but that's not stereotyping. :rolleyes:
MiniD
-
It's adjusted by numbers of population, nothing else.
Still, despite Lazs claims that people in Britain are too poor to buy drugs :rolleyes: , crime as a whole is higher in Britain. Robberies are higher, burglaries are higher, but deaths during robberies and burglaries are much lower.
For instance, in America about 1,200 people were murdered during a robbery or burglary, not counting those classified as narcotics related. In England and Wales, the figure is around 80 people murdered during all robberies, burglaries, carjackings etc.
And yet there are more robberies and burglaries in England and Wales per capita than in America.
Why is it that the cultural differences in America affect only the murder rate, not the crime rate in general? Why does America have lower crime overall, if it's a cultural thing?
-
Nashwan: Why is it that the cultural differences in America affect only the murder rate, not the crime rate in general?
That's an interesting question. A few months or years of carefull study would answer it to your satisfaction. I only made a superficial study and it's too much to cover in a post. Too many components enter into the final result.
Nevertheless, whatever their origin, the huge cultural differences between various american population groups are real.
There is a different propensity towards serious violent crime and non-violent crime among various groups.
A population may be inclined to theft or even robbery but not serious violence or bodily damage.
Why does America have lower crime overall, if it's a cultural thing?
Here you go again - using that word "overall" and in the same sentence with "cultural". We have many cultures here - separated geographically, not just by their ways of life. There is no such thing as "overall" here.
Whe have cultures here wildly different from what you perceive as UK culture. What ever made you think different kinds of crime should always be synchronised?
Yes, US crime rates are low. Not that many people steal.
At the same time we have gang violence where young people (16-20 years old still classified as "children" here) murder each other in turf battles. Excuse me if they are not inclined to theft as well as murder and that confuses your statistics...
Maybe they consider stealing beneath them and work hard for their living - selling drugs. You see - it's a cultural difference.
miko
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You see... I don't deny that I am issuing personal attacks against someone that is being ignorant and believes he isn't doing that very thing himself.
Was I doing that in my post where I said "No skin off my nose"? If you look back that is where it all started. I think this comment annoyed you somehow and you reacted to it. It all escalated from there...go on, deny it.
I kinda figured this. Except how it talks about bullets hitting the perps, just mushrooming and dropping to the ground. Nothing at close proximity there... I'm sure. :rolleyes: There was no way for the cops to get close. :rolleyes: Of course, it could have been that the officers simply were not equiped to handle body armor... but hang onto that "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame" belief.
Please, please show me where I quoted "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame". I'll help you...I didn't. What I did say was that it was a combination of the firepower and the body armour.
You really need to improve those reading skills.
This is what I find funny about you Curval. You see... now you are talking in general terms and pretending you're not really being insulting. Of course, earlier you were citing a 1 minute scene in which you determined individuals not smart enough to own firearms based on your immense expertise. Afterall, if they were what you consider to be dumb at a gun counter, they are most likely driving a truck and are most likely the type of hicks that you feel shouldn't own a gun. But that's not really stereotyping.
I'm sorry deja...did I insult stupid people? You seem very upset by that...wonder what the connection is there.
lol
I never said they weren't smart enough to own guns, just that watching all three of those guys struggling to put the guns back in the box, made me nervous considering they had just bought deadly weapons. "It gave me "pause is all" was what I actually said.
As to the pick-up truck comment, you got me on that one. You were fishin for just such a response and I jumped right into it. Afterwards I regretted not suggesting they drove an El Camino (just joking lazs...honestly). lol[/B]
-
Cool curval. I'll leave it with this:
You didn't really say anything at all. You just posted in this thread in hopes of nitpicking what others said.
You didn't really say "Surely you agree there are stupid people in the world", and, you really didn't imply that the guys at the gun counter fell into that class despite citing "the difficulty they had getting the guns back in the box" as the only real thing you formed your oppinion on. Nor did you stereotype them as "probably driving a truck" (oops.. you did do that).
You play what you think are clever little word games curval. It doesn't take much to see right through them. You present an article on automatic weapons used in a robbery while defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons, despite the fact that nobody was killed even though "several hundred rounds were fired". Then, you try to say you really didn't mean it that way and it was a combination of things. I got news for ya big guy... the automatic weapons had nothing to do with those bullets mushrooming and hitting the ground.
You then pretend that you really didn't say/imply/lie when it comes to stereotyping people nor insulting them. I mean, just because you feel certain people shouldn't be allowed to own guns doesn't really mean you stereotype... it's easy to define certain types without doing that.
You pretend not to be biased, you pretend not to be stereotyping, you pretend you didn't really mean some of the things you said "in that way". I know better curval.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You present an article on automatic weapons used in a robbery while defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons, despite the fact that nobody was killed even though "several hundred rounds were fired".
MiniD
My goodness...I think you are losing it Mini D, honestly. YOU were the one who posted that article from CNN...not me.
I merely mentioned the incident. It was in the same post that I said "No skin off my nose" and tried to get out of this thread.
(shakes head in absolute amazement)
-
My apologies... and nice nitpick. You presented a "story" on automatic weapons. Was the article I posted about a different story you were talking about?
MiniD
-
Hey comon now Nash don't you get it? the overall numbers are skewed by those ethnic populations killing each other in those third world ghettos.
-
Seems that I can't post without nitpicking...but it is just too easy Mini D. At least try to stay on track.
Now, in response to your last statement the fact of the matter is that YOU brought up the incident first...on page 3 of this thread (the last post)...I missed it when I posted what I wrote...but regardless....this is what I was responding to when I mentioned the story
"You say there is no reason to have those weapons and I maintain there is no reason to ban them. One is the view of someone that never had a right not really understanding what it means, the other is the view of someone seeing a constant gradual assault on a right that they've had all their lives."
I then said
"I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US. The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.
I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.
I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here. I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me."
It was a response to you suggesting that there is no reason to ban these weapons. I suggested you talk to the cops involved as they would be the ones who could tell you whether in their opinion these guns should be banned.
Yes it is the same story...but you have manipulated what I have said in that you say I was "defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons."
Sorry for nit-picking but I cannot let you manipulate what I say with impunity or to put words into my "mouth".
It just isn't cricket to do so old boy.
-
Curval, I brought up the incident to highlight that the switch to .223 was brought on in relation to what the ciminals might be wearing or hiding behind. You point it out now, like it somehow negates why you brought it up (even though I don't seem to realise I mentioned it earlier). You brought it up in direct response to me saying this (note... I won't cut out the part that sheds light on why your response was silly):
I said:
After that... it doesn't matter what the gun is, the effect is the same... no matter what people try to tell you . Once you start with "it's this gun" and get people to buy off on it, you then have a clear path to "well... this gun has every bit the destructive power..."
You say there is no reason to have those weapons and I maintain there is no reason to ban them. One is the view of someone that never had a right not really understanding what it means, the other is the view of someone seeing a constant gradual assault on a right that they've had all their lives.
You then cite the LA incident and suggest I should talk to the police that were involved about it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say these words weren't spoken by anyone "It's OK, the assault weapons are out of ammo, all they have left are handguns."
Yet, in response to a comment about firepower, you present the LA story (a story more about body armor than anything) as a "talk to them" rebuttle.
Of course, you are right... you don't really say anything curval. At least you seem to try not to.
MiniD
-
I just do not understand what you are trying to say in that post...I really don't. I tried, but I don't get it. Are you trying to tell me why and how I responded? Mighty thoughful of you, but you are wrong. I was not responding to firepower issues in my post, I was responding to the part of the quote I left in..the relevant part.
My advice to you Mini D is never get divorced. The opposing attorney would have a field day with you.
-
I know you don't understand curval. It's been aparant all through this thread.
You argued about how certain weapons should not be allowed, you provide an example where those certain weapons did not cause a single fatality. An example where body armor highlighted critical holes in the police department's arming... not automatic weapons.
But... I'm just reading into things. You didn't say that you should be able to tell at the counter whether someone should own a gun or not. You didn't really say it's the type of gun that matters. You didn't really say anything other than I was wrong about what you were saying.
MiniD
-
Picture me in your avatar man.
I'm done. You continue to try and put words into my mouth, you get your facts all messed up...but somehow I don't understand.
Whatever...:rolleyes:
-
Gotcha curval. It's all me. It most horrify you knowing I own guns.
MiniD
-
Last word.
-
Yet another lie... used to it by now curval. But then... I probably just missunderstood "I'm Done". You see... I have a tendancy to take things at face value. You have a tendancy to mean something entirely different.
MiniD
-
Must not let MiniD have the last word....................
-
OK... just highlight that its more about pure argument for you than actual beliefs or even telling the truth. Gotcha.
And this is my last post.
MiniD
-
I'm getting this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Nevertheless, whatever their origin, the huge cultural differences between various american population groups are real.
There is a different propensity towards serious violent crime and non-violent crime among various groups.
A population may be inclined to theft or even robbery but not serious violence or bodily damage.
So guns have nothing to do with it?
The fact that there are more robberies in Britain, but guns are used less in robberies, is down to cultural differences, not the availability of guns?
I have a hard time believing that.
There is no such thing as "overall" here.
There is an overall crime rate.
Whe have cultures here wildly different from what you perceive as UK culture.
How do you know what I percieve as UK culture? As a Celt, I percieve a different culture between Wales and England and Scotland, not to mention Northern Ireland, and different cultures of Pakistanis, Indians, West Africans and Afro-Caribbeans.
What ever made you think different kinds of crime should always be synchronised?
I don't. I do find the fact that that there are more robberies in Britain, but fewer guns used in robberies, and fewer people shot in robberies, a fairly telling statistic though.
At the same time we have gang violence where young people (16-20 years old still classified as "children" here) murder each other in turf battles.
Excuse me if they are not inclined to theft as well as murder and that confuses your statistics...
That's not really the point.
If you compare just one crime, robbery. Presumably the motive for robbery in Britain and America is the same, to get money.
And yet far more people are murdered during robberies in America than Britain. Nothing to do with gang wars, turf battles, simply the aquisition of money. Yet far more people are murdered during the smaller number of robberies in America.
Maybe they consider stealing beneath them and work hard for their living - selling drugs. You see - it's a cultural difference.
Which still doesn't explain the robbery statistic.
Now, the most obvious difference is that a robber can get a gun far more easily in America, and might also feel he needs a gun more, because there is a chance of an armed victim.
But no, it must be a cultural thing.
-
And yet far more people are murdered during robberies in America than Britain. Nothing to do with gang wars, turf battles, simply the aquisition of money. Yet far more people are murdered during the smaller number of robberies in America.
who knows why the statistic is higher, we can guess I supose. you are speculating it's due to easier access to guns.
yet your statistic doesn't mention how these people where killed, only that they where murdered during a robbery.
so if I rob a guy and cave in his head with a brick, is that because guns are more readily available to me?
maybe the percentage of robberys that end in murder here could be explained by other reasons. it could be we are less likely to report robberys where no injury was taken, and nothing is insured (whats the point really? they're not going to catch him, cash in your wallet isn't covered by insurance, and you'll waste hours for nothing).
or maybe we're less likely to hand over our cash without a fight, making the encounter more dangerous.
whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. there is much more different in our cultures than just the availibility of guns, so compairing the 2 while isolating that issue as the cause is just stupid.
what is relivant is that in the UK the culture didn't change, gun law changed and gun murders went up.
-
guys.... miko is right... it is a cultural thing but it is also a drug thing. england does not have the money to spend on drugs that we have and it has no place to get em that is 1500 miles of border with them. Drugs are expensive and income is less... more people are loaded in America cause it's avialabel and cheap.
When I was in england it was depressing in one aspect... every where there were warnings about pickpockets... I felt I had to watch everyone... it felt like a country where the young and strong ruled by force.
In the U.S..... id we solved the gun and cultural problem we would indedd have gun deaths on a par with Canada say... we would still have less burglaries and strong arm robberies but we may still have more armed robberies.... No big deal... I am less afraid of a few armed robberies now and then than of being made helpless by the government.
And.... I would venture to say that most of the armed robberies in America have more to do with drugs than the actual money.
so gofaster... the problem is that the only effective firearms to hunt or defend yourself with are also the only ones that you would like banned... your "incrementilism" is fine but you are changing the wrong things... you need to work on the drug problem not the gun problem... there is no gun problem for the vast majority of the populace.... disarming the law abiding creates a gun problem not solves one.
downding.... I have no interest in any kind of gun club or place that would be the only place to have/use a firearm there are milions of acres of land where I can use a so called "assault rifle" safely... that is what I wish to do.
lazs
-
Hiya, MiniD. Yes I thought I would chime in. Sorry to have left it so late – been busy last week and this...
I see the same old arguments are being trotted out, and I’m not going to repeat what’s been said in other threads over the past year or so. But I do have some observations on the various arguments being put forward. - Guns are just inanimate objects. They don’t walk down the street shooting people...
This argument is so tired it’s got bags under its eyes. Of course we know that guns are inanimate, and that the real problem is a gun in the hands of an irresponsible person, whether that person be an idiot, drunk, crazy drugger, criminal, serial killer – take your pick. The thing is, a gun crime can occur only if a gun is present. We can’t ban criminals, serial killers, idiots etc., but we can ban guns, and measures can be taken to get dangerous weapons out of the hands of those not sufficiently responsible to have them.
But saying that guns are not the problem because they are inanimate objects is a head-in-the-sand cop-out if ever there was one. Heroin is an illegal drug in the US. But why ban it? After all, a hypodermic syringe is hardly likely to draw itself full of heroin, and walk down the street injecting people. :rolleyes: - Guns being equated with “freedom”
I don’t buy that line, but I didn’t grow up in a west that was won, and my father was not a frontiers man who wore a racoon on his head to keep warm as he stood on the front porch, protecting our property and the people inside. Within the last ten years, heroin was legal in Holland. Probably still is. The government even runs a syringe bus, where addicts can trade in an old syringe/needle for a new one, so that they can be sure of getting a clean needle. Does this mean the Dutch have more “freedom”? In Germany, the 3-lane autobahnen have no speed limits. What was it in the US in the not so distant past? 55mph/double nickel rings a bell. Does this mean Germany has more “freedom”? So why should guns equate to “freedom”? (don’t give me any of that outdated, outmoded 2nd Amendment rhetoric) As far as I can tell, in many cases the reasons people keep guns at home is to protect themselves from the numerous armed wackos outside. I know that’s why CPP bought his gun. (It’s a .38 revolver, BTW. He doesn’t like it because it’s “too loud” – lol) I’d rather live in an unarmed society, than be cowering behind a gun every time the front doorbell rings. - After Britain banned guns, crime went up – so why the ban?
A fatuous observation. As has been said before, banning in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre in Scotland was a pre-emptive measure to try to stop a bad situation from becoming worse. There were also two gun amnesties, which pulled in about 77,000 guns and hundreds of thousands of rounds. The argument of “why have a ban if the banned article continues to pose a risk” is stupid. It’s like saying “drunk driving causes accidents, that’s why we have a law against it. But oh! Many people still drive drunk, therefore the law doesn’t work, so let’s repeal it and legalise drunk driving. That way, no law would be being broken”. :rolleyes:
Lazs points out that many US gun crimes involve criminals killing other criminals, drug feuds etc. That’s probably true. But are British drug criminals any better than American ones? I doubt that, and yet we never have more than about 100 gun homicides per annum compared to many thousands in the US. But... if we had a gunshop on every corner, our homicide rate would skyrocket – not something the British public wants to see, whether or not the victims are criminals. Just last month, a former drug dealer was shot in NW London. His 7 year old daughter was with him and attempted to flee the scene. The gunperson (a woman was later detained in custody) shot the 7 year old girl in the back for fear of being identified. The girl died instantly. This incident made headline news because it is so rare. With an unrestricted supply of guns, such incidents would be commonplace, and might no longer make the news. If you think that such incidents are an acceptable price to pay for unrestricted gun ownership, that’s a choice you have to live with. But it’s not something we want to see here, thank you.
But Lazs, you say that your guns act as a deterrent holds water, but there is a hole in it. Most street crime is driven by drugs, according to police. People steal property to sell to get money to buy drugs. But these are desperate people. Some people involved in the drug world will even swallow dozens of condoms filled with drugs, and smuggle them into Britain. (The flight attendants report any passenger who refuses a meal on certain flights used by drug couriers – you can guess why) The hazards these desperate people face are enormous – all for a payment of around £5000. So I don’t think such desperate people are going to stand outside a house in the street, weighing up the likelihood of the owners being armed. They’re already taking huge risks – AIDS, overdoses, imprisonment...
By arming everyone who wants to be armed, the risk of guns getting into the wrong hands is increased. Many people who are armed are armed for fear of a burglar breaking into their property. If that really is a concern, it follows that these homeowners do not have confidence in the locks on their own doors and windows. So what happens when they’re out? The car is gone, and the potential burglar has the green light to go and steal your property, and your guns. OK, you take your gun with you when you go out to work, but you can hardly carry all of them!
-
LOL! beetle's bag of rhetoric.
Sorry beetle... try it somewhere else. Doesn't work here.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
And this is my last post.
Seems like the pot is calling the kettle again.
-
I came back in response to someone posting to me by name on topic curval. You came back just for that. Well.. anything that makes you feel better about yourself I guess.
MiniD
-
beetle... that all sounds allmost... plausable... too bad it's not. In a drug culture or one with as many illeagle drugs (right or wrong) as ours... the profit is up.... people, indeed, whole countries, (our drug culture is probly half mexicos GNP)with no other way to support themselves or their habits turn to crime of all sorts. This is indeed the case in America... look at England... no where near the drug problem but it is rife with petty and strongarm crime. burglaries are higher and more debilitating... how would you live with yourself if you locked yourself in your room while the strong burglarized your home? Even if you defended your property you would be held liable by your government.... that is what you would wish on us? No thanks.
In a large country with free travel between states and a long porus border with third world countries and the bigest market for drugs in the world.... More guns does indeed equal less crime. The criminals so far have confined it to mostly shooting each other because they fear armed citizizens... it is not profitable enough to take the huge risk.
The real high profile nut job shootings in America also usuallyu involve drugs at some level and.... are allmost allways done in a manner that assures the shooter that he will have an unarmed target.. More concealed carry permits in schools would mean less school shootings.
Even if we could tow the U.S. out to sea and make it as poor as england so it couldn't afford drugs and round up all the guns and change the culture.... even if after all that we ended up being just like england, gun crime and all..... I would beg to go back to where we were.... I don't want what you got. the price is too high.
lazs
-
Wow, what a thread. Reminds me of the old gun thread....hmm.
Anyway, it always boils down to the same, - the basic question whether a society will allow "gun freedom" or not, and what the effects are.
USA has a very liberal law on guns. Europe has not.
Result : People get shot in the USA very much more frequently (like 5 times or so?) than in Europe, - or basically in any society of the western world.
Capital crimes are also more common in the USA than..say...Britain. (Murder, Rape and Armed Assault/robbery).
If the point about keeping the society armed to the teeth is to hold down the crime rate, the USA has failed disasterously.
So, IMHO, the USA is over-armed. Flooding with all sorts of weapons, big shootouts are bound to happen. Likewise, under such cirkumstances, illegal weapons are bound to be ample, - how do they become illegal in the first place? Legally manufactured and legally sold for the first time is usually the case.
So....drop yer weapons......
:D
-
beet1e
I have seen this argument before. My reply is and always has been, OH and just who decides? Thats the major rub for me. Hitler used something similar and i'm sure many others like that argument. It doesn't float for me.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves." William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a
man of his natural liberty upon a supposition that he may
abuse it."
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
lord protector of England
Cultural differences can not be put aside. We each have a different view point.
HOWEVER since the beginning of recorded history many have made a very simple statement re crime. Criminals usually don't care if they hurt, harm or kill others. What they do fear is punishment, retribution, etc....
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear
rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because
of the punishment that it brings than because of its own
foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
So from my view point if i've gotta face a criminal I want the chance to take his or her inconsiderate prettythang with me! If i survive so much the better.
I firmly believe in what the framers of our constitution expressed in their written words.
The/our constitution is intended for and good for the self-governing individual.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Anglo-Irish playwright, critic
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.
Meaning you do not harm others or violate their rights without a VERY JUSTIFIABLE reason. Further if you do you better be willing to accept the consequences. This worked great for a long time but is being gradually eroded by politicians and power hungry control freaks backed by judges that agree with them.
"Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition
that no people ought to be free until they are fit to use
their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old
story who resolved not to go into the water until he had
learned to swim.", from Lord Macaulay an English historian.
You, basically, leave them alone so long as they leave you and other Innocent individuals alone.
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
My opinion are very very close to the quotes you see here.