Nut cases don't get guns (this includes fundy Christians...)
Make sure you don't give the people who HAVE guns any reason to want to shoot you
Follow those, and gun laws are practically unnecessary.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Almost Anything Goes > Gun Control: Convince Me |
| Posted by: Java Jan 15 2005, 10:56 AM |
| So, I grew up in a house where my mother advocated no guns at all. Lately, however, I've been realizing the stupidity of that idea. Here is what my current preconceptions about guns and gun control are: 1. Guns are inherently dangerous because their primary function is to cause injury. I'm just stating a fact here. Knives can be used for stabing, but also for cuting non-living things, like ropes and tree branches and stuff. Guns shoot bullets, and those bullets are meant to go into living tissue. Even when guns are used for "defense," that defence is basically "Do not fuck with me or I will shoot you." It's based on the possibility of injury. 1a. Death and injury are mostly Bad Things. Sexual kinks and voluntary euthanasia are another topic. 2. I am afraid of guns. That fear has been tempered, and it's mostly a gut thing: guns kill people + I like living = eep. So it's more a deep respect for the power of the thing. 3. It is a Bad Thing for someone who plans to use a gun for crimes to have a gun. Common sence again. How to stop someone from having/using a gun for crime is a debatable topic. 4. A car, while it's primary function is not to kill, is a lethally dangerous weapon for someone who does not know how to use it. Thus, the state, in order to protect it's citizens, requires all those who drive a car to be licenced to use it. A gun is a lethally dangerous weapon for those who do not know how to use it. Reason suggests that people who own guns be licensed to use them, unless they are unusable, to protect others. 5. People with recent convictions of violent crimes should not be able to be licensed. Just like people who have DUIs should not be able to drive cars. 6. I have no idea how to deal with the logistics of gun purchasing. So, having said all that, please convince me why what I think is right or wrong, with references if nessecary. |
| Posted by: nivek Jan 15 2005, 12:14 PM |
| Java, First of all I'll start out by saying I have an inherent interest in Teaching Safe Handling of Firearms, have been doing so for past fifteen years. Am one of the thousands of National Rifle Association "Certified Instructors" teaching dozens of students annually in Safe Use, Handling and Storage of guns. Safety is paramount. No goofing off, no slacking off, no horseplay, brandishing allowed in classes, on Range or "just showing BillyboBob mah new gunn!" One cannot take a bullet back. We are responsible for where that slug impacts and damage it may cause. Gun of any sort is simply another tool. An extension of your will. For the folks I would hope to be on the "Good Guys" side, I would hope that will be personal and family protection. Indeed reckless use of tools, including firearms is a stupid and dangerous thing. I will not allow "Darwin Candidates" on my firing range if they will not exhibit and shw at least a minimal amount of regard for Safety... For the Ladies we offer a class that is women only, "Women Empowered For Defence". It is a "cross-disipline" course. Not just "guns and handling" but situational awareness, some hands on weaponless jitsu hold breaking, and training the mind to recall events and faces. We do teach an abbreviated NRA FIRST Steps handgun course (loaning arms to thos who may not yet own them already, and loaning as many across student body to familiarize everyone with what they would like to try to shoot) as part of WED. We have a lady attorney who comes in and teaches on OrEgon law dealing with abuse, rape, and other charges that may be necessary for a woman involved in a bad situation to excape. Many of our female students "need" to network with other survivors. WED has provided a core of ladies willing to adjunt teach, both in class and on range to the women who attend subsequent classes. We Empower Women to be able to make choices. Shootin' sombody(s) is a "last resort". A fear due to unfamiliarity with firearms is normal.. We train from little to as big as students of both sexes care to shoot. I own lotsa guns, use mine on range to let folks try a plethora of arms. (An aside, related: One of my adjunct Instructors took up my "bowling pin gun", a highly modified .45 auto, powerful handgun.. She shot it so well I ended up selling it to her as I could't make it perform for me again.. Damn gun!) Few URL's dealing with Women and Firearms that may help your search for relevant answers. http://2asisters.org/ http://armedfemalesofamerica.com/ http://www.womenshooters.com/TOC.html http://www.wagc.com/ http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=73 http://womentoarms.net http://jpfo.org/ http://www.packing.org http://www.gunowners.org/womensvoice.htm http://www.ladylibrty.com/ Java... When it all comes down to when things go "oh-shit in the night, it is my dire preference that you have a handgun handy, ready, and in your trained hand. 9-1-1 is the State Sponsored "dial a prayer". The Police have zero responsibility to protect you and yours. They'll come, take a report, pictures, and ensure bodies are hauled off.. Your personal safety by whatever means is literally in your hands. I do not ever want to hear that a fellow ExC took a beating, got robbed, hurt, or even killed due to a lack of some form of defense.. My arms are simply tools to keep the bigger predators a safe distance from me and mine. I would desire that if you should learn to shoot, a good place to start is with a Cert'd Instructor (I can help provide info for your area), become familiar with firearms even before contemplating purchacing one or more for the home and property... HTH n >edited to add more resources< |
| Posted by: Valgeir Jan 16 2005, 05:34 AM |
| You know, guns aren't that big an issue. Hell, let people have 'em, if you follow two rules. Nut cases don't get guns (this includes fundy Christians...) Make sure you don't give the people who HAVE guns any reason to want to shoot you Follow those, and gun laws are practically unnecessary. |
| Posted by: Rhuiden Jan 16 2005, 01:30 PM |
| I agree gun violence is a very bad thing. I also agree with Nivek in that guns are just tools. I a bad person intends to do harm, he does not care which tool has has to use, if guns were not available, they would just use something else. Having said that, I believe guns should be owned by every adult. I believe they should be able to be carried anywhere, with a few exceptions. I think criminal would be a lot less bold and think twice before comitting their crimes if everyone they come in contact with was armed. I am not advocating a return to the old west but just that we stop limiting the rights of law abiding citizens to stop those that don't follow the law anyway. Rhuiden |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 16 2005, 04:00 PM |
| no amount of gun control is going to work anyway. All that will do is take the means of protectiong yourself out of your hands while criminals will still be able to find them. Guns are legal now and there is a thriving black market industry for them. I am in favor of regulation though, you shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy assault weapons. However if you have the proper certifications I have no problem with them being available. It's cool to be able to go into a firing range and pay a fee to get the opportunity to shoot an assault weapon. You don't really need one in your home though. Something that can blow through your entire house and into your neighboors is not a very good home defense tool. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 16 2005, 04:51 PM | ||||
Enough said right there. Merlin |
| Posted by: Yoshi Jan 18 2005, 11:03 AM |
| I agree with gun control, but I don't think *any* new laws ought to be passed until they actually start enforcing the laws. I can't tell you how many times during High School I could have gotten a hold of guns illegally. That being said, I have a saying.... Guns kill people, just like Spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat! |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Jan 18 2005, 11:42 AM |
| Silly question, but does anyone know just how much less gun crime there is in the UK as compared to the US? I know it's less, a lot less, but I don't know just how much less. I wonder if that might have anything to do with the very tight gun control laws we have over here... |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Jan 18 2005, 11:51 AM |
We don't need to outlaw guns, just bullets. There'd be a lot fewer gun deaths in america if you had to beat someone to death with it. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 18 2005, 12:15 PM | ||
But are crimes using substitute weapons higher there than they are over here? Like...I don't know...spears or something? |
| Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 18 2005, 12:22 PM | ||
A fellow fan, eh? I'd feel a lot less stupid here if I could remember exactly who it was said this. My gut's tellin' me George Carlin, but I'm not quite sure. |
| Posted by: Valgeir Jan 18 2005, 12:59 PM |
| I think Chris Rock had a bit on bullets costing $5,000 a piece, not sure who else has addressed this issue. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Jan 18 2005, 02:18 PM | ||||
Well, no... Stuff like that is extremely rare. Heh... even our police are un-armed. Well, if you can call someone un-armed when they've got a lovely telescopic baton and a can of CS spray...  |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 18 2005, 02:40 PM |
| I don't think crime rates are tied to gun laws, people who are willing to commit crimes will do so with whatever they can get their hands on at the time. We should focus on addressing the cause of violent criminal behavior and try and fix that in our society. Taking away guns doesn't deal with the actual problem, it just masks it for a time. Whether your shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned to death your still dead and it's not the weapons fault. Take away the weapon and theres still that sick fucker there who will just go find another one. Crime is a cultural problem, and America has a rather violent culture. Watch a little TV, the FCC gets all upset over a little sexual content but they apparently don't mind scenes of death and violence. Which is more harmfull to a child? Seeing a titty or seeing someones head explode? |
| Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 18 2005, 02:57 PM |
| Well said, Biggles. I think that right there has a lot to do with the difference in crime rates between the U.S. and the U.K. It also ties into an observation Tocis made somewhere else on the forums, stating that Europeans seem to have come away with a much different outlook on life following the world wars since they were fought in their homelands. Americans shipped out to fight on foreign soil then came home to the land they left where not a single bomb had fallen. Not to say the soldiers themselves didn't come home with plenty of their own shit to deal with regardless of where they came from, but it seemed a good point to me. |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Jan 18 2005, 03:09 PM |
| I figure I'll stop goofin and add a real response to Java. My experience Java is from a very non outdoorsy household that was christian and pacifist. I never had guns around growing up, and wasn't familiar with them at all. One time when I was around 16 or 17, my best friend and I were visiting his cousin who was a very redneck country boy outdoorsman type. This is the kind of guy who would, for his vacation from work, go hunting for 2 weeks and catch enough wild game to feed his family for months. He was very much a naturalist hunter who didn't believe in killing as much as providing, and he was mindful of how he treated the natural spaces he walked through, and all that. It was a matter of deep respect considering how much sustenance he gained from it. As we were discussing his upcoming hunting trip among all the other small talk topics, the subject of guns came up, and it came up that neither me or my friend had fired a gun before. He was floored - "You ain't never fired a gun?!!?" He got up and said "well, we're goin shootin' for a bit." He brought 4 guns out of his stash and put them in the back of his truck, and we headed out into the woods somewhere safe. He ran us down a very basic gun safety course, showing us how to hold them, telling us that you never place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire, you don't ever point it at anyone, you carry it pointed down, you are mindful of your surroundings so that if you turn around you don't sweep the barrel across someone's body, and the most important rule: There is no such thing as an un-loaded gun. He then told us what guns we were going to be firing that day. He had a .38 revolver, a very common personal protection gun, a 14 gauge shotgun, slightly less powerful than the more popular 12 gauge, a 30.06 hunting rifle with scope, and a .44 magnum revolver. He started us on the .44. His logic was 'ok this is (at that time) the most powerful handgun in the world. If you ever find yourself picking a gun up in a crisis situation, it will not be more powerful than this, so you will know what to expect. We fired off a few rounds each, and it just about sprained my wrist. We then moved on to the .38 which was the same only less painful, both in wrists and ears. Then he had us fire the shotgun. That was kinda fun. So brutal and raw, but effective. That's a very common home protection weapon, and it was nice to try it. The last thing was the hunting rifle, and the fact that it was such a long barrel combined with the way it rested on my shoulder made it the easiest thing to fire. It was soft and smooth compared to the handguns. He showed us how far away you could shoot something with it, and it was amazing. I still don't own a gun, I don't have any drive to go buy one, I didn't catch the 'bug' that my best friend did (he's now a sport shooter, with 3-4 nice pieces and counting) but I am grateful for the experience my friend's cousin gave me. It was an opprotunity to be up close and personal with the non glamorous, practical and reasonable side of the gun issue. Guns in the hands of this man were not only a useful tool, but something that paid for their purchase time and time again through food. This is a man who would never aim the gun at another person unless it was an intruder who had been fairly warned to get out of his house. That's my opinion of the gun issue. |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Jan 18 2005, 03:19 PM |
| On a separate note, I have a huge problem with the 'killers without a gun are going to kill anyway' debate point. Guns make it phenomenally easy to kill someone. That's precisely why they are used instead of knives or bats or cars in most cases. If you were to say 'pfft airplanes are just a travel tool, if someone wants to go to New York they'll go there regardless of how' And imply that there would be no reduction in toursim in New York without planes, I'd say you're off your nut. Many many murders would not take place were it not for the convenience and power of a gun. Some people are definitely committed to killing, and these people would use a knife or an acme anvil dropped from the 3rd floor or whatever. But a LOT of people would be dissuaded from killing if they did not have a gun. Just like a lot of people would not go to New York without an airplane. I'm not advocating gun control, just saying that this is a terrible debate point that is very frequently NOT debunked. |
| Posted by: Shadfox Jan 18 2005, 04:05 PM |
| Given the debates happening here center around the right of a person owning a gun, it should be more appropriately titled: Gun Abolishment: Convince Me, or, SUP NIVEK! It bothers me that discussions of gun control always comes down to "the government wants to take away my guns!" A true discussion of gun control should be about measures of licensing and registration and what type of guns should be accessible to the general public. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 18 2005, 04:59 PM | ||||
This is true, but do you think that banning an item is going to keep someone who really wants one from getting it? It will keep an honest person from getting one, and then what does that person do when the criminal who shops at blackmarket express breaks into his house with a pistol? Did making narcotics illegal keep the people who wanted drugs from getting them? Did prohibition get rid of alcohol? It merely drives it underground and makes it even more difficult to control.
Some people do want them banned altogether, some only want restrictions on certain things. Gun control is just a catch all phrase. |
| Posted by: Yoshi Jan 18 2005, 06:35 PM | ||
IIRC Canada has less gun control laws and a smaller crime rate than either USA or the UK |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 18 2005, 07:14 PM | ||||
(Crazy-tiger) Yes, you might say you have an unarmed Police force, if you can call a force unarmed when it has access to everything from self-loading pistols to the latest sniper rifles. (They also have access to the highly skilled armed soldiers of the SAS Regiment, but perhaps that is another topic) As to gun crimes in the UK at present, you might care to read this: http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml And this: http://www.mcsm.org/britsban1.html And this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml That last article, according to its bye-line anyway, was written by a British citizen. Might I ask you some questions? Given the UK government has more or less said, "Citizens don't really need a right to self-defense because we the Government have undertaken to protect them", just how many uniformed and plain-clothes officers do you have in the UK anyway? (By the way, I don't just mean self-defense using firearms here, I mean self-defense period). More to the point, what is their workload? What is their average response time? Finally, and most importantly, are there enough Police officers to provide coverage for every citizen of the UK on a daily basis? I respectfully submit, in reference to this last, that there are not, and there never will be. Not even Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia as much as approached that ideal of totalitarianism, although certainly not for want of trying. I should further submit your Government knows the answers to these questions very well, and thus also knows the futility of your gun control laws, but on the time-honoured political principle that (hopefully) if a lie is repeated often enough it will be taken as the truth, simply repeats the same old mantra, "Gun control stops violent crime" over and over. From time to time, whenever the mantra wears a bit thin, new magical phrases are added (read, greater restrictions on the liberties of British citizens), of course. I wish to make it clear that I ask these questions not because I am a right-wing nut-case, nor do I ask them in any spirit of being a know-it-all, but because Reason dictates that they be asked. And considered. Very carefully. Casey |
| Posted by: jaded Jan 18 2005, 07:52 PM |
| It's a tough issue. On one hand you would love to believe that you live in a world where you don't need to carry a potentially deadly weapon to defend yourself. On the other hand you have reality. There are always going to be people who are willing to take advantage of and do others harm for personal gain. Should a 5'0" 100 pound woman have to submit if a rapist decides she looks like fun? What happens if I get robbed and the perp decides that witnesses are his ticket straight back to jail? Should someone submit to a beating because they look like they wont fight back? How about delivering pizza and carrying cash in a crappy neighborhood? Should you be forced to find another job because you fear for your safety? Sure avoiding a bad situation is always the best option, but sometimes it is nearly impossible and other times it comes looking for you. Personally I believe that everyone should have the right to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. I am not opposed to gun control (good thing as licensing is a PITA in MA). I could see the advantage of a total ban but implementing it would be impossible. All it would do is disarm those honest enough to give up their guns. There aren't enough police in this country to go door to door and very few would be willing to do it. There is also no way to track those guns that are unregistered, incorrectly registered, or stolen. Yes, they can be dangerous, but with training, practice and a bit of common sense they don't need to be. I have yet to hear of an accident that wasn't due to stupidity, poor judgement, or sheer laziness. It's allot of responsibility, but if you feel that it would improve your safety don't let your prejudices or other people's opinions affect your decision. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 18 2005, 08:09 PM |
| excellent articles Casey |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Jan 18 2005, 08:30 PM |
| I used to think guns were bad no one could sway me from that thought i wouldnt even let my kids play guns no guns at all not even squirt guns or guns made from legos or sticks I am rethinking that I havent completely changed my mind I still think sport hunting is wrong I still think children pretending to kill each other is wrong I still think war is wrong I have decided tho, that i must learn how to use a gun and a time will come when i need to teach my children how to use a gun it makes me sad but I am learning to accept it there is no such thing as nonviolence *cries* |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 18 2005, 08:41 PM |
| There's two ways to handle a gun... Responsibly and irresponsibly... Proper training = No worries Sadly though, there is a flip-side to it all. Inhuman animals make them a necessity in some instances. |
| Posted by: Reach Jan 18 2005, 08:48 PM | ||
I was 5'2" and 100 pounds and the rapist had a gun. He was an Oakland, California policeman. I guess I looked like fun. No one's opinions will ever change my mind about my right to bear arms and defend myself in anyway possible. Another lesson learned: Never trust "law enforcement" officers. |
| Posted by: aminor7 Jan 18 2005, 08:52 PM |
| One idea I don't often see cited in these debates is Gun saturation among the population. In Britain or China, passing gun legislation is very easy because so few guns belong to the general public, so new gun laws don't have to be retrofitted to account for the guns in existence, people aren't required to surender their firearms, because there are so few firearms to surrender. The US, on the other hand, must depend on the cooperation of its large gun owning population to make any new legislation work, so legislators are more than a little reluctant to pass any new laws regarding existing guns. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 18 2005, 09:00 PM | ||
and it's a safe bet that the police would have to forcefully remove a lot of peoples firearms. I don't think I know a single farmer out here who would willingly part with any of his guns. |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 18 2005, 09:09 PM | ||
(Shadfox) I'd like to tell you all a little story re "licensing and registration" etc. You are free to make of it what you will. "Licensing and registration" are very reasonable words both, aren't they? Governments just love to seem reasonable, it looks good to John Q Public... Anyway here in Australia we have a Sporting Shooter's Association, a pale imitation of the American NRA. This Association has been around for a while now, and covers licensed users of rifles, shotguns and sidearms. "Gun control?" That started in Australia roughly around 1920, after Britain had introduced its first tough gun laws. At first, these laws were nowhere near as harsh as those in Britain. They were "reasonable". If Joe Blow owned a pistol, he was required to get a license for it and register it. In some States, he would have to do the same if he owned a rifle. The media did its bit by saying how necessary it was to control ownership of those bad bad sidearms or military calibre rifles etc. OK, say you, Fred Bloggs, owned a rifle which wasn't required to be licensed or registered, whereas, as I said, Joe Blow owned a pistol which had to be. Many a rifle owner said something along the lines of, "Yes I agree. I don't see what use a person not in the Military or the Police would have for a sidearm". The effect was that Joe Blow and his ilk were isolated, even by fellow firearms owners. This said effect has been called, "Boiling the reasonable frog", and it is a principle to which we shall frequently revert. The Governments followed the UK Government's lead and the at first "reasonable" legislation became more and more unreasonable as the years went by. For example, in the UK and Australia in the 1920's and 1930's there were minimal storage requirements for say, pistols. It was acceptable to keep a pistol on a dark shelf in side one's house; it was even acceptable to sleep with a loaded pistol under one's pillow. "Just don't sit with it beside you out on your porch, there's a good chap. We're not in the Wild West now y'know!" But over the years, the Government required weapons of all sorts to be kept in increasingly more secure cabinets, etc etc etc. They also required seperate storage of firearms and ammunition. And whereas these requirements firstly applied only to pistols, little by little they applied to other weapons as well. And it often happened that Police demanded to inspect one's security arrangements. Oddly enough, they had no power to do this under any State's Weapons Act, but let any owner refuse and well, when he tried to renew his license, he wouldn't like what would happen then. Of course, we in Australia had some terrible gun crimes, as also happened in the UK. In each country, the media played on these for all they were worth. And I in no way intend to downplay these terrible incidents, but... After the Port Arthur massacre, the media went into a frenzy. Even a Ruger 10/22 was demonised as being an "Assault Rifle", notwithstanding that a true assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire (weapons capable of this had been banned since the 1930's) and is of medium calibre. No matter, the idea was to ban self-loading rifles. Anyway many owners of such were paying members of SSA, as were those who legally owned pump-action shotguns which it was also proposed to ban. So what did other shooters say? "Oh, that's all right, you go ahead and take Joe Blow's self-loader, yeah mate, you're dead right, no civilian oughta own an assault rifle! But be a good sport, OK and don't go after my (pistol, bolt rifle or normal shotgun), willya? A few years later, the Government banned certain pistol types, and guess what other firearms owners said? Same damn thing all over again. And I predict it will happen again, and again, and again, until... Let me tell you another little story: When Hitler came to power in Germany, (January 31st 1933 if you must commemorate such things), he proposed to abolish Mayday. What was left of the trade union movement went to see him to beg for the retention of the worker's holiday. He hemmed and hawed and finally granted their request, provided only that the holiday be renamed German Worker's Day, to which the delegates readily assented. Doubtless they were mightily satisfied with this easy compromise. They were not so happy next day when they learned that Hitler had not only banned trade unions altogether, he had also made membership of the same liable to the death penalty. Oh well, the workers still had their holiday; they just didn't have a union with which to celebrate it, but who needed unions anyway? Way things are headed in my country, 30 years hence, we still might have a Sporting Shooter's Association; we just mightn't have privately owned rifles shotguns or sidearms with which to celebrate the fact, but hey, who needed guns anyway? Why did I say, "Boiling the reasonable frog?" Well, if you care to catch a frog and plunge it into boiling water, it will immediately leap out of the pot. But if you put the same frog in lukewarm water and ever so gradually raise the temperature it's much easier to boil Mr Reasonable Frog to death. I'd just like to ask all who read this to please think over what I've said. Casey |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Jan 18 2005, 09:24 PM |
| This is the most reasonable and thoughtful gun discussion I've ever participated in. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 18 2005, 09:27 PM | ||||
this sounds familiar....
|
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 18 2005, 09:50 PM | ||||
... I'm so terribly sorry to hear that Reach. If I can sound incredibly forward, how should I respond to that? I'm a 17-year-old who is bound to run into this situation. If someone I know/love is raped, what should I do to offer help and support with something a little more substantive than a Hallmark™ Cliche? "I'm glad you got out?" That's minimizing the experience, like you passed a test. "Can I kill the guy?" That's your perogative if anything, so wtf am I doing butting in? "Are you ok?" -  NO. stupid question. I'm very very sorry if I just stomped in it, I just want to know what to do if/when it happens to someone I know. Merlin |
| Posted by: aminor7 Jan 18 2005, 10:28 PM |
| Just a few random thoughts: Guns don't kill people, but guns make it whole lot easier to kill for whatever reason;guns don't make judgements and guns certainly don't make it easier to exercise restraint. Air travel increases the number of people who visit other cities. Computer networks and e-Commerce have resulted in a rapidly growing world economy. More guns in a population increases the number of homicides and accidents in that population. However, in a population such as the US which has a high rate of gun ownership and relatively easy availability both in the legit market and the black market, heavy restriction of gun ownership would take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and not criminals because criminals wouldn't give a rat's ass. Guns are a long term commodity. A firearm works best and safest well-cared for and maintained expertly, but guns are pretty durable and maintain their capacity to kill for many decades. As an ex-cop I was never really surprised when the murder weapon turned out to be a rusted out .22 or .380 that looked liked it had been buried in someone's backyard for a year. Sure the slide/trigger didn't work properly, but if you dropped a round into the chamber/pulled and released the hammer, you could get one shot off. The guns that are in existance today will be around for a long time.I just don't see effective gun control happening in the US unless it involves some kind of specialized weapon like assault rifles. You see the overwhelming success they're having in an all-out military campaign to disarm the public in....Iraq!! They're finding WWII vintage small arms over there  One more thing about assault weapons: Assault weapons, and rifles in general, are the most easily handled weapons that can pierce police and government issued body-armor. Such body armor can stop most kinds of handgun rounds and shotgun loads (though a shotgun blast, even wearing body armor, would be devastating). It would be much more difficult to enforce laws if body armor were ineffective against the majority, or even a large number of , gun owners. One thing police officers like to watch over and over agin in training films is that armed robbery, I think in LA, where a group of guys, decked out in customized full-body armor and armed with submachine guns and assault rifles, took on the whole PD in one hell of a final stand. The bad guys could outgun the police, at the same time being shielded from anything the PD could deliver. At the time, they liked to use it to support their case for approving heavier firepower for police deparments. I can't back this up, but I think there are some PDs in the US that carry assault rifles in the squad cars. |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 18 2005, 10:30 PM | ||
| Merlin, I know that you asked Reach this question, but I'm going to throw out an answer to your question that I think will be quite similar to the way Reach would answer it, and in a way that I've come to understand this touchy situation.
Situations like this can only be handled one at a time, and there really is not systematic way to do so. The reason for this is, each person reacts a different way that is specific to their own psyche. If there is a system at all, I would imagine it would mostly boil down to, listen and love.  |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 18 2005, 10:53 PM | ||||
Whatever works I have no problem who tells me, I just thought I should ask someone who has been there. Thank you for your honesty, Merlin |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Jan 18 2005, 11:27 PM |
| Ok, I have to say that I knew gun crime was increasing in the UK, but it's hard to get any real idea how bad it is when the only figures used are percentages of previous years rates. (It's all very well saying the number has doubled, but what's the number that got doubled?) This is something of a worry for me, because I've seen this done before to show just how bad things have become... (it's incredibly easy for it to be seriously twisted) The police force in the UK, the standard copper on the beat, has NO access to firearms. That is the "privalige" of specially trained firearms officers. That has it's pros and cons... On the one hand, it's less incentive for criminals to carry and use firearms since there's little risk of them facing someone with a gun. On the other hand, it's more incentive for them to carry and use them because they're less likely to face someone with a gun... Currently, I'm not sure how many police officers there are in the UK, nore am I sure how many of them are just "pounding the pavement". Most are driving around all the time, or tied up in the station with the paperwork. That's a very bad thing to have happened, because it stops them being a frequent sight. (one of the reason "impulse" crimes are rising) The response time of the police is "supposed" to be as fast as possible. In practice, they judge what the threat level is, and the response time corrolates to that.  The workload on the average officer is something that isn't generally known, however, the massive increase in paperwork has led to comments about how being an officer is now an office job... (really fills us with confidence) Although, one bright spot in all of this is that the overall number of crimes has been going down for several years... But the guidelines stating that if there are, say, several cars broken into in one night on the same street, then the whole lot get counted as ONE crime might have something to do with that. (and a heck of a lot of crimes never get reported anyway...) All in all, I don't trust any figures given for crime in the UK, because they're just fundamentally inaccurate  As my own view on gun control, I think that neither the US or the UK have got it right... Allow private ownership of guns... handguns. Stuff like uzi's, definitely not to be allowed. Way too bloody dangerous, but possibly allowed for use only at a shooting range. Rifles? Own them, but stored and used only at a shooting range. Shotguns? Dunno... some farmers used them to keep wild animals away from the livestock. Vets used to use them to dispatch terminal livestock. There's a valid reason to allow them, so what the heck. All of that under regulations, with a mandatory gun handling course to be completed before anyone's allowed a firearm. Hey, it might work... |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 19 2005, 02:22 AM | ||||
(Crazy-tiger) True, but 'twas not always so. As witness this:
(From the Metropolitan Police website) Those last four sentences seem like a pretty good reason for carrying a firearm to me. They are also an admission of a very stupid policy, if I may say so. But what is sauce for the goose is good for the gander; if police have access to firearms for defense, why not the public? Casey |
| Posted by: jaded Jan 19 2005, 05:16 AM |
| Wow... Casey, I've got to tell you, your post has gotten me thinking. In my state you were once banned from transporting a loaded firearm in a car without a "license to carry." Then you needed to lock that unloaded firearm while transporting it. Now the law states that any gun must be stored UNLOADED and have a trigger LOCK. Of course they tried to pass legislation to state that anyone breaking into your home must give you a warning call five minutes ahead of time so that you can unlock and load a firearm. I don't think it is working very well. You can shoot someone in self defense and instantly become a criminal for not storing your guns properly. Has anyone been charged yet? No, but it is only a matter of time. It used to be that a license to carry was issued for "all lawful purposes." Recently I have heard that they are specifying that you can only carry it for work and to and from work if that is why you need it. It seems that "all lawful purposes" are becoming fewer and fewer. You must also purchase "special" magazines for your gun that limit the capacity to ten rounds. Not the end of the world, but it is a disturbing trend when you look at the big picture. Reach, I really wish that you were not able to help prove my point that is horrifying beyond words. A criminal with a gun is a criminal with a gun. Period. Most cops are fine, upstanding members of the community doing a tough job that no one else wants to do. I am glad that they are there and I have had my ass bailed out of bad situations by cops in the past. I work around allot of police and while most are great there are far too many that I wont turn my back on. Be careful and don't trust them just because they have a badge! Whether it is cops or clergy, positions of power seem to draw those who would abuse it. The reality of the situation is that even if you do get a good cop chances are they won’t be there until the situation is over. I've been there and there is nothing worse than being in a situation you aren't trained or equipped for waiting for someone to show up to bail you out. I like Nivek's analogy "dial a prayer." You can do it all you want, but it aint gonna help when the shit hits the fan. Rainy, that is a pretty big change of position. I agree with you on pointing guns at people and letting kids "play guns." Not cool... I don't get the concept of wanting to kill someone whether it is real or imaginary. I feel bad that we live in a world where you would have to change your opinion on gun ownership, but I stand by my opinion that you have the right to protect yourself from stronger or armed individuals. Learn to use it and be safe with it. |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 19 2005, 05:45 AM |
| In my country, authorised possession of firearms carries the death penalty. On a semi-related note, if we don't allow countries to possess weapons of mass destruction, why do we allow individuals to carry firearms? |
| Posted by: aminor7 Jan 19 2005, 06:06 AM | ||||
Casey
Some stats that have relevence to this point: 157 police officers died in the line of duty in 2004. 57 of those were by firearms. There are 850,000 police officers on the job in the US. That's roughly 20 fatalities per 100,000.
Policework is dangerous, with 20 fatalities compared to 4 fatalities per 100,000 for the average american worker. However, it's not as high as you might have imagined, especially considering only 7 firearm deaths per 100,000. Still, isn't it comforting to know there's a profession where the odds of dying from a firearm inflicted wound in one year outweigh winning the lotto any given time by a factor of 10,000? So let me ask this: if the police can wear body armor, can the ordinary citizen? Expect different treatment by the police if you did. |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 06:36 AM |
| In my biased and prejudiced opinion, the police aren't here to protect or serve the people. They are the government's official gang. I believe in the average man and woman's right to bear arms, but I do not support the government's right to bear arms. Gun enthusiasts can own all the guns they want. I'm pretty sure I'm more likely to get shot by a cop on whether by accident or on purpose before Mr. Gun Enthusiast shoots me. Is it hypocritical of me to think this way? |
| Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Jan 19 2005, 07:12 AM |
| No, that simply shows that you can learn from the available evidence. I'd like to live in the Candyland world where my neighbors would call the police if they saw something suspicious at my house and the police would be there in time to do something, but I don't, so I have a gun. I'm not the kind of person who is going to show everyone and their mother my weapons though... None of my friends have ever even seen my gun, I keep it hidden, but it's loaded for bear and quickly available in case of emergencies (I don't have kids or have kids visit me and my girlfriend knows her way around firearms as well). On another note, I've fired assault weapons on the range and that is why I will never own one... way, WAY too fun!  |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 07:16 AM |
| You've never fired an M-60. It almost makes the 100K road march home worth it. |
| Posted by: aminor7 Jan 19 2005, 07:24 AM | ||
I have, but the f**ker jammed up on me after 2 4-round bursts. Had to give it up for the next guy. |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 07:47 AM |
| Never had an M-60 jam on me. Melted a couple of barrels though. My M-16, however, jammed every 3-5 rounds. |
| Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Jan 19 2005, 08:06 AM |
| I wish I could fire an M-60. I'd march pretty damn far to do that... maybe not 100K, but at least up to the shooting range. I fired a SIG 550... it's some German assault rifle that hardly kicks at all and is pretty quiet. I think it's just Germany's version of the M16 because it fires 5.56 x 45mm rounds. That's what the M16 fires, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 08:16 AM |
| M-60 is 50 caliber |
| Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Jan 19 2005, 08:19 AM |
| Und dann? |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 08:22 AM |
| I never measured the rounds and certainly didn't measure them in milimeters. It is a 50 caliber weapon. |
| Posted by: The Acid Washed Messiah Jan 19 2005, 08:24 AM | ||
I said...
What's wrong with your ears? Did Xstine snort too loud in the meeting and damage your hearing? |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 09:43 AM |
| Ahh . . . M16 you say! Who cares what Germans fire? |
| Posted by: aminor7 Jan 19 2005, 09:59 AM |
| M60 fires 7.62x51mm NATO M16 indeed fires 5.56 x 45mm the M2 .50 Cal machine gun, in use by the US military since 1918, uses .50 cal ammo (12.7 x 99mm ). It is also used by tactical rifles such as the M82A1 http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_us.php |
| Posted by: Mo Biggsley Jan 19 2005, 10:02 AM |
| I don't think anyone else in the world has an equivilant to the M16. It is the suckyest rifle ever. |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Jan 19 2005, 10:38 AM |
| Casey, I must admit that I was totally unaware of that little piece of police history. Something tells me that we are agreeing on the basics though... That the public should be allowed access to sufficient force to protect them and theirs. (preferably trained in how to use them, of course) |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 19 2005, 07:15 PM | ||||||
(Crazy-tiger) Absolutely! Here is another piece of history of which you may or may not be aware:
(The English Bill of Rights, 1689) Americans may be interested to know that this clause is the ancestor of their own Second Amendment. However:
(Wikipedia, emphasis mine) In other words, even in those far-off days, there was one law for the Masters and quite another for the Commonalty. That was why the US Founding Fathers wisely worded the Second Amendment in the way that they did. If you look at the original clause and take note of the words "Suitable to their conditions", you might well ask what that means. Put simply, it refers to social degree. If one was part of the nobility, one was entitled to certain arms, if one was a commoner, he was not. As an aside, until the mid-19th century, many a Regiment of the British Army was named after the Colonel who first raised it. It is a theory of mine that that little clause allowed private citizens to raise Army Regiments, provided the same citizens were of the right class of course. But I digress. If one glances through Hallsbury's Laws of England, one will see that whereas nearly every other clause of The Bill Of Rights has much case law attatched to it, the clause I've quoted has very little, if any. Hence another theory of mine, which is simply this: If a citizen of any State is to have any rights worth a tinker's cuss, he must first and foremost have the right to defend himself, with arms if necessary. Otherwise the State, under the pretense of protecting the citizen, will simply arrogate to itself whatever rights he does have. Casey |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 19 2005, 10:23 PM | ||
This is why I would not want to live in England even though I love the people and think it's a gorgeous place. The right to defend yourself is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights. It is wrong to throw someone in prison for the crime of self defense. It almost seems like the criminals rights are more important than the victims. This is really wrong. |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 19 2005, 10:47 PM |
| I think most gun control advocates wouldn't see anything wrong with decent, sane, law abiding folk possessing guns. It's when they go postal, or when others get their hands on the guns, or accidents happen, that the problems come. Do I have a right to have a tank in my garage for self defence? *shrug* |
| Posted by: rainyday8169 Jan 20 2005, 07:36 AM | ||
I have to agree with this statement 150% BUT How does one go about teaching this to kids when society tells them otherwise at every turn? My own kids know that cops are not to be trusted That they are better off running to a stranger's house than getting into a car with a police officer. I had to teach them this when we lived in a small town where one of the two cops was a convicted child molester (which is not a felony and therefore not grounds for dismissal) So what is a person to do? Arm their kids and tell the to trust no one? I dont believe in the "stranger Danger" thing they teach kids in school I think its family members, teachers, coaches, cops, priests..etc. that are the most dangerous and that most so called "strangers" are the ones to ask for help when you are in danger And Reach, Lets say you had a gun that day Lets say you shot him You would be in prison right now Labeled by society forever as a cop killer So are guns really the solution? I'm not trying to start a fight I go rounds in my head all time over the gun thing I hate guns I hate what people do with guns But if we are to live in a society such as this maybe having a gun is necessary Then again Maybe it's not |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 20 2005, 01:20 PM | ||
OK, ask yourself: Is that a problem with the *gun*(shooting a rapist, acting in self defense) or is that a problem with the society that doesn't look beyond the headline of "REACH IS A COP KILLER!!"? Besides, if Reach can't act in her own defense, we might as well throw out the lawbooks. If Self-Defense is now a crime I'm moving. Please note that I'm not commenting on the *odds* of this being right. Rainey could be right, I don't know the precedence. But if she is, then the problem lies solely with the people who would string up anybody that kills a cop, not the presence of a gun. If we sign away our right to defend ourselves, we have signed away our very lives, because we are saying our lives and the lives of our loved ones are not worth defending. Guns are horrible things, there's no doubt about it. But like it or not, we have them. We were given fire by Prometheus... it's up to us now to accept the responsibility and use then wisely and appropriately. Merlin |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 20 2005, 01:39 PM | ||
guns are not horrible things, they are inanimate objects. People are the horrible things. the gun does not choose to use itself in a crime, the person chooses to use the gun. Blaming the object will not stop that person from doing bad things. The responsibility lies soley on the person in possesion of the gun. A shit head is a shit head wether he's armed or not, there are times when I wish guns had never been invented though. If there was a way to get rid of them all so that you can be sure that none of the bad guys have any then i wouldn't be so bothered by a total ban. But that's not possible and the next best thing is to remain ready to defend yourself. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 20 2005, 01:45 PM | ||||
You're right of course, sorry, I'm a little tired and I forget the simple stuff .Merlin |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Jan 20 2005, 04:49 PM | ||
Hmmm... There's a book that I read a few years ago that runs with the idea that there is a way to get rid of guns, and what the effect would be... I can't remember the name of the author, but it was called "Trigger" Very quick review... A scientist accidentally invents a machine that causes gunpowder (or whatever the propellant is that guns use) to spontaneously combust, causing the weapon containing it to explode. Used to provide "safe" areas, eventually "the gun" is almost entirely removed from society... Most of the book is an exploration of the pros and cons of gun ownership and the lengths that some fanatical "enthusiasts" might go to in an attempt to retain the right to own guns. (and whether guns cause more crimes than they prevent) It's a fascinating read, raising (and trying to answer) the various questions asked in this topic. (and it's fun reading about how the president's bodyguards get trained in how to use a quarterstaff... ) |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 20 2005, 06:15 PM | ||
Merlinfmct87
I always knew that behind that childish face lurked pure evil! I have just seen an English documentary about guns in the USA. The situation is such that the guns are there to stay now, regardless of any law that is passed. The need for everyone to own one becomes apparent, because so many people who shouldn't own one do. America has become violent because of guns. Therefore it has become necessary to own a gun because it is so violent. Kevin: |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 20 2005, 07:16 PM | ||||||
If I didn't know better, I'd say this is a shining example of someone reading a headline and not knowing the full story. But no one can be that stupid, right? RIGHT?
Soooo... WinchesterDidIt? Sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that small metallic objects peverted this country. It's much closer to how we treated them. Merlin |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 20 2005, 08:02 PM | ||
(Kevin) Kevin, if you care to read the articles I posted in my reply on page 2 of this thread, you will see that the situation in England isn't much better either. Casey |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 20 2005, 08:33 PM | ||
Casey:
Casey: I haven't lived in the UK for a while now. I would never compare the situation there with the US. (270 million people - 273 million guns. I counted them!) Our family and friends over there do not seem to be particularly worried, but it depends on the area you live in I suppose. It's quite a process to purchase a Firearms License here in Canada, and that's just fine with me. I have no use for one. Kevin: |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 21 2005, 04:29 AM |
| Kevin I think you've missed the point somewhere in there. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 21 2005, 12:23 PM | ||
Oh yeah. Merlin |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 21 2005, 01:51 PM | ||
Biggles:
Sorry. My point is that the sheer number of people who own guns in the US increases the chances of them being used, when certain confrontational/criminal situations arise. Kevin: |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 21 2005, 02:56 PM | ||||
My point is that if they didn't have guns they would use whatever weapons were available in those confrontations. Guns don't make people violent or more likely to commit a crime. Being a shit head does however and America is full of shit heads. |
| Posted by: jaded Jan 21 2005, 05:06 PM |
| Hey Kevin, I am not sure about the accuracy of your numbers, are you sure you counted them all? Maybe I am wrong here or maybe it is just the state I live in but it seems like gun owners are a small minority. It could also just be my perception as most who own them don't go waiving them around in public. The problem isn't gun legal ownership but the crime of large urban areas. Most of these areas would still be high crime areas without guns. Sure they may make it easier to kill a person and make one feel invincible but in a society without guns so would a knife or a baseball bat. Is violence a result of gun proliferation? Tough call, but people have been waging war for....pretty much ever. The majority of crime is still committed without the use of guns. Carrying a gun simply allows you to defend yourself in a situation where you are at a disadvantage. Should you submit to your attackers because you are smaller, weaker, less well trained, or didn't bring as many friends? Of course not! Believe it or not there is evidence of crimes occurring every day where god did not watch out for those who couldn't defend themselves, so that isn't the answer either (sorry, couldn't resist ) Sure, I will admit that I agree with you that the number of guns out on the streets and available to criminals is a problem. I think it is putting the cart before the horse to say that "America has become violent because of guns." Anyway...it is good to see you around again you crazy fundy! Still using the treadmill? |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 21 2005, 08:32 PM | ||||
Guns don't cause crime. People cause crime. Guns simpy(if anything at all) exacerbate the problem... because more criminals have guns than law abiding citizens. Granted, the idea of the average american shithead toting a .50 Desert Eagle doesn't exactly warm my heart, but leaving them in the sole possesion of the Police(nivek called them Dial-A-Prayer... something I wholeheartedly agree with) and the Criminals sounds even worse. Merlin |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 21 2005, 08:34 PM | ||
Biggles:
These other weapons would not blow someone's head off in the heat of the moment. I suppose the term *violent* depicts a physical attack of some kind lasting for a time, whereas a shooting is over in second. Would the shooting be classed as violent? My argument is that the proliferation of guns has raised the stakes, where *violence* is involved. The gun has forced the final outcome to result in a death. When gangs and criminals start using bazookas, the guns won't appear half so bad I suppose. Kevin: |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 21 2005, 10:50 PM |
| gun shots are not always fatal Kevin. |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 21 2005, 11:35 PM | ||
| To get this thread back on topic, I'd have thought the point was, just how much Government control do you want in a society? In the UK now, it is said by one legal expert that the right to self-defense has been legislated away to almost nothing. Australia is going the same way, and Canada will probably follow suit. Either one has the right to defend oneself or one has not. Lest anyone think I am speaking merely of using a firearm to that end, there are a myriad of cases in English criminal law in recent years where people have been convicted because they have used an "offensive weapon" to protect themselves, or merely for carrying such an article against the possibility of having to defend themselves. I'm not talking firearms here, let it be noted. In recent British cases, such "offensive weapons" have included swordsticks, knitting needles, and in one case a half-brick. Oh sure, so as to seem "reasonable", the Government goes after "guns" first, to the great delight of gun-control advocates. Did I not say, John Q Public is delighted when Governments act "reasonably"? But tell me, if a citizen has no right to carry a pistol, say, for his own protection, why should that citizen have the right to carry a knife for the same reason? Or a knitting needle, or a half-brick even? Eventually, why should he have the right to use his fists or his feet in the same way? These days, if one is a trained boxer in my country for example, one had better have "a good reason" for using one's fists at all, and the proof of this lies on him. When any Government acts in this way, it promises its citizenry that it will protect them in return for their surrender firstly of "guns", then of "offensive weapons", and lastly of any right to self-defense whatsoever. Of course, no Government can do this, but ordinary folk have a terrible habit of never "reading the fine print", and no Government is about to read it out to them. Failure follows failure, but rather than admit the bankruptcy of such policies, the Government "sticks to its guns" (pardon the pun). It says, as Martin Luther once said, "Hier steht Ich, Ich kann nicht Anders" (Here I stand, I can do no other), in the hope of praise for its "Stand against violent crime". Besides which... There is an easy solution to the problem of violent crime, and if it gets bad enough anywhere, citizens usually applaud it, initially anyway. That solution is dictatorship, but when the citizens realize the cure is worse than the disease, it is far too late. In essence what happens is a return to the Middle Ages and the so-called Divine Right of Kings. In those times one lived under the protection of some Lord or Lordling. One could bear arms in the service of that person, but otherwise not. It took centuries for this to change, and many wars were fought to change this to the position where the citizen had the right to defend himself, against even the Government itself if that be necessary. Now that the boot is on the other foot, in the UK at least, Government seeks control over many other things as well. For instance, I as a sheep farmer was appalled to learn that many procedures we use with livestock without giving the matter a thought in Australia, have to be supervised by a vet in the UK. Guess who has to pay for that? And so on and so forth, until the Government has so much control that the citizen has no rights at all.
(Kevin) When the Government has all the rights and you have none Kevin, I venture to say bazookas won't appear half so bad as that. What are mere anti-armour weapons when compared to an armoured dictatorship, so to speak? Casey |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 21 2005, 11:42 PM | ||
Jaded:
Thanks Jaded. The treadmill, ah yes! I am currently dusting it off ready for use after the Xmas break. I promise it will soon be put to good use fighting the flab! Kevin: |
| Posted by: Casey Jan 22 2005, 12:03 AM | ||
| Kevin, lest you think me a little paranoid, here is a dissertation on that "fine print" of which I just wrote: http://www.crpa.org/malcolm1204.html Casey PS, do please note this line from the article:
(ibid) I might tell you, in polite British society those last two words are not regarded as a "term of endearment". |
| Posted by: Kevin Jan 22 2005, 01:15 AM | ||
Casey: The Labour MP (Stephen Pound) you are referring to, said this *tongue in cheek* comment by quoting the original person who said it. Mark Twain. (I failed to see why anyone would disagree with the listeners poll that seems to have caused all the fuss). Kevin: |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 22 2005, 01:22 AM | ||||
LOL. Mmkay. Let's run with that. Scenario 1: I shoot you with a .22, you are startled, feel like you got punched, and have to go to the hospital. Scenario 2: I take your head off with a Katana. You go off to white noise land. Most guns civillians posess do *less* damage than more primitive weapons... a .22 in your gut isn't even going to make the doctor worry... a Katana will make him freak(if you live that long. Merlin |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 22 2005, 06:20 AM |
| How about the exit wound? The thing is: guns can kill faster and more efficiently than a Katana. They don't need much skill to wield too. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 22 2005, 12:37 PM |
| not much power behind a .22, however getting hit with an M16 can be messy. but it's still survivable. the point was only that a gun shot wound is not a death sentence. I think I've beat this horse to death here lol |
| Posted by: nivek Jan 22 2005, 04:06 PM |
| Folks... "What If, Why for, Blah Har De Har Nahr, Blah Blah blah..." B F D... Firearms in hands of American residents are a fact of life. A minute fraction of those same arems are use for ill intents and purposes. 99.99999% of firearms in hands of Amerricans of all stripes, colors, political convictions, and any other identifiable measure did NO harm yesterday nor today, and not tomorrow.... Utopians want the Goobermint to have some regulatory authority over *guns*, thinking that somehow that registration and enumerating of owners makes things safer. Please refer to automobile registration, compulsary licencing for cars and drivers and then in most States "insurance".. Pay the State its geld, or loose the "privelidge to use the King's Roads.. I will never espouse allowing some State Functionary the "right" to mark, number nor tell me what I may own, especially when fireams are the issue.. Either you are Free, or you are not Free. If you must first obtain permission and/or a permit or licence, you are simply a Prole, waiting to kiss the asses of your Masters. Oh yes, and pay for the ability to kiss up good and hard to obtain that elusive slip of permission.. Back to Java's original thoughts, I haven't got all the answers to *guns* and their holding and use, save to say again, Be Trained, Be Aware, and learn to be comfortable using the ones you have in possesion. When it is time to use said Arm, I wouldt hat you have the presence of mind, ability of hand to save yourself hurt and injury... The rest of the various arguments for and/or against Arms is simple bullshit. Self Protection is the Ultimate Civil Right If a firearm does that protection, great.. Other means are avaible, none work as well as a *gun*... n |
| Posted by: nivek Jan 22 2005, 04:15 PM | ||
gssg... That is a highly ignorant statement based on the facts... "Hits" count, not "number of shots fired". Any fool can point a firearm at something or -body and rip off rounds until the said gun is empty. What counts are the rounds placed within areas that stop the action or incapacitate the bad actor and/or whatever the shotist intended to stop. I spend hours annually making folks "shooters", learning the basics of how to place those incapacitationg shots. No one is born with the ability to take a 2.5 pound (or heavier) chunk of metal on the end of their arm and make it *a killing machine* "naturally". Before you make such statements, be damn sure you can back same up with some facts... n, NRA Cert'd Instructor, Shooter, Competitor |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 22 2005, 07:23 PM |
| I have fired firearms before. They can hurt people at a much greater distance than a katana. Bullets also cause huge exit wounds in people, which make them haemorrhage and die of shock. I haven't used a katana before, but at least you can run away from an idiot waving one. Arming all citizenry is simply throwing fuel on the fire. |
| Posted by: nivek Jan 22 2005, 07:46 PM | ||
"What fire?" To what do you refer to? If you care to dicuss this particular *hot button topic* with the Boardsets *Mean_Old_Man_Guncrank*/RKBA/Pro-2A activist, please, please, please have your facts for this discussion ready to toss out... There are statistics and flat out lies.. I try to use stats that are verifiable and checkable. Bad_actors in the unilateral disarmament crowd will make up whatever sounds good at moment to try and excite the emotional and emotive on subjects.. Please.. "Adding fuel to fire"? n |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 24 2005, 07:00 PM | ||
The fact remains that Katana's do more damage up close than most privately-owned handguns. And Katana's can be thrown  . Running is also assuming you're faster than the pseudo-samurai who's wielding it... not a safe bet.Point in case: If guns were common, respected, and came with mandatory instruction, the world would be a safer place. Removing a person's ability to defend himself makes him MORE at risk, not less. Merlin |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 25 2005, 05:35 AM | ||||||
The "some bad people have guns so everyone must have guns to protect themselves". It's the same logic behind arms embargos on wartorn zones (eg Bosnia in the early 90s) If everyone were law abiding and civil, there'd be no problems with legalising guns. However, we live in reality. We might as well let all countries have nukes to protect themselves.
Erm. Are Katana murders very common? Katanas can be thrown, but handguns work at a distance. I agree that the world would be a safer place if such were so, but the world is not so. Maybe the police in the US are very shitty, which is why many Americans have a siege mentality. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 25 2005, 06:10 AM |
| did you read the articles Casey posted that give an idea of how poorly strict gun control has worked in the UK? |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 25 2005, 06:19 AM |
| The Case For Self-Protection? Notice where it's posted :0 It's a very poorly written article. It mostly talks about how handgun restrictions have been imposed in the UK, but it doesn't talk about the situation there now, which is much better than in the US. Notice that it doesn't say anything about the crime rate now. The only part of the article which actually taked about the crime rate was a glowing mention of the crime rate before gun laws were introduced: "For almost 500 years, until 1954, England enjoyed a declining rate of interpersonal violence. Between 1890 and 1892, when no restrictions on guns were in place, just one handgun homicide a year occurred in a population of 30 million people. In 1904, only four armed robberies occurred in London, then the largest city in the world." Notice: Between 1890 and 1892. That's a mere 2-3 years. What's the statistical significance? I'm also unsure about crime in the late 19th Century/early 20th century, though you can be sure that the conditions were very different from those we have today. Some harder data: "Number of deaths from firearms injury - United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003" (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm). As gun laws have become stricter, so have the number of deaths from firearms injuries. Well it works very well in Singapore. Then again holding firearms here carries the death penalty. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 25 2005, 02:20 PM | ||
That's what we've been saying. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Nivek...you are an outlaw aren't you? Luv ya! |
| Posted by: Vixentrox Jan 25 2005, 09:38 PM | ||
Plenty of people were killed by bows and arrows before the advent of firearms....and they reach farther than a katana. Best ban them too. Ever see the exit hole a modern compound bow firing a wide-blade broadheaded arrow can do? It would go right through you...don't think it wouldn't. If it will go through a deer it will go through a human. My uncle was shot in a hold up by a .22 pistol. Bullet went through his brain and lodged behind his eye. He survived and only has a slight limp. He is still a big gun advocate and wishes he had been ALLOWED to actually carry his gun the day he was shot so maybe he could have fought back. But NOOOO...gun control ASSHOLES only want criminals to have them. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 25 2005, 10:38 PM | ||||||||
Do a search on eBay. You'd be suprised. I know a guy who's brother just got a whole sword set, complete with display stand. No License needed. Also, we don't give handguns out to ANYBODY, we give them to those who are 1) old enough, and 2) no criminal record. Merlin |
| Posted by: CRCampbell Jan 26 2005, 07:31 AM | ||||||
This isn't true. Your normal cops are unarmed, but there are commandos that are armed with the latest stuff. |
| Posted by: CRCampbell Jan 26 2005, 07:34 AM | ||
M60 is 7.62mm x 54mm. It fires .308 rounds, essentially. |
| Posted by: nivek Jan 26 2005, 07:44 AM | ||
Nbbtb quothe:
Leggie.. Not so much an *outlaw* but a *no-law*, choosing to live by guidelines of my own choices... If a person needs "such and such a law" to live with, by all means, live with it.. Don't try and enforce it on me and mine.. That bridle won't fit in this old hosses teeth.. At no time did I sign any social contract with *them* to give away my abilities to think, act and live outside the group_mass... To be a "leave_me_aloneist" one must be able to enforce that "zone".. I elect to do so. If that makes me an unsociable pain in societies ass, tough beans....  n, Freeman |